Research Duos: Unveiling the Collaborative Essence of Research
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Background and Perspectives
3. Discussion and Application of the Research Duo Concept
3.1. Advantages and Disadvantages of Researching in Dous
3.2. Possible Role Distribution within Research Duos
4. Research Duos Examples and Empirical Evidence
- Diversity of Values, Experience, and Expertise;
- Role Assignments in Collaboration;
- Relationship-Building and Peer Interdependence;
- Ergonomic, Flexible, and Adaptable Processes;
- Acquisition of Knowledge, Skills, and Expertise;
- Motivation Consideration.
- i
- Institutional Strategies (orientation on university research guidelines, timelines, and information on university funding support);
- ii
- Professional Strategies (training on research project leadership, accountability, receiving and providing feedback, and communication skills development);
- iii
- Personal Strategies (development of time management and stress management skills).
5. Human and AI as a Research Duo: Generative Artificial Intelligence as a Research Companion?
6. Conclusions
Future Research Directions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Amabile, T. Componential Theory of Creativity; Harvard Business School: Boston, MA, USA, 2011; pp. 538–559. [Google Scholar]
- Baer, J. The importance of domain-specific expertise in creativity. Roeper Rev. 2015, 37, 165–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bailey, N. Academic Collaboration in the Early Enlightenment: Daniel Waterland (1683–1740) and his Cambridge Tyros. Engl. Hist. Rev. 2024, 139, 126–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cetina, K.K. The Dual Organization of Molecular Biology Laboratories. In Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1999; pp. 216–240. [Google Scholar]
- Dania, A.; Griffin, L.L. Using social network theory to explore a participatory action research collaboration through social media. Qual. Res. Sport Exerc. Health 2020, 13, 41–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Piña, M.I.D.; Martínez, A.M.R.; Martínez, L.G. Teams in organizations: A review on team effectiveness. Team Perform. Manag. Int. J. 2008, 14, 7–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Durante, P.G.C. Strengthening collaborative research practices in academia: Factors, challenges, and strategies. Probl. Educ. 21st Century 2022, 80, 531–546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elisondo, R. Creativity is always a social process. Creat. Theor.–Res.–Appl. 2016, 3, 194–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gajda, A.; Karwowski, M.; Beghetto, R.A. Creativity and academic achievement: A meta-analysis. J. Educ. Psychol. 2017, 109, 269–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- German, K.; Limm, M.; Wölfel, M.; Helmerdig, S. Towards artificial intelligence serving as an inspiring co-creation partner. EAI Endorsed Trans. Creative Technol. 2019, 6, e3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gisick, L.M. The Impact of Individual and Team-Level Variables on Burnout in Healthcare Providers. Ph.D. Thesis and Master’s Thesis, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, 2022; p. 648. Available online: https://commons.erau.edu/edt/648 (accessed on 27 May 2024).
- Glăveanu, V.P. Distributed Creativity: What Is It? Springer International Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 1–13. [Google Scholar]
- Glebova, E.; Desbordes, M.; Czegledi, O. The “Clockwork” Model for Deployment Technology Innovations in Sports Industry Ecosystem: Holistic Approach. Societies 2024, 14, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Glebova, E.; Madsen, D.; Mihaľová, P.; Géczi, G.; Mittelman, A.; Jorgič, B. Artificial intelligence development and dissemination impact on the sports industry labor market. Front. Sports Act. Living 2024, 6, 1363892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grinberg, A. Touch Divided: Artistic Research in Duo Piano Performance. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Hackman, J.R. A Normative Model of Work Team Effectiveness. 1983. Available online: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA136398.pdf (accessed on 27 May 2024).
- Hmelo-Silver, C.; Chinn, C.; Chan, C.; O’Donnell, A. The International Handbook of Collaborative Learning, 1st ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hollingshead, A.B.; Gupta, N.; Yoon, K.; Brandon, D.P. Transactive memory theory and teams: Past, present, and future. In Theories of Team Cognition; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 421–455. [Google Scholar]
- Jaakkola, E. Designing conceptual articles: Four approaches. AMS Rev. 2020, 10, 18–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jarrahi, M.H.; Askay, D.; Eshraghi, A.; Smith, P. Artificial intelligence and knowledge management: A partnership between human and AI. Bus. Horiz. 2023, 66, 87–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jolly, A.; Caulfield, L.; Massie, R.; Sojka, B.; Iafrati, S.; Rees, J. Café Delphi: Strategies for successful remote academic collaboration. Authorea Prepr. 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalnbalkite, A.; Brakovska, V.; Terjanika, V.; Pubule, J.; Blumberga, D. The tango between the academic and business sectors: Use of co-management approach for the development of green innovation. Innov. Green Dev. 2023, 2, 100073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kantosalo, A.; Riihiaho, S. Quantifying co-creative writing experiences. Digit. Creat. 2019, 30, 23–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karwowski, M.; Jankowska, D.M.; Brzeski, A.; Czerwonka, M.; Gajda, A.; Lebuda, I.; Beghetto, R.A. Delving into creativity and learning. In Creative Learning in Digital and Virtual Environments; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 7–29. [Google Scholar]
- Kolli, S.; Khajeheian, D. How actors of social networks affect differently on the others? Addressing the critique of equal importance on actor-network theory by use of social network analysis. Contemp. Appl. Actor Netw. Theory 2020, 211–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kunat, B.; Uszyńska-Jarmoc, J.; Żak-Skalimowska, M. How Are Creative Abilities Related to Meta-Learning Competences? Creativity. Theor.–Res.–Appl. 2019, 6, 77–90. [Google Scholar]
- Latour, B. On recalling ANT. Sociol. Rev. 1999, 47 (Suppl. S1), 15–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lewis, J.M.; Ross, S.; Holden, T. The how and why of academic collaboration: Disciplinary differences and policy implications. High. Educ. 2012, 64, 693–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahmud, B.U.; Hong, G.Y.; Fong, B. A Study of Human–AI Symbiosis for Creative Work: Recent Developments and Future Directions in Deep Learning. ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Appl. 2023, 20, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, R.C.; Zhang, H.; Gilbert, E.; Gerber, E. Pair Research: Matching People for Collaboration, Learning, and Productivity. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, Baltimore, MD, USA, 15–19 February 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moody, J. The Structure of a Social Science Collaboration Network: Disciplinary Cohesion from 1963 to 1999. Am. Sociol. Rev. 2004, 69, 213–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nielsen, M. The Open Science Imperative. In Reinventing Discovery: The New Era of Networked Science; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2012; pp. 187–208. Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7s4vx.11 (accessed on 27 May 2024).
- Oleynick, V.C.; Thrash, T.M.; LeFew, M.C.; Moldovan, E.G.; Kieffaber, P.D. The Scientific Study of Inspiration in the Creative Process: Challenges and Opportunities. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 2014, 8, 436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, L.E.; Aknin, L.B.; Gaither, S.E.; Impett, E.A.; Whillans, A.V. Starting and sustaining fruitful collaborations in psychology. Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass 2024, 18, e12950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peltokorpi, V.; Hood, A.C. Communication in theory and research on transactive memory systems: A literature review. Top. Cogn. Sci. 2018, 11, 644–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rezwana, J.; Maher, M.L. Designing creative AI partners with COFI: A framework for modeling interaction in hu-man-AI co-creative systems. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 2023, 30, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schneider, F.; Tribaldos, T.; Adler, C.; Biggs, R.O.; de Bremond, A.; Buser, T.; Krug, C.; Loutre, M.-F.; Moore, S.; Norström, A.V.; et al. Co-production of knowledge and sustainability transformations: A strategic compass for global research networks. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2021, 49, 127–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shenk, J.W. Powers of Two: Finding the Essence of Innovation in Creative Pairs; Houghton Mifflin Harcourt: Boston, MA, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Shin, H.; Kim, K.; Kogler, D.F. Scientific collaboration, research funding, and novelty in scientific knowledge. PLoS ONE 2022, 17, e0271678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sik, A. Creativity in cross-domain collaborations: Searching factors to increase efficiency. Manag. Res. Rev. 2016, 39, 144–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stone, C. Examining the Input, Process, Output Model of Team Effectiveness (IPOMTE), Leadership Styles, and Relational Coordination as Contributors to a Profile of Team Effectiveness. Ph.D. Thesis, St. John Fisher University, Rocherster, NY, USA, 2019; p. 400. [Google Scholar]
- St-Onge, M.; Aggarwal, B.; Allison, M.A.; Berger, J.S.; Castañeda, S.F.; Catov, J.; Hochman, J.S.; Hubel, C.A.; Jelic, S.; Kass, D.A.; et al. Go Red for Women strategically focused research network: Summary of findings and network outcomes. J. Am. Heart Assoc. 2021, 10, e019519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Szen-Ziemiańska, J.; Lebuda, I.; Karwowski, M. Mix and match: Opportunities, conditions, and limitations of cross-domain creativity. In The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity across Domains; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2017; pp. 18–40. [Google Scholar]
- Tan, A.G. Creativity in cross-disciplinary research. In Creativity Research; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 68–85. [Google Scholar]
- Timmermans, S.; Tavory, I. Theory Construction in Qualitative Research. Sociol. Theory 2012, 30, 167–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Treffinger, D.J.; Isaksen, S.G.; Stead-Dorval, K.B. Creative Problem Solving: An Introduction; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Viney, L.; Grinberg, A. Collaboration in Duo Piano Performance—‘Piano Spheres’. In Collaborative Creative Thought and Practice in Music; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 157–172. [Google Scholar]
- Vuichard, A.; Botella, M.; Puozzo, I.C. Creative Process and Multivariate Factors through a Creative Course “Keep Calm and Be Creative”. J. Intell. 2023, 11, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Waham, J.J.; Asfahani, A.; Ulfa, R.A. International collaboration in higher education: Challenges and opportunities in a globalized world. Edujavare Int. J. Educ. Res. 2023, 1, 49–60. [Google Scholar]
- Wegner, D.M. Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In Theories of Group Behavior; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1987; pp. 185–208. [Google Scholar]
- Wolf, T.; Goupil, L.; Canonne, C. Beyond togetherness: Interactional dissensus fosters creativity and tension in freely improvised musical duos. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, X. A historical review of collaborative learning and cooperative learnin. TechTrends 2023, 67, 718–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
# | Titles | Explanation |
---|---|---|
1 | Principal Investigator and Project Coordinator | One member assumes the role of the Principal Investigator, providing strategic direction and leadership for the research project. Simultaneously, their counterpart acts as the Project Coordinator, overseeing logistical aspects, scheduling, and team coordination to ensure smooth project execution. |
Data Specialist and Statistical Analyst | While one member specializes in data acquisition, management, and organization, the other focuses on statistical analysis and interpretation. Together, they form a cohesive team adept at handling the complexities of data-driven research. | |
Literature Reviewer and Contextual Scholar | One member undertakes comprehensive literature reviews to establish the theoretical foundation and contextual framework for the research. Meanwhile, their partner critically synthesizes this literature, incorporating relevant insights to enrich the study’s theoretical underpinnings. | |
Experimental Designer and Methodological Expert | The Experimental Designer formulates experimental protocols and research methodologies, ensuring their alignment with research objectives and ethical standards. Their counterpart provides expertise in methodology selection, implementation, and refinement, ensuring the rigor and validity of research procedures. | |
Writing Lead and Documentation Manager | One member takes the lead in drafting research proposals, manuscripts, and presentations, adhering to scholarly conventions and standards. Concurrently, their partner manages documentation tasks, maintaining comprehensive records and ensuring regulatory compliance throughout the research process. | |
Project Manager and Administrative Coordinator | The Project Manager oversees project planning, resource allocation, and timeline adherence, ensuring the project’s overall success. Meanwhile, their counterpart handles administrative responsibilities, including budget management, communication facilitation, and logistical coordination. | |
Specialized Expert and Knowledge Integrator | One member brings specialized expertise or domain-specific knowledge to the partnership, enriching the research with depth and insight. Their partner serves as a knowledge integrator, synthesizing diverse perspectives and disciplines to enhance the study’s interdisciplinary relevance and impact. | |
Review Coordinator and Quality Assurance Specialist | Both members collaborate in reviewing and critiquing each other’s work, ensuring rigor, accuracy, and adherence to scholarly standards. Together, they uphold the integrity and quality of research outputs through thorough peer evaluation and constructive feedback. | |
Outreach Liaison and Dissemination Strategist | While one member focuses on engaging stakeholders, disseminating findings, and fostering collaborations, the other develops strategic dissemination plans to maximize the research’s impact and visibility. Together, they facilitate knowledge exchange and promote the translation of research into actionable insights. | |
Mutual Support Partners | Both members offer mutual support, sharing responsibilities, mitigating challenges, and fostering a supportive work environment. Through collaborative efforts and effective communication, they capitalize on each other’s strengths, maximizing their collective potential in advancing the research agenda. |
Duo Names | Field | Contribution | Complementary Skills |
---|---|---|---|
James Watson and Francis Crick | Biology | Discovered the double-helix structure of DNA | Watson’s genetics expertise and Crick’s background in physics and X-ray diffraction |
Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr | Physics | Advanced quantum mechanics | Einstein’s theoretical insights and Bohr’s experimental and philosophical approaches to quantum theory |
Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman | Psychology/Economics | Developed the prospect theory | Tversky’s mathematical and analytical skills and Kahneman’s psychological insights into human behavior |
Marie Curie and Pierre Curie | Chemistry/Physics | Pioneering research on radioactivity | Marie’s meticulous experimental work and Pierre’s expertise in physical theory and instrumentation |
Andrew Wiles and Richard Taylor | Mathematics | Solved Fermat’s Last Theorem | Wiles’ understanding of elliptic curves and Taylor’s expertise in modular forms |
John Von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern | Economics | Founded game theory | Von Neumann’s mathematical prowess and Morgenstern’s economic theories |
Elizabeth Blackburn and Carol Greider | Biology | Discovered the enzyme telomerase | Blackburn’s focus on telomere structure and Greider’s molecular biology techniques |
Peter Higgs and François Englert | Physics | Predicted the Higgs boson | Both had theoretical insights into particle physics, highlighting different aspects of the Higgs mechanism |
James March and Herbert Simon | Organizational Theory | Developed the theory of organizational decision-making, including the concepts of bounded rationality and satisficing | March’s expertise in organizational theory and Simon’s insights into decision-making processes |
Michael Porter and Mark Kramer | Strategic Management | Developed the concept of Creating Shared Value (CSV) | Porter’s expertise in competitive strategy and Kramer’s focus on social impact and corporate responsibility |
Kathleen Eisenhardt and Jeffrey Martin | Strategic Management | Developed theories on dynamic capabilities and competitive advantage | Eisenhardt’s research on strategic decision-making and Martin’s focus on resource-based views and dynamic capabilities |
Paul Lawrence and Jay Lorsch | Organizational Behavior | Developed the Contingency Theory of Organizations | Lawrence’s expertise in organizational structure and design and Lorsch’s insights into organizational behavior and adaptation |
Peter Drucker and Warren Bennis | Leadership and Management | Contributed significantly to modern management and leadership theory | Drucker’s broad knowledge of management practices and Bennis’s focus on leadership and organizational change |
Gary Hamel and C.K. Prahalad | Strategic Management | Developed the concept of Core Competencies | Hamel’s innovative approaches to strategy and Prahalad’s focus on resource-based views and competitive advantage |
Robert Kaplan and David Norton | Performance Management | Developed the Balanced Scorecard framework | Kaplan’s expertise in accounting and management control systems and Norton’s focus on performance measurement and strategic management |
John Kotter and James Heskett | Change Management | Developed theories on corporate culture and change leadership | Kotter’s research on change management and leadership and Heskett’s focus on corporate culture and its impact on performance |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Glebova, E. Research Duos: Unveiling the Collaborative Essence of Research. Societies 2024, 14, 175. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc14090175
Glebova E. Research Duos: Unveiling the Collaborative Essence of Research. Societies. 2024; 14(9):175. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc14090175
Chicago/Turabian StyleGlebova, Ekaterina. 2024. "Research Duos: Unveiling the Collaborative Essence of Research" Societies 14, no. 9: 175. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc14090175
APA StyleGlebova, E. (2024). Research Duos: Unveiling the Collaborative Essence of Research. Societies, 14(9), 175. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc14090175