Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Factors influencing the formation of intra-institutional formal research groups: group prediction from collaboration, organisational, and topical networks

  • Published:
Scientometrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The factors that foster successful scientific collaboration and teamwork have been studied extensively. However, these factors have been studied in isolation and it is not clear to what extent one factor is more relevant than other in the formation of research groups. In this work we propose a new methodology based on network analysis to simultaneously evaluate multiple factors considered relevant in the conformation of formal research groups. Our methodology is supported on structural, statistical, and correlation analysis. In addition to validating our methodology with a case study at a research-teaching university, we introduce a new network to represent the success of scientific collaboration that produces the best prediction in group formation. Our methodology and the results obtained can be used for organising researchers in a university that seeks to strengthen its research strategy.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In addition to including a box plot, a violin plot visualises data distribution (the distribution is mirrored and smoothed).

References

  • Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Demography and design: Predictors of new product team performance. Organization Science, 3(3), 321–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Backstrom, L., Huttenlocher, D., Kleinberg, J., & Lan, X. (2006). Group formation in large social networks: Membership, growth, and evolution. In: Proceedings of the 12th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD’06 (pp. 44–54). New York, NY: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1150402.1150412.

  • Balland, P. A. (2011). Proximity and the evolution of collaboration networks: Evidence from research and development projects within the global navigation satellite system (GNSS) industry. Regional Studies, 46(6), 741–756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beaver, D. D. (2001). Reflections on scientific collaboration (and its study): Past, present, and future. Scientometrics, 52(3), 365–377. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014254214337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bercovitz, J., & Feldman, M. (2011). The mechanisms of collaboration in inventive teams: Composition, social networks, and geography. Research Policy, 40(1), 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.09.008. Special section on Heterogeneity and University-Industry Relations.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blondel, V. D., Guillaume, J. L., Lambiotte, R., & Lefebvre, E. (2008). Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2008(10), P10008. http://stacks.iop.org/1742-5468/2008/i=10/a=P10008.

  • Bonner, B. L., Baumann, M. R., & Dalal, R. S. (2002). The effects of member expertise on group decision-making and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88(2), 719–736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calero, C., Buter, R., Cabello Valdés, C., & Noyons, E. (2006). How to identify research groups using publication analysis: An example in the field of nanotechnology. Scientometrics, 66(2), 365–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campion, M. A., Medsker, G. J., & Higgs, A. C. (1993). Relations between work group characteristics and effectiveness: Implications for designing effective work groups. Personnel Psychology, 46(4), 823–847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cantu, F., & Ceballos, H. (2012). A framework for fostering multidisciplinary research collaboration and scientific networking within university environs. In J. Leibowitz (Ed.), Knowledge Management Handbook: Collaboration and Scientific Networking, Chap 12 (pp. 207–217). Boca Raton: CRC Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cantu, F., Ceballos, H., Mora, S., & Escoffie, M. (2005). A knowledge-based information system for managing research programs and value creation in a university environment. In Proceedings of the Americas conference on information systems, AMCIS (Vol. 2005, pp. 781–791).

  • Cantu, F., Bustani, A., Molina, A., & Moreira, H. (2009). A knowledge-based development model: The research chair strategy. Journal of Knowledge Management, 13(1), 154–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Casciaro, T., & Lobo, M. S. (2008). When competence is irrelevant: The role of interpersonal affect in task-related ties. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(4), 655–684.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ceballos, H., Fangmeyer, J., Galeano, N., Juarez, E., & Cantu-Ortiz, F. (2017). Impelling research productivity and impact through collaboration: A scientometric case study of knowledge management. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 15(3), 346–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, P. S., Do, H. H. N., Chandrasekaran, M. K., & Kan, M. Y. (2013). Identifying research facilitators in an emerging Asian Research Area. Scientometrics, 97(1), 75–97. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-013-1051-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clauset, A., Newman, M. E. J., & Moore, C. (2004). Finding community structure in very large networks. Physical Review E, 70(066), 111. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.70.066111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23(3), 239–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(97)90034-9. A special issue of the journal of management.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, J. N., & Kiesler, S. (2008). Who collaborates successfully?: Prior experience reduces collaboration barriers in distributed interdisciplinary research. In: Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work, CSCW’08 (pp. 437–446). New York, NY: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/1460563.1460633.

  • Dahlander, L., & McFarland, D. A. (2013). Ties that last tie formation and persistence in research collaborations over time. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(1), 69–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Research groups as ’quasi-firms’: The invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy, 32(1), 109–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (1998). The endless transition: A ’triple helix’ of niversity industry government relations. Minerva, 36(3), 203–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and ’mode 2’ to a triple helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garza, S. E., & Schaeffer, S. E. (2016). Local bilateral clustering for identifying research topics and groups from bibliographical data. Knowledge and Information Systems, 48(1), 179–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10115-015-0867-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Girvan, M., & Newman, M. E. J. (2002). Community structure in social and biological networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 99(12), 7821–7826. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.122653799.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Gruenfeld, D. H., Mannix, E. A., Williams, K. Y., & Neale, M. A. (1996). Group composition and decision making: How member familiarity and information distribution affect process and performance. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0061.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guimerà, R., Uzzi, B., Spiro, J., & Amaral, L. A. N. (2005). Team assembly mechanisms determine collaboration network structure and team performance. Science, 308(5722), 697–702. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1106340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn, J., Moon, J. Y., Zhang, C. (2006). Impact of social ties on open source project team formation. In IFIP international conference on open source systems (pp. 307–317). Springer.

  • Heredia, R. M., & Vinueza, P. C. (2015). A proposal model to monitor interdisciplinary research projects in Latin American Universities. IEEE Revista Iberoamericana de Tecnologías del Aprendizaje, 10(3), 102–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinds, P. J., Carley, K. M., Krackhardt, D., & Wholey, D. (2000). Choosing work group members: Balancing similarity, competence, and familiarity. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81(2), 226–251. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1999.2875.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huckman, R. S., Staats, B. R., & Upton, D. M. (2009). Team familiarity, role experience, and performance: Evidence from Indian software services. Management Science, 55(1), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1080.0921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, N. F., Xu, C., Zhao, Z., Ducheneaut, N., Yee, N., Tita, G., et al. (2009). Human group formation in online guilds and offline gangs driven by a common team dynamic. Physical Review E, 79(066), 117. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.79.066117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, B. F., Wuchty, S., & Uzzi, B. (2008). Multi-university research teams: Shifting impact, geography, and stratification in science. Science, 322(5905), 1259–1262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kairam, S. R., Wang, D. J., & Leskovec, J. (2012). The life and death of online groups: Predicting group growth and longevity. In Proceedings of the fifth ACM international conference on web search and data mining, WSDM’12 (pp. 673–682). New York, NY: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2124295.2124374.

  • Katz, J. S. (1994). Geographic Proximity and Scientific Collaboration. Scientometrics, 31(1), 31–43.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J. S., & Hicks, D. (1997). How much is a collaboration worth? A calibrated bibliometric model. In Proceedings of the sixth conference OD the international society for scientometric and informetric (pp. 163–175).

  • Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993a). The discipline of teams. Massachusetts: Harvard Business Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993b). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-performance organization. Massachusetts: Harvard Business Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, J. T. (2008). Evaluation of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research: A literature review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2), S116–S123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine, J. M., & Moreland, R. L. (1991). Culture and socialization in work groups. In L. Resnick, J. Levine, & S. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 257–279). Washington: American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Leydesdorff, L. (2013). Triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Encyclopedia of creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship (pp. 1844–1851). Springer.

  • Liang, L., & Zhu, L. (2002). Major factors affecting China’s inter-regional research collaboration: Regional scientific productivity and geographical proximity. Scientometrics, 55(2), 287–316. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019623925759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margolin, D., Ognyanoya, K., Huang, M., Huang, Y., & Contractor, N. (2012). Team formation and performance on Nanohub: A network selection challenge in scientific communities. In B. Vedres & M. Scotti (Eds.), Networks in social policy problems (pp. 80–100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, B. R. (2012). Are universities and university research under threat? Towards an evolutionary model of university speciation. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 36(3), 543–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, T., Ball, B., Karrer, B., & Newman, M. E. J. (2013). Coauthorship and citation patterns in the Physical Review. Physical Review E - Statistical, Nonlinear, and Soft Matter Physics. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.88.012814, arXiv:1304.0473.

  • Martín-Sempere, M. J., Garzón-García, B., & Rey-Rocha, J. (2008). Team consolidation, social integration and scientists’ research performance: An empirical study in the biology and biomedicine field. Scientometrics, 76(3), 457–482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1866-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mattessich, P. W., & Monsey, B. R. (1992). Collaboration: What makes it work. In A review of research literature on factors influencing successful collaboration. Minnesota: ERIC.

  • Newman, M. E. J. (2001). Clustering and preferential attachment in growing networks. Physical Review E, 64, 0104209v1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, M. E. J. (2004). Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(Suppl 1), 5200–5205. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0307545100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ordóñez-Matamoros, H. G., Cozzens, S. E., & Garcia, M. (2010). International co-authorship and research team performance in Colombia. Review of Policy Research, 27(4), 415–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Owens, D. A., Mannix, E. A., & Neale, M. A. (1998). Strategic formation of groups: Issues in task performance and team member selection. Research on Managing Groups and Teams, 1, 149–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palla, G., Barabási, A. L., & Vicsek, T. (2007). Quantifying social group evolution. Nature, 446(7136), 664–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perianes-Rodriguez, A., Chinchilla-Rodriguez, Z., Vargas-Quesada, B., Olmeda-Gomez, C., & Moya-Anegon, F. (2009). Synthetic hybrid indicators based on scientific collaboration to quantify and evaluate individual research results. Journal of Informetrics, 3(2), 91–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, L. L. (1992). Rethinking the nature of groups in organizations. Small Group Communication: A Reader, 6, 57–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radicchi, F., Castellano, C., Cecconi, F., Loreto, V., & Parisi, D. (2004). Defining and identifying communities in networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 101(9), 2658–2663. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0400054101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raghavan, U. N., Albert, R., & Kumara, S. (2007). Near linear time algorithm to detect community structures in large-scale networks. Physical Review E, 76(036), 106. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.76.036106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reagans, R., Zuckerman, E., & McEvily, B. (2004). How to make the team: Social networks vs. demography as criteria for designing effective teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(1), 101–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rey-Rocha, J., Garzón-García, B., & Martín-Sempere, M. J. (2006). Scientists’ performance and consolidation of research teams in Biology and Biomedicine at the Spanish Council for Scientific Research. Scientometrics, 69(2), 183–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rey-Rocha, J., Garzón-García, B., & José Martín-Sempere, M. (2007). Exploring social integration as a determinant of research activity, performance and prestige of scientists. Empirical evidence in the Biology and Biomedicine field. Scientometrics, 72(1), 59–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-007-1703-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruef, M., Aldrich, H. E., & Carter, N. M. (2003). The structure of founding teams: Homophily, strong ties, and isolation among us entrepreneurs. American Sociological Review, 68, 195–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sam, C., & Van Der Sijde, P. (2014). Understanding the concept of the entrepreneurial university from the perspective of higher education models. Higher Education, 68(6), 891–908.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarigöl, E., Pfitzner, R., Scholtes, I., Garas, A., & Schweitzer, F. (2014). Predicting scientific success based on coauthorship networks. EPJ Data Science, 3(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaeffer, S. E. (2005). Stochastic local clustering for massive graphs (pp. 354–360). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/11430919_42.

  • Shah, P. P., & Jehn, K. A. (1993). Do friends perform better than acquaintances? The interaction of friendship, conflict, and task. Group Decision and Negotiation, 2(2), 149–165. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01884769.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sonnentag, S., & Volmer, J. (2009). Individual-level predictors of task-related teamwork processes: The role of expertise and self-efficacy in team meetings. Group & Organization Management, 34(1), 37–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stokols, D., Misra, S., Moser, R. P., Hall, K. L., & Taylor, B. K. (2008). The ecology of team science: Understanding contextual influences on transdisciplinary collaboration. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2), S96–S115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun, Y., & Liu, K. (2016). Proximity effect, preferential attachment and path dependence in inter-regional network: A case of China’s technology transaction. Scientometrics, 108(1), 201–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1951-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tomas-Folch, M., Mentado-Labao, T., & Ruiz-Ruiz, J. M. (2015). Las buenas prácticas en gestión de la investigación de las universidades mejores situadas en los rankings. Archivos Analíticos de Políticas Educativas, 23(105), 1–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uddin, S., Hossain, L., & Rasmussen, K. (2013). Network effects on scientific collaborations. PLOS ONE, 8(2), e57546. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verbree, M., Horlings, E., Groenewegen, P., Van der Weijden, E., & van den Besselaar, P. (2015). Organizational factors influencing scholarly performance: A multivariate study of biomedical research groups. Scientometrics, 102(1), 25–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volmer, J., & Sonnentag, S. (2011). The role of star performers in software design teams. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 26(3), 219–234.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waltman, L. (2016). A review of the literature on citation impact indicators. Journal of Informetrics, 10(2), 366–391.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Waltman, L., & Eck, N. J. (2012). A new methodology for constructing a publication-level classification system of science. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 63(12), 2378–2392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications (Vol. 8). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, Q., Shao, H., & Duan, Z. (2011). Research groups of oncology co-authorship network in China. Scientometrics, 89(2), 553–567.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Y., Chen, K., Zhu, G., Yam, R. C. M., & Guan, J. (2016). Inter-organizational scientific collaborations and policy effects: An ego-network evolutionary perspective of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Scientometrics, 108(3), 1383–1415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2022-2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, M., Huang, Y., & Contractor, N. S. (2013). Motivations for self-assembling into project teams. Social Networks, 35(2), 251–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2013.03.001. Special issue on advances in two-mode social networks.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tecnologico de Monterrey, Ave. Eugenio Garza Sada 2501, Monterrey, NL, Mexico

    Hector G. Ceballos & Francisco J. Cantu

  2. School of Mechanical and Electrical Engineering (FIME), Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León (UANL), San Nicolás de los Garza, NL, Mexico

    Sara E. Garza

Authors
  1. Hector G. Ceballos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sara E. Garza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Francisco J. Cantu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hector G. Ceballos.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ceballos, H.G., Garza, S.E. & Cantu, F.J. Factors influencing the formation of intra-institutional formal research groups: group prediction from collaboration, organisational, and topical networks. Scientometrics 114, 181–216 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2561-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2561-1

Keywords

Mathematics Subject Classification

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation