When do researchers collaborate? Toward a model of collaboration propensity

Authors:
Jeremy P. Birnholtz
Affiliations:
Department of Communication, Cornell University, 310 Kennedy Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853
Venue:
Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
Year:
2007

Citing 0
Cited 8

Toward an epistemology of Wikipedia

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
Cutting into collaboration: understanding coordination in distributed and interdisciplinary medical research

Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work
Reasons for and developments in international scientific collaboration: does an Asia---Pacific research area exist from a bibliometric point of view?

Scientometrics
One university, two campuses: initiating and sustaining research collaborations between two campuses of a single institution

Proceedings of the 2012 iConference
Conceptualizing and advancing research networking systems

ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI)
Distance, ambiguity and appropriation: Structures affording impression management in a collocated organization

Computers in Human Behavior
Cross-campus collaboration: A scientometric and network case study of publication activity across two campuses of a single institution

Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
Search strategies along the academic lifecycle

Scientometrics

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.00

Visualization

Abstract

This exploratory study compares two approaches to understanding the “collaboration propensity” of individual researchers. On the one hand, social comparisons of disciplines would suggest that collaboration is a function of orientation toward individual versus collective responsibility for discovery. A contrasting approach would hold that collaboration depends on the work researchers are engaged in—when it is useful to collaborate, they will do so regardless of the social climate. Results presented here suggest that this latter approach is potentially more powerful but that there are complexities in measurement and operationalization that urge a more nuanced treatment of collaboration propensity. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.