Collaboration beyond co-authorship: analysis of gender differences and areas of knowledge in research groups at the Complutense University of Madrid

Abstract

Scientific collaboration has become an almost universal characteristic of knowledge production in today's academic landscape. In the field of Documentation and Bibliometrics, collaboration is commonly studied through co-authorship or joint authorship, with a significant body of literature dating back to the 1960s. Among the various forms of collaboration between researchers, research groups have emerged as one of the most prevalent. Thus, the primary objective of this study is to investigate whether the variables of the group leader's gender and the group's knowledge area determine the leadership dynamics within research groups. Furthermore, specific aspects related to the structural and procedural perspectives of research groups have been examined, including the main activities undertaken by the group, the number and nature of professional profiles within the group, communication and dissemination patterns, main achievements, economic resources, and the motivations of directors in leading a research group. To observe the collaboration dynamics outlined in our research objectives, we conducted a survey targeting directors of research groups whose funding is provided by the Vice-Rector's Office of the Complutense University of Madrid between 2018 and 2021. This study aims to highlight differences in collaboration patterns within groups based on the gender of the group leader and the group's knowledge area. The survey, carried out in November 2022, achieved a response rate of 31.6%, with 216 valid responses, maintaining a balanced distribution between male and female group leaders. Upon analyzing the data, we noted that certain aspects studied have a widespread impact on most groups, such as a prevalent involvement in research projects and the supervision of doctoral theses. However, distinctive aspects have been observed, particularly affecting groups led by women, such as the presence of homophily in group composition, or a greater capacity for male-led groups to secure funding from diverse sources. Additionally, variations based on the knowledge area variable have been identified; for instance, groups in Natural Sciences and Medical Sciences exhibit a higher use of communication channels, while groups in Social Sciences and Humanities invest more effort in disseminating their obtained results.