Academic Productivity:
The Added Value of Friendship
Agrita Kiopa
Doctoral Student
School of Public Policy
Georgia Institute of Technology
D. M. Smith Building, 685 Cherry Street,
Atlanta, GA 30332
akiopa3@gatech.edu
Numbers of productive scientists are small. Few prolific individuals account for most of
the publications while most scientists publish nothing, and men publish more than women (Fox
1983, Maske et al 2003, Ramsden 1994, Sax et al 2002 among others). The literature attributes
this observed inequality in productivity to a range of factors which taken together constitute a
knowledge production function. Scientific knowledge is an outcome of effort, materials,
equipment, skills, and knowledge of discipline-dependent relative proportions (Stephan and
Levine, 1995). A distinct aspect of knowledge production is that no single scientist can supply all
of the arguments directly. Instead, scientists pull these resources from others within and outside
of their institutions. Therefore, ability to mobilize relevant resources also is an input in the
knowledge production function. Bozeman and colleagues (2001) conceptualized knowledge
creation capacity of scientists as S&T Human capital comprised of competences and networks of
professional relationships. While research have documented that personal relationships affect
broad range of individual outcomes, a little is known about the relational mechanisms that allow
individuals to appropriate resources from their networks in general, and in the context of
knowledge production in particular.
What relationships do scientists develop in order to further their productivity and career
advancement? One of the most prevalent relationships in sciences is collaboration. Scientists
collaborate in order to pool knowledge for solving complex problems, to access complementary
resources such as expertise, tacit knowledge, equipment, or funding, to increase their
productivity, prestige, visibility and the quality of the research outcomes, and because they
simply like to collaborate (Kraut, Galegher and Egido 1987-88, Crane 1972, Katz and Martin
1997, Beaver 2001, Thorsteinsdottir 2000). Scientists often collaborate with long-time friends,
and sometimes friendship is even a reason to collaborate (Melin 2000). In sum, individuals form
networks of relationships that provide them with advice, support, and access to various work
related resources (Seibert, Kraimer et al. 2001). The social network literature distinguishes
between strong and weak network ties (Granovetter 1983, Krackhardt 1992) that benefit an
individual in distinct ways by providing various instrumental or expressive resources (Lin 2001).
Less is said about the benefits of relationships that are determined by more than one role,
especially in the context of knowledge production. Such relationships are important because they
allow transferring resources from one context to another, and, therefore, contribute to the ability
of a scientist to pull resources necessary for knowledge production.
Drawing from a national longitudinal NSF-funded study of academic scientists in six
STEM fields in the United States, this paper seeks to understand how friendship with fellow
scientists affects knowledge exchange in personal advice and collaborative networks. The paper
predicts that personal networks comprised of close relationships are associated with higher
intensity of knowledge exchange and have higher added value for scientific productivity and
other career outcomes. Further, it argues that friendship allows scientists to appropriate resources
from their networks, and therefore is important for scientists’ knowledge creation capacity.
Friendships are especially beneficial for linking scientists with others outside their own
institution and in this way providing access to the quality non-redundant information and
resources.
Preliminary findings show that an average advice network of a U.S. academic scientist
consists of 5 individuals (range1-14). About a half (47%) of the relationships with those
individuals are uniplex, or such that consist of only one role, and about a half (53%) multiplex,
or such that consist of more than one role. One third (29%) of all relationships are close
friendships. The data indicates a significant variation of the types of relationships across the
rank, gender and citizenship. Assistant professors, especially female and foreign nationals, have
fever friends in their networks than associate and full professors, who in turn, have more friends.
This might be an indication that friendship takes time to develop. Alternatively, it might be an
indication of the often discussed but rarely documented phenomenon “old- boy networks”.
However, while full professors have more friends in their networks, they also rely on the
uniplex-instrumental relationships more than the associate and assistant professors. Further,
preliminary findings show that friendship encourages advice seeking behavior of scientists and
results in more mobilized resources from their networks. The effects of different types of
relationships on the productivity and career outcomes vary by the type of outcome.
References
Beaver, D. B. (2001). "Reflections on scientific collaboration (and its study): past, present, and
future." Scientometrics 52(3): 365-377.
Bozeman, B., Dietz, J. S. and Gaughan, M. (2001). "Scientific and technical human capital: an
alternative model for research evaluation." International Journal of Technology
Management 22(7): 716-740.
Crane, D. (1972). Invisible colleges, University of Chicago Press Chicago.
Cummings, J. N. and M. C. Higgins (2006). "Relational instability at the network core:
Support dynamics in developmental networks." Social Networks 28(1): 38-55.
Fox, M. F. (1983). "Publication productivity among scientists: A critical review." Social Studies
of Science 13(2): 285.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). "The Strength of Weak Ties." American Journal of Sociology 78(6):
1360.
Katz, J. S. and Martin, B. R. (1997). "What is research collaboration?* 1." Research policy
26(1): 1-18.
Krackhardt, D. (1992). "The strength of strong ties: The importance of philos in organizations."
Networks and organizations: Structure, form, and action 216: 239.
Kraut, R. E., Galegher, J. and Egido, C. (1987). "Relationships and tasks in scientific research
collaboration." Human-Computer Interaction 3(1): 31-58.
Lin, N. (2001). "Building a network theory of social capital." Social Capital: Theory and
Research: 3-29.
Maske, K. L., Durden, G. C. and Gaynor, P. E. (2003). "Determinants of scholarly productivity
among male and female economists." Economic inquiry 41(4): 555-564.
Ramsden, P. (1994). "Describing and explaining research productivity." Higher Education 28(2):
207-226.
Saint-Charles, J. and P. Mongeau (2004). Analysis of Interactions network in workgroup.
Sax, L. J., Hagedorn, L. S., Arredondo, M. and DiCrisi, F. A. (2002). "Faculty research
productivity: exploring the role of gender and family-related factors." Research in Higher
Education 43(4): 423-446.
Seibert, S. E., M. L. Kraimer, et al. (2001). "A Social capital theory of career success [J]."
Academy of Management Journal 44(2): 219-237.
Stephan, P., S. Levin. 1992. Striking the Mother Lode in Science: The Importance of Age, Place
and Time. Oxford University Press, New York.
Thorsteinsdottir, O. H. (2000). "External research collaboration in two small science systems."
Scientometrics 49(1): 145-160.