Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Scientific collaboration and team science: a social network analysis of the centers for population health and health disparities

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Translational Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

The past decade has seen dramatic shifts in the way that scientific research is conducted as networks, consortia, and large research centers are funded as transdisciplinary, team-based enterprises to tackle complex scientific questions. Key investigators (N = 167) involved in ten health disparities research centers completed a baseline social network and collaboration readiness survey. Collaborative ties existed primarily between investigators from the same center, with just 7 % of ties occurring across different centers. Grants and work groups were the most common types of ties between investigators, with shared presentations the most common tie across different centers. Transdisciplinary research orientation was associated with network position and reciprocity. Center directors/leaders were significantly more likely to form ties with investigators in other roles, such as statisticians and trainees. Understanding research collaboration networks can help to more effectively design and manage future team-based research, as well as pinpoint potential issues and continuous evaluation of existing efforts.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Adler NE, Rehkopf DH. U.S. disparities in health: descriptions, causes, and mechanisms. Annu Rev Public Health. 2008; 29: 235-252.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Aram JD, Morgan CP, Esbeck ES. Relation of collaborative interpersonal relationships to individual satisfaction and organizational performance. Adm Sci Q. 1971; 16(3): 289-297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Borgatti SP, Everett MG, Freeman LC. UCINET for Windows: software for social network analysis. Harvard: Analytic Technologies; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Borgatti SP, Mehra A, Brass DJ, et al. Network analysis in the social sciences. Science. 2009; 323(5916): 892-895.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bozeman B, Fay D, Slade CP. Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: the state-of-the-art. J Technol Transfer. 2013; 38: 1-67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Contractor NS, Monge PR. Managing knowledge networks. Manag Commun Q. 2002; 16: 249-258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Croyle RT. The National Cancer Institute’s transdisciplinary centers initiatives and the need for building a science of team science. Am J Prev Med. 2008; 35(2): S90-S93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Grimwade A, Park P. How they measure up: scientific institutions. The Scientist. 2003; 17(20): 17.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Hall KL, Stokols D, Moser RP, et al. The collaboration readiness of transdisciplinary research teams and centers: findings from the National Cancer Institute’s TREC year-one evaluation study. Am J Prev Med. 2008; 35(2): S161-S172.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hall KL, Stokols D, Stipelman BA, et al. Assessing the value of team science: a study comparing center- and investigator-initiated grants. Am J Prev Med. 2012; 42(2): 157-163.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Handcock, M.S., Hunter, D.R., Butts, C.T., Goodreau, S.M., Morris, M. statnet: software tools for the statistical modeling of network data 2003. URL http://statnetproject.org.

  12. Hawe P, Webster C, Shiell A. A glossary of terms for navigating the field of social network analysis. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004; 58(12): 971-975.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hubert LJ, Schulz J. Quadratic assignment as a general data analysis strategy. Br J Math Stat Psychol. 1976; 29: 190-241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hunter, D.R., Handcock, M.S., Butts, C.T., Goodreau, S.M., Morris, M. Ergm: a package to fit, simulate, and diagnose exponential-family models for networks. J Stat Soft. 2008, 24 (3). URL http://www.jstatsoft.org/v24/i03/paper.

  15. Jehn KA. A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Adm Sci Q. 1995; 40: 256-82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Jones BF, Wuchty S, Uzzi B. Multi-university research teams: shifting impact, geography, and stratification in science. Science. 2008; 322: 1259-1262.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Klein JT. Crossing Boundaries: Knowledge, Disciplinarities, and Interdisciplinarities. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Klein JT. Evaluating interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary collaborative research: a review of the state of the art. Am J Prev Med. 2008; 35(2): S116-123.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Krackhardt D. QAP partialling as a test of spuriousness. Soc Networks. 1987; 9: 171-186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Krackhardt D. Predicting networks: nonparametric multiple regression analysis of dyadic data. Soc Networks. 1988; 10: 359-381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Letsky MP, Warner NW, Fiore SM, eds. Macrocognition in Teams: Theories and Methodologies. Farnham: Ashgate; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Marsden PV. Egocentric and sociocentric measures of network centrality. Soc Networks. 2002; 24(4): 407-422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. National Cancer Institute Request for Application (RFA). NIH-supported Centers for Population Health and Health Disparities (CPHHD), 2008. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-CA-09-001.html.

  24. R Development Core Team. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing 2012, Vienna, Austria. URL http://www.R-project.org.

  25. San Martin-Rodriguez L, Beaulieu M-D, D’Amour D, et al. The determinants of successful collaboration: a review of theoretical and empirical studies. Journal of Interprofessional Care. 2005; 19(1): 132-147.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Sargent LD, Waters LE. Careers and academic research collaborations: an inductive process framework for understanding successful collaborations. J Vocat Behav. 2004; 64: 308-319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Scott, J., & Carrington, P.J. (Eds.). The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis. SAGE publications 2011.

  28. StataCorp. Stata statistical software: release 11. College Station: StataCorp LP; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Stipelman B, Feng A, Hall KA, et al. The relationship between collaborative readiness and scientific productivity in the Transdisciplinary Research on Energetics and Cancer (TREC) centers. Ann Behav Med. 2010; 39: S143.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Stokols D, Misra S, Moser RP, et al. The ecology of team science—understanding contextual influences on transdisciplinary collaboration. Am J Prev Med. 2008; 35(2): S96-115.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The CPHHD evaluation working group provided guidance for survey development and implementation and provided feedback and direction on the structure of the manuscript and early drafts. The CPHHD evaluation working group includes the following: Tom Belin (University of California, Los Angeles), Shirley Beresford (University of Washington), Susan Cahn (University of Illinois, Chicago), Jarvis Chen (Harvard University), Luis Falcon (University of Massachusetts Lowell), Darla Fickle (Ohio State University), Dave Flum (University of Washington), Melissa Gorsline (Ohio State University), Tim Johnson (University of Illinois, Chicago), Peter Kaufmann (National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute), Miyong Kim (Johns Hopkins University), Molly Martin (Rush University), Dorrie Rhoades (University of Colorado, Denver), Shobha Srinivasan (National Cancer Institute), Maihan Vu (University of North Carolina), and Richard Warnecke (University of Illinois, Chicago).

The authors would like to thank the CPHHD Steering Committee for feedback on early drafts. The CPHHD Steering Committee includes the following: Alice Ammerman (University of North Carolina), Dedra Buchwald (University of Washington), Lisa Cooper (Johns Hopkins University), Alex Ortega (University of California, Los Angeles), Electra Paskett (Ohio State University), Lynda Powell (Rush University), Beti Thompson (Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center), Katherine Tucker (Northeastern University), Richard Warnecke (University of Illinois, Chicago), and David Williams (Harvard University).

Finally, the authors would also like to thank Shobha Srinivasan and Kara Hall of the National Cancer Institute for guidance on survey development and implementation, analysis, and feedback on early manuscript drafts.

Conflict of interest

Janet Okamoto, the lead author, declares that she has no conflict of interest. The CPHHD evaluation working group is a collection of individuals serving as representatives for each of the ten Centers for Population Health and Health Disparities, NCI, and NHLBI and as a group have no conflicts of interest to report.

Adherence to ethical standards

All procedures were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mayo Clinic, 13400 E. Shea Blvd., Scottsdale, AZ, 85259, USA

    Janet Okamoto PhD

  2. Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Drive, Rockville, MD, 20850, USA

    Janet Okamoto PhD

Authors
  1. Janet Okamoto PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

The Centers for Population Health and Health Disparities Evaluation Working Group

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Janet Okamoto PhD.

Additional information

Implications

Policy: Institutions and funding agencies should offer guidelines and recommended effective practices for research collaboration and develop support mechanisms tailored toward building and sustaining research networks.

Research: More longitudinal studies and development of additional measures of research impact across scientific disciplines are needed in order to more comprehensively assess the value of team-based research.

Practice: Team-based and collaborative research initiatives should focus on creating, supporting, and sustaining mentoring relationships between senior scientists and more junior investigators to ensure a less centralized and more cohesive and connected research collaboration network.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Okamoto, J., The Centers for Population Health and Health Disparities Evaluation Working Group. Scientific collaboration and team science: a social network analysis of the centers for population health and health disparities. Behav. Med. Pract. Policy Res. 5, 12–23 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-014-0280-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-014-0280-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation