Abstract:This paper investigates the role of homophily and focus constraint in shaping collaborative scientific research. First, homophily structures collaboration when scientists adhere to a norm of exclusivity in selecting similar partners at a higher rate than dissimilar ones. Two dimensions on which similarity between scientists can be assessed are their research specialties and status positions. Second, focus constraint shapes collaboration when connections among scientists depend on opportunities for social contact. Constraint comes in two forms, depending on whether it originates in institutional or geographic space. Institutional constraint refers to the tendency of scientists to select collaborators within rather than across institutional boundaries. Geographic constraint is the principle that, when collaborations span different institutions, they are more likely to involve scientists that are geographically co-located than dispersed. To study homophily and focus constraint, the paper will argue in favour of an idea of collaboration that moves beyond formal co-authorship to include also other forms of informal intellectual exchange that do not translate into the publication of joint work. A community-detection algorithm is applied to the co-authorship network of the scientists that submitted in Business and Management in the 2001 UK RAE. While results only partially support research-based homophily, they indicate that scientists use status positions for discriminating between potential partners by selecting collaborators from institutions with a rating similar to their own. Strong support is provided in favour of institutional and geographic constraints. Scientists tend to forge intra-institutional collaborations; yet, when they seek collaborators outside their own institutions, they tend to select those who are in geographic proximity.

Concentration versus dispersion of research resources: a contribution to the debate

Academic research groups: evaluation of their quality and quality of their evaluation

Normalization of peer-evaluation measures of group research quality across academic disciplines

Concentration of research funding leads to decreasing marginal returns

Absolute and specific measures of research group excellence

Big fish and small ponds: why the departmental h-index should not be used to rank universities

Multinational teams and diseconomies of scale in collaborative research

Uncited articles and their effect on the concentration of citations

Is big team research fair in national research assessments? The case of the UK Research Excellence Framework 2021

Comparison of a citation-based indicator and peer review for absolute and specific measures of research-group excellence

Communities and Patterns of Scientific collaboration

The Impact of a Researcher’s Structural Position on Scientific Performance: An Empirical Analysis

The Emergence of Heterogeneous Scaling in Research Institutions

Quality versus quantity in scientific impact

A Bilateral Comparison of Research Performance at an Institutional Level

Interdisciplinary collaboration from diverse science teams can produce significant outcomes

Which international co-authorships produce higher quality journal articles?

Judging a book by its cover: how much of REF `research quality' is really `journal prestige'?

Do research collaborations age like wine? Absolute and relative measures of CANZUK research partnerships’ strength since the 1950s

Differences in collaboration structures and impact among prominent researchers in Europe and North America

Academic collaboration rates and citation associations vary substantially between countries and fields