Skip to main content

Cohesive subgroups in academic networks: unveiling clique integration of top-level female and male researchers

Scientometrics volume 103, pages 897–922 (2015)Cite this article

Abstract

Social networks are said to have a positive impact on scientific development. Conventionally, it is argued that female and male researchers differ in access to and participation in networks and hence experience unequal career opportunities. Due to limited capacities of time and resources as well as homophily, top-level scientists may structure their contacts to reduce problems of complexity and uncertainty. The outcomes of the structuring can be cohesive subgroups within networks of relation. Women in science might suffer exclusion from cliques because of being dissimilar in the arena. The present paper aims to explore integration in and composition of scientific cliques. A three-step analysis is conducted: Firstly, cliques are identified. Secondly, overlap structures are examined. Thirdly, group compositions are analysed in terms of other personal attributes of the researchers involved. Building on network data of female and male investigators, the article applies a comparative case study design including two cutting edge research institutions from the German Excellence Initiative. The study contrasts a Cluster of Excellence with a Graduate School and the corresponding formal with the informal networks. The results imply that the general hypothesis of unfavourably embedded female researchers cannot be supported. Although women are less integrated in scientific cliques, the majority is involved in an inner social circle which enables access to career-relevant network resources.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes

  1. Network actors must not necessarily be persons. They can also e.g., represent whole organisations or even national economies. In this paper, the actors are individual scientists.

  2. Emotional resources are defined to comprise friendship, propinquity, trust and advice.

  3. Hard social capital is defined to consist of accumulated task-oriented resources.

  4. The connections may be either direct (face-to-face) or indirect (via intermediaries).

  5. Besides, literature on social networks has revealed various other approaches to identify subgroup structures (e.g. n-cliques or k-plexes).

  6. It was funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) (Grant No.: 01FP0719) as well as European Social Fund (ESF) of the European Union. Any opinions expressed here are those of the author.

  7. Neither human nor animal rights were violated with this survey method.

  8. It was conducted by the former project associate Tina Ruschenburg.

  9. The third line refers to Institutional Strategies.

  10. These PIs were surveyed conjointly but separated later.

  11. At the beginning, 35 (later 27) GSs and CEs as well as 5 universities with Institutional Strategies participated in the whole study.

  12. When a connection between two researchers contains more than one exchanged resource (e.g. one formal and one informal), their relationship is said to be multiplex.

  13. All cell values which equalled or exceeded 1 were coded 1, the rest retained noted a 0.

  14. This routine checked all cells right above the diagonal against the corresponding cells left below and infixed the greater values in the respective cells.

  15. On the other hand, investigators that interact with each other formally may be expected to participate more likely in informal relationships with their colleagues than those who are not involved in formal ties.

  16. Regression analyses that included eight out of eleven excellence institutions were conducted. The results from this broader sample were presented at the closing conference of the underlying project in April 2013 and will be published in a final project book this year (2015).

  17. They could check “other” once again.

  18. The enumerator of the measure corresponds to Tichy’s clique characteristic openness.

  19. The programming was conducted by Daniel Gotthardt.

  20. Meanwhile, the PI who is highest in clique centrality belongs to the CE and is of male sex. The value occurs at the formal network and accounts for 39.

  21. Compared to clique analysis, particularly the absence of ties between the generated blocks is telling for identification of social structures.

  22. Such a matrix can also be obtained by usage of the Bron–Kerbosch-routine.

  23. The diagonal entries depict the size of the cliques.

  24. Weighted clique graphs reflect different amounts of overlap between the subgroups, referring to the number of actors that are common to both cliques considered.

  25. The program R has been used here too.

  26. Utilising the a-b-c matrix, the subgroups are run through per loop. It is checked whether a particular chosen group overlaps with another according to the criterion. If so, the groups are merged.

  27. The number of six arises as a result because two PIs have the same centrality value among the five most centrals.

  28. Note that the percentages in the collaboration network of the cluster at significantly isolated cliques are means of four subgroups at a time.

  29. In the project, there is more recent data on percentages of female PIs (surveyed in 2011). That data might exhibit slightly less female isolation. However, the increase in number of women implies that contemporary patterns would not be utterly different.

References

  • Alba, R. D. (1973). A graph-theoretic definition of a sociometric clique. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 3(1), 113–126.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Alba, R. D., & Moore, G. (1978). Elite social circles. Sociological Methods and Research, 7(2), 167–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allison, P. D., & Long, J. S. (1990). Departmental effects on scientific productivity. American Sociological Review, 55(4), 469–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Asmar, C. (1999). Is there a gendered agenda in academia? The research experience of female and male PhD graduates in Australian universities. Higher Education, 38(3), 255–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beaufaÿs, S. (2012). Führungspositionen in der Wissenschaft: Zur Ausbildung männlicher Soziabilitätsregime am Beispiel von Exzellenzeinrichtungen. In S. Beaufaÿs, A. Engels, & H. Kahlert (Eds.), Einfach Spitze? Neue Geschlechterperspektiven auf Karrieren in der Wissenschaft (pp. 87–117). Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti, S. P. (2002). Netdraw network visualization. Harvard: Analytic Technologies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti, S. P., & Everett, M. G. (1999). Models of core/periphery structures. Social Networks, 21(4), 375–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). Ucinet for Windows: Software for social network analysis. Harvard: Analytic Technologies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Böröcz, J., & Southworth, C. (1998). “Who you know”: Earning effects of formal and informal social network resources under late state socialism in Hungary. Journal of Socio-Economics, 27(3), 401–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bozeman, B., & Corley, E. (2004). Scientists’ collaboration strategies: Implications for scientific and human capital. Research Policy, 33(4), 599–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brass, D. J., Galaskiewicz, J., Greve, H. R., & Tsai, W. P. (2004). Taking stock of networks and organizations: A multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 795–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bron, C., & Kerbosch, J. (1973). Algorithm 457: Finding all cliques of an undirected graph. Communications of the ACM, 16(9), 575–579.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. S. (1983). Studying status/roles sets using mass surveys. In R. S. Burt & M. Minor (Eds.), Applied network analysis (pp. 100–118). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. S. (2000). The network structure of social capital. Research in Organizational Behavior, 22, 345–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burt, R. S., & Ronchi, D. (1994). Measuring a large network quickly. Social Networks, 16(2), 91–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, H.-W., & Huang, M.-H. (2014). Cohesive subgroups in the international collaboration network in astronomy and astrophysics. Scientometrics, 101(3), 1587–1607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, R. (1988). Theoretical sociology. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Nooy, W., Mrvar, A., & Batagelj, V. (2005). Exploratory social network analysis with Pajek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. (2012). Förderatlas 2012: Kennzahlen zur öffentlich finanzierten Forschung in Deutschland (Vol. 1). Weinheim: Wiley-VCH Verlag.

  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. (2013). Excellence initiative at a glance: The programme by the German Federal and State Governments to promote top-level research at universities. The second phase 2012–2017: Graduate schools—Clusters of excellence—Institutional strategies (Vol. 5). Bonn: DFG.

  • Doreian, P. (1970). Mathematics and the study of social relations. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duysters, G. M., Hagedoorn, J., & Lemmens, C. E. A. V. (2002). The effect of alliance block membership on innovative performance. Working paper, 02.06. Eindhoven Centre for Innovation Studies.

  • Duysters, G. M., & Lemmens, C. E. A. V. (2002). Cohesive subgroup formation: Enabling and constraining effects of social capital in strategic technology alliance networks. Working paper, 02.07. Eindhoven Centre for Innovation Studies.

  • Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engels, A., Ruschenburg, T., & Zuber, S. (2012). Chancengleichheit in der Spitzenforschung: Institutionelle Erneuerung der Forschung in der Exzellenzinitiative des Bundes und der Länder. In T. Heinze & G. Krücken (Eds.), Institutionelle Erneuerungsfähigkeit der Forschung (pp. 187–217). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Etzkowitz, H., Kemelgor, C., & Uzzi, B. (2000). Athena unbound: The advancement of women in science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2012). She figures 2012: Gender in research and innovation. Luxembourg: EC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, T. S. (2010). Clique graphs and overlapping communities. Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2010(12), 1–21.

  • Everett, M. G., & Borgatti, S. P. (1998). Analyzing clique overlap. Connections, 21(1), 49–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feeney, M. K., & Bernal, M. (2010). Women in STEM networks: Who seeks advice and support from women scientists? Scientometrics, 85(3), 767–790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frank, K. A. (1995). Identifying cohesive subgroups. Social Networks, 17(1), 27–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1(1), 215–239.

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Gargiulo, M., & Benassi, M. (2000). Trapped in your own net? Network cohesion, structural holes, and the adaptation of social capital. Organization Science, 11(2), 183–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gersick, C. J. G., Bartunek, J. M., & Dutton, J. E. (2000). Learning from academia: The importance of relationships in professional life. Academy of Management Journal, 43(6), 1026–1044.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harary, F. (1969). Graph theory. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hennig, M., Brandes, U., Pfeffer, J., & Mergel, I. (2012). Studying social networks: A guide to empirical research. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higley, J., Desley, D., & Smart, D. (1979). Elites in Australia. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higley, J., & Moore, G. (1981). Elite integration in the United States and Australia. The American Political Science Review, 75(3), 581–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holland, P. W., & Leinhardt, S. (1973). The structural implications of measurement error in sociometry. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 3(1), 85–111.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Hollstein, B. (2008). Netzwerke, Akteure und Bedeutungen: Zur Integration qualitativer und quantitativer Verfahren in der Netzwerkforschung. In K.-S. Rehberg (Ed.), Die Natur der Gesellschaft: Verhandlungen des 33. Kongresses der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Soziologie in Kassel 2006 (pp. 3359–3370). Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, D. (2006). Einführung in die Netzwerkanalyse: Grundlagen, Methoden, Forschungsbeispiele (Vol. 3). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, D. (2008). Research networks—Origins and consequences: First evidence from a study of Astrophysics, Nanotechnology and Micro-economics. In M. Albert, D. Schmidtchen, & S. Voigt (Eds.), Scientific competition (pp. 209–230). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jansen, D., von Görtz, R., & Heidler, R. (2010). Knowledge production and the structure of collaboration networks in two scientific fields. Scientometrics, 83(1), 219–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kadushin, C. (1966). The friends and supporters of psychotherapy: On social circles in urban life. American Sociological Review, 31(6), 786–802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kadushin, C. (1968). Power, influence and social circles: A new methodology for studying opinion makers. American Sociological Review, 33(5), 685–699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kilduff, M., & Mehra, A. (1996). Hegemonic masculinity among the elite: Power, identity, and homophily in social networks. In C. Cheng (Ed.), Masculinities in organizations (pp. 115–129). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knoke, D., & Burt, R. S. (1983). Prominence. In R. S. Burt & M. J. Minor (Eds.), Applied network analysis: A methodological introduction (pp. 195–222). Berverly Hills: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knoke, D., & Kuklinski, J. H. (1982). Network analysis (Vol. 1). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kossinets, G. (2006). Effects of missing data in social networks. Social Networks, 28(3), 247–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. D., & Perry, A. D. (1949). A method of matrix analysis of group structure. Pychometrika, 14(2), 95–116.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Maranto, C. L., & Griffin, A. E. C. (2011). The antecedents of a ‘chilly climate’ for women faculty in higher education. Human Relations, 64(2), 139–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mauleón, E., & Bordons, M. (2010). Male and female involvement in patenting activity in Spain. Scientometrics, 83(3), 605–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415–444.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, G. (1979). The structure of a national elite network. American Sociological Review, 44(5), 673–692.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moore, G. (1988). Women in elite positions: Insiders or outsiders? Sociological Forum, 3(4), 566–585.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Padgett, J. F., & Ansell, C. K. (1993). Robust action and the rise of the Medici, 1400–1434. American Journal of Sociology, 98(6), 1259–1319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parker, A., & Arthur, M. B. (2000). Careers, organizing, and community. In M. A. Peiperl, M. B. Arthur, R. Coffee, & T. Morris (Eds.), Career frontiers: New conceptions of working lives (pp. 99–121). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeffer, J. (1985). Organizational demography: Implications for management. California Management Review, 28(1), 67–81.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Podolny, J. M., & Baron, J. N. (1997). Resources and relationships: Social networks and mobility in the workplace. American Sociological Review, 62(5), 673–693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • R, Foundation for Statistical Computing. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R-Foundation for Statistical Computing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robins, G., Pattison, P., & Woolcock, J. (2004). Missing data in networks: Exponential random graph (p*) models for networks with non-respondents. Social Networks, 26(3), 257–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruschenburg, T., Zuber, S., Engels, A., & Beaufaÿs, S. (2011). Frauenanteile in der Exzellenzinitiative: Zu den methodischen Herausforderungen bei der Ermittlung aussagekräftiger Vergleichswerte. Die Hochschule, 2, 161–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Šadl, Z. (2009). ‘We women are no good at it’: Networking in academia. Sociologicky Casopis-Czech Sociological Review, 45(6), 1239–1263.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, B. (1987). The people make the place. Personell Psychology, 40(3), 437–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J. (2013). Social network analysis (Vol. 3). Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simmel, G. (1968). Soziologie: Untersuchungen über die Formen der Vergesellschaftung (Vol. 5). Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.

  • Statistisches Bundesamt. (2012). Bildung und Kultur: Personal an Hochschulen 2011. Wiesbaden: SB.

    Google Scholar 

  • Storey, K., & Provost, N. (1996). The use of clique analysis to assess integration changes in a supported employment setting. Exceptionality: A Special Education Journal, 6(2), 111–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Täube, V. G. (2008). Local social capital in unfolding structures. In U. Serdült, & V. G. Täube (Eds.), Applications of social network analysis (pp. 61–74). Berlin: Wissenschaftlicher Verlag Berlin.

  • Tichy, N. (1973). An analysis of clique formation and structure in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 18(2), 194–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uzzi, B. (1997). The social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(1), 35–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Emmerik, I. H. (2006). Gender differences in the creation of different types of social capital: A multilevel study. Social Networks, 28(1), 24–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, D. J., Shi, X., McFarland, D. A., & Leskovec, J. (2012). Measurement error in network data: A re-classification. Social Networks, 34(4), 396–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Social Sciences, Universität Hamburg, Allende-Platz 1, 20146, Hamburg, Germany

    Nadine V. Kegen

Authors
  1. Nadine V. Kegen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nadine V. Kegen.

Additional information

This thesis is based on a shorter paper presentation at the 8th European Conference on Gender Equality in Higher Education, Vienna (2014).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kegen, N.V. Cohesive subgroups in academic networks: unveiling clique integration of top-level female and male researchers. Scientometrics 103, 897–922 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1572-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1572-z

Keywords

  • Clique analysis
  • Cohesive subgroup
  • Cutting edge research
  • Formal and informal networks
  • Social circle
  • Women in science