Scholar Networks

The Increase in Research Collaboration

Networks between scholars have probably always existed, but in the last 200 years a steady increase in collaboration between researchers has been observed. Historical data show that during the 19th century, research collaborations grew slowly but steadily. With the beginning of the 20th century, this development gathered in momentum, displaying exponential growth patterns. A popular way to measure this increase in research collaboration is by comparing the number of coauthored papers over time. Multiple analyses illustrate the rise of co- and multiauthored papers, a development that still continues today. Only a fraction of papers today are written by a single author; far more have three or more authors.

The rise of collaborative scientific research is for the most part a response to the professionalization of science. The advent of “big science” after World War II in particular, with an increase in technically complex and costly large projects such as nuclear physics and aerospace, led to big increases in research collaboration. “Big science” increases the need for specialization, resulting in a division of labor among researchers. It is also costly, and resources from various sources have to be pooled in order to finance it. The cheaper cost of travel and communication, along with political factors encouraging greater levels of collaboration between researchers, also help explain the fundamental tendency toward collaborative research across all fields of science.

There are differences between various academic disciplines with regard to the extent of collaboration [Page 758]intensity. High-energy physics, for example, is very collaboration intensive with sometimes a few hundred scholars working on the same experiment, while mathematicians collaborate far less. Differences in the degree of collaboration are normally explained with regard to either the experimental or theoretical character of the research work. Researchers from (sub)disciplines where work is predominantly experimental or empirical tend to have more collaborations than researchers from theoretically oriented disciplines. Complex research questions that involve multifaceted methodology, experiments, or empirical research are more likely to be tackled in a cooperative manner.

The Formation of Scholar Networks

There are many reasons why scholar networks form. The choice of network partner is both a conscious and unconscious decision. At the individual level, collaborations are entered with purpose and intention. The reasons that scholars give for the establishment of network ties can be differentiated into knowledge-based, technical, and social reasons. Knowledge-based reasons include the exchange of knowledge and expertise, the gaining of implicit knowledge, the generation of new ideas, and the pooling of knowledge resources. Technical reasons include the access to technical instruments, equipment, or sample material as well as the pooling of (physical) resources. Social reasons include an increase in work motivation, intellectual stimulation, access to certain groups or networks, and friendship. Accordingly, different types of research collaborations can be identified: these include division of labor, service collaborations, transfer of know-how, provision of access to research equipment, and mutual stimulation. Network phenomena such as preferential attachment, transitivity, and homophily also contribute to the formation of scholar networks. For example, scholars are more likely to collaborate with each other if they already share a common contact and/or speak the same language. Also, scholars who already have a large number of network ties are more likely to gain more network ties. The growth of international collaboration in science, for example, is thought to be mostly the result of mechanisms of preferential attachment based on reputation and rewards. The development of scholar networks is also linked to cognitive characteristics and dynamics of research fields. As new research fields open up and scholars move in and out of new fields, networks shift accordingly. New ties are established with scholars working in similar fields, while old ties with scholars who move into different cognitive directions are left dormant.

...