The Strength in Numbers: the New Science of Team Science

© Copyright, Princeton University Press. No part of this book may be distributed, posted, or reproduced in any form by digital or mechanical means without prior written permission of the publisher. 1 R esearch Collaboration and Team Science W ITNESSING THE REVOLUTION Introduction The scientific myth of the brilliant solitary scientist has long held sway, the image of the scientist emerging reluctantly from his (yes, it is a mascu- line myth) laboratory to communicate breakthrough results that will push knowledge ahead in great leaps and bounds. However, in recent decades the myth, one that previously held at least a kernel of truth (Lightman 2008), has become more and more difficult to sustain. While there may somewhere be some future Einstein laboring anonymously while developing p otentially earthshaking thought experiments, it is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore the fact that almost all contemporary science is team science. In today’s science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (hereafter STEM) research, more than 90 percent of publications are coauthored (Bozeman and Boardman 2014). Convincing evidence (Wuchty et al. 2007) shows that coauthored research, as compared to single- researcher work, more often leads to high knowledge impacts as well as to commercial uses of research as reflected in patents. Further, the success of collaborative teams attracts more collaborators, thus accelerating the growth of research teams (Parker and Hackett 2012). 1 For general queries, contact [email protected] Bozeman_165371.indd 1 23/08/17 5:01 PM © Copyright, Princeton University Press. No part of this book may be distributed, posted, or reproduced in any form by digital or mechanical means without prior written permission of the publisher. 2 CHAPTER 1 Based on years of research on research collaboration and team science, our book aims to increase the probabilities that research teams will succeed in their collaborative efforts. We are certainly not the first students of research collaboration. For decades, others have studied research collaboration, and much can be learned from these earlier studies (for reviews, see Katz and Martin 1997; Beaver 2001; Bozeman and Bo ardman 2014). So why this book and why now? The succinct answer is that research collaboration and team science are no longer evolving slowly; in the past few years, researchers have seen and actively participated in a research collaboration and team science revolution. The revolution has manya spects, including the growth in the sheer number of collaborators, but also entails a greater mix in the number and disciplinary diversity of collaborators. We are witnessing a new “collaboration cosmopolitanism” (Bozeman and Corley 2004; Ynalvez and Shrum 2011), as researchers from industry collaborate with those in univer- sities, as researchers from one d iscipline collaborate with those from other disciplines, and as globalization trends and communications technology facilitate increased cross- national collaborations. While the research collaboration revolution has, in our view, advanced the technological and human resources brought to bear on research projects and problems, it has also created formidable challenges. The revolution presents challenges with crediting and scientific reputation. Historically, processes for assigning credit for research work were reasonably straight- forward: a researcher was or was not the author of a scientific paper and was or was not included on a patent. But the traditional norms for recognition break down when the number of authors proliferates. When there are more than a hundred authors listed for a five- page journal article, what does this signify? Related, new ethical problems have begun to emerge. With one or two or a handful of authors, credit attribution presents fewer challenges, but with expanding research teams the likelihood increases that any particular individual contributed literally nothing. The size and diversity of research teams increases the likelihood of conflict. All things being equal, the more persons involved in a team, the more likely that some team members will not play well with others. Research collaboration is no longer about work- ing with friends at the end of the hall or at the other bench in the lab. With the globalization of teams and increased disciplinary, cultural, and gender diversity, we can see that the challenges for research teams differ greatly from the challenges researchers faced pre- revolution. While almost all researchers are participating in the revolution, some are barely aware of it (most younger researchers take the current research For general queries, contact [email protected] Bozeman_165371.indd 2 23/08/17 5:01 PM © Copyright, Princeton University Press. No part of this book may be distributed, posted, or reproduced in any form by digital or mechanical means without prior written permission of the publisher. RESER A CH COLLABORATION AND TEAM SCIENCE 3 collaboration regime for granted) and others are so busy with their day- to- day work that they have little time, energy, or inclination to spend much time reflecting on the revolution’s implications, much less to develop strategies for steering it in the directions they wish. We feel we can help. Our research is on the social and managerial aspects of research teams and the factors affecting research collaboration. We provide “front lines” reporting on the research collaboration revolution, as well as evidence-b ased suggestions about how to improve the effectiveness of modern research collaboration. We employ multiple data sources and multiple research methods, including evidence from survey data, data from Web posts, and archival data, but the core evidence presented in our book is from extensive interviews with active, collaborating academic researchers (those interested in detailed information about our data and methods should consult appendix 1). Our book documents and comments on the research collaboration revolution, even as it transpires, and we suggest how research teams confronting a new and radically changed collaboration environment can work more effectively. A necessary first step in coping with revolution is self- conscious awareness—un derstanding that it is happening, understanding why it is happening, and understanding its components. Components of the Research Collaboration Revolution Twentieth- century research collaboration has much in common with twenty- first- century collaboration, many of same advantages, disadvantages, and problems. But there are several elements of contemporary re search collaboration that are quite distinct and important enough to characterize a revolution. Revolutionary changes in research collaboration and team science include changes in (1) the sheer number of collaborations and team members per collaboration; (2) commercialization of academic re search; (3) gender diversity; (4) multiculturalism and the global conduct of r esearch; (5) increased multidisciplinary (and interdisciplinary) c ollaboration; (6) contributorship and ethical issues; (7) a self- consciousness about “team science,” in cluding new policies and approaches to understanding and managing research collaboration. T HE STRENGTH IN NUMBERS REVOLUTION Research collaboration1 is so ubiquitous that it is not possible to understand the dynamics of contemporary STEM research absent some knowledge of For general queries, contact [email protected] Bozeman_165371.indd 3 23/08/17 5:01 PM © Copyright, Princeton University Press. No part of this book may be distributed, posted, or reproduced in any form by digital or mechanical means without prior written permission of the publisher. 4 CHAPTER 1 collaborative research in teams. Collaboration is nowadays a concomitant of research. However, the idea of “strength in numbers” relates not only to the increased incidence of collaboration but also to the fact that the number of collaborators and coauthors has expanded greatly in many STEM fields. Recently, a paper (Aad et al. 2015) published in the prestigious jour nal Ph ysical Review Letters included 5,154 authors, such a large number of authors that twenty-f our pages of a thirty-three - page article were taken up with the listing of authors. We are confident that four- figure author lists will not become the norm. More important is the fact that the number of coauthors per article has increased in every STEM field (Regalado 1995; Abramo and D’Angelo 2015). Even mathematics, the last refuge of the solitary thinker, has witnessed an uptake in coauthoring (Huang 2015). At first blush, one might well conclude that the increase in the number and incidence of collaborators is an unalloyed blessing. The fact that most studies show that increased collaboration has positive effect on researchpro ductivity seems to reinforce this view (e.g., Li et al. 2013; Ductor 2015). However, there are opposing or more nuanced views. For example, Lee and Bozeman (2005) find that different approaches to citation counts lead to different conclusions about the productivity effects of collaboration and coauthoring. With a “normal count” of citations, assigning one citation to each author, the effects of collaboration on citation are quite positive. But with a “fractional count,” dividing credit for citations by number of authors, the number of citations accumulated is not greater than for sole authored papers. From another perspective, it simply makes intuitive sense that research collaboration, despite possible

Load more