Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Academic Research Collaboration

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Navigating Organized Urology

  • 333 Accesses

Abstract

Collaboration is a twenty-first-century trend in academia, especially as research questions are larger and more intricate, requiring the efforts of more people. Yet at the same time, it seems ever more specialized knowledge and expertise is needed, requiring the efforts of the most appropriate people. Similarly, in the clinical setting, multi- and inter-disciplinary clinics and provider teams to manage patients with complex diseases and syndromes are observed. The need to think and work together on complex scientific and biomedical issues thus has increased, shifting the emphasis from individual efforts to collaborative work, from independence to interdependence. Collaborative science, popularly called “team science,” is a new moniker. Federal funding agencies are offering more program and collaborative projects than ever. But at the heart of all collaborations, no matter how large or small, are the dynamics and interplay between individuals. In this chapter, the rationale for collaborations in scientific research is reviewed, and features of successful collaborations discussed. Lessons from my own collaborative efforts are also shared.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Wuchty S, Jones BF, Uzzi B. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science. 2007;316:1036–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Tachibana C. Navigating collaborative grant research. Sci Careers. 2013. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.opms.rl300136. https://www.sciencemag.org/sites/default/files/documents/printed-publications/13%20Sept%20Faculty%20Feature_0.pdf. Accessed 30 Dec 2018.

  3. Committee on the Science of Team Science; Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; National Research Council. In: Cooke NJ, Hilton ML, editors. Enhancing the effectiveness of team science. Washington: National Academies Press; 2015 (9, Funding and Evaluation of Team Science). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK310379/. Accessed 30 Dec 2018.

  4. Conte ML, Liu J, Schnell S, Omary MB. Globalization and changing trends of biomedical research output. JCI Insight. 2017;2:e95206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Campbell D. Reforms as experiment. Am Psychol. 1969;24:409–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Stein Z. Modeling the demands of interdisciplinarity: toward a framework for evaluating interdisciplinary endeavors. Integral Rev. 2007;4:92–107.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bennett LM, Gadlin H. Collaboration and team science: from theory to practice. J Investig Med. 2012;60:768–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Jones BF, Wuchty S, Uzzi B. Multi-university research teams: shifting impact, geography, and stratification in science. Science. 2008;322:1259–62.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Bennett LM, Gadlin H, Levine-Finley S. Collaboration and team science: a field guide. National Institutes of Health, April 2010. Bethesda, MD. https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/women_science_medicine/_pdfs/team%20science%20field%20guide.pdf. Accessed 31 Dec 2018.

  10. Sivaguru M, Saw JL, Williams JC Jr, Lieske JC, Krambeck AE, Romero MF, Chia N, Schwaderer AL, Alcalde RE, Bruce WJ, Wildman DE, Fried GA, Werth CJ, Reeder RJ, Yau PM, Sanford RA, Fouke BW. Geobiology reveals how human kidney stones dissolve in vivo. Sci Rep. 2018;8:13731.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Börner K, Maru JT, Goldstone RL. The simultaneous evolution of author and paper networks. PNAS. 2004;101:5266–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Mallapaty S. Paper authorship goes hyper. Nat Index. 30 Jan 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Montiel-Overall P. Toward a theory of collaboration for teachers and librarians. Sch Libr Media Res. 2005;8. ISSN 1523-4320. http://www.ala.org/aasl/sites/ala.org.aasl/files/content/aaslpubsandjournals/slr/vol8/SLMR_TheoryofCollaboration_V8.pdf. Accessed 30 Dec 2018.

  14. Graesser A, Kuo B-C, Liao C-H. Complex problem solving in assessments of collaborative problem solving. J Intell. 2017;5:10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Sheppard BH, Sherman DM. The grammars of trust: a model and general implications. Acad Manag Rev. 1998;23:422–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Jones GR, George JM. The experience and evolution of trust: implications for cooperation and teamwork. Acad Manag Rev. 1998;23:531–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lee SS, Jabloner A. Institutional culture is the key to team science. Nat Biotechnol. 2017;35:1212–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Antonio-García MT, López-Navarro I, Rey-Rocha J. Determinants of success for biomedical researchers: a perception-based study in a health science research environment. Scientometrics. 2014;101:1747–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Shalley CE, Gilson LL. What leaders need to know: a review of social and contextual factors than can foster or hinder creativity. Leadersh Q. 2004;15:33–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lutter M, Schröder M. Who becomes a tenured professor, and why? Panel data evidence from German sociology, 1980–2013. MPIfG Discussion Paper 2014;14:1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Perzynski AT, Caron A, Margolius D, Sudano JJ Jr. Primary care practice workplace social capital: a potential secret sauce for improved staff well-being and patient experience. J Patient Exp. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1177/2374373518777742.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Academy of Medical Sciences: Improving recognition of team science contributions in biomedical research careers. March 2016; London, UK. https://acmedsci.ac.uk/viewFile/56defebabba91.pdf. Accessed 19 Jan 2019.

  23. Fontanarosa P, Bauchner H, Flanagin A. Authorship and team science. JAMA. 2017;318:2433–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Denbo S. Whose work is it really? Collaboration and the question of credit. Perspectives on history; 1 Feb 2017. https://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/February-2017/whose-work-is-it-really-collaboration-and-the-question-of-credit. Accessed 29 Dec 2018.

  25. Schöttle A, Haghsheno S, Gehbauer F. Defining cooperation and collaboration in the context of lean construction. In: Proceedings IGLC-22; June 2014. p. 1269–80.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Bozeman B, Fay D, Slade CP. Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: the state-of-the-art. J Technol Transf. 2013;38:1–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Baldwin RG, Chang DA. Collaborating to learn, learning to collaborate. Peer Rev. 2007;9:26–30.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Bronstein LR. A model for interdisciplinary collaboration. Soc Work. 2003;48:297–306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Dillenbourg P. What do you mean by ‘collaborative learning?’ In: Dillenbourg P, editor. Collaborative-learning: cognitive and computational approaches. Oxford, UK: Elsevier Publishing; 1999. p. 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Hardin SR. Michael Schrage and collaboration. Bull Am Soc Inf Sci. 1998;6–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Macrina FL. Dynamic issues in scientific integrity: collaborative research. Washington, DC: American Academy of Microbiology; 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Roschelle J, Teasley SD. The construction of shared knowledge in collaborative problem solving. In: O’Malley C, editor. Computer supported collaborative learning. Berlin: Springer;1995. p. 69–96.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  33. Mattessich PW, Monsey BR. Collaboration: what makes it work? St. Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Wood DJ, Gray B. Toward a comprehensive theory of collaboration. J Appl Behav Sci. 1991;27:139–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Appley DG, Winder AE. An evolving definition of collaboration and some implications for the world of work. J Appl Behav Sci. 1977;13:279–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Meadows AJ. Scientific collaboration and status. In: Communication in science. London: Butterworths; 1974. p. 172–206.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, 1685 Highland Avenue, 3258 Medical Foundation Centennial Building, Madison, WI, 53705-2281, USA

    Kristina L. Penniston

  2. Department of Clinical Nutrition Services, UW Health University Hospital and Clinics, Madison, WI, USA

    Kristina L. Penniston

Authors
  1. Kristina L. Penniston
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kristina L. Penniston .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA

    Stephen Y. Nakada

  2. School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA

    Sutchin R. Patel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Penniston, K.L. (2019). Academic Research Collaboration. In: Nakada, S., Patel, S. (eds) Navigating Organized Urology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20434-1_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20434-1_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-20433-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-20434-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation