NAVEL Gazing: Studying a Networked Scholarly Organization

  • Dimitrina Dimitrova
  • Barry Wellman
  • Anatoliy Gruzd
  • Zack Hayat
  • Guang Ying Mo
  • Diana Mok
  • Thomas Robbins
  • Xiaolin Zhuo
Chapter
Part of the Mathematics in Industry book series (MATHINDUSTRY, volume 18)

Abstract

Many North Americans now work in a global economy where corporations foster networked work – with employees participating in multiple teams and often for multiple purposes – and they do so in networked organizations – whose workers may be physically and organizationally dispersed. We analyze networked workers in one networked scholarly organization: the GRAND Network Centre of Excellence. Drawing on qualitative and social network data, we present our preliminary findings at the early stages of GRAND. Early discussions viewed networked organizations as the antithesis of traditional bureaucratic organizations and expected bureaucratic characteristics such as hierarchy, centralization and formalization to be absent and cross-boundary flows – the hallmark of networked organizations – to be prominent. Our research shows that reality is more complex than the early deductive expectations for networked organizations. The GRAND network is well positioned for cross-boundary flows but they are not yet extensive. In the distributed GRAND network, researchers communicate mostly via now-traditional email although in-person contact is almost as frequent. GRAND is designed with few formal hierarchical differences. Yet hierarchy matters when it comes to communication – researchers in higher positions have higher centrality in communication structures, both GRAND-wide and within projects, suggesting consistent advantages in their communication. Cross-disciplinary exchanges in GRAND are low at the network’s early stages, with little collaboration between Computer Science and Engineering, on the one hand, and Social Sciences and Humanities, on the other. Researchers in Arts and Technology emerge as the most active collaborators in the network both internally and externally. Work within provinces is still the norm.

Keywords

Social Network Analysis Network Organization Closeness Centrality Formal Position Project Member 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank GRAND for its support of its projects – and NAVEL in particular – and Lilia Smale for her editorial help.

References

  1. 1.
    Ahuja, M. K., & Carley, K. M. (1999). Network structure in virtual organizations. Organization Science, 10(6): 741–757.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baker, W. (1992). The network organization in theory and practice. N. Nohria, R. Eccles, eds. Networks and Organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berg, B. L. (2009). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences (7th edition). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Birnholtz, J. (2005). When do researchers collaborate? Toward a model of collaboration propensity in science and engineering research. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Black, J. & Edwards, S. (2000). Emergence of virtual or network organizations: fad or feature. Journal of Organizational Change, 13(6): 567–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bos, N., Gergle, D. Olson, J. & Olson, G. (2001). Being there versus seeing there: trust via video. Proceedings of the CHI 2001 conference, Seattle. http://www.crew.umich.edu/publications.html.
  7. 7.
    Bos, N., Zimmerman, A., Olson, J., Yew, J., Yerkie, J., Dahl, E., & Olson, G. (2008). From shared databases to Communities of Practice: a taxonomy of collaboratories. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(2):318–338.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Breiger, R. (1974). The duality of persons and groups. Social Forces, 53:181–190.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bresnen, M., Edelman, L., Newell, S., Scarbrough, H. & Swana, J. (2003). Social practices and the management of knowledge in project environments. International Journal of Project Management, 21(3):157–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Burt, R., (2010). Neighbor Networks. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cappelli, P., Bassi, L., Katz, H., Knoke, D., Osterman, P., & Useem, M. (1997). Change at Work. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Caruso, D. & Rhoten, D. (2001). Lead, follow, get out of the way: sidestepping the barriers to effective practice of interdisciplinarity. Report for the Hybrid Vigor Institute, http://www.hybridvigor.net/publications.pl?s=interdis%26d=2001.04.30#.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chen, W., Rainie, L, and Wellman, B. (2012). Networked Work. Chapter 7 in L. Rainie and B. Wellman, Networked: The New Social Operating System. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Crane, D. (1972). Invisible Colleges: Diffusion of Knowledge in Scientific Communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Creswell, J. W. and Clark, V. L. P. (2007). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cross, R., Borgatti, S.P., & Parker, A. (2002). Making invisible work visible: using social network analysis to support strategic collaboration. The Network Roundtable at the University of Virginia, https://webapp.comm.virginia.edu/SnaPortal/portals%5C0%5Cmaking_invisible_work_visible.pdf.
  17. 17.
    Cummings, J. & Kiesler, S. (2005). Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Social Studies of Science, 35(5): 703–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dimitrova, D. & Koku, E. (2009). Research communities in context: trust, independence and technology in professional communities. In D. Akoumianakis (Ed.), Virtual community practices and social interactive media: Technology lifecycle and workflow analysis (pp. 352–377), Hershey, PA: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dimitrova, D., & Koku, E. (2010). Managing Collaborative Research Networks: The Dual Life of A Virtual Community of Practice. International Journal of Virtual Communities and Social Networking, 2(4): 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dimitrova, D., Koku, E., Wellman, B., & White, H. (2007). Network Mapping Study. Final Report to the Canadian Water Network of Centres of Excellence.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Florida, R. (2002). The Rise of the Creative Class. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Friedman, T. (2007). The World is Flat. New York : Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Galison, P. & Hevly, B. W. (1992). Big Science: the growth of large-scale research. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hanneman, R. A. & Riddle, M. (2005). Introduction to social network methods. Riverside, CA: University of California, Riverside http://faculty.ucr.edu/textasciitilde~hanneman/nettext/Introduction_to_Social_Network_Methods.pdf.
  25. 25.
    Haythornthwaite, C. & Wellman, B. (1998). Work, friendship and media use for information exchange in a networked organization. Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 49(12): 1101–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Haythornthwaite, C. et al. (2003). Challenges in the practice and study of distributed, interdisciplinary collaboration. GSLIS Technical Report No.: UIUCLIS–2004/1+DKRC, http://www.lis.uiuc.edu/textasciitilde~haythorn/hay_challenges.html.
  27. 27.
    Hey, T., & Trefethen, A. (2008). E-science, cyber-infrastructure, and scholarly communication. In G. Olson, A. Zimmerman, and N. Bos (Eds.), Scientific Collaboration on the Internet (pp. 15–33). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hollingshead, A., & Contractor, N. (2002). New media and organizaing at the group level. In Lievrouw, L. A., & Livingstone, S. M. (Eds). Handbook of new media: Social shaping and consequences of ICTs. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Howley, I., Chaudhuri, S., Kumar, R. and Ros, C. P. (2009). Motivation and collaboration on-line DOI: http://celstec.org/system/files/file/conference_proceedings/aeid2009/papers/paper_243.pdf.
  30. 30.
    Jarvenpaa, S., & Leidner, D. (1999). Communication and trust in global virtual teams. Organization Science, 10(6): 791–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Koku, E., Nazer, N., & Wellman, B. (2001). Netting scholars: online and offline. American Behavioral Scientist, 44(10): 1752–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kollock, P. (1999). The Economies of Online Cooperation: Gifts and Public Goods in Cyberspace. In M. Smith & P. Kollock (Eds.), Communities in Cyberspace. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Krackhardt, D. (1988). Predicting with networks: nonparametric multiple regression analysis of dyadic data. Social Networks. 10 (4): 359–381.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Krackhardt, D. & Stern, R. (1988). Informal networks and organizational crises: an experimental simulation. Social Psychology Quarterly 51(2), 123–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Krebs, V. (2007). Managing the 21st Century Organization. Institute of Human Resources and Information Management, 11(4): 2–8.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mortensen, M., Woolley, A. W., & O’Leary, M. (2007). Conditions Enabling Effective Multiple Team Membership. International Federation for Information Processing Report No. 236.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Negroponte, N. (1995). Being digital. New York: Knopf. Olson, G. & Olson, J. (2003). Mitigating the effects of distance on collaborative intellectual work. Economic Innovation and New Technologies. 12(1): 27–42.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Olson, G. M., & Olson, J. S. (2000). Distance matters. Human Computer Interaction, 15: 139–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Olson, J. S., Olson, G. M., & Cooney, D. (2008). Success factors: Bridging distance in collaboration. In G. M. Olson, A. Zimmerman, & N. Bos (Eds.), Science on the Internet. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Olson, J., Hofer, E., Bos, N., Zimmerman, A., Olson, G. D. Cooney, G., Faniel, I. (2008). A theory of remote scientific collaboration. In G. Olson, A. Zimmerman, and N. Bos (Eds.), Scientific Collaboration on the Internet (pp. 73–99), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Quan-Haase, A., & Wellman, B. (2004). Groups and networks : local virtuality in a high-tech networked organization. Analyse & Kritik, 26(1): 241.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Rafaeli, S., & Ariel, Y. (2008). Online motivational factors: incentives for participation and contribution in Wikipedia. In A. Barak (Ed.), Psychological aspects of cyberspace: Theory, research, applications (pp. 243–267). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Rainie, L. & Wellman, B. (2012). Networked: The New Social Operating System. Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Reichardt, J. & Bornholdt, S. (2006). Statistical mechanics of community detection, Physical Review, 74, 016110.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Rhoten, D. (2003). National Science Foundation BCS-0129573.A multi-method analysis of the social and technical conditions for interdisciplinary collaboration. Report. Hybrid Vigor Institute http://hybridvigor.net/interdis/pubs/hv_pub_interdis-2003.09.29.pdf.
  46. 46.
    Shrum, W., Chompalov, I., & Genuth, J. (2001). Trust, conflict and performance in scientific collaborations. Social Studies of Science, 31(5):681–730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sonnenwald, D. H. (2008). Scientific collaboration. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41(1): 643–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sproull, L., and Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Science, 32(11):1492–1512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Taylor, J. R. (1999). The other side of rationality: socially distributed cognition. Management Communication Quarterly, 13(2):317–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Walters, D., & Buchanan, J. (2001). The new economy, new opportunities and new structures. Management Decision, 39(10): 818–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wasserman, S. & Faust, K. (1994). Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating Communities of Practice. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Wellman, B. & Zhuo, X. (2012). Structural variation in scholarly teams: size, density and centralization. Presented to the International Social Network Conference, Redondo Beach, CA. March.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    White, H., Wellman, B., & Nazer, N. (2004). Does citation reflect social structure? Longitudinal evidence from the ‘Globenet’ interdisciplinary research group. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 55(2): 111–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Wu, L., Lin, C-Y., Aral, S., & Brynjolfsson, E. (2009). Value of social network. Presented to the Winter Information Systems Conference, Salt Lake City, February http://smallblue.research.ibm.com.
  56. 56.
    Zheng, J., Veinott, E., Bos, N., Olson, J. & Olson, G. (2002).Trust without touch: jumpstarting long-distance trust with initial social activities. Proceedings of CHI. New York: ACM Press http://www.crew.umich.edu/publications.html

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dimitrina Dimitrova
    • 1
  • Barry Wellman
    • 1
  • Anatoliy Gruzd
    • 2
  • Zack Hayat
    • 3
  • Guang Ying Mo
    • 1
  • Diana Mok
    • 4
  • Thomas Robbins
    • 5
  • Xiaolin Zhuo
    • 6
  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.School of Information ManagementDalhousie UniversityHalifaxCanada
  3. 3.Faculty of InformationUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  4. 4.Department of GeographyUniversity of Western Ontario, Social Science CentreLondonCanada
  5. 5.Department of Sociology and Social AnthropologyDalhousie UniversityHalifaxCanada
  6. 6.Department of SociologyHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations