The notion of team science has recently gained popularity in European and American health sciences reviewing the increasing evidence that scientific collaboration produces higher-impact research and that complex scientific problems are better investigated by interdisciplinary teams. While publication surveys indicate that adoption research is expanding, it has not been formally evaluated for collaborative and cross-disciplinary activity. This article aims to elucidate the structure, composition and dynamics of scientific relationships within adoption studies that may inform research and practice strategies, competencies and cohesion within the field. Using social network analysis, we extracted data on 2767 peer-reviewed adoption-related articles from the 1930s to 2014 and evaluated the resulting co-authorship and co-citation networks. We found that adoption research has grown substantially over the last 25 years and is conducted in varied disciplines, with increasing collaboration across geography and disciplinary areas. As a result, the co-authorship and co-citation networks are approaching numeric thresholds and structural configurations distinctive of well-established and more institutionalised fields of study. These findings reveal the maturation of adoption studies as a team science and argue for the development of institutional mechanisms that support such evolution. Implications for professional and research planning are discussed.
AbbasiAAltmannJHossainL (2011) Identifying the effects of co-authorship networks on the performance of scholars: a correlation and regression analysis of performance measures and social network analysis measures. Journal of Informetrics5(4): 594–607.
2.
AbbasiAAltmannJHwangJ (2010) Evaluating scholars based on their academic collaboration activities: two indices, the RC-index and the CC-index, for quantifying collaboration activities of researchers and scientific communities. Scientometrics83(1): 1–13.
3.
AbdallaCWYounglove-WebbJGrayBet al.(1999) The dynamics of multidisciplinary research teams in academia. Review of Higher Education22(4): 425–440.
AmeredesBTHellmichMRCestoneCMet al.(2015) The Multidisciplinary Translational Team (MTT) model for training and development of translational research investigators. Clinical & Translational Science8(5): 533–541.
6.
AtkinsonAJGonetPAFreundlichMet al.(2013) Adoption competent clinical practice: defining its meaning and development. Adoption Quarterly16(3–4): 156–174.
7.
BachrachCRobertSThomasY (2015) Training in Interdisciplinary Health Science: Current successes and future needs, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
8.
BalesMEJohnsonSBKeelingJWet al.(2011) Evolution of coauthorship in public health services and systems research. American Journal of Preventive Medicine41(1): 112–117.
9.
BarabasiALJeongHNedaZet al.(2002) Evolution of the social network of scientific collaborations. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications311(3): 590–614.
10.
BennettLMGadlinHLevine FindleyS (2010) Collaboration & Team Science: A field guide, Bethesda, MA: National Institutes of Health.
11.
BorgattiSPEverettMG (1999) Models of core/periphery structures. Social Networks21(4): 375–395.
12.
BorgattiSPEverettMG (2006) A graph-theoretic perspective on centrality. Social Networks28: 466–484.
13.
BrodzinskyASmithDWBrodzinskyD (1998) Children's Adjustment to Adoption: Developmental and clinical issues, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
CookeNHiltonM (2015) Enhancing the effectiveness of team science, Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
16.
CraneD (1972) Invisible Colleges: Diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
17.
CroninBShawDLa BarreK (2003) A cast of thousands: coauthorship and subauthorship collaboration in the 20th century as manifested in the scholarly journal literature of psychology and philosophy. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology54(9): 855–871.
18.
de Solla Price DJ (1976) A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 27(5): 292–306.
19.
DingY (2011) Scientific collaboration and endorsement: network analysis of coauthorship and citation networks. Journal of Informetrics5(1): 187–203.
European Commission (2009) Horizon 2020: The EU framework programme for research and innovation. Communication from the Commission.
22.
FinleyGE (2001a) On rededication and change. Adoption Quarterly4(3): 1–3.
23.
FinleyGE (2001b) On the internationalization of adoption research, practice, and policy. Adoption Quarterly5(1): 1–3.
24.
GrohGFuchsC (2011) Multi-modal social networks for modeling scientific fields. Scientometrics89(2): 569–590.
25.
HouHKretschmerHLiuZ (2008) The structure of scientific collaboration networks in Scientometrics. Scientometrics75(2): 189–202.
26.
LeeSBozemanB (2005) The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science35(5): 673–702.
27.
LiuXMBollenJNelsonMLet al.(2005) Co-authorship networks in the digital library research community. Information Processing & Management41: 1462–1480.
28.
LukeDACarothersBJDhandAet al.(2015) Breaking down silos: mapping growth of cross-disciplinary collaboration in a translational science initiative. Clinical and Translational Science8(2): 143–149.
29.
ManloveKRWalkerJGCraftMEet al.(2016) `One health' or three? Publication silos among the one health disciplines. PLoS Biol14: e1002448.
30.
MeltzerDChungJKhaliliPet al.(2010) Exploring the use of social network methods in designing healthcare quality improvement teams. Social Science & Medicine71(6): 1119–1130.
31.
MoodyJ (2004) The structure of a social science collaboration network: disciplinary cohesion from 1963 to 1999. American Sociological Review69(2): 213–238.
PalaciosJBrodzinskyD (2010) Adoption research: trends, topics, outcomes. International Journal of Behavioral Development34(3): 270–284.
35.
RueterMAKeyesMAIaconoWGet al.(2009) Family interactions in adoptive compared to nonadoptive families. Journal of Family Psychology23(1): 58–66.
36.
RutterMBeckettCCastleJet al.(2007) Effects of profound early institutional deprivation: an overview of findings from a UK longitudinal study of Romanian adoptees. European Journal of Developmental Psychology4(3): 332–350.
37.
ScottJ (2013) Social Network Analysis, Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
38.
ScottJCarringtonP (2011) The Sage Handbook of Social Network Analysis, London: Sage Publications.
39.
SilvaTGuoZLMaJet al.(2013) A social network-empowered research analytics framework for project selection. Decision Support Systems55(4): 957–968.
40.
SmithSL (2010) Keeping the Promise: The critical need for post-adoption services to enable children and families to succeed, New York: Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute.
41.
United Nations (2009) Child Adoption: Trends and policies, New York: United Nations.
42.
VaccaRMcCartyCConlonMet al.(2015) Designing a CTSA-based social network intervention to foster cross-disciplinary team science. Clinical Translational Science8(4): 281–289.
43.
ValenteT (2010) Social Networks and Health: Models, methods, and applications, USA: Oxford University Press.
44.
van IJzendoornMHJufferF (2006) The Emanuel Miller Memorial Lecture 2006: Adoption as intervention. Meta-analytic evidence for massive catch-up and plasticity in physical, socio-emotional, and cognitive development. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry47(12): 1228–1245.
45.
van IJzendoornMHPalaciosJSonuga-BarkeEJSet al.(2011) Children in institutional care: delayed development and resilience. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development76(4): 8–30.
46.
WagnerCSLeydesdorffL (2005) Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international collaboration in science. Research Policy34(10): 1608–1618.
47.
WhiteH (2011) Scientific and scholarly networks. In: ScottJCarringtonP (eds) The Sage Handbook of Social Network Analysis, London: Sage, pp. 271–285.
48.
WileyMOBadenAL (2005) Birth parents in adoption: research, practice, and counseling psychology. Counseling Psychologist33(1): 13–50.
49.
WilsonSL (2004) A current review of adoption research: exploring individual differences in adjustment. Children and Youth Services Review26: 687–696.
50.
Wismer FriesABShirtcliffEAPollakSD (2008) Neuroendocrine dysregulation following early social deprivation in children. Developmental Psychobiology50(6): 588–599.
51.
WoodM (2009) Mixed ethnicity, identity and adoption: research, policy and practice. Child & Family Social Work14(4): 431–439.
52.
WuchtySJonesBFUzziB (2007) The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science316: 1036–1039.
53.
YinLCKretschmerHHannemanRAet al.(2006) Connection and stratification in research collaboration: An analysis of the COLLNET network. Information Processing & Management42(6): 1599–1613.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
