Cargando…

Patterns of collaboration in complex networks: the example of a translational research network

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Long, Janet C, Cunningham, Frances C, Carswell, Peter, Braithwaite, Jeffrey
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4033678/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24885971
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-225
_version_ 1782317861837996032
author Long, Janet C
Cunningham, Frances C
Carswell, Peter
Braithwaite, Jeffrey
author_facet Long, Janet C
Cunningham, Frances C
Carswell, Peter
Braithwaite, Jeffrey
author_sort Long, Janet C
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4033678
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-40336782014-05-27 Patterns of collaboration in complex networks: the example of a translational research network Long, Janet C Cunningham, Frances C Carswell, Peter Braithwaite, Jeffrey BMC Health Serv Res Research Article 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. BioMed Central 2014-05-20 /pmc/articles/PMC4033678/ /pubmed/24885971 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-225 Text en Copyright © 2014 Long et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Long, Janet C
Cunningham, Frances C
Carswell, Peter
Braithwaite, Jeffrey
Patterns of collaboration in complex networks: the example of a translational research network
title Patterns of collaboration in complex networks: the example of a translational research network
title_full Patterns of collaboration in complex networks: the example of a translational research network
title_fullStr Patterns of collaboration in complex networks: the example of a translational research network
title_full_unstemmed Patterns of collaboration in complex networks: the example of a translational research network
title_short Patterns of collaboration in complex networks: the example of a translational research network
title_sort patterns of collaboration in complex networks: the example of a translational research network
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4033678/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24885971
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-225
work_keys_str_mv AT longjanetc patternsofcollaborationincomplexnetworkstheexampleofatranslationalresearchnetwork
AT cunninghamfrancesc patternsofcollaborationincomplexnetworkstheexampleofatranslationalresearchnetwork
AT carswellpeter patternsofcollaborationincomplexnetworkstheexampleofatranslationalresearchnetwork
AT braithwaitejeffrey patternsofcollaborationincomplexnetworkstheexampleofatranslationalresearchnetwork