IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0322943.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Membership in team science institute enhances diversity of researchers’ collaboration networks

Author

Listed:
  • William C Barley
  • Ly Dinh
  • Lauren P Johnson
  • Brian F Allan

Abstract

Interdisciplinary scientific teams are subject to a complex constellation of potential benefits, such as enabling innovation, and challenges, such as increased conflict and failure. Given these tensions, scholars and practitioners are increasingly interested in the role that organizational policies and resources can play in potentially mitigating the challenges faced on interdisciplinary teams. We report results from quantitative case study of a research institute dedicated to providing resources to enable interdisciplinary scientific teams, to examine how joining an organization with resources devoted to interdisciplinarity affected researchers’ collaborations. We adopt bibliometric network techniques to explore the productivity and diversity of scientists’ collaborations before and after joining the institute. Generalized linear mixed-effect modeling shows a significant increase for researchers in their number of papers and co-authors after joining the institute. Comparison to a matched pair control group indicates researchers who joined the institute experienced a significantly greater increase in their diversity of co-authors, and no relative decrease in the number of papers produced, despite challenges inherent to interdisciplinary collaboration. These findings suggest institutional resources can operate to broaden collaboration diversity without harming researcher productivity, which has important implications for team science and science policy.

Suggested Citation

  • William C Barley & Ly Dinh & Lauren P Johnson & Brian F Allan, 2025. "Membership in team science institute enhances diversity of researchers’ collaboration networks," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(5), pages 1-12, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0322943
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0322943
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0322943
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0322943&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0322943?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Laudel, Grit & Gläser, Jochen, 2014. "Beyond breakthrough research: Epistemic properties of research and their consequences for research funding," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(7), pages 1204-1216.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Soo Jeung Lee & Christian Schneijderberg & Yangson Kim & Isabel Steinhardt, 2021. "Have Academics’ Citation Patterns Changed in Response to the Rise of World University Rankings? A Test Using First-Citation Speeds," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-19, August.
    2. Conor O’Kane & Jing A. Zhang & Jarrod Haar & James A. Cunningham, 2023. "How scientists interpret and address funding criteria: value creation and undesirable side effects," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 61(2), pages 799-826, August.
    3. Julia Heuritsch, 2023. "The Evaluation Gap in Astronomy—Explained through a Rational Choice Framework," Publications, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-26, June.
    4. Matthew L. Wallace & Ismael Rafols, 2016. "Shaping the Agenda of a Grand Challenge: Institutional Mediation of Priorities in Avian Influenza Research," SPRU Working Paper Series 2016-02, SPRU - Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex Business School.
    5. Julia Heuritsch, 2021. "Reflexive Behaviour: How Publication Pressure Affects Research Quality in Astronomy," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-23, November.
    6. Mike Thelwall & Subreena Simrick & Ian Viney & Peter Van den Besselaar, 2023. "What is research funding, how does it influence research, and how is it recorded? Key dimensions of variation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(11), pages 6085-6106, November.
    7. Wallace, Matthew L. & Ràfols, Ismael, 2018. "Institutional shaping of research priorities: A case study on avian influenza," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(10), pages 1975-1989.
    8. Brenda-Andreea Piuaru & Bianca Tescașiu & Gheorghe Epuran & Mihaela Hrisanta Mosora & Ioana Simona Ivasciuc, 2024. "Information Asymmetry in the European Funds Market: Impact on Resource Allocation and Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(24), pages 1-30, December.
    9. Albert, Mathieu & Laberge, Suzanne, 2017. "Confined to a tokenistic status: Social scientists in leadership roles in a national health research funding agency," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 185(C), pages 137-146.
    10. repec:osf:socarx:nduxf_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Suominen, Arho & Peng, Haoshu & Ranaei, Samira, 2019. "Examining the dynamics of an emerging research network using the case of triboelectric nanogenerators," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 820-830.
    12. Leila Jabrane, 2022. "Individual excellence funding: effects on research autonomy and the creation of protected spaces," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-9, December.
    13. Eva Barlösius & Laura Paruschke & Axel Philipps, 2024. "Peer review’s irremediable flaws: Scientists’ perspectives on grant evaluation in Germany," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(4), pages 623-634.
    14. Eva Barlösius & Kristina Blem, 2021. "Evidence of research mastery: How applicants argue the feasibility of their research projects [Concepts of originality in the natural science, medical, and engineering disciplines: An analysis of r," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(4), pages 563-571.
    15. Abbas Abdul, 2023. "Policy seduction and governance resistance? Examining public funding agencies and academic institutions on decarbonisation research," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 50(1), pages 87-101.
    16. Jia Zhou & Aifang Guo & Yutao Chen & Jin Chen, 2022. "Original Innovation through Inter-Organizational Collaboration: Empirical Evidence from University-Focused Alliance Portfolio in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-18, May.
    17. Benneworth,Paul & Olmos-Peñuela,Julia, 2014. "Resolving tensions of research utilization: The value of a usability-based approach," INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) Working Paper Series 201410, INGENIO (CSIC-UPV), revised 22 Oct 2018.
    18. Lucas Brunet & Ruth Müller, 2022. "Making the cut: How panel reviewers use evaluation devices to select applications at the European Research Council," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(4), pages 486-497.
    19. repec:plo:pone00:0221212 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Li, Xin & Wen, Yang & Jiang, Jiaojiao & Daim, Tugrul & Huang, Lucheng, 2022. "Identifying potential breakthrough research: A machine learning method using scientific papers and Twitter data," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 184(C).
    21. Koppman, Sharon & Leahey, Erin, 2019. "Who moves to the methodological edge? Factors that encourage scientists to use unconventional methods," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(9), pages 1-1.
    22. Claartje J Vinkenburg & Sara Connolly & Stefan Fuchs & Channah Herschberg & Brigitte Schels, 2020. "Mapping career patterns in research: A sequence analysis of career histories of ERC applicants," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-19, July.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0322943. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.