The American Sociologist

, Volume 39, Issue 4, pp 290–306 | Cite as

Collaborative Research in Sociology: Trends and Contributing Factors

  • Laura HunterEmail author
  • Erin Leahey


To what extent do sociologists collaborate? Has this changed over time? What factors contribute to research collaboration among sociologists? To answer these questions, we examine trends in collaboration over a 70 year period and empirically test a variety of explanations for the increase in collaboration that we find. We analyze data collected from a stratified random sample of articles in two leading sociology journals between 1935 and 2005 (n = 1274). Most of our analyses are descriptive and display trends over time. However, we pool the data across all years and estimate logistic regression models to assess the relative contribution of various factors. We find that the importance of geographical location has been waning since the 1950s, although the growth in cross-place collaborations stagnated between 1980 and 2005. We find that quantitative research is more likely to be collaborative, as are projects requiring data collection, though this may change because the collaboration rate among secondary data users is increasing at a faster rate. We find no significant gender differences in rates of collaboration, although male sole-authorship remains the most common form of publication. We also find the institutional prestige of coauthors is typically higher than that of sole-authors. Our results elucidate the extent of collaboration in sociology and reveal how several factors have contributed to this major shift in work organization.


Research Collaboration Sociology Coauthorship 



This research was supported by an award funded by Arizona’s Proposition 301 for Information Technology and Information Sciences.


  1. Babchuk, N., Keith, B., & Peters, G. (1999). Collaboration in sociology and other scientific disciplines. The American Sociologist, 30, 5–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beaver, D. D. (2001). Reflections on scientific collaboration (and its study). Scientometrics, 52, 365–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bozeman, B., & Corley, E. (2004). Scientists' collaboration strategies: implications for scientific and human capital. Research Policy, 33, 599–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clemens, E. S., Powell, W. W., McIlwaine, K., & Okamoto, D. (1995). Careers in print: books, journals, and scholarly reputations. American Journal of Sociology, 101, 433–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cole, J. (1981). Women in science. American Scientist, 69, 385–391.Google Scholar
  6. Coleman, J. S. (1986). Social theory, social research, and a theory of action. American Journal of Sociology, 91, 1309–1335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davis, M., & Wilson, C. S. (2001). Elite researchers in ophthalmology: aspects of publishing strategies, collaboration, and multi-disciplinarity. Scientometrics, 52, 395–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Solla Price, D. J., & Beaver, D. B. (1966). Collaboration in an invisible college. American Psychologist, 21, 1011–1018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Endersby, J. W. (1996). Collaborative research in the social sciences: multiple authorship and publication credit. Social Science Quarterly, 77, 375–392.Google Scholar
  10. Fisher, B. S., Cobane, C. T., Vander Ven, T. M., & Cullen, F. T. (1998). How many authors does it take to publish an article? Trends and patterns in political science. Political Science and Politics, 31, 847–856.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grant, L., & Ward, K. B. (1991). Gender and publishing in sociology. Gender & Society, 5, 207–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Griswold, W., & Wright, N. (2004). Cowbirds, locals, and the dynamic endurance of regionalism. American Journal of Sociology, 6, 1411–1451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hara, N., Solomon, P., Kim, S.-L., & Sonnenwald, D. H. (2003). An emerging view of scientific collaboration. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54, 952–965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hellstrom, T. (2003). Governing the virtual academic commons. Research Policy, 32, 391–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hudson, J. (1996). Trends in multi-authored papers in economics. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10, 153–158.Google Scholar
  16. Kanter, R. M. (1994). Collaborative advantage: the art of alliances. Harvard Business Review July–August: 96–108.Google Scholar
  17. Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is Research Collaboration? Research Policy, 26, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Keith, B., & Babchuk, N. (1994). A longitudinal assessment of productivity in prominent sociology journals and departmental prestige. The American Sociologist, 25, 4–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Keith, B., Layne, J. S., Babchuk, N., & Johnson, K. (2002). The context of scientific achievement: sex status, organizational environments, and the timing of publication on scholarship outcomes. Social Problems, 80, 1253–1281.Google Scholar
  20. Kyvik, S., & Teigen, M. (1996). Child care, research collaboration, and gender differences in scientific productivity. Science, Technology, and Human Values, 21, 54–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Landry, R., & Amara, N. (1998). The impact of transaction costs on the institutional structuration of collaborative academic research. Research Policy, 27, 901–913.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lawani, S. M. (1986). Some bibliometric correlates of quality in scientific research. Scientrometrics, 9, 13–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leahey, E. (2005). Alphas and asterisks: the development of significance testing standards in sociology. Social Forces.Google Scholar
  24. Martin-Sempere, M. J., Rey-Rocha, J., & Garzon-Garcia, B. (2002). The effect of team consolidation on research collaboration and performance of scientists: a case study of Spanish University Researchers in Geology. Scientometrics, 55, 377–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McDowell, J. M., & Smith, J. K. (1992). The effect of gender-sorting on propensity to coauthor: implications for academic promotion. Economic Inquiry, 30, 68–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McKelvey, M., Alm, K., & Riccaboni, M. (2003). Does co-location matter for formal knowledge collaboration in the Swedish biotechnology-pharmaceutical sector? Research Policy, 32, 483–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Melin, G. (2000). Pragmatism and self-organization: research collaboration on the individual level. Research Policy, 29, 31–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  29. Moody, J. (2004). The structure of a social science collaboration network: disciplinary cohesion from 1963 to 1999. American Sociological Review, 69, 213–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Olsen, G. M., & Olsen, J. S. (2000). Distance matters. Human–Computer Interaction, 15, 139–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Platt, J. (1996). A history of sociological research methods in America. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Presser, S. (1980). Collaboration and the quality of research. Social Studies of Science, 10, 95–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Reskin, B. (1978). Sex differentiation and the social organization of science. In J. Gaston (Ed.), The sociology of science (pp. 6–37). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  34. Roos, P. A., & Jones, K. W. (1993). Shifting gender boundaries: women's inroads into academic sociology. Work and Occupations, 20, 395–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rytina, S., & Morgan, D. L. (1982). The arithmetic of social relations: the interplay of category and network. American Journal of Sociology, 88, 88–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stephan, P. E., & Levin, S. G. (1987). Demographic and economic determinants of scientific productivity. Atlanta: Georgia State University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Stephan, P. E., & Levin, S. G. (1992). Striking the mother lode in science: the importance of age, place, and time. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Turner, S. P., & Turner, J. H. (1990). The impossible science: an institutional analysis of American sociology. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  39. Walsh, J. P., & Bayma, T. (1996). Computer network and scientific work. Social Studies of Science, 26, 661–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations