The development and successful implementation of R&D policies depends on understanding patterns of scientific collaboration (SC). Existing studies on SC typically focus on the individual level, despite SC occurring on many interdependent social levels. Therefore, this paper provides a simultaneous insight into SC patterns among researchers (individual level) and among organizations (organizational level) in the social sciences. SC on the individual level is operationalized by co-authorship of a scientific paper whereas two organizations are said to collaborate if they share a research project. Based on data for the period 2006–2015 retrieved from Slovenian national information systems, two-level collaboration networks were formed with respect to researchers in the social sciences field. These networks were analyzed using a k-means-based blockmodeling approach for linked networks. The results show a high level of interdisciplinary SC and a large organizational impact on individual collaborations. On the individual level, a structure with several cohesive clusters and a semi-periphery appears while, on the organizational level, a kind a core–periphery structure emerges in which both the core and periphery can be split into several clusters. The most surprising result indicates that SC on the level of organizations is often not reflected in common published scientific papers on the individual level (and vice versa).
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Data are based on publicly available data in the SICRIS and COBISS systems run by the Institute of Information Science and the Slovenian Research Agency. The data are available at http://www2.arnes.si/~aziber4/blockmodeling/SCtwoLevelKmeans/.
The two-level blockmodeling approach was applied by the “kmBlock” package for the R-programming language. The package is publicly available at https://r-forge.r-project.org/R/?group_id=203. The 0.0.1 version was used. The code is available at http://www2.arnes.si/~aziber4/blockmodeling/SCtwoLevelKmeans/.
The multi-core–semi-periphery–periphery structure was not found only in Slovenia, but also in other counties, i.e., within teaching staff at the Faculty of Humanities and Education Science's Departmenr of Library Science at National University of La Plata in Argentina (Chinchilla-Rodríguez et al. 2012).
Although for the period before political turn in 1990 was characterized by periodical political interferences in the social sciences in Slovenia, the processes of professional autonomy and identity of social scientific disciplines started already in the former one-party political regime. The social scientists early began promoting empirical research rather than just follow official ideology. They introduced many new inquiry objects, branches and disciplines, and carefully cultivated their professional profiles (Kramberger and Mali 2010). The political turn in 1990 certainly improved the position of social sciences in Slovenia concerning their endeavours for a stronger autonomy, a higher professional status and internationalization of research.
If a researcher is assigned to more than one organization in the database, then an organization to which he or she jointed more recently is considered.
Exceptions were found in all studies either in the form of core–periphery structures or as a presence of bridging cores (i.e., clusters of researchers that collaborate with two other clusters of researchers, which do not collaborate).
In innovation theories and practices, regional innovation systems are on the same way as national innovation systems formed by multiple actors (firms, higher education institutions, research and technological centers, local policy decision makers etc.) interacting and giving rise to learning processes and innovations (González-López and Asheim 2020).
Abbasi, A., Altmann, J., & Hossain, L. (2011a). Identifying the effects of co-authorship networks on the performance of scholars: A correlation and regression analysis of performance measures and social network analysis measures. Journal of Informetrics, 5(4), 594–607.
Abbasi, A., Hossain, L., Uddin, S., & Rasmussen, K. J. R. (2011b). Evolutionary dynamics of scientific collaboration networks: Multi-levels and cross-time analysis. Scientometrics, 89(2), 687–710. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-011-0463-1.
Almendral, J. A., Oliveira, J. G., López, L., Mendes, J. F. F., & Sanjuán, M. A. F. (2007). The network of scientific collaborations within the European framework programme. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 384(2), 675–683. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2007.05.049.
Barber, M. J., Fischer, M. M., & Scherngell, T. (2011). The community structure of research and development cooperation in Europe: Evidence from a social network perspective. Geographical Analysis, 43(4), 415–432.
Barbillon, P., Donnet, S., Lazega, E., & Bar-Hen, A. (2016). Stochastic block models for multiplex networks: An application to a multilevel network of researchers. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 180(1), 295–314. https://doi.org/10.1111/rssa.12193.
Batagelj, V. (2020). On fractional approach to analysis of linked networks. Scientometrics, 123(2), 621–633. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03383-y.
Beaver, D. D. (2004). Does collaborative research have greater epistemic authority? Scientometrics, 60(3), 399–408. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SCIE.0000034382.85360.cd.
Borgatti, S. P., & Everett, M. G. (1992). Notions of position in social network analysis. Sociological Methodology, 22(1), 1–35.
Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Ferligoj, A., Miguel, S., Kronegger, L., & de Moya-Anegón, F. (2012). Blockmodeling of co-authorship networks in library and information science in Argentina: A case study. Scientometrics, 93(3), 699–717.
Cugmas, M., Ferligoj, A., & Kronegger, L. (2016). The stability of co-authorship structures. Scientometrics, 106(1), 163–186.
de Solla Price, D. J. (1963). Little science, big science (Vol. 5). New York: Columbia University Press.
Demšar, F., & Boh, T. (2008). Uvajanje načel transparentnost v delo javne uprave: Primer Javne agencije za raziskovalno dejavnost Republike Slovenije. Družboslovne Razprave, 24(58), 89–105.
Doreian, P., Batagelj, V., & Ferligoj, A. (2005). Generalized blockmodeling (Vol. 25). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ferligoj, A., & Kronegger, L. (2009). Clustering of attribute and/or relational data. Metodološki Zvezki (Advances in Methodology and Statistics), 6(2), 135–153.
Frenken, K., Hölzl, W., & de Vor, F. (2005). The citation impact of research collaborations: The case of European biotechnology and applied microbiology (1988–2002). Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 22(1), 9–30.
Garas, A., & Argyrakis, P. (2008). A network approach for the scientific collaboration in the European Framework Programs. EPL (Europhysics Letters), 84(6), 68005. https://doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/84/68005.
Gazni, A., Sugimoto, C. R., & Didegah, F. (2012). Mapping world scientific collaboration: Authors, institutions, and countries. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(2), 323–335. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.21688.
González-López, M., & Asheim, B. T. (2020). Introduction: Regional innovation systems and regional innovation policies. In Regions and innovation policies in Europe (pp. 1–11). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Accessed June 22, 2020.
Groboljsek, B., Ferligoj, A., Mali, F., Kronegger, L., & Iglic, H. (2014). The role and significance of scientific collaboration for the new emerging sciences: The case of Slovenia. Teorija in Praksa, 51(5), 866–885.
Hackett, E. J., Parker, J. N., Vermeulen, N., & Penders, B. (2016). The social and epistemic organization of scientific work. In U. Felt, R. FouchÃ, C. A. Miller, & L. Smith-Doerr (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (4th ed., pp. 733–764). Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Hara, N., Solomon, P., Kim, S.-L., & Sonnenwald, D. H. (2003). An emerging view of scientific collaboration: Scientists’ perspectives on collaboration and factors that impact collaboration. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(10), 952–965. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.10291.
Hollis, A. (2001). Co-authorship and the output of academic economists. Labour Economics, 8(4), 503–530.
Karlovčec, M., & Mladenić, D. (2015). Interdisciplinarity of scientific fields and its evolution based on graph of project collaboration and co-authoring. Scientometrics, 102(1), 433–454.
Katerndahl, D. (2012). Co-evolution of departmental research collaboration and scholarly outcomes. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 18(6), 1241–1247. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2012.01881.x.
Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18.
Kim, D. H., & Bak, H.-J. (2017). Incentivizing research collaboration using performance-based reward systems. Science and Public Policy, 44(2), 186–198.
Kramberger, A., & Mali, F. (2010). 12 An evaluation system of the science and international orientation of social scientists. Internationalisation of Social Sciences in Central and Eastern Europe: The’catching Up’: A Myth or a Strategy?, 13, 192.
Kronegger, L., Ferligoj, A., & Doreian, P. (2011). On the dynamics of national scientific systems. Quality & Quantity, 45(5), 989–1015.
Kronegger, L., Mali, F., Ferligoj, A., & Doreian, P. (2012). Collaboration structures in Slovenian scientific communities. Scientometrics, 90(2), 631–647.
Larivière, V., Gingras, Y., & Archambault, É. (2006). Canadian collaboration networks: A comparative analysis of the natural sciences, social sciences and the humanities. Scientometrics, 68(3), 519–533. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-006-0127-8.
Laudel, G. (2002). What do we measure by co-authorship? Research Evaluation, 11(1), 3–15.
Lazega, E., Jourda, M.-T., & Mounier, L. (2013). Network lift from dual alters: Extended opportunity structures from a multilevel and structural perspective. European Sociological Review, 29(6), 1226–1238. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jct002.
Lazega, E., Jourda, M.-T., Mounier, L., & Stofer, R. (2008). Catching up with big fish in the big pond? Multi-level network analysis through linked design. Social Networks, 30(2), 159–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2008.02.001.
Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 673–702.
Mali, F. (2013). Why an unbiased external R&D evaluation system is important for the progress of social sciences: The case of a small social science community. Social Sciences, 2(4), 284–297.
Mali, F., Kronegger, L., Doreian, P., & Ferligoj, A. (2012). Dynamic scientific co-authorship networks. In A. Scharnhorst, K. Börner, & P. van den Besselaar (Eds.), Models of science dynamics: Encounters between complexity theory and information sciences (pp. 195–232). Berlin: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23068-4_6.
Mali, F., Kronegger, L., & Ferligoj, A. (2010). Co-authorship trends and collaboration patterns in the Slovenian sociological community. Corvinus Journal of Sociology and Social Policy (CJSSP), 1(2), 29–50.
Mali, F., Pustovrh, T., Cugmas, M., & Ferligoj, A. (2018). The personal factors in scientific collaboration: Views held by Slovenian researchers. Corvinus Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 9(2), 3–24.
Mali, F., Pustovrh, T., Platinovšek, R., Kronegger, L., & Ferligoj, A. (2017). The effects of funding and co-authorship on research performance in a small scientific community. Science and Public Policy, 44(4), 486–496.
Nordlund, C., & Žiberna, A. (2020). Blockmodeling of valued networks. In P. Doreian, V. Batagelj, & A. Ferligoj (Eds.), Advances in network clustering and blockmodeling (pp. 151–187). New York: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119483298.ch6.
Pálné, K., & Kusar, D. (2010). Internationalisation of social sciences in Central and Eastern Europe: The “catching up”—A myth or a strategy?. London, New York: Routledge.
Perc, M. (2010). Growth and structure of Slovenia’s scientific collaboration network. Journal of Informetrics, 4(4), 475–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2010.04.003.
Price, D. J., & Beaver, D. D. (1966). Collaboration in an invisible college. The American Psychologist, 21(11), 1011–1018. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0024051.
Rogers, J. D., Bozeman, B., & Chompalov, I. (2001). Obstacles and opportunities in the application of network analysis to the evaluation of R&D. Research Evaluation, 10(3), 161–172.
Shrum, W., Genuth, J., Carlson, W. B., Chompalov, I., & Bijker, W. E. (2007). Structures of scientific collaboration. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Shrum, W., & Mullins, N. (1988). Network analysis in the study of science and technology. In A. F. J. van Raan (Ed.), Handbook of quantitative studies of science and technology (pp. 107–133). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Snijders, T. (2017). Stochastic actor-oriented models for network dynamics. Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application, 4(1), 343–363. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-statistics-060116-054035.
Sonnenwald, D. H. (2007). Scientific collaboration. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41(1), 643–681.
Thijs, B., & Glänzel, W. (2010). A structural analysis of collaboration between European research institutes. Research Evaluation, 19(1), 55–65. https://doi.org/10.3152/095820210X492486.
Uradni list. (2008). Javni poziv za predlaganje kandidatov za mentorje novim mladim raziskovalcem za leto 2009 in javni razpis za (so)financiranje raziskovalnih projektov za leto 2009: razpis in poziv v 2008 ; Št. 430-63/2008/2 Ob-6796/08. Uradni list, 79: 2763.
Wang, P., Robins, G., Pattison, P., & Lazega, E. (2013). Exponential random graph models for multilevel networks. Social Networks, 35(1), 96–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2013.01.004.
Wang, P., Robins, G., Pattison, P., & Lazega, E. (2016). Social selection models for multilevel networks. Social Networks, 44, 346–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2014.12.003.
Whitley, R., & Glaeser, J. (2007). The changing governance of the sciences. In P. Weingart (Ed.), Sociology of the sciences yearbook. Dordrecht: Springer.
Žiberna, A. (2014). Blockmodeling of multilevel networks. Social Networks, 39(1), 46–61.
Žiberna, A. (2020). k-means-based algorithm for blockmodeling linked networks. Social Networks, 61(1), 153–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2019.10.006.
Žiberna, A., & Lazega, E. (2016). Role sets and division of work at two levels of collective agency: The case of blockmodeling a multilevel (inter-individual and inter-organizational) network. In E. Lazega & T. Snijders (Eds.), Multilevel network analysis for the social sciences (pp. 173–209). New York: Springer.
Ziman, J. (2002). Real science: What it is and what it means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
We thank the anonymous reviewer for their valuable comments on the manuscript. We also thank Dr. Luka Kronegger who assisted us with helpful advice on the data acquisition.
This research was financially supported by the Slovenian Research Agency (www.arrs.gov.si) within the research program P5-0168 and the research project J7-8279 (Blockmodeling multilevel and temporal networks).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
About this article
Cite this article
Cugmas, M., Mali, F. & Žiberna, A. Scientific collaboration of researchers and organizations: a two-level blockmodeling approach. Scientometrics 125, 2471–2489 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03708-x
- Social networks
- Scientific collaboration
- Multilevel networks
- Co-authorship networks