1 / 11

The Persistent Puzzle of Scientific Collaboration

Delve into the intricate puzzle of scientific collaboration with insight on trust, conflict, and performance factors. Analyzing the history, sociology, and STS dimensions, this study from 1989 sheds light on the interplay of processes and outcomes in multi-institutional collaborations across various scientific disciplines.

badrani
Télécharger la présentation

The Persistent Puzzle of Scientific Collaboration

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Persistent Puzzle of Scientific Collaboration Wesley Shrum shrum@lsu.edu Sociology

  2. Outline • History, Sociology, & STS • AIP Study • Results on Process & Performance

  3. Sociology of Science • Exchange of Information for Recognition • Individualistic Model • Measurement

  4. AIP Study • 1989 HEP • 53 multi-institutional collaborations • High energy physics, space science, geophysics, CMC, materials science, ground-based astronomy

  5. DIMENSIONS • Formation • Magnitude • Organization • Technology • Performance

  6. Process & Performance • Pre-existing relations do not increase trust • Trust does not improve performance • Conflict does not hurt performance

  7. Trust & Conflict • WHY do people think trust matters? • TRUST inversely related to CONFLICT • Conflict lower when projects • Are Larger • Give Autonomy to Teams • Are less bureaucratic

  8. Performance I • Delays occur when • External advisory committees • Teams have autonomy in the analysis of shared data • Cost Overruns when • Changes in instrumentation • Subcontracting

  9. Performance II • Internal success • Resource uncertainty • Avoid agreements to share data • External success • Large projects • Internationalism

  10. Puzzling Process • Understanding collabs • Technology • Bureaucracy • What kinds of interaction work? • Voluntary • Bureaucratic

  11. Puzzling Performance • Counts don’t work • Managerial & scientific success differ • Internal versus external success • Results versus capacity building

More Related