Abstract
Social work has emphasized the importance of the social environment, and social networks are an important means of understanding the social environment. The scholarship of a journal coauthor network provided important findings and an example. Prior theory and research suggested there are more citations from the center of coauthor networks than at the periphery. Using abductive logic, complexity theory, social network analysis, and tabular analysis of a social work coauthor network, the center of the network was found to produce more citations than the periphery. Both the prestige of coauthors’ setting and position were modestly associated with network centrality and citations. The functionality of citations, which includes the contribution to good scholarship, is questioned. Areas of further research and issues of evaluating coauthored scholarship are discussed. Placing greater value on coauthoring and publishing with less prominent coauthors for tenure and similar decisions is recommended.
Highlights
Social work has emphasized the importance of the social environment, and social networks are an important means of understanding the social environment
From such work and with publically available data, the present study examined the development of a social work coauthor network and the impact of that network on scholarship
This study examined whether network centrality measures were associated with authors’ citation advantages and if those measures and citations were related to academic prestige
Summary
Social work has emphasized the importance of the social environment, and social networks are an important means of understanding the social environment. Complexity theory, social network analysis, and tabular analysis of a social work coauthor network, the center of the network was found to produce more citations than the periphery. Both the prestige of coauthors’ setting and position were modestly associated with network centrality and citations. Drawing on complexity theory that evaluated social work literature, Hudson (2000, 2005) defined self-organization as spontaneous development of new, unique larger phenomena from the interaction of parts, similar to coauthor interaction in the present research. Other assertions of functional coauthor networks included Zaccala’s (2004) sharing and developing new ideas, or sharing expertise (Gelman & Gibelman, 1999; Moody, 2004). Uzzi and Spiro (2005) theorized that coauthor networks enabled the material to develop and become credible, and Burt (2004) argued that structural holes, the gaps between cliques filled by one person, provided unique vision and brokerage. Rivera, Soderstrom, and Uzzi’s (2010) review pointed to homophily, or similarity, as well as complementary or differing abilities as a basis for coauthoring and to clustered cliques that favored norm development
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
