The how and why of academic collaboration: disciplinary differences and policy implications
- 1.5k Downloads
This paper examines how and why academics in different parts of the academy collaborate. In this paper we argue that: (1) There is a useful analytical distinction to be made between collaboration (fluid and expressive) and Collaboration (concrete and instrumental); (2) These two are not mutually exclusive and their use varies between disciplines; and (3) This distinction is an informative one for policy making that aims to encourage collaboration. Two interview based studies were used to explore the differences in collaborative practices across disciplines. The first was small and confined to a single university (n = 36) and the second was a larger study conducted in three countries (n = 274). Cross tabulations and analysis of open ended questions demonstrated many differences across the humanities, sciences and social sciences in collaboration. The C/collaboration distinction proves useful in understanding different disciplinary approaches to research, and in pointing to implications for research policy and funding. Attempts to increase collaborative research through Collaboration only, may well have deleterious effects on both collaboration and Collaboration. Research policy and funding should bear these differences in mind when seeking to stimulate collaborative research, so as to gain better outcomes across a range of disciplines.
KeywordsCollaboration Research policy Humanities Sciences Social sciences
This paper draws on data from two research projects. The first, in 2007 was supported by a small research grant from the University of Melbourne. The second is supported by an Australian Research Council Discovery grant (DP0877973). We would like to thank Peta Freestone and our teams of interviewers at each of the universities, and all those who agreed to be interviewed. An earlier version of this paper was presented at the International Research Society for Public Management annual conference in Dublin in April 2011.
- AHRC. (2009). Research funding guide. London: Arts and Humanities Research Council.Google Scholar
- DAAD. (2010). Funding for joint research collaboration (downloaded on 19 November 2010 from http://www.research-in-germany.de/research-funding/funding-programmes/48600/daad-funding-for-joint-research-collaboration.html).
- ERA-Can. (2010). Canadian funding—International opportunities for Canadians. Downloaded on 19 November 2010 from http://www.era-can.ca/en/Canadian_Funding_%E2%80%93_International_Opportunities_for_Canadians_87.html.
- Hayes, N. (2000). Doing psychological research: Gathering and analysing data. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
- Hicks, D. (2004). The four literatures of social science. In H. F. Moed, W. Glanzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research: The use of publication and patent statistics in studies of S&T systems (pp. 473–496). Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer.Google Scholar
- Lewis, J. M. (2007). Research networks in the Faculty of Arts. Melbourne: University of Melbourne, Faculty of Arts.Google Scholar
- Lewis, J. M. (2010). Connecting and cooperating: Social capital and public policy. Sydney: UNSW Press.Google Scholar
- Maglaughlin, K. L., & Sonnenwald, D. H. (2005) Factors that impact interdisciplinary natural science research collaboration in Academia. Paper presented at the International Society for Scientometrics and Informatrics (ISSI) 2005 Conference. Stockholm, 24–28 July 2005.Google Scholar
- Meadows, A. J. (1974). Communication in science. London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
- Meadows, A. J. (1997). Communicating research. Bradford: Emerald.Google Scholar
- Newman, M. E. J. (2001). Scientific collaboration networks: I. Network construction and fundamental results. Physical Review E, 64, 016131 (1–8).Google Scholar
- RCUK. (2010). Science budget. London: Research Councils UK. Downloaded on 21 April 2010 from http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/aboutrcs/funding/scibudget.