, Volume 86, Issue 3, pp 747–761 | Cite as

How to improve research quality? Examining the impacts of collaboration intensity and member diversity in collaboration networks

  • Chien Hsiang Liao


Better research quality not only inspires scholars to continue their research, but also increases the possibility of higher research budgets from sponsors. Given the importance of research quality, this study proposes that utilizing social capital (i.e., research collaboration) might be a promising avenue to achieve better research quality. In addition, as every scholar has his or her own expertise and knowledge, the diversity of collaborating members might be an extra resource for reinforcing research quality. The purpose of this study is to investigate the impact of research collaboration and member diversity on research quality, including the number of citations, the impact factor, and the size of the research award. To explore unknown associations, the author adopts two data sources, that is, the Social Science Citation Index database and academic database of a university, to verify the hypotheses. The results show that a higher intensity at which scholars are embedded in a collaboration network, results in higher research quality. However, member diversity does not seem to be a major concern during the organization of a research group. Research quality is not affected, regardless of whether a scholar collaborates with different or the same co-authors.


Research quality Social capital Member diversity Exploration and exploitation Social network 


  1. Bollen, J., & Van de Sompel, H. (2008). Usage impact factor: The effects of sample characteristics on usage-based impact metrics. Journal of the American Society for Information Science & Technology, 59(1), 136–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (1999). UCINET 5.0 version 1.00. Natick: Analytic Technologies.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, L. D., & Gardner, J. C. (1985). Using citation analysis to assess the impact of journals and articles on contemporary accounting research (CAR). Journal of Accounting Research, 23(1), 84–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burt, R. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Chang, C. C. (2008). The value of knowledge created by individual scientist and research groups. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 39(3), 274–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen, G. (2005). Newcomer adaptation in teams: Multilevel antecedents and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 48(1), 101–116.Google Scholar
  7. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cross, R., Parker, A., Prusak, L., & Borgatti, S. P. (2001). Knowing what we know: Supporting knowledge creation and sharing in social networks. Organizational Dynamics, 30(2), 100–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Dreu, C. K. W., & West, M. A. (2001). Minority dissent and team innovation: The importance of participation in decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1191–1201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eaton, J. P., Ward, J. C., Kumar, A., & Reingen, P. H. (1999). Structural analysis of co-author relationships and author productivity in selected outlets for consumer behavior research. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 8(1), 39–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Floyd, S. W., Schroeder, D. M., & Finn, D. M. (1994). Only if I’m first author: Conflict over credit in management scholarship. Academy Management Journal, 37(3), 734–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarifications. Social Network, 1(3), 215–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Frenken, K., Ponds, R., & van Oort, F. (2010). The citation impact of research collaboration in science-based industries: A spatial-institutional analysis. Paper in Regional Science, 89(2), 351–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gardner, J. K., Rall, L. C., & Peterson, C. A. (2002). Lack of multidisciplinary collaboration is a barrier to outcomes research. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 102(1), 65–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goldfinch, S., Dale, T., & DeRouen, Jr., K. (2003). Science from the periphery: Collaboration, networks and periphery effects in the citation of New Zealand Crown Research Institutes articles, 1995–2000. Scientometrics, 53(3), 321–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harvey, J., Pettigrew, A., & Ferlie, E. (2002). The determinants of research group performance: Toward mode 2? Journal of Management Studies, 39(6), 747–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hauptman, R. (2005). How to be a successful scholar: Publish efficiently. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 36(2), 115–119.Google Scholar
  18. Hayati, Z., & Ebrahimy, S. (2009). Correlation between quality and quantity in scientific production: A case study of Iranian organizations from 1997 to 2006. Scientometrics, 80(3), 627–638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hudson, J. (1996). Trends in multi-authored papers in Economics. Journal of Economic Perspective, 10(3), 153–158.Google Scholar
  20. Inhaber, H., & Przednowek, K. (1976). Quality of research and the Nobel prizes. Social Studies of Science, 6(1), 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Inkpen, A. C., & Tsang, W. K. (2005). Social capital, networks, and knowledge transfer. Academy of Management Review, 30(1), 146–165.Google Scholar
  22. Lavie, D., & Rosenkopf, L. (2006). Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 797–818.Google Scholar
  23. Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 673–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  25. McFadyen, M. A., & Cannella, Jr., A. A. (2004). Social capital and knowledge creation: Diminishing returns of the number and strength of exchange relationships. Academy of Management Journal, 47(5), 735–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Melin, G., & Persson, O. (1996). Studying research collaboration using co-authorships. Scientometrics, 36(3), 363–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Miller, K. D., Zhao, M., & Calantone, R. J. (2006). Adding interpersonal learning and tacit knowledge to March’s exploration-exploitation model. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 709–722.Google Scholar
  28. Morrison, E. W. (2002). Newcomers’ relationships: The role of social network ties during socialization. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1149–1160.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  29. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Oh, W., Choi, J. N., & Kim, K. (2005). Coauthorship dynamics and knowledge capital: The patterns of cross-disciplinary collaboration in information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 22(3), 265–292.Google Scholar
  31. Ohniwa, R. L., Denawa, M., Kudo, M., Nakamura, K., & Takeyasu, K. (2004). Perspective factor: A novel indicator for the assessment of journal quality. Research Evaluation, 13(3), 175–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Oppenheim, C., & Summers, M. A. C. (2008). Citation counts and the research assessment exercise, part VI: Unit of assessment 67 (music). Information Research, 13(2). Retrieved from
  33. Pawar, M. (2006). “Social” “capital”? The Social Science Journal, 43(2), 211–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Perretti, F., & Negro, G. (2006). Filling empty seats: How status and organizational hierarchies affect exploration versus exploitation in team design. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 759–777.Google Scholar
  35. Petter, S., Straub, D., & Rai, A. (2007). Specifying formative constructs in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 31(4), 623–656.Google Scholar
  36. Ponomariov, B. L., & Boardman, P. C. (2010). Influencing scientists’ collaboration and productivity patterns through new institutions: University research centers and scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy, 39, 613–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Presser, S. (1980). Collaboration and the quality of research. Social Studies of Science, 10(1), 95–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Reichers, A. E. (1987). An interactionist perspective on newcomer socialization rates. Academy of Management Review, 12(2), 278–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rigby, J., & Edler, J. (2005). Peering inside research networks: Some observations on the effect of the intensity of collaboration on the variability of research quality. Research Policy, 34, 784–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Simon, H. A. (1976). Administrative behavior. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  41. Soderbaum, F. (2001). Networking and capacity building: The role of regional research networks in Africa. European Journal of Development Research, 13(2), 144–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Taylor, A., & Greve, H. R. (2006). Superman or the fantastic four? Knowledge combination and experience in innovative teams. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 723–740.Google Scholar
  43. Wadhwa, A., & Kotha, S. (2006). Knowledge creation through external venturing: Evidence from the telecommunications equipment manufacturing industry. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 819–835.Google Scholar
  44. Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 35–57.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information ManagementNational Central UniversityJhongli CityTaiwan

Personalised recommendations