IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v42y2015i4p567-582..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Research collaboration in the social sciences: What factors are associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary collaboration?

Author

Listed:
  • Richard Woolley
  • Mabel Sánchez-Barrioluengo
  • Tim Turpin
  • Jane Marceau

Abstract

Attention is increasingly directed toward better understanding the factors driving collaborations among researchers, particularly between researchers from different disciplinary backgrounds. This study investigates factors associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary research collaboration in the social sciences. We utilize data from a survey of Australian-based social scientists. Interdisciplinary collaboration constitutes a considerable proportion of social scientists’ collaboration activity. Factors linked to the duration and diversity of research careers are positively associated with participation in collaborations. Job experience in Australian and foreign universities also boosts total collaboration, while holding an international citizenship increases interdisciplinary collaboration. Interdisciplinary collaborations are also associated with researcher orientation toward applied research activity. Investment in social science research is important for maintaining existing interdisciplinary and applied collaborations, although better information on these collaborations is desirable. Measures to expand such collaborations should take career stage into account. Broad-based population policies may also be an important underlying factor supporting international collaboration.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard Woolley & Mabel Sánchez-Barrioluengo & Tim Turpin & Jane Marceau, 2015. "Research collaboration in the social sciences: What factors are associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary collaboration?," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 42(4), pages 567-582.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:42:y:2015:i:4:p:567-582.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scu074
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Productivity Commission, 2007. "Public Support for Science and Innovation," Research Reports, Productivity Commission, Government of Australia, number 24.
    2. Dominique Vinck, 2010. "The Sociology of Scientific Work," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13832.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hugo Horta & Shihui Feng & João M. Santos, 2022. "Homophily in higher education research: a perspective based on co-authorships," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(1), pages 523-543, January.
    2. Zuo, Zhiya & Zhao, Kang, 2018. "The more multidisciplinary the better? – The prevalence and interdisciplinarity of research collaborations in multidisciplinary institutions," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(3), pages 736-756.
    3. Shogo Katoh & Rick (H.L.) Aalbers & Shintaro Sengoku, 2021. "Effects and Interactions of Researcher’s Motivation and Personality in Promoting Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-19, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dodgson, Mark & Hughes, Alan & Foster, John & Metcalfe, Stan, 2011. "Systems thinking, market failure, and the development of innovation policy: The case of Australia," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(9), pages 1145-1156.
    2. Morgan, Steve & McMahon, Meghan & Greyson, Devon, 2008. "Balancing health and industrial policy objectives in the pharmaceutical sector: Lessons from Australia," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 87(2), pages 133-145, August.
    3. Mark Rogers, 2010. "R&D and productivity: using UK firm-level data to inform policy," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 37(3), pages 329-359, July.
    4. Aurélie Delemarle & Philippe Larédo, 2014. "Governing radical change through the emergence of a governance arrangement," Post-Print hal-01273361, HAL.
    5. Gilding, Michael & Brennecke, Julia & Bunton, Vikki & Lusher, Dean & Molloy, Peter L. & Codoreanu, Alex, 2020. "Network failure: Biotechnology firms, clusters and collaborations far from the world superclusters," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(2).
    6. Kingwell, Ross, 2018. "The Rationale for Taxpayer Support for Primary Industry Research and Innovation in Western Australia," Working Papers 274837, University of Western Australia, School of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    7. Kutschukian, Jean-Marc, 2008. "A Framework For The Economic Evaluation Of Environmental Science," 2008 Conference (52nd), February 5-8, 2008, Canberra, Australia 6026, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    8. Siri Terjesen & Jolanda Hessels, 2009. "Varieties of export-oriented entrepreneurship in Asia," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 537-561, September.
    9. Russell Thomson & Elizabeth Webster, 2012. "The Design of R & D Support Schemes for Industry," Economic Papers, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 31(4), pages 464-477, December.
    10. Molas-Gallart, Jordi & Woolley, Richard, 2022. "Research impact seen from the user side," INGENIO (CSIC-UPV) Working Paper Series 202201, INGENIO (CSIC-UPV).
    11. Mullen, John D., 2012. "Public investment in agricultural research and development in Australia remains a sensible policy option," AFBM Journal, Australasian Farm Business Management Network, vol. 8(2), pages 1-11, April.
    12. J. Paul Elhorst & Katarina Zigova, 2011. "Evidence of Competition in Research Activity among Economic Department using Spatial Econometric Techniques," Working Paper Series of the Department of Economics, University of Konstanz 2011-04, Department of Economics, University of Konstanz.
    13. Anderson, Kym & Lattimore, Ralph G. & Lloyd, Peter J. & MacLaren, Donald, 2007. "Distortions to Agricultural Incentives in Australia and New Zealand," 2007 Conference (51st), February 13-16, 2007, Queenstown, New Zealand 10407, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society.
    14. Anderson, Kym & de Nicola, Francesca & Jara, Esteban & Kurzweil, Marianne & Sandri, Damiano & Valenzuela, Ernesto, 2007. "Distortions in farmer prices since 1950s: South Africa in international perspective," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 46(4), pages 1-33, December.
    15. Sinnewe, Elisabeth & Charles, Michael B. & Keast, Robyn, 2016. "Australia's Cooperative Research Centre Program: A transaction cost theory perspective," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 195-204.
    16. Alston, Julian M. & Pardey, Philip G. & Ruttan, Vernon W., 2008. "Research Lags Revisited: Concepts and Evidence from U.S. Agriculture," Staff Papers 50091, University of Minnesota, Department of Applied Economics.
    17. Simpson, S. & Dargusch, P., 2010. "Classifying public benefit in Australian agricultural research," Australasian Agribusiness Review, University of Melbourne, Department of Agriculture and Food Systems, vol. 18, pages 1-13.
    18. Evans, Shane, 2010. "Innovation contracts with leakage through licensing," Working Papers 10282, University of Tasmania, Tasmanian School of Business and Economics, revised 05 Oct 2010.
    19. Fernando Jiménez-Sáez & Jon Mikel Zabala-Iturriagagoitia & Jose Luis Zofío, 2013. "Who leads research productivity growth? Guidelines for R&D policy-makers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(1), pages 273-303, January.
    20. Ralph Lattimore & Clinton Pobke, 2008. "Recent Trends in Australian Fertility," Staff Working Papers 0806, Productivity Commission, Government of Australia.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:42:y:2015:i:4:p:567-582.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.