Assessing the variety of collaborative practices in translational research: An analysis of scientists’ ego-networks

IF 2.9 4区 管理学 Q1 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
Adrián A. Díaz-Faes, O. Llopis, P. D’Este, J. Molas-Gallart
{"title":"Assessing the variety of collaborative practices in translational research: An analysis of scientists’ ego-networks","authors":"Adrián A. Díaz-Faes, O. Llopis, P. D’Este, J. Molas-Gallart","doi":"10.1093/reseval/rvad003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Translational research policies aim to reshape how biomedical scientists organize, conceive, and conduct science in order to accelerate healthcare improvements and medical innovations. Yet most analyses and evaluations of these initiatives focus on measuring the outputs generated in the different stages of the research process rather than observing scientists’ research practices directly. In this article, we analyze the collaboration networks formed by the biomedical scientists participating in a large translational research initiative. Based on data derived from a large-scale survey, we examine the network configurations established by biomedical scientists to advance their research in the context of the CIBER program—a Spanish flagship initiative aimed at supporting translational research. We adopt an ego-network perspective and draw on three network attributes—network diversity, tie strength, and tie content—to understand how scientists use their interpersonal connections to mobilize tangible and intangible resources and enable the translation of scientific knowledge into practical applications. Our cluster analysis identifies a range of scientist profiles: downstream-oriented scientists, upstream-oriented scientists, and brokering scientists. It shows that the scientists participating in the CIBER program deploy different types of collaborative behavior and engage in a variety of medical innovation activities. This suggests that the results achieved by a research program aimed at supporting collaborative networks will depend on the types of networks in which the participating scientists engage. Consequently, evaluations of these programs need to capture collaboration patterns, and should focus primarily on the collaborative process rather than the outputs that emerge from the collaboration.","PeriodicalId":47668,"journal":{"name":"Research Evaluation","volume":"65 1-2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Evaluation","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvad003","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Translational research policies aim to reshape how biomedical scientists organize, conceive, and conduct science in order to accelerate healthcare improvements and medical innovations. Yet most analyses and evaluations of these initiatives focus on measuring the outputs generated in the different stages of the research process rather than observing scientists’ research practices directly. In this article, we analyze the collaboration networks formed by the biomedical scientists participating in a large translational research initiative. Based on data derived from a large-scale survey, we examine the network configurations established by biomedical scientists to advance their research in the context of the CIBER program—a Spanish flagship initiative aimed at supporting translational research. We adopt an ego-network perspective and draw on three network attributes—network diversity, tie strength, and tie content—to understand how scientists use their interpersonal connections to mobilize tangible and intangible resources and enable the translation of scientific knowledge into practical applications. Our cluster analysis identifies a range of scientist profiles: downstream-oriented scientists, upstream-oriented scientists, and brokering scientists. It shows that the scientists participating in the CIBER program deploy different types of collaborative behavior and engage in a variety of medical innovation activities. This suggests that the results achieved by a research program aimed at supporting collaborative networks will depend on the types of networks in which the participating scientists engage. Consequently, evaluations of these programs need to capture collaboration patterns, and should focus primarily on the collaborative process rather than the outputs that emerge from the collaboration.
评估翻译研究中合作实践的多样性:科学家自我网络分析
转化研究政策旨在重塑生物医学科学家如何组织、构思和开展科学,以加速医疗保健改善和医学创新。然而,对这些计划的大多数分析和评估侧重于衡量在研究过程的不同阶段产生的产出,而不是直接观察科学家的研究实践。在本文中,我们分析了参与大型转化研究计划的生物医学科学家形成的协作网络。基于来自大规模调查的数据,我们研究了生物医学科学家在CIBER项目背景下建立的网络配置,CIBER项目是西班牙旨在支持转化研究的旗舰项目。我们采用自我-网络视角,利用网络多样性、纽带强度和纽带内容这三个网络属性来理解科学家如何利用人际关系调动有形和无形资源,并使科学知识转化为实际应用。我们的聚类分析确定了一系列科学家的概况:面向下游的科学家,面向上游的科学家和中介科学家。研究表明,参与CIBER项目的科学家采用了不同类型的协同行为,参与了多种医学创新活动。这表明,旨在支持协作网络的研究项目所取得的成果将取决于参与的科学家所参与的网络类型。因此,对这些程序的评估需要捕获协作模式,并且应该主要关注协作过程,而不是从协作中产生的输出。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Research Evaluation
Research Evaluation INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
18.20%
发文量
42
期刊介绍: Research Evaluation is a peer-reviewed, international journal. It ranges from the individual research project up to inter-country comparisons of research performance. Research projects, researchers, research centres, and the types of research output are all relevant. It includes public and private sectors, natural and social sciences. The term "evaluation" applies to all stages from priorities and proposals, through the monitoring of on-going projects and programmes, to the use of the results of research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信