An evaluation of social networks within federally funded research projects

Keywords: scientific collaboration, network connectivity, evaluation


United States federal agencies fund research to promote discovery and innovation. Most agencies require collaboration because teams promote productivity to a greater degree than singular researchers. However, the functionality and productivity of collaboration is poorly understood. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the collaborative structure of a federally funded entomology research team to determine the characteristics of the network structure and its impact on research collaboration using social network analysis (SNA) methodology. An online survey and interviews were used to collect data. The theories of social network, strong and weak ties, and scientific collaboration were employed to determine the degree of collaboration among team members. We found a low density pattern of collaboration that was associated with: (a) a centralized pattern, (b) the presence of sub-teams functioning like sub-networks, and (c) the presence of less interactive members. Our results confirm that the SNA approach was useful for evaluating network collaboration with innovative indicators to assess the dynamics of scientific collaboration. The study was limited by non-response. Future research should focus on collecting SNA data longitudinally of the whole network to determine how networking structure and benefits evolves over time, and how strong and weak ties impact scientific discovery.


Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Freeman, L. C. (2002). Ucinet 6 for windows: Software for social network analysis [Computer software]. Analytic Technologies.

Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., & Johnson, J. C. (2018). Analyzing social networks (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.

Borgatti, S. P., Mehra, A., Brass, D. J., & Labianca, G. (2009). Network analysis in the social sciences. Science, 323(5916), 892–895.

Contandriopoulos, D., Larouche, C., & Duhoux, A. (2018). Evaluating academic research networks. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, 33(1), 69–89.

Defazio, D., Lockett, A., & Wright, M. (2009). Funding incentives, collaborative dynamics and scientific productivity: Evidence from the EU framework program. Research Policy, 38(2), 293–305.

Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2008). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). Wiley & Sons.

Ding, Y., Foo, S., & Chowdhury, G. (1998). A bibliometric analysis of collaboration in the field of information retrieval. International Information & Library Review, 30(4), 367–376.

Dunn, W. N. (1983). Social network theory. Knowledge, 4(3), 453–461.

Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Friese, S. (2019). ATLAS.ti 8 Mac user manual.

Granovetter, M. S. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological Theory, 1, 201–233.

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.

Hansen, T. (2009). Applying social network theory and analysis in the struggle for social justice. Peace Research, 41(1), 5-43.

Hoang, D. T., Nguyen, N. T., Tran, V. C., & Hwang, D. (2019). Research collaboration model in academic social networks. Enterprise Information Systems, 13(7-8), 1023-1045.

Katz, J. S. (1994). Geographical proximity and scientific collaboration. Scientometrics, 31(1), 31–43.

Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18.

Lang, S. (2020). Otter [Computer software].

Lee, S., & Bozeman, B. (2005). The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 673–702.

Leij, M. V. D., & Goyal, S. (2011). Strong Ties in a Small World. Review of Network Economics, 10(2), 1–42.

Linneberg, M. S., & Korsgaard, S. (2019, March 16). Coding qualitative data: A synthesis guiding the novice.

Mertens, (2018). Mixed methods design in evaluation. Sage Publication.

Mertens, D. M., & Wilson, A. T. (2012). Program evaluation theory and practice: a comprehensive guide. Guilford Press.

Olson, J. S., Hofer, E. C., Bos, N., Zimmerman, A., Olson, G. M., Cooney, D., & Faniel, I. (2008). A theory of remote scientific collaboration. Scientific Collaboration on the Internet, 73–97.

Olson, G. M., & Olson, J. S. (2000). Distance matters. Human–computer interaction, 15(2-3), 139–178.

Patton, M. Q. (2001). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Sage Publications.

Rademacher, M. A., & Wang, K. Y. (2014). Strong-tie social connections versus weak-tie social connections. Scholarship and Professional Work -Communication. 103, 1213-1216.

Schmidt, A. (2007). Social network theory. Encyclopedia of Governance, 893–895.

U. S. Department of Agriculture. (2019). National Institute of Food and Agriculture FY 2018 Annual Report.

Sonnenwald, D. H. (2007). Scientific collaboration. In: B. Cronin (Ed.), Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 41, (pp. 643-681).

Zamzami, N., & Schiffauerova, A. (2017). The impact of individual collaborative activities on knowledge creation and transmission. Scientometrics, 111(3), 1385–1413.

How to Cite
Dossou Kpanou, B., Kelsey, K., & Bower, K. (2020). An evaluation of social networks within federally funded research projects. Advancements in Agricultural Development, 1(3), 42-54.