An exploratory social network analysis of academic research networks

For several decades, academics around the world have been collaborating with the view to support the development of their research domain. Having said that, the majority of scientific and technological policies try to encourage the creation of strong inter-related research groups in order to improve the efficiency of research outcomes and subsequently research funding allocation. In this paper, we attempt to highlight and thus, to demonstrate how these collaborative networks are developing in practice. To achieve this, we have developed an automated tool for extracting data about joint article publications and analyzing them from the perspective of social network analysis. In this case study, we have limited data from works published in 2010 by England academic and research institutions. The outcomes of this work can help policy makers in realising the current status of research collaborative networks in England

Mechanisms of collaboration between creative small, medium and micro-sized enterprises and higher education institutions: reflections on the Creativeworks London Creative Voucher scheme

This research was supported by the Arts and Humanities Research Council [grant Number AH/J005142/1].This research was supported by the Arts and Humanities Research Council [grant Number AH/J005142/1].This research was supported by the Arts and Humanities Research Council [grant Number AH/J005142/1].According to the literature, university-industry collaborations are far from straightforward. This paper adds to this work by looking at how the process of collaboration has fared between higher education institutions (HEIs) and small, medium and micro-sized enterprises (SMEs) in the creative and cultural industries (CCI). It does this by looking at the preliminary findings of Creativeworks London’s (CWL) Creative Voucher Scheme. The findings emerged from an analysis of application data, ex post project final reports and interview data. The results to date show that: first, past experience in university – industry collaborations is tremendously beneficial to the success of the collaboration ; second, the creative industries engages with a number of different actors that speak different collaborative languages, actors are needed that are able to communicate at multiple levels at once; third, the collaborative process is not simply a dualistic one between university and industry but multi-layered involving a number of knowledge brokers in different positions in-between and at the interstices of these organizational structures; fourth, administrative expediency with regards to implementing these voucher schemes varies from university to university which point to potentially large departmental differences that can affect the intended collaborations; and fifth, there needs to be a managing of expectations and a balancing of different incentives when it comes to negotiating the outcome of these collaborations since university and industry move at different speeds and value different things

Trading Zones of Digital History

Will historians become programmers? How do historians collaborate with experts from computational domains? At the centre of the book is the question how historians are affected by such ongoing interactions. By following historians and studying digital history collaborations, Kemman critically discusses how digital history will impact historical scholarship

Seeking social capital and expertise in a newly-formed research community: a co-author analysis

This exploratory study applies social network analysis techniques to existing, publicly available data to understand collaboration patterns within the co-author network of a federally-funded, interdisciplinary research program. The central questions asked: What underlying social capital structures can be determined about a group of researchers from bibliometric data and other publicly available existing data? What are ways social network tools characterize the interdisciplinarity or cross-disciplinarity of co-author teams? The names of 411 grantees were searched in the Web of Science indexing database; author information from the WoS search results resulted in a 191-member co-author network. Research domains were included as attribute data for the co-author network. UCINet social network analysis software calculated a large 60 node component and two larger components with 12 and 8 nodes respectively, the remainder of the network consisted of smaller 2-5 node components. Within the 191-node co-author network the following analyses were performed to learn more about the structural social capital of this group: Degree and Eigenvector centrality measures, brokerage measures, and constraint measures. Additionally, ten randomly selected dyads and the five 4-node cliques within the 191-node network were examined to find patterns of cross-disciplinary collaboration among researcher and within award teams. Award numbers were added as attribute data to five 4-node cliques and 10 random dyads; these showed instances of collaboration among interdisciplinary award teams. Collaboration patterns across disciplines are discussed. Data from this research could serve as a baseline measure for growth in future analyses of the case studied. This method is recommended as a tool to gain insights to a research community and to track publication collaboration growth over time. This research method shows potential as a way to identify aspects of a research community’s social structural capital, particularly within an interdisciplinary network to highlight where researchers are working well together or to learn where there is little collaboration

The humanities value chain: a framework for knowledge transfer in the modern university

The research described in this thesis presents a body of material generated over four years of close observation of research and knowledge transfer practices in one Russell Group university institution. It attempts to contextualise knowledge transfer (hereafter KT) within the arts and humanities environment, as well as situate learning about the reception and adoption of KT with reference to the individual scholar and the organisation in which they operate. Within this context, little has been written explicitly about the character of the arts and humanities, and particularly the historical antecedence of the disciplines and their close relationship to current KT challenges. In the early chapters of the thesis we address the growing interest in KT specific language, the key words that have become landmarks in the extension of the ‘Two Cultures’ debate. In defining some of the parameters by which KT has come to be recognised, we also begin to signal changes in both the lexicon and landscape in which KT has evolved. We suggest that both the institution and their academic inhabitants play an intrinsic part in this evolution, framed by both the political and scholarly tensions of the time. In the latter part of the thesis there is a distinct shift in emphasis from the foundations of the KT debate, to its current inflections at a more grass roots level within the academic institution. We frame this shift in the context of the key investor in research within these disciplines and suggest that the Arts and Humanities Research Council is equally challenged to articulate and underpin the adoption of KT and its impacts at the heart of academic practice. In order that we might better animate how these practices are emerging, we observe one particular case study that lays down a possible framework for closer observation of KT in what we term the ‘Humanities Value Chain’. In focusing on a collection of players connected in the successful pursuit of collaborative research, we attempt to uncover a the perspective of individuals within the institution and the way in which organisations might support or hinder their pursuit of KT based research. In concluding the thesis we suggest that the culmination of this knowledge might offer a useful framework for considering how KT occurs in arts and humanities led teams, and at the same time how 3 it might act as a possible tool from which KT players and practices might be better observed. In presenting a possible framework for consideration, we suggest that the current preoccupation with impacts might at the same time be better understood by observing more closely the roles researchers play during the collaborative research process

Trading Zones of Digital History

Will historians become programmers? How do historians collaborate with experts from computational domains? At the centre of the book is the question how historians are affected by such ongoing interactions. By following historians and studying digital history collaborations, Kemman critically discusses how digital history will impact historical scholarship

Understanding the structure and role of academics' ego-networks on social networking sites

Academic social networking sites (SNS) seek to bring the benefits of online networking to an academic audience. Currently, the two largest sites are Academia.edu and ResearchGate. The ability to make connections to others is a defining affordance of SNS, but what are the characteristics of the network structures being facilitated by academic SNS, and how does this relate to their professional use by academics? This study addressed this question through mixed methods social network analysis. First, an online survey was conducted to gain contextual data and recruit participants (n = 528). Second, ego-networks were drawn up for a sub-sample of 55 academics (reflecting a range of job positions and disciplines). Ego-networks were sampled from an academic SNS and Twitter for each participant. Third, co-interpretive interviews were held with 18 participants, to understand the significance of the structures and how the networks were constructed. Academic SNS networks were smaller and more highly clustered; Twitter networks were larger and more diffuse. Communities within networks are more frequently defined by institutions and research interests on academic SNS, compared to research topics and personal interests on Twitter. Emerging themes link network structure to differences in how academics conceptualise and use the sites. Academic SNS are regarded as a more formal academic identity, akin to a business card, or used as a personal repository. Twitter is viewed as a space where personal and professional are mixed, similar to a conference coffee break. Academic SNS replicate existing professional connections, Twitter reinforces existing professional relationships and fosters novel connections. Several strategies underpinning academics’ use of the sites were identified, including: circumventing institutional constraints; extending academic space; finding a niche; promotion and impact; and academic freedom. These themes also provide a bridge between academic identity development online and formal academic identity and institutional roles

Interdisciplinary researchers attain better long-term funding performance

9 pages, 4 figures9 pages, 4 figures9 pages, 4 figures9 pages, 4 figures9 pages, 4 figure

HCI as an inter-discipline

This paper responds to a 2014 paper by Liu et al seeking a quantifiable thematic core to CHI. As an alternative, I argue that CHI should strategically avoid the search for such a core, instead seeking its identity as a mode of responding and contributing to other disciplines.This is the author accepted manuscript. The final version is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2702613.273250