Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology

One of the most universal trends in science and technology today is the growth of large teams in all areas, as solitary researchers and small teams diminish in prevalence1–3. Increases in team size have been attributed to the specialization of scientific activities3, improvements in communication technology4,5, or the complexity of modern problems that require interdisciplinary solutions6–8. This shift in team size raises the question of whether and how the character of the science and technology produced by large teams differs from that of small teams. Here we analyse more than 65 million papers, patents and software products that span the period 1954–2014, and demonstrate that across this period smaller teams have tended to disrupt science and technology with new ideas and opportunities, whereas larger teams have tended to develop existing ones. Work from larger teams builds on more-recent and popular developments, and attention to their work comes immediately. By contrast, contributions by smaller teams search more deeply into the past, are viewed as disruptive to science and technology and succeed further into the future—if at all. Observed differences between small and large teams are magnified for higher-impact work, with small teams known for disruptive work and large teams for developing work. Differences in topic and research design account for a small part of the relationship between team size and disruption; most of the effect occurs at the level of the individual, as people move between smaller and larger teams. These results demonstrate that both small and large teams are essential to a flourishing ecology of science and technology, and suggest that, to achieve this, science policies should aim to support a diversity of team sizes.Analyses of the output produced by large versus small teams of researchers and innovators demonstrate that their work differs systematically in the extent to which it disrupts or develops existing science and technology.

[1]  Bose.  Plancks Gesetz und Lichtquantenhypothese , 1924 .

[2]  Thomas S. Kuhn,et al.  The Function of Measurement in Modern Physical Science , 1961, Isis.

[3]  Tang,et al.  Self-Organized Criticality: An Explanation of 1/f Noise , 2011 .

[4]  J. March.  Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning , 1991, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[5]  C. Garza,et al.  Overview and analysis , 1994 .

[6]  K. B. Davis,et al.  Bose-Einstein Condensation in a Gas of Sodium Atoms , 1995, EQEC'96. 1996 European Quantum Electronic Conference.

[7]  Clayton M. Christensen.  The Innovator's Dilemma , 1997 .

[8]  David Collins,et al.  Organisational Change: Sociological Perspectives , 1998 .

[9]  J. Moody.  The Structure of a Social Science Collaboration Network: Disciplinary Cohesion from 1963 to 1999 , 2004 .

[10]  Roger Guimerà,et al.  Team Assembly Mechanisms Determine Collaboration Network Structure and Team Performance , 2005, Science.

[11]  Benjamin F. Jones.  The Burden of Knowledge and the &Apos;Death of the Renaissance Man&Apos;: Is Innovation Getting Harder? , 2005 .

[12]  A. Einstein.  Quantentheorie des einatomigen idealen Gases , 2006 .

[13]  Benjamin F. Jones,et al.  Supporting Online Material Materials and Methods Figs. S1 to S3 References the Increasing Dominance of Teams in Production of Knowledge , 2022 .

[14]  M. Gittelman,et al.  Applicant and Examiner Citations in US Patents: An Overview and Analysis , 2008 .

[15]  James A. Evans.  Electronic Publication and the Narrowing of Science and Scholarship , 2008, Science.

[16]  Benjamin F. Jones,et al.  Multi-University Research Teams: Shifting Impact, Geography, and Stratification in Science , 2008, Science.

[17]  E. Leahey,et al.  Collaborative Research in Sociology: Trends and Contributing Factors , 2008 .

[18]  Sergio Correia.  A Feasible Estimator for Linear Models with Multi-Way Fixed Effects* , 2011 .

[19]  Holly J. Falk-Krzesinski,et al.  Mapping a research agenda for the science of team science. , 2011, Research Evaluation.

[20]  Clayton M. Christensen.  The Innovator's Dilemma: The Revolutionary Book That Will Change the Way You Do Business , 2011 .

[21]  J. Mueller,et al.  The Cost of Collaboration , 2012, Psychological science.

[22]  Benjamin F. Jones,et al.  Atypical Combinations and Scientific Impact , 2013, Science.

[23]  Paul B. Paulus,et al.  Understanding the Group Size Effect in Electronic Brainstorming , 2013 .

[24]  Eric Lonstein,et al.  Prize-based contests can provide solutions to computational biology problems , 2013, Nature Biotechnology.

[25]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Quantifying Long-Term Scientific Impact , 2013, Science.

[26]  Stasa Milojevic,et al.  Principles of scientific research team formation and evolution , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[27]  Dirk Helbing,et al.  Exploiting citation networks for large-scale author name disambiguation , 2014, EPJ Data Science.

[28]  James P. Bagrow,et al.  Understanding the group dynamics and success of teams , 2014, Royal Society Open Science.

[29]  Quoc V. Le,et al.  Distributed Representations of Sentences and Documents , 2014, ICML.

[30]  Yu Xie,et al.  “Undemocracy”: inequalities in science , 2014, Science.

[31]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  Cross-disciplinary research: What configurations of fields of science are found in grant proposals today? , 2015 .

[32]  Nancy J. Cooke,et al.  COMMITTEE ON THE SCIENCE OF TEAM SCIENCE , 2015 .

[33]  Celia B. Harris,et al.  Why two heads apart are better than two heads together: multiple mechanisms underlie the collaborative inhibition effect in memory. , 2015, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[34]  Qing Ke,et al.  Defining and identifying Sleeping Beauties in science , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[35]  Nancy J. Cooke,et al.  Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science , 2015 .

[36]  Shane M. Greenstein,et al.  Open Content, Linus' Law, and Neutral Point of View , 2016, Inf. Syst. Res..

[37]  E. Leahey.  From Sole Investigator to Team Scientist: Trends in the Practice and Study of Research Collaboration , 2016 .

[38]  Russell J. Funk,et al.  A Dynamic Network Measure of Technological Change , 2017, Manag. Sci..

[39]  Jordan L. Boyd-Graber,et al.  Measuring discursive influence across scholarship , 2018, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[40]  Cheng Jin,et al.  Endogenetic structure of filter bubble in social networks , 2019, Royal Society Open Science.

[41]  Jean Bolte,et al.  Facilitating translational team science: The project leader model , 2019, Journal of clinical and translational science.

[42]  D. Sparks.  A golden period for environmental soil chemistry , 2020, Geochemical Transactions.

[43]  Santo Fortunato,et al.  Scientific elite revisited: patterns of productivity, collaboration, authorship and impact , 2020, Journal of the Royal Society Interface.

[44]  M. Koops,et al.  A review and meta-analysis of collaborative research prioritization studies in ecology, biodiversity conservation and environmental science , 2020, Proceedings of the Royal Society B.