Response: Patterns of Contact and Communication in Scientific Research Collaboration

Problem Addressed and Motivation

Expanding scientific research and collaboration (or the potential for it). It is noted that physical proximity plays a vital role in facilitating research and collaboration, however, when it does not exist, how can it be emulated? Emulating the sensory components of collaboration can facilitate research that is done across continents and can even further enhance face-to-face communications

Research Approach and Evaluation

The approach this research took was to perform a variety of methods. They are as follows:

Phone Interview: This was done with a variety of research collaborators in social psychology, computer science, to name a few. The interviews were 1 hour and about how a previous collaboration they did came about.

Survey Study: Psychologists described their production and evaluations of samples of work they had previously published. This data was later used to examine similarity in research (and collaboration).

Archival Study: Various information (e.g. organizational and geographic) were used to predict who would work with whom in a large research and development organization.

Results:

The primary result of the research showed, that the physical closeness of researchers played a major role in fostering communication and ultimately cross-disciplinary research and collaboration.

Contribution

With the understanding that physical proximity was a major role in fostering collaboration, it was further examined that the communication that occurred during this process changed as collaboration itself changed. These changes are highlighted as follows:

I. Informality: Informal communication is key in the initial stages of collaboration. It allows for fostering of new ideas and allows potential collaborators to find mutual benefit and intellectual compatibility.

II. Quality: The quality of communication is significantly higher if more than 1 sensory input is involved. Quality is important during the initial stages of collaboration (and throughout the collaboration as well).

III. Cost: Given that much collaboration occurs over a distance nowadays, this can be costly. This can be problematic in later stages of collaboration and overall. The key is to allow for collaborations that involve multiple sensory inputs, which itself is costly as well.

Overall, the goal of collaborations should be increased frequency in communications, and minimal cost. In cases where physical proximity is limited, virtual proximity can be used.

My thoughts:

This paper was interesting because it highlighted something that I think has been missing in technology recently. That is, face to face communication. With the rise of Facebook/E-Mail/Text messaging, the traditional type of communication is now somewhat limited. But these services also highlight the increasing need for rapid communication. A majority of the worlds population has Internet, and the types of communication that occurs now can be mind blowing. But this rapid expansion should NOT replace physical interactions. To me, this paper highlights this point, despite it being dated.