IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v127y2022i1d10.1007_s11192-021-04227-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Homophily in higher education research: a perspective based on co-authorships

Author

Listed:
  • Hugo Horta

    (The University of Hong Kong)

  • Shihui Feng

    (The University of Hong Kong)

  • João M. Santos

    (Iscte—Instituto Universitário de Lisboa)

Abstract

Research collaborations are the norm in science today, and are usually evaluated using co-authorships as the unit of analysis. Research collaborations have been typically analyzed using a mapping perspective that focuses on countries, institutions, or individuals, or by assessments of the determinants of research collaboration, i.e., who engages in collaborations and who collaborates the most. One analytical perspective that has been used less frequently is the homophily perspective, which attempts to understand the likelihood of research collaborations based on the similarity of collaborators’ preferences and attributes. In addition, compared to studies focused on the fields of the natural and exact sciences, engineering, and the health sciences, research collaborations in the social sciences have been underexamined in the literature, despite the growing numbers of social scientists who engage in such collaborations. This study assessed homophily with respect to geographical, ascribed, acquired and career-related attributes in co-authorships in the social sciences, based on a co-authorship matrix of 913 higher education researchers. The findings showed that geographic and institutional attributes were by far the most powerful homophilic drivers of collaborations, suggesting the importance of physical proximity, national incentives, and shared culture, language, and identity. Another driver was the similarity of acquired attributes, particularly certain preferences regarding research agendas; these absorbed the residual explanatory power that ascribed attributes such as gender or age had in co-authorship preferences. The study is novel in its analysis of the extent to which similarities in the research agendas of researchers predicted co-authorship. The findings indicate the need for further co-authorship homophily analyses around a broader set of acquired attributes and the trajectories that lead to them.

Suggested Citation

  • Hugo Horta & Shihui Feng & João M. Santos, 2022. "Homophily in higher education research: a perspective based on co-authorships," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(1), pages 523-543, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:127:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-021-04227-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-021-04227-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-021-04227-z
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-021-04227-z?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Susan Biancani & Daniel McFarland, 2013. "Social Networks Research in Higher Education," Voprosy obrazovaniya / Educational Studies Moscow, National Research University Higher School of Economics, issue 4, pages 85-126.
    2. Ebadi, Ashkan & Schiffauerova, Andrea, 2015. "How to become an important player in scientific collaboration networks?," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 809-825.
    3. Ashkan Ebadi & Andrea Schiffauerova, 2015. "How to Receive More Funding for Your Research? Get Connected to the Right People!," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-19, July.
    4. Currarini, Sergio & Mengel, Friederike, 2016. "Identity, homophily and in-group bias," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 40-55.
    5. Norris, Michael & Oppenheim, Charles, 2007. "Comparing alternatives to the Web of Science for coverage of the social sciences’ literature," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 1(2), pages 161-169.
    6. Kwiek, Marek & Roszka, Wojciech, 2021. "Gender-based homophily in research: A large-scale study of man-woman collaboration," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    7. Pinheiro, Diogo & Melkers, Julia & Youtie, Jan, 2014. "Learning to play the game: Student publishing as an indicator of future scholarly success," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 56-66.
    8. Valeria Aman, 2018. "Does the Scopus author ID suffice to track scientific international mobility? A case study based on Leibniz laureates," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(2), pages 705-720, November.
    9. Abramo, Giovanni & D’Angelo, Andrea Ciriaco & Murgia, Gianluca, 2017. "The relationship among research productivity, research collaboration, and their determinants," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 1016-1030.
    10. Marek Kwiek, 2018. "High research productivity in vertically undifferentiated higher education systems: Who are the top performers?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 415-462, April.
    11. Jian Han & Miaodan Fang & Shenglu Ye & Chuansheng Chen & Qun Wan & Xiuying Qian, 2019. "Using Decision Tree to Predict Response Rates of Consumer Satisfaction, Attitude, and Loyalty Surveys," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-13, April.
    12. Grant C. Black & Paula E. Stephan, 2010. "The Economics of University Science and the Role of Foreign Graduate Students and Postdoctoral Scholars," NBER Chapters, in: American Universities in a Global Market, pages 129-161, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Muriithi, Petronilla & Horner, David & Pemberton, Lyn & Wao, Hesborn, 2018. "Factors influencing research collaborations in Kenyan universities," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 88-97.
    14. King, Gary & Zeng, Langche, 2001. "Logistic Regression in Rare Events Data," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(2), pages 137-163, January.
    15. Danny Wildemeersch & Jan Masschelein, 2018. "Lessons from the South: Research Collaboration as an Educational Practice," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(11), pages 1-14, November.
    16. Do Han Kim & Hee-Je Bak, 2017. "Incentivizing research collaboration using performance-based reward systems," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 44(2), pages 186-198.
    17. Anne Boschini & Anna Sjögren, 2007. "Is Team Formation Gender Neutral? Evidence from Coauthorship Patterns," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 25(2), pages 325-365.
    18. Anderson Matos Medina, 2018. "Why do ecologists search for co-authorships? Patterns of co-authorship networks in ecology (1977–2016)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 116(3), pages 1853-1865, September.
    19. Grit Laudel, 2002. "What do we measure by co-authorships?," Research Evaluation, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(1), pages 3-15, April.
    20. Giancarlo Lauto & Finn Valentin, 2013. "How Large-Scale Research Facilities Connect to Global Research," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 30(4), pages 381-408, July.
    21. Jeff Alstott & Stuart Madnick & Chander Velu, 2014. "Homophily and the Speed of Social Mobilization: The Effect of Acquired and Ascribed Traits," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-9, April.
    22. Bozeman, Barry & Gaughan, Monica, 2011. "How do men and women differ in research collaborations? An analysis of the collaborative motives and strategies of academic researchers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(10), pages 1393-1402.
    23. Bammer, Gabriele, 2008. "Enhancing research collaborations: Three key management challenges," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(5), pages 875-887, June.
    24. Hugo Horta & João M. Santos, 2016. "An instrument to measure individuals’ research agenda setting: the multi-dimensional research agendas inventory," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(3), pages 1243-1265, September.
    25. Richard Woolley & Mabel Sánchez-Barrioluengo & Tim Turpin & Jane Marceau, 2015. "Research collaboration in the social sciences: What factors are associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary collaboration?," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 42(4), pages 567-582.
    26. Marek Kwiek, 2020. "Internationalists and locals: international research collaboration in a resource-poor system," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(1), pages 57-105, July.
    27. Seongkyoon Jeong & Jae Young Choi & Jaeyun Kim, 2011. "The determinants of research collaboration modes: exploring the effects of research and researcher characteristics on co-authorship," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(3), pages 967-983, December.
    28. Sameer Kumar, 2018. "Ethical Concerns in the Rise of Co-Authorship and Its Role as a Proxy of Research Collaborations," Publications, MDPI, vol. 6(3), pages 1-9, August.
    29. Simone Belli & Rogério Mugnaini & Joan Baltà & Ernest Abadal, 2020. "Coronavirus mapping in scientific publications: When science advances rapidly and collectively, is access to this knowledge open to society?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(3), pages 2661-2685, September.
    30. T. S. Evans & R. Lambiotte & P. Panzarasa, 2011. "Community structure and patterns of scientific collaboration in Business and Management," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 89(1), pages 381-396, October.
    31. Chenwei Zhang & Yi Bu & Ying Ding & Jian Xu, 2018. "Understanding scientific collaboration: Homophily, transitivity, and preferential attachment," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 69(1), pages 72-86, January.
    32. Abramo, Giovanni & D’Angelo, Ciriaco Andrea & Murgia, Gianluca, 2013. "Gender differences in research collaboration," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 811-822.
    33. Melin, Goran, 2000. "Pragmatism and self-organization: Research collaboration on the individual level," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 31-40, January.
    34. Alexander Cuntz & Jan Peuckert, 2015. "Openness determinants of national research funding programmes in EU27," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 42(4), pages 474-486.
    35. Dorte Henriksen, 2018. "What factors are associated with increasing co-authorship in the social sciences? A case study of Danish Economics and Political Science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 114(3), pages 1395-1421, March.
    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. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Flavia Costa, 2019. "A gender analysis of top scientists’ collaboration behavior: evidence from Italy," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(2), pages 405-418, August.
    2. Marek Kwiek, 2020. "Internationalists and locals: international research collaboration in a resource-poor system," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(1), pages 57-105, July.
    3. Marek Kwiek & Wojciech Roszka, 2022. "Are female scientists less inclined to publish alone? The gender solo research gap," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(4), pages 1697-1735, April.
    4. de Frutos-Belizón, Jesús & García-Carbonell, Natalia & Ruíz-Martínez, Marta & Sánchez-Gardey, Gonzalo, 2023. "Disentangling international research collaboration in the Spanish academic context: Is there a desirable researcher human capital profile?," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(6).
    5. Araújo, Tanya & Fontainha, Elsa, 2017. "The specific shapes of gender imbalance in scientific authorships: A network approach," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 88-102.
    6. Marian-Gabriel Hâncean & Matjaž Perc & Jürgen Lerner, 2021. "The coauthorship networks of the most productive European researchers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(1), pages 201-224, January.
    7. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo, 2022. "Drivers of academic engagement in public–private research collaboration: an empirical study," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(6), pages 1861-1884, December.
    8. Liu, Meijun & Zhang, Ning & Hu, Xiao & Jaiswal, Ajay & Xu, Jian & Chen, Hong & Ding, Ying & Bu, Yi, 2022. "Further divided gender gaps in research productivity and collaboration during the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from coronavirus-related literature," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    9. Hajibabaei, Anahita & Schiffauerova, Andrea & Ebadi, Ashkan, 2022. "Gender-specific patterns in the artificial intelligence scientific ecosystem," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    10. Clemens B. Fell & Cornelius J. König, 2016. "Is there a gender difference in scientific collaboration? A scientometric examination of co-authorships among industrial–organizational psychologists," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 108(1), pages 113-141, July.
    11. Giovanni Abramo & Ciriaco Andrea D’Angelo & Flavia Di Costa, 2019. "The collaboration behavior of top scientists," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 118(1), pages 215-232, January.
    12. Marek Kwiek & Wojciech Roszka, 2022. "Academic vs. biological age in research on academic careers: a large-scale study with implications for scientifically developing systems," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3543-3575, June.
    13. Barry Bozeman & Monica Gaughan & Jan Youtie & Catherine P. Slade & Heather Rimes, 2016. "Research collaboration experiences, good and bad: Dispatches from the front lines," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 43(2), pages 226-244.
    14. Anahita Hajibabaei & Andrea Schiffauerova & Ashkan Ebadi, 2023. "Women and key positions in scientific collaboration networks: analyzing central scientists’ profiles in the artificial intelligence ecosystem through a gender lens," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(2), pages 1219-1240, February.
    15. Mengjiao Qi & An Zeng & Menghui Li & Ying Fan & Zengru Di, 2017. "Standing on the shoulders of giants: the effect of outstanding scientists on young collaborators’ careers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 111(3), pages 1839-1850, June.
    16. D’Ippolito, Beatrice & Rüling, Charles-Clemens, 2019. "Research collaboration in Large Scale Research Infrastructures: Collaboration types and policy implications," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(5), pages 1282-1296.
    17. Abdelghani Maddi & Yves Gingras, 2021. "Gender Diversity In Research Teams And Citation Impact In Economics And Management," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(5), pages 1381-1404, December.
    18. Revet, Karine & Bodas-Freitas, Isabel Maria & Chollet, Barthélemy & D'Este, Pablo, 2023. "Exploring resource seeking in a scientific collaboration network and its effect on scientists' knowledge creation," INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) Working Paper Series 202311, INGENIO (CSIC-UPV), revised 15 May 2024.
    19. Kwiek, Marek & Roszka, Wojciech, 2021. "Gender-based homophily in research: A large-scale study of man-woman collaboration," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3).
    20. Barry Bozeman & Daniel Fay & Catherine Slade, 2013. "Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: the-state-of-the-art," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 38(1), pages 1-67, February.

    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:spr:scient:v:127:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-021-04227-z. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.