TY - JOUR
T1 - Patterns of collaboration in complex networks
T2 - the example of a translational research network
AU - Long, Janet C.
AU - Cunningham, Frances C.
AU - Carswell, Peter
AU - Braithwaite, Jeffrey
N1 - Copyright the Author(s) 2014. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.
PY - 2014/5/20
Y1 - 2014/5/20
N2 - Background: This paper examines collaboration in a complex translational cancer research network (TRN) made up of a range of hospital-based clinicians and university-based researchers. We examine the phenomenon of close-knit and often introspective clusters of people (silos) and test the extent that factors associated with this clustering (geography, profession and past experience) influence patterns of current and future collaboration on TRN projects. Understanding more of these patterns, especially the gaps or barriers between members, will help network leaders to manage subgroups and promote connectivity crucial to efficient network function. Methods. An on-line, whole network survey was used to collect attribute and relationship data from all members of the new TRN based in New South Wales, Australia in early 2012. The 68 members were drawn from six separate hospital and university campuses. Social network analysis with UCInet tested the effects of geographic proximity, profession, past research experience, strength of ties and previous collaborations on past, present and future intended partnering. Results: Geographic proximity and past working relationships both had significant effects on the choice of current collaboration partners. Future intended collaborations included a significant number of weak ties and ties based on other members' reputations implying that the TRN has provided new opportunities for partnership. Professional grouping, a significant barrier discussed in the translational research literature, influenced past collaborations but not current or future collaborations, possibly through the mediation of network brokers. Conclusions: Since geographic proximity is important in the choice of collaborators a dispersed network such as this could consider enhancing cross site interactions by improving virtual communication technology and use, increasing social interactions apart from project related work, and maximising opportunities to meet members from other sites. Key network players have an important brokerage role facilitating linkages between groups.
AB - Background: This paper examines collaboration in a complex translational cancer research network (TRN) made up of a range of hospital-based clinicians and university-based researchers. We examine the phenomenon of close-knit and often introspective clusters of people (silos) and test the extent that factors associated with this clustering (geography, profession and past experience) influence patterns of current and future collaboration on TRN projects. Understanding more of these patterns, especially the gaps or barriers between members, will help network leaders to manage subgroups and promote connectivity crucial to efficient network function. Methods. An on-line, whole network survey was used to collect attribute and relationship data from all members of the new TRN based in New South Wales, Australia in early 2012. The 68 members were drawn from six separate hospital and university campuses. Social network analysis with UCInet tested the effects of geographic proximity, profession, past research experience, strength of ties and previous collaborations on past, present and future intended partnering. Results: Geographic proximity and past working relationships both had significant effects on the choice of current collaboration partners. Future intended collaborations included a significant number of weak ties and ties based on other members' reputations implying that the TRN has provided new opportunities for partnership. Professional grouping, a significant barrier discussed in the translational research literature, influenced past collaborations but not current or future collaborations, possibly through the mediation of network brokers. Conclusions: Since geographic proximity is important in the choice of collaborators a dispersed network such as this could consider enhancing cross site interactions by improving virtual communication technology and use, increasing social interactions apart from project related work, and maximising opportunities to meet members from other sites. Key network players have an important brokerage role facilitating linkages between groups.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84901590524&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://purl.org/au-research/grants/arc/DP0986493
U2 - 10.1186/1472-6963-14-225
DO - 10.1186/1472-6963-14-225
M3 - Article
C2 - 24885971
AN - SCOPUS:84901590524
SN - 1472-6963
VL - 14
SP - 1
EP - 10
JO - BMC Health Services Research
JF - BMC Health Services Research
M1 - 225
ER -