Skip to main content

Academic Research Collaboration

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Navigating Organized Urology

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 and investigators from a broader variety of disciplines and perspectives. Increasingly, the efforts of the most appropriate collaborators—those with the requisite knowledge, technical skills, and willingness to function collaboratively—are needed. Similarly, in the clinical setting, multi- and inter-disciplinary clinics and provider teams that manage patients with complex diseases and syndromes are increasingly common. Because of the need to think and work together on complex scientific and biomedical issues, emphasis in both research and clinical arenas has shifted from individual efforts to collaborative work, from independence to interdependence. Collaborative science, sometimes referred to as “team science,” is a newer concept in research. Federal funding agencies now offer more “program” and collaborative projects than ever. At the forefront of these opportunities are inter- and transdisciplinary research collaborations between clinician scientists and basic and translational scientists. But there are challenges. At the heart of all successful collaborations, no matter how large or small, attention to dynamics and cooperation between individuals is needed. Unfortunately, the skills needed to succeed in this area are not broadly taught in graduate schools or medical schools. In this chapter, the rationale for collaborations in scientific research is reviewed, and features of successful collaborations are discussed.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover 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. Science careers. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.opms.rl300136. Retrieved from: https://www.sciencemag.org/sites/default/files/documents/printed-publications/13%20Sept%20Faculty%20Feature_0.pdf (2013). 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; Cooke NJ, Hilton ML, editors. Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US). 15 July 2015. 9, Funding and Evaluation of Team Science. Retrieved from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK310379/. Accessed 30 Dec 2018.

  4. Petterson MB, Longhurst C, Yu J-PJ. Measuring interdisciplinarity of biomedical research, medical specialty performance, and implications for radiology: a retrospective review of 2.6 million citations. Clin Imaging. 2021;80:322–328.

    Google Scholar 

  5. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. Executive summary, NIDDK extramural funding trends and support of guiding principles. Retrieved from: https://www.niddk.nih.gov/research-funding/funded-grants-grant-history/funding-trends-support-core-values. Accessed 12 Jan 2021.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Cline H, Coolen L, de Vries S, Hyman S, Segal R, Steward O. Recognizing team science contributions in academic hiring, promotion, and tenure. J Neurosci. 2020;40:6662–3.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. McHale S, Damayanthi R, DiazGranados D, Bagshaw D, Schienke E, Blank AE. Promotion and tenure policies for team science at colleges/schools of medicine. J Clin Transl Sci. 2019;3:245–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Denbo S. Whose work is it really? Collaboration and the question of credit. Perspectives on history. Retrieved from: https://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/february-2017/whose-work-is-it-really-collaboration-and-the-question-of-credit (2017). Accessed 29 Dec 2018.

  10. Schöttle A, Haghsheno S, Gehbauer: defining cooperation and collaboration in the context of lean construction. Proceedings IGLC-22; June 2014:1269–80.

    Google Scholar 

  11. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 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 

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

    Google Scholar 

  22. Stember M. Advancing the social sciences through the interdisciplinary enterprise. Soc Sci J. 1991;28:1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Miller EC, Leffert L. Building cross-disciplinary research collaborations. Stroke. 2019;49:e43–5.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Campbell D. Reforms as experiment Am Psychol. 1969;24(409):429.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 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 

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

  29. 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Mallapaty S. Paper authorship goes hyper. Nature Index News. Retrieved from: https://www.natureindex.com/news-blog/paper-authorship-goes-hyper/ (2018). Accessed 29 Nov 2021.

  32. Hessels RS, Kingstone A. Fake collaborations: interdisciplinary science can undermine research integrity. PsyArXiv. Retrieved from: https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/rqwea (2019). Accessed 29 Nov 2021.

  33. Conroy G. The push for interdisciplinary teams can lead to fake collaborations. Nature Index News. Retrieved from https://www.natureindex.com/news-blog/push-interdisciplinary-teams-science-research-can-lead-fake-collaborations (2020). Accessed 04 Dec 2021.

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. U.S. National Library of Medicine: Number of authors per MEDLINE/PubMed citation. Retrieved from http://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/authors1.html (2017). Accessed 29 Dec 2018.

  36. Montiel-Overall P. Toward a theory of collaboration for teachers and librarians. School Library Media Research 2005;8. ISSN 1523–4320. Retrieved from: http://www.ala.org/aasl/sites/ala.org.aasl/files/content/aaslpubsandjournals/slr/vol8/SLMR_TheoryofCollaboration_V8.pdf. Accessed 30 Dec 2018.

  37. 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 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 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 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Calhoun WJ, Wooten K, Bhavnani S, Anderson KE, Freeman J, Brasier AR. The CTSA as an exemplar framework for developing multidisciplinary translational teams. Clin Transl Sci. 2013;6:60–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Elkins T, Keller RT. Leadership in research and development organizations: a literature review and conceptual framework. Leadersh Q. 2003;14:587–606.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 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 

  44. 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 

  45. Wu L, Wang D, Evans JA. Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology. Nature. 2019;566:378–82.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. 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 

  47. 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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

  49. Eberli D, Atala A. Basic science research in urology training. Indian J Urol. 2009;25:217–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Permar SR, Ward RA, Barrett KJ, Freel SA, Gbadegesin RA, Kontos CD, Hu PJ, Hartmann KE, Williams CS, Vyas JM. Addressing the physician-scientist pipeline: strategies to integrate research into clinical training programs. J Clin Invest. 2020;130:1058–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Liu EA, Wang SY, Rao RC. Sustaining independent careers in vision research: demographics and success in second R01 attainment among clinician-scientists from 1985 to 2019. Trans Vis Sci Tech. 2020;9:32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Jain MK, Cheung VG, Utz PJ, Kobilka BK, Yamada T, Lefkowitz R. Saving the endangered physician-scientist – a plan for accelerating medical breakthroughs. N Engl J Med. 2019;381:399–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Hobin JA, Deschamps AM, Bockman R, Cohen S, Dechow P, Eng C, Galey W, Morris M, Prabhakar S, Raj U, Rubenstein P, Smith JA, Stover P, Sung N, Talman W, Galbraith R. Engaging basic scientists in translational research: identifying opportunities, overcoming obstacles. J Transl Med. 2012;10:72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Sorrentino C, Boggio A, Confalonieri S, Hemenway D, Scita G, Ballabeni A. Increasing both the public health potential of basic research and the scientist satisfaction: an international survey of bio-scientists. F1000Research 2016;5:56.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Hobin JA, Galbraith RA. Engaging basic scientists in translational research. FASEB J. 2012;26:2227–30.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Morrison-Smith S, Ruiz J. Challenges and barriers in virtual teams: a literature review. SN Applied Sciences. 2020;2:1096.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. De Lora JA, Termini CM. Synthesis and assembly of virtual collaborations. Trends Biochem Sci. 2020;45:823–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Bos N, Olson J, Gergle D, Olson G, Wright Z. Effects of four computer-mediated communications channels on trust development. In: Terveen L, Wixon D, Comstock E, Sasse A, editors. Proceedings of the conference on human factors in computing systems, vol. 4, 1st ed. 2002. p. 135–14.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kristina L. Penniston .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Penniston, K.L. (2022). Academic Research Collaboration. In: Nakada, S.Y., Patel, S.R. (eds) Navigating Organized Urology. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05540-9_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05540-9_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-05539-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-05540-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics