Response: Patterns of Contact and Communication in Scientific Research Collaboration

Summary

The authors of this paper talked about their idea that the understanding of the nature of collaborative work relationships can aide in the testing and implementation of technologies to support collaborative research. Through gathering of data from their studies, they argued that the closer a scientist is to another scientist the higher the chances are that the two will collaborate. To systematically assess this claim, they obtain data by looking at the relationship between physical proximity (propinquity) and collaboration among researchers and engineers in a large laboratory. From their sample, they obtained data measuring collaboration (whether each possible pair collaborated on a research project), organizational proximity (being part of the same group, department, laboratory, or none), physical proximity (regarding the nearness of offices), and research similarity. Through this they found that pairs in the same corridor had a higher percent of collaboration compared to other pairs as the pair’s physical distance from each other increases. To explain this, they looked at spatial segregation of similar others and availability of communications which sums up to the closer you are to someone whom you share similarities with, frequent, high quality, and low-cost communication becomes more available, facilitating collaboration. They then proceeded to discuss the implications of their findings for technology for collaborative work having the view that communications technology that allows free-form interaction in real-time substituting for physical proximity are likely to yield great results.

Reflection

I have always thought that the closer you are to someone whom you share similarities with, the higher the chances are that you will work with each other. This paper just solidified that idea. Physical proximity facilitates unconstrained interactions and frequent communications that develop a common interest between neighbors. The authors tested this thoroughly with a sample consisting of a group of people who already authored at least two papers, one with a co-author and another which is either written solo or with a co-author who is not included in the first paper. Another possible test is to create a controlled study where researchers (who do not know each other) are placed in a building randomly and see if collaborations will occur based on proximity or if researches will actually seek out other researchers with similar areas no matter how far they are from each other. Just a personal thought.

Being written in 1988, the year I was born, this paper did not just gave me insight about how proximity promotes collaboration but also gave me deep insight about the communication technologies that are readily available to us now that I usually take for granted. Take for example Skype or other video conferencing tool that provides a relatively low-cost but high quality communication between researchers. Although some may find that current video calls do not substitute for physical proximity and uncomfortable, I believe that our technology has progressed enough and as the authors of the paper believed, communications technology that allows free-form interaction in real-time, such as Skype, Facetime, etc., are yielding great benefits.