An empirical analysis of individual and collective determinants of international research collaboration

Vol.:(0123456789) Scientometrics (2024) 129:2749–2770 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-024-04999-0 1 3 An empirical analysis ofindividual andcollective determinants ofinternational research collaboration JesúsdeFrutos‑Belizón1· NataliaGarcía‑Carbonell1 · FélixGuerrero‑Alba1· GonzaloSánchez‑Gardey1 Received: 8 August 2023 / Accepted: 14 March 2024 / Published online: 20 April 2024 © The Author(s) 2024 Abstract International research collaboration is a crucial determinant of scientific productivity, but it remains an underdeveloped task for governments, universities and research systems. Despite important economic and institutional efforts to promote collaborations, not all researchers establish successful international connections during their academic careers. This lack of international contacts hinders knowledge transfer from a broader perspective, limiting, in a way, the advancement of science. This paper analyses these factors—individual and collective—affecting research collaboration in the international context through a hierarchical multiple regression analysis of a sample of 954 Spanish academic researchers. We found that collective factors such as research team social capital—including structural and cognitive dimensions—and team orientation toward research and team productivity clearly affect international collaboration levels. Furthermore, contrary to our expectations, researchers’ human capital and motivation, and the principal investigator’s knowledge-oriented leadership, exerted only a very weak effect, which also is discussed in the paper’s final section. Keywords Scientific productivity· Localists· Internationalists· Researchers JEL Classification I23· Higher Education· Research Institutions Introduction The recent Horizon Europe, with a budget of €95.5 billion, recently launched a Programme for Research and Innovation (2021–2027), in which international collaboration and the creation of research networks are viewed as strategic priorities to fuel scientific and technological excellence, and to strengthen the European Research Area (ERA). Through this effort, policymakers in most European countries are focussing on promoting international research collaboration (IRC) to shape a global context of research * Natalia García-Carbonell [email protected] 1 Faculty ofBusiness andManagement, University ofCádiz, Avenida Enrique Villegas Vélez, 2, 11002Cádiz, Spain 2750 Scientometrics (2024) 129:2749–2770 1 3 excellence to improve the quality of research and its subsequent dissemination (Jeong etal., 2014). This implies that more than ever, the incentive and reward systems in recent European science policy are linked mainly to IRC and its effects on scientific research efficiency (Kyvik & Aksnes, 2015). Despite IRC’s importance and influence, the reality is that some researchers are more internationalised (internationalists) than others (localists) (Kwiek, 2020). Whether a researcher’s stronger internationalisation is associated positively with higher publication rates, greater visibility and/or heavier impact from generated knowledge, why do some researchers collaborate more internationally than others? Internationalisation confers greater prestige on the researcher and even has the capacity to be a stratifying force in the scientific profession (Kwiek, 2020). Academics who do not collaborate internationally may expose themselves to cumulative disadvantages in terms of greater difficulty accessing resources, generating research visibility and/or attaining academic prestige. So why not collaborate internationally? Furthermore, such differences between researchers’ international collaboration patterns also stem from the scientific field in which they work (Aksnes etal., 2019; Kwiek, 2020). In particular, notable dissimilarities have been found between science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) research and social sciences, humanities and arts (SSH) (Olmos-Peñuela etal., 2014). However, extant literature mainly has focussed on comparative analyses concerning different scientific fields’ internationalisation levels (Kwiek, 2015, 2020; Kyvik & Aksnes, 2015), while less attention has been paid to determinants that generate differences. Therefore, to clarify this dimension in the IRC context, we wondered about factors that explain differences between researchers’ IRC behaviours and levels. Are they personal traits, institutional support, individual preferences, etc.? To shed some more light on the question, this study aimed to identify determinants that influence IRC levels. Although we can consider that the decision to internationalise is ultimately a personal one, the literature suggests that two broad sets of individual and collective factors shape and may even determine this academic behaviour (Blackburn & Lawrence, 1995; Finkelstein etal., 2013; Porter & Umbach, 2001). In this vein, the decision to collaborate internationally will be assumed to be an academic’s choice formed by individual factors tied to the researcher and collective factors tied to their scientific teams: • From the individual perspective, internationalisation level has two antecedents: (1) the researcher’s motivation and predilection toward scientific research; and (2) the researcher’s attractiveness (human capital) to international colleagues (Finkelstein etal., 2013). • From the collective perspective, as it is well-recognised in the literature nowadays, scientific research is characterised by a system of generating knowledge that is “socially distributed” (Hessels & Van Lente, 2008). Therefore, scientific teams are viewed as the ideal context through which to generate and accumulate scientific knowledge (Hautala & Jauhiainen, 2014; Murayama etal., 2015). Thus, we suggest that certain determinants within the scientific team may help establish greater contacts with international colleagues, in particular, 1) the social capital level of the scientific team to which the researcher belongs, 2) the principal investigator’s (PI) leadership style and/or 3) the scientific team’s productivity level are contextual factors that also may influence the researcher’s decision to facilitate international collaborations. Based on the factors mentioned above, this paper aims to address the following research questions: 2751 Scientometrics (2024) 129:2749–2770 1 3 (I) To what extent do individual or collective factors determine academic researchers’ decisions to collaborate internationally? (II) Do disciplines of science exhibit significant differences in the factors that explain the researchers’ IRC behaviours and levels? Therefore, the objective of this study is to enhance the understanding of those “internationalist” academics by analyzing the individual and collective determinants that influence levels of international research collaboration in STEM and SSH sciences. Based on a large-scale academic survey (N = 954), this paper offers significant implications for the study of academic careers and scientific performance, contributing to a deeper understanding of the patterns governing international collaboration. The findings presented can guide university policies to promote the internationalization of research. The paper is structured as follows. First, we explain the theoretical arguments used to establish the hypotheses tested in this study. Subsequently, we empirically test our hypotheses based on a sample of 954 Spanish academics using hierarchical multiple regression analysis. Finally, we discuss our findings and draw conclusions from this study. Theoretical framework International research collaboration Numerous studies have reported exponential growth in the number of papers published with international coauthorship (Abramo etal., 2011; Nguyen etal., 2017; Dusdal & Powell, 2021). The degree of researchers, scientific teams and universities’ openness towards international collaborations is increasingly relevant to accumulation of human capital and scientific competitiveness (Aldieri etal., 2020). Today, it is difficult for a researcher to remain isolated from collaborations with international colleagues, as science has become a more specialised, global and collaborative academic realm. However, the exponential growth of IRC has also led to a greater development in its study, capturing the attention of multiple authors (Kwiek, 2018, 2020; 2021; Dusdal & Powell, 2021). In a recent literature review, Chen etal. (2019) identify three main stages in the last 50years of study of IRC: “emergence” (1957–1991), “fermentation” (1992–2005) and “take-off” (2006–2015). Therefore, it could be said, as recent literature argues, that there has been an explosion of such investigations currently (Chen etal., 2019; Vieira etal., 2022). Scientific collaboration is a matter of social convention among scientists, defined by extreme complexity in its conceptualisation, so it can be described in many different ways (Katz & Martin, 1997; Kwiek, 2020). According to Laudel (2002, p. 5), research collaboration can be conceived as a ‘system of research activities by several actors related in a functional way and coordinated to attain a research goal corresponding with these actors’ research goals or interests’. For Kwiek (2020, p. 59), IRC can be defined as ‘an emergent, self-organising, networked system, in which the selection of partners and research settings often relies on the researchers themselves’. IRC provides the greatest ‘attractiveness, international visibility and, often, it implies a significant commitment on the part of the researcher’ (Smeby & Gornitzka, 2008, p. 48). Therefore, assuming a perspective based on research results, IRC can be conceived as a self-organised and networked system in which researchers select specific international research partners and environments for functional development of research to obtain superior research results. 2752 Scientometrics (2024) 129:2749–2770 1 3 Importance ofinternational research collaboration Multiple studies have reported exponential IRC growth in recent decades in different fields of knowledge (Adams, 2013; Wagner etal., 2015; Kwiek, 2020; Dusdal & Powell, 2021). For example, Wagner et al. (2015) found that internationally coauthored publications increased from 10.1% in 1990 to 24.6% in 2011. This increasingly international research environment appears to be a new defining characteristic of global science (Kwiek, 2020). As some studies have argued, this IRC growth is supported by the generalised conception that science should be recognised as internationally relevant and as one of the classic principles of peer review (Woldegiyorgis etal., 2018). Furthermore, the very complexity of today’s great social challenges goes beyond the intellectual capacity of any one institution or scientific team, making it necessary to combine knowledge and resources beyond national borders (Keenan etal., 2012). Clearly, the orientation today leans towards international collaboration in the approach to incentive and reward systems in recent European scientific fields (Kyvik & Aksnes, 2015). Policymakers in most European countries and the European Union itself have encouraged IRC through the philosophy that it creates a global context of research excellence that improves the quality of research and its subsequent dissemination (Jeong etal., 2014). This places increasing pressure on European researchers to pursue international collaboration if they intend to access research funding for projects (Kwiek, 2020). Over the past two decades, most European Union (EU) research project funding programmes and international mobility programmes have encouraged IRC (Kwiek, 2018). Access to EU funding sources in most cases favours applications in which members of the research project come from at least three different countries, and the criteria usually benefit PIs with extensive international research networks and experience in mobility (Kwiek, 2020). But, in addition to individual incentive systems, the growth of IRC is also attributed to the prevailing university prestige maximization system derived from the internationally recognized criteria found in rankings like the Shanghai Ranking (Academic Ranking of World Universities), or the Times Higher Education World University Ranking (THE). It is evident that, while scientists enhance their individual prestige by collaborating with top researchers in a field of knowledge, they also maximize the prestige of the institutions to which they belong (Kwiek, 2020). International research collaboration andresearch productivity Myriad studies in the literature have focussed on studying IRC’s effect on scientific productivity and its impact on investigations. The logic behind these studies is based on the idea that IRC is a powerful tool for fostering scientific and technological advances through greater individual productivity among researchers (measured by the number of publications with international co-authorship) and greater scientific impact (measured by the number of citations) (Abramo etal., 2011; Katz & Martin, 1997; Kwiek, 2016, 2020). For example, Abramo etal. (2011) found a positive correlation between publications with international co-authorship and individual research performance in their study on Italian academics, which in turn influences the subsequent impact of these publications. Similarly, Kwiek (2016) concluded that the most significant predictor of scientific productivity of highly productive academics in Europe was the levels of international co-authorship they had developed during their academic careers. Therefore, although there may not always be 2753 Scientometrics (2024) 129:2749–2770 1 3 a causal relationship between scientific productivity, it is clear that highly productive scientists tend to collaborate with international colleagues to a greater extent (Kwiek, 2018). The cultural diversity characterizing international collaborations could foster a higher level of creativity in research development, affecting its quality and impact (Wagner etal., 2019). In fact, multiple studies have revealed that researchers who publish with international colleagues achieve greater visibility of their published research, which in turn benefits the number of citations obtained (Glänzel & Schubert, 2001; Gazni etal., 2012; Adams, 2013; Dusdal & Powell, 2021). Therefore, based on these considerations, researchers are expected to develop a more ‘internationalist’ attitude than ‘localist’ researchers, who only have local research as a frame of reference (Kwiek, 2015, 2018). However, the reality is that some researchers are more internationalised than others (Kwiek, 2020). So, then, as posed earlier, why do some researchers collaborate more internationally than others? Driving factors ofIRC: individual andcollective determinants Reviewing the literature, a set of studies identify multiple antecedents that influence the development of IRC (Abramo etal., 2013; Dua etal., 2023; Kwiek, 2018; Kyvik & Aksnes, 2015; Vieira etal., 2022). However, due to the large number of studies that have analysed the different determinants of IRC, the literature is, to a greater extent, dispersed. In this sense, Kwiek (2020) proposes that the more specialized IRC literature can be classified into three main topics: (i) macro-level factors (country characteristics, reward structures, scientific fields, or the geographical distance); (ii) organizational or collective factors (reputation or available resources); and (iii) individual factors (gender, motivation or age). Considering the different nature of potential factors, in this paper, we based our study on a socio-collective perspective to address the literature gap on determinant affecting IRC (Blackburn & Lawrence, 1995; Finkelstein etal., 2013; Porter & Umbach, 2001). This approach offers an integrative approach that combines individual and collective factors in scientific research to understand the determinants of IRC. The decision to collaborate internationally with other colleagues is presupposed as a decision in which researchers decide on the best way to allocate their limited resources (Kwiek, 2020). This decision obviously will involve various potential benefits, e.g., access to unknown knowledge and experiences, or increased scientific productivity (Kwiek, 2018, 2020). However, this study conceptualises internationalisation as a researcher’s decision shaped by two broad sets of individual and collective factors (Blackburn & Lawrence, 1995; Finkelstein etal., 2013; Porter & Umbach, 2001). This approach aligns with the defining environment of scientific research today, in which work is fundamentally social, and research is conducted through scientific teams (Lee & Bozeman, 2005; Zheng, 2010). As the socio-collective perspective posits, the joint consideration of individual and collective factors that reciprocally influence the researcher’s decision to internationalise means that the present study is based on the precepts established by social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1978), according to which, human behaviour and decisions are conditioned by personal cognitive and behavioural factors, along with other environmental factors. Therefore, the aforementioned arguments provide the necessary theoretical basis through which to classify determinants of IRC conceptually from a dual individual and collective perspective to discuss this study’s hypotheses. From the individual perspective, it could be argued that IRC may be conditioned by researchers’ motivation level and attractiveness (human capital) to other international colleagues. A greater interest in science and gaining recognition among peers underpin the 2754 Scientometrics (2024) 129:2749–2770 1 3 motivation behind the ‘sacred spark’ hypothesis (Cole & Cole, 1973). This strong motivation to persist in the pursuit of long-term research goals leads them to collaborate internationally to obtain higher rates of scientific productivity and greater peer recognition. Similarly, a researcher has limited cognitive capacities and rationality, so collaboration is viewed as a key element that can provide greater scientific impact (Bozeman etal., 2013; Li etal., 2013; Liao, 2011). Therefore, the ability to join international research networks also will depend on the attractiveness of one’s cognitive abilities and competencies as a researcher to international peers (Wagner & Leydesdorff, 2005). As Kyvik and Larsen (1994, p. 163) noted, ‘Visibility is a basic condition for being potentially interesting to other scientists, but one also has to be attractive in order to be actively sought out by others’. From a collective perspective, we also viewed a scientific team’s work environment as a relevant determinant of IRC. In this sense, the influence that the working environment and relationships with other team members or team management experts on the researcher can enhance and facilitate international relations with other colleagues. The literature already has demonstrated how reputation, visibility or the ability to work in the researcher’s organisational environment can impact the researcher’s individual performance positively (Allison & Long, 1990; Baloch etal., 2021). Environmental theories support the conditions in which research currently is conducted, which are more conducive to teamwork and common effort than working alone. Hypotheses Determinants ofIRC: individual factors Human capital andIRC In an integrative way, by applying the ‘KSAs’ framework, human capital is understood as individuals’ knowledge, skills and abilities (De Frutos-Belizón etal., 2020; García-Carbonell etal., 2021; Nyberg & Wright, 2015). In the academic context, scientists can seek complementarities to their scientific knowledge (K) through collaborations to develop new approaches, methodologies and research ideas. Normally, researchers who master knowledge in particular scientific fields obtain better results and make a greater impact in these fields (De Frutos-Belizón etal., 2020; Jacob & Lefgren, 2011). However, skills (S) have a more generic character and are related to better performance of research tasks (De Frutos-Belizón etal., 2020). These ‘soft skills’ also are linked to better research productivity and refer to communicative and idiomatic skills, research management capabilities, creative skills or teamwork skills (McNie etal., 2016). The incorporation of scientists who are proficient in these relevant skills is viewed as important in the collaborative environments in which research occurs (Dusdal & Powell, 2021). Finally, the researchers’ abilities (A) relate to the individual’s capacity to conduct research correctly (Lindberg & Rantatalo, 2015). Therefore, unlike skills, abilities, i.e., ‘hard skills’, have a specific character in the development of scientific tasks (McNie etal., 2016). In this sense, those who have analytical reasoning abilities, can formulate hypotheses or can disseminate research results possess competencies for generating scientific productivity (Thunnissen & Van Arensbergen, 2015; Ulrich & Dash, 2013). 2755 Scientometrics (2024) 129:2749–2770 1 3 Therefore, based on the aforementioned arguments that define the researcher’s human capital, the initial assumption is that these researchers’ individual attributes function as the origin of research collaborations (Abramo etal., 2017; De Frutos-Belizón etal., 2023). As Kwiek (2020) argued, IRC depends, to a greater extent, on individual scientists’ ‘power’. These arguments are consistent with the idea that IRC allows researchers to seek complementarities in other scientific colleagues with respect to their human capital with the aim of achieving balanced attributes in all dimensions of human capital (De Frutos-Belizón etal., 2023; Kwiek, 2018). Therefore, based on this rationale, scientists who possess better human capital are going to be more visible and ‘attractive’ to other colleagues in their scientific fields, i.e., a scientist who possesses more extensive knowledge in a particular subject will arouse greater interest in their scientific community to establish scientific collaborations. For example, a scientist who has specific knowledge in a particular methodology will have high visibility within their field, which either will lead to them receiving multiple proposals to collaborate, or colleagues will access this scientist’s publications to seek out this specific knowledge in conducting their own research. Therefore, the argumentation behind Hypothesis 1 is that researchers who possess greater human capital tend to be more productive and visible in their scientific fields. This superior knowledge and set of competencies allow them to gain greater ‘attractiveness’ among their scientific peers, so that we can expect them to collaborate internationally to a greater extent. Thus, we propose: Hypothesis 1 The researcher’s human capital positively influences the level of international research collaborations. Motivation andIRC Regarding the second individual factor, a substantial body of literature has examined academic researchers’ motivation. Studies such as Yemini (2021) have found that IRC is part of research activity that generates new knowledge and social relations. Likewise, some previous studies have proposed that research motivation is crucial for the emergence of IRC (Kwiek, 2018, 2021; Kyvik & Larsen, 1994), as well as every stage of researchers’ careers (Hangel & Schmidt-Pfister, 2017). However, the relationship between motivation and IRC has not been examined in depth in the literature, as well as the effects that it elicits. Traditionally, research motivation has been considered from two perspectives: intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation emphasises academics’ passion for or satisfaction with academic research because of the interest generated by understanding the complex nature of research (Ryan & Deci, 2000). However, extrinsic motivation focusses on external rewards from doing research, which are related to passive compliance (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Academic researchers should embrace both types of motivation to elicit exponential results from research activities (Guerrero-Alba etal., 2021; Peng & Gao, 2019). However, the literature postulates that the motivation that exerts the greatest effect on researchers’ performance is intrinsic motivation (Stupnisky et al., 2019, 2023). A researcher, based on the principles of science, wants their research to make a greater societal impact. In this sense, the literature has demonstrated that internationally coauthored papers make a greater impact than nationally coauthored papers (Oh etal., 2010). Furthermore, researchers who obtain greater prestige in their scientific communities also develop stronger vocational feelings towards obtaining greater international visibility. Furthermore, previous literature has pointed out that status, reflected in prestige and academic position, 2756 Scientometrics (2024) 129:2749–2770 1 3 is a determining factor in the establishment of international collaborations (Acedo etal., 2006; Jeong etal., 2014). Some studies have highlighted that IRC’s focus on incentives aims to establish new research opportunities, additional resources, training of researchers or increased research strength and status (Shih & Forsberg, 2023; Wagner & Leydesdorff, 2005). Different studies have highlighted that universities propose specific funding lines for researchers to collaborate with other international institutions (Kienast, 2023). Researchers should take advantage of these incentives to establish more efficient international relations, which foster joint research interest. These incentives would lead to IRC and the purchase of expensive equipment (Melin, 2000) to help obtain better research results, thereby fulfilling promotion requirements at their universities (Kim & Bak, 2017). Based on these aforementioned arguments, we propose the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 2 Researchers’ motivation (intrinsic and extrinsic) positively influences the level of international research collaborations. Determinants ofIRC: collective factors Social capital andIRC The concept of social capital is accepted widely in the literature as a construct grouped into three interrelated dimensions––structural, relational and cognitive––derived from the network of established relationships (Martín-Alcázar etal., 2019; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). This social network contributes to the generation and exchange of knowledge. The structural dimension refers to the patterns of connections between a social network’s members. The larger the network of contacts established by the scientific team, the greater the possibilities for accessing research networks and establishing connections with other colleagues. The relational dimension refers primarily to trust, behavioural norms, social climate, obligations and expectations, as well as the identification created through personal relationships between actors (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). The team climate and trust between team members will enable social exchange and collaboration, which are conducive to knowledge sharing and team performance. Solid and frequent social interaction allows actors to get to know each other better, share information and ideas, and, thus, impact mutual trust (Martín-Alcázar etal., 2019). Finally, the cognitive dimension refers to those resources that favour the communication and combination of knowledge. On the scientific team, the transfer of knowledge, ideas and contacts allows members to access more information and a larger network of contacts, which could help establish new external collaborations. Therefore, based on the previous considerations, we consider that the scientific team’s social capital is one of the collective factors that can make the greatest impact on the establishment of IRC. Hsu and Hung (2013) argued that the existence of trust within the group improves the capacity for knowledge integration among group members, positively influencing willingness to share knowledge, information and contacts. Similarly, a cohesive climate of mutual trust is viewed as a central condition for establishing collaborations, allowing the team’s principal investigator to take (social or epistemic) risks in developing scientific collaborations (Hückstädt, 2023; O’Rourke etal., 2019). However, a high configuration of social capital within the scientific team benefits more than just the exchange or generation of scientific knowledge. As Burt (1997) noted, models need to consider social 2757 Scientometrics (2024) 129:2749–2770 1 3 capital’s benefits at the individual level, emphasising benefits that individuals extract from their networks of formal and informal relations with other academics. In this sense, the literature has demonstrated how social capital facilitates access to broader sources of information and improves information quality, relevance and timeliness (Bozeman etal., 2013; Gonzalez-Brambila etal., 2013; Liao, 2011). This all positively affects team members’ productivity and research impact (De Frutos etal., 2020), leading to greater visibility in the scientific community and, consequently, more opportunities to collaborate with other colleagues. Therefore, based on these arguments, we propose: Hypothesis 3 A high level of social capital within a scientific team positively influences the level of international research collaborations. Team leadership andIRC Bland etal. (2005) concluded that group productivity is affected by institutional and leadership characteristics the most (Shih & Forsberg, 2023; Zhang etal., 2023). In this vein, PIs’ role within research teams is crucial to explaining their performance (Harvey etal., 2002). Regarding the latter, the leader’s role provides pioneering and innovative guidance, as well as new trends in the discipline itself, by recognising the implications of the research they develop within the group. In this sense, the search for the optimal leadership style to achieve the desired team outcomes has been a recurring theme among researchers to explain individual and group performance (Zhao etal., 2019). In this research, we consider that the leadership style that best suits research teams’ needs is knowledge-oriented––the best type to explain IRC behaviour (Ballesteros-Rodriguez etal., 2022; Donate & Sánchez de Pablo, 2015). Thus, knowledge-oriented leadership in particular can be understood as the leader’s behaviour in supporting the other members of the group in learning processes by giving them freedom over the progress of the research in achieving the research team’s goals (Zhang & Cheng, 2015). This leadership style is appropriate for collaboration, as it allows for fostering coordination, providing necessary resources and collaborating jointly among participants (Yukl, 2012). Therefore, based on their arguments, we propose: Hypothesis 4 Knowledge-oriented leadership positively influences international research collaboration. Team scientific productivity andIRC Our final hypothesis aimed to examine how working dynamics influence the researcher’s ability to establish IRCs. To do so, we referred to the working atmosphere as a proxy that refers to the dynamics or rhythm of a scientific team’s work. These research-oriented work dynamics, characterised by high levels of productivity, contribute to an atmosphere of collaboration and work that favours IRC (Anderson etal., 2000; Hückstädt, 2023). Therefore, work atmosphere refers to the scientific productivity that the group can develop, i.e., the scientific team’s strict research orientation and its level of work. Research-oriented teams with higher scientific performance maintain an active role in research through a cohesive collaborative climate that encourages debate and discussion, generating the free exchange of scientific ideas (Hall etal., 2012). Similarly, a highly productive scientific team can 2764 Scientometrics (2024) 129:2749–2770 1 3 Conclusions As mentioned in the introduction, a number of studies has mainly focused on comparing the development of international collaborations across different disciplines (Kwiek, 2020; Kyvik & Aksnes, 2015). However, less attention has been paid to the antecedents that could explain these differences. In this vein, the novelty of the study rests on the joint analysis of micro-level factors—individual and collective—as potential antecedents that affect IRC levels in STEM and SSH fields of knowledge. Considering the mentioned findings, it can be concluded that in a way, individual factors––e.g., human capital and motivation, and even leadership––seem to be insufficient for establishing international connections to collaborate, i.e., a potential collaborator may have outstanding abilities as a star researcher or demonstrate deep motivation to collaborate, but according to our results, more complex aspects are needed to develop efficient and productive IRC. In this vein, subsequent findings will reinforce the aforementioned idea because, as explained above, the most relevant and influential variables in our models are social capital and team productivity (H5-Index). Regarding social capital, it is, by definition, necessary ‘infrastructure’ to facilitate the generation and exchange of knowledge because it implies the existence of a network derived from a number of established relationships (Martín-Alcázar etal., 2019). In this sense, social capital appears to be a significant and relatively strong influence in two of the tested models (all fields of knowledge and STEM). Concretely, social capital’s cognitive and structural dimensions seem to be the most influential aspects in promoting IRC. These findings are coherent with the extant literature because as defined, the cognitive dimension’s social capital relates to resources that favour communication and knowledge exchange as values, languages or codes (Chow & Chan, 2008). In this vein, it can be logical that a higher level of social capital in its cognitive dimension may improve the level of international contacts in research. Furthermore, as the models indicate, social capital’s structural dimension is even more important than the previous one in generating international collaboration. Furthermore, it makes sense because structural social capital refers to the patterns of connections between members of a social network––centrality, strength of connections, network size and structural holes (Zheng, 2010). The greater the number of contacts from the scientific team, the better the options to access and create connections with other colleagues, including international researchers. As Filieri etal., (2014, p. 431) explained, ‘Structural social capital facilitates the flow of information, it enables influence on network members, it certifies the network members’ social credentials, reflecting (the) ability to access resources via social relationships, and it reinforces identity and aids recognition as a social group member who shares similar interests and resources as other members’ (Lin, 2001). In this respect, having shared, realistic and clear goals in a network, and promoting interdisciplinary communication to better understand different research works and knowledge are important factors that influence collaborations (Hückstadt, 2023). In particular, social capital’s most relevant effect appears in the STEM model, which fits the publication pattern in these areas that traditionally display higher coauthorship levels (Gazni etal., 2012). In relation to the team H5-Index, as explained above, it can be understood that being a productive team may attract potential collaborators more than human capital attributes that, though important, are not tangible, nor a guarantee of success. Finally, contrary to our expectations, we did not find important differences between types of knowledge areas regarding the studied variables. In actuality, the results reveal 2765 Scientometrics (2024) 129:2749–2770 1 3 that in both areas, SSH and STEM, collective factors play a more primary role in promoting IRC than individual ones. The logic behind this could be that although individual aspects may exert a certain influence, collective items seem to create the basis on which networks are built, fulfilling a double condition: 1) team productivity to lure potential collaborators and 2) team social capital as the origin of new contacts. Practical implications Through this study’s findings, some interesting conclusions can be drawn that inspire diverse practical implications for the design and implementation of academic staff management policies at universities. In essence, we suggest focussing on the development of individual researchers and teams’ social capital and network ties. Our logic rests on Melkers and Kiopa’s (2010, p. 391) idea that ‘researchers must have some level of established social capital that allows them to interact effectively within the international collaborative environment’. In this sense, collaborations should be systematised to make them more accessible to most researchers and teams, and research networks should be strengthened and established (Kyvik & Reymert, 2017). Thus, on an individual level, it is crucial that researchers sufficiently develop their social capital to feed their team networks (Melkers & Kiopa, 2010). In practice, training oriented toward developing researchers’ English language and/or communication skills could help expand potential collaborations beyond personal connections. Furthermore, as IRC is viewed as a time-consuming activity, other actions should be designed to reduce teaching credits or increase sabbatical periods (de Frutos Belizón etal., 2023). Promoting scientific mobility also would foster the creation of new ties and networks, as well as it could help to maintain existing ones. In this sense, mobility could complement extant initiatives (e.g., Marie Skłodowska-Curie or Erasmus Programme) that involve signing collaboration agreements with universities, searching for essential resources (data or equipment) or working on particular research interests or teams. From this mobility, the networks may function as ‘conduits of knowledge’ (Turpin etal., 2008), leveraging information, expertise and knowledge ‘at a distance’ (Woolley etal., 2008). Social capital and research networks also can be promoted by increasing research teams’ visibility. Due to the team H5-Index’s importance in our regression models, as one of the main IRC determinants, fostering research teams’ visibility could be useful in demonstrating the team’s academic status, as well as cultivating potential contacts and collaborators (e.g., research teams or researcher websites hosted on universities’ websites). Through this, researchers could follow fellow teams/researchers’ work more closely, including funded projects, recent publications or research interests, fostering interdisciplinary communication that can cultivate collaborations (Hückelstat, 2023). Limitations andfuture research directions In any case, the findings should be considered with caution because the study contains several limitations. First, the research used only a Spanish sample, which may hinder the results’ generalisability. A future research direction could be to examine other national contexts, then compare the data from various countries and research systems. Furthermore, the data came from a particular point in time, and longitudinal studies can be conducted to seek broader information about the causality between variables. Regarding the studied variables, it could be interesting to test different types of leadership apart from 2766 Scientometrics (2024) 129:2749–2770 1 3 knowledge-oriented leadership. As Hückelstat (2023) noted, among others, PIs and their characteristics may be determinants in research collaboration success. Therefore, more research is needed in this realm. Apart from leadership, other conditioning factors should be examined more thoroughly, e.g., universities’ academic status and research teams from other disciplines that may be better prepared to develop IRC. Another limitation of the study could be that it focuses mainly on individual-centered factors without exploring other dimensions such as proximity. Future studies could deepen the combined effects of other determinants of IRC related to geographical, socioeconomic, political, or cultural dimensions (Vieira etal., 2022). Finally, it would be interesting for future studies to analyse the “costs” or lack of incentives in some contexts regarding international research activities. Academic reward systems in the European context are increasingly results-oriented, placing greater pressure on researchers in their international collaboration decisions to obtain higher scientific performance (Kwiek, 2020; Kyvik & Aksnes, 2015). However, in some cases, this pressure towards immediate scientific results may not always encourage international collaborative activities. This is the case for early career scholars, who may not be sufficiently incentivised to participate in these international activities, as they are focused on obtaining immediate scientific results to advance their careers and avoid career uncertainty (Skakni etal., 2019). It is clear that researchers will choose to collaborate internationally based on the compensation they receive compared to other ways of collaboration (Jeong etal., 2014). Similarly, there are other relevant barriers that should also be further analysed. For example, many researchers also find it discouraging to spend time on administrative activities once these collaborative activities are established and post-grant activities are developed. The individual decision to collaborate internationally must be analysed from a trade-off perspective between investment of resources and results obtained. Lack of support for such tasks can lead to administrative problems and coordination costs that create serious barriers to international collaboration (Fox etal., 2017). Funding Funding for open access publishing: Universidad de Cádiz/CBUA. The authors appear in alphabetical order and have contributed equally to this paper. The research project described in this paper was developed under the Research Group SEJ-449 funded by the Andalusian Government (Andalusian Plan for R&D&I) and the Research Projects: ECO2014-56580-R funded by the Spanish Ministry for Science and Technology (Non-oriented Fundamental Research Projects Subprogram), P12-SEJ-1810 (Andalusian Government) and ProyExcel_00855 (Project funded in the 2021 call for Assistance to Projects of Excellence, under competitive concurrence regime, intended for entities qualified as Agents of the Andalusian Knowledge System, within the scope of the Andalusian Plan for Research, Development and Innovation (PAIDI 2020). Council of University, Research and Innovation of the Andalusian Government). Declarations Conflict of interest The authors have declared that no conflict of interests exist. The authors appear in alphabetical order and have contributed equitably to this work. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 2767 Scientometrics (2024) 129:2749–2770 1 3 References Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Murgia, G. (2013). Gender differences in research collaboration. Journal of Informetrics, 7(4), 811–822. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Murgia, G. (2017). The relationship among research productivity, research collaboration, and their determinants. Journal of Informetrics, 11(4), 1016–1030. Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., & Solazzi, M. (2011). The relationship between scientists’ research performance and the degree of internationalization of their research. Scientometrics, 86(3), 629–643. Acedo, F. J., Barroso, C., Casanueva, C., & Galán, J. L. (2006). Co-authorship in management and organizational studies: An empirical and network analysis. Journal of Management Studies, 43, 957–983. Adams, J. (2013). The fourth age of research. Nature, 497(7451), 557–560. Aksnes, D. W., Piro, F. N., & Rørstad, K. (2019). Gender gaps in international research collaboration: A bibliometric approach. Scientometrics, 120, 747–774. Aldieri, L., Kotsemir, M. N., & Vinci, C. P. (2020). The effects of collaboration on research performance of universities: An analysis by federal district and scientific fields in Russia. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 11, 766–787. Allison, P. D., & Long, J. S. (1990). Departmental effects on scientific productivity. American Sociological Review, 55, 469–478. Anderson, N., Brodeck, F. C., & West, M. A. (2000). The Team Climate Inventory: Manual and Validation of the German Version. Hogrefe. Ballesteros-Rodríguez, J. L., De Saá-Pérez, P., García-Carbonell, N., Martín-Alcázar, F., & Sánchez-Gardey, G. (2022). The influence of team members’ motivation and leaders’ behaviour on scientific knowledge sharing in universities. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 88(2), 320–336. Baloch, N., Siming, L., Abraha, A., & Hong, S. (2021). Faculty research productivity: Differences between foreign and local doctoral degree holders in Pakistan. Higher Education, 82, 203–225. Bandura, A. (1978). The self system in reciprocal determinism. American Psychologist, 33(4), 344. Blackburn, R. T., & Lawrence, J. H. (1995). Faculty at work: Motivation, expectation, and satisfaction. Johns Hopkins University Press. Bland, C. J., Center, B. A., Finstad, D. A., Risbey, K. R., & Staples, J. G. (2005). A theoretical, practical, predictive model of faculty and department research productivity. Academic Medicine, 80(3), 225–237. Bozeman, B., Fay, D., & Slade, C. P. (2013). Research collaboration in universities and academic entrepreneurship: The-state-of-the-art. Journal of Technology Transfer, 38(1), 1–67. Cattell, R. B. (1966). Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology. Rand-McNally. Chen, K., Zhang, Y., & Fu, X. (2019). International research collaboration: An emerging domain of innovation studies? Research Policy, 48(1), 149–168. Chow, W. S., & Chan, L. S. (2008). Social network, social trust and shared goals in organizational knowledge sharing. Information & Management, 45(7), 458–465. Cole, J. R., & Cole, S. (1973). Social Stratification in Science. University of Chicago Press. Cooke, N. J., & Hilton, M. L. (2015). Overview of the Research on Team Effectiveness. The National Academies Press. De Frutos-Belizón, J., García-Carbonell, N., Ruíz-Martínez, M., & Sánchez-Gardey, G. (2023). Disentangling international research collaboration in the Spanish academic context: Is there a desirable researcher human capital profile? Research Policy, 52(6), 104779. De Frutos-Belizón, J., Martín-Alcázar, F., & Sánchez-Gardey, G. (2020). An intellectual capital approach to explaining the determinants of scientific productivity in the field of management. European Management Review, 17(4), 943–959. Donate, M. J., & Guadamillas, F. (2011). Organizational factors to support knowledge management and innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(6), 890–914. Donate, M. J., & Sánchez de Pablo, J. D. (2015). The role of knowledge-oriented leadership in knowledge management practices and innovation. Journal of Business Research, 68(2), 360–370. Dua, J., Lathabai, H. H., & Singh, V. K. (2023). Measuring and characterizing research collaboration in SAARC countries. Scientometrics, 128(2), 1265–1294. Dusdal, J., & Powell, J. J. (2021). Benefits, motivations, and challenges of international collaborative research: A sociology of science case study. Science and Public Policy, 48(2), 235–245. Filieri, R., McNally, R. C., O’Dwyer, M., & O’Malley, L. (2014). Structural social capital evolution and knowledge transfer: Evidence from an Irish pharmaceutical network. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(3), 429–440. Finkelstein, M., Walker, E., & Chen, R. (2013). The American faculty in an age of globalization: Predictors of internationalization of research content and professional networks. Higher Education, 66(3), 325–340. 2768 Scientometrics (2024) 129:2749–2770 1 3 Fox, M. F., Realff, M. L., Rueda, D. R., & Morn, J. (2017). International research collaboration among women engineers: Frequency and perceived barriers, by regions. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 42, 1292–1306. García-Carbonell, N., Guerrero-Alba, F., Martín-Alcázar, F., & Sánchez-Gardey, G. (2021). Academic human capital in universities: Definition and proposal of a measurement scale. Science and Public Policy, 48(6), 877–888. Gazni, A., Sugimoto, C. R., & Didegah, F. (2012). Mapping world scientific collaboration: Authors, institutions, and countries. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 63(2), 323–335. Glänzel, W., & Schubert, A. (2001). Double effort= double impact? A critical view at international coauthorship in chemistry. Scientometrics, 50(2), 199–214. Gonzalez-Brambila, C. N., Veloso, F. M., & Krackhardt, D. (2013). The impact of network embeddedness on research output. Research Policy, 42(9), 1555–1567. Guerrero Alba, F., Martín Alcázar, F., & Sánchez Gardey, G. (2021). Identifying the determinants of individual scientific performance: A perspective focused on AMO theory. Intangible Capital, 17(2), 124–147. Hall, K. L., Vogel, A. L., Stipelman, B. A., Stokols, D., Morgan, G., & Gehlert, S. (2012). A four-phase model of transdisciplinary team-based research: Goals, team processes, and strategies. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 2(4), 415–430. Hangel, N., & Schmidt-Pfister, D. (2017). Why do you publish? On the tensions between generating scientific knowledge and publication pressure. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 69(5), 529–544. Harvey, J., Pettigrew, A., & Ferlie, E. (2002). The determinants of research group performance: Towards mode 2? Journal of Management Studies, 39(6), 747–774. Hautala, J., & Jauhiainen, J. S. (2014). Spatio-temporal processes of knowledge creation. Research Policy, 43(4), 655–668. Hessels, L. K., & Van Lente, H. (2008). Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda. Research Policy, 37(4), 740–760. Horodnic, I. A., & Zaiţ, A. (2015). Motivation and research productivity in a university system undergoing transition. Research Evaluation, 24(3), 282–292. Hsu, J. S. C., & Hung, Y. W. (2013). Exploring the interaction effects of social capital. Information Management, 50(7), 415–430. Hückstädt, M. (2023). Ten reasons why research collaborations succeed—a random forest approach. Scientometrics, 128(3), 1923–1950. Jacob, B. A., & Lefgren, L. (2011). The impact of NIH postdoctoral training grants on scientific productivity. Research Policy, 40(6), 864–874. Jeong, S., Choi, J. Y., & Kim, J. Y. (2014). On the drivers of international collaboration: The impact of informal communication, motivation, and research resources. Science and Public Policy, 41(4), 520–531. Kaiser, H. F. (1974). A computational starting point for Rao’s canonical factor analysis: Implications for computerized procedures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34(3), 691–692. Katz, J. S., & Martin, B. R. (1997). What is research collaboration? Research Policy, 26(1), 1–18. Keenan, M., Cutler, P., Marks, J., Meylan, R., Smith, C., & Koivisto, E. (2012). Orienting international science cooperation to meet global ‘grand challenges.’ Science and Public Policy, 39(2), 166–177. Kienast, S. R. (2023). How do universities’ organizational characteristics, management strategies, and culture influence academic research collaboration? A literature review and research agenda. Tertiary Education and Management. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1123302209101-y Kim, D. H., & Bak, H. J. (2017). Incentivizing research collaboration using performance-based reward systems. Science and Public Policy, 44(2), 186–198. Kwiek, M. (2015). The internationalization of research in Europe: A quantitative study of 11 national systems from a micro-level perspective. Journal of Studies in International Education, 19(4), 341–359. Kwiek, M. (2016). The European research elite: A cross-national study of highly productive academics in 11 countries. Higher Education, 71, 379–397. Kwiek, M. (2018). International research collaboration and international research orientation: Comparative findings about European academics. Journal of Studies in International Education, 22(2), 136–160. Kwiek, M. (2020). Internationalists and locals: International research collaboration in a resource-poor system. Scientometrics, 124(1), 57–105. Kwiek, M. (2021). What large-scale publication and citation data tell us about international research collaboration in Europe: Changing national patterns in global contexts. Studies in Higher Education, 46(12), 2629–2649. 2769 Scientometrics (2024) 129:2749–2770 1 3 Kyvik, S., & Aksnes, D. W. (2015). Explaining the increase in publication productivity among academic staff: A generational perspective. Studies in Higher Education, 40, 1438–1453. Kyvik, S., & Larsen, I. M. (1994). International contact and research performance. Scientometrics, 29(1), 161–172. Kyvik, S., & Reymert, I. (2017). Research collaboration in groups and networks: Differences across academic fields. Scientometrics, 113, 951–967. Laudel, G. (2002). What do we measure by co-authorships? Research Evaluation, 11(1), 3–15. Li, E. Y., Liao, C. H., & Yen, H. R. (2013). Co-authorship networks and research impact: A social capital perspective. Research Policy, 42(9), 1515–1530. Liao, C. H. (2011). How to improve research quality? Examining the impacts of collaboration intensity and member diversity in collaboration networks. Scientometrics, 86(3), 747–761. Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action (Vol. 19). Cambridge University Press. Lindberg, O., & Rantatalo, O. (2015). Competence in professional practice: A practice theory analysis of police and doctors. Human Relations, 68(4), 561–582. Martín-Alcázar, F., Ruiz-Martínez, M., & Sánchez-Gardey, G. (2019). Assessing social capital in academic research teams: A measurement instrument proposal. Scientometrics, 121, 917–935. McNie, E. C., Parris, A., & Sarewitz, D. (2016). Improving the public value of science: A typology to inform discussion, design and implementation of research. Research Policy, 45(4), 884–895. Melin, G. (2000). Pragmatism and self-organization: Research collaboration on the individual level. Research Policy, 29, 31–40. Melkers, J., & Kiopa, A. (2010). The social capital of global ties in science: The added value of international collaboration. Review of Policy Research, 27(4), 389–414. Murayama, K., Nirei, M., & Shimizu, H. (2015). Management of science, serendipity, and research performance: Evidence from a survey of scientists in Japan and the US. Research Policy, 44(4), 862–873. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266. Nyberg, A. J., & Wright, P. M. (2015). 50 years of human capital research: Assessing what we know, exploring where we go. Academy of Management Perspectives, 29(3), 287–295. O’Rourke, M., Crowley, S., Laursen, B., Robinson, B., & Vasko, S. E. (2019). Disciplinary diversity in teams: Integrative approaches from unidisciplinarity to transdisciplinarity. Strategies for team science success: Handbook of evidence-based principles for cross-disciplinary science and practical lessons learned from health researchers (pp. 21–46). Springer International Publishing. Oh, D., Kim, Y., & Ahn, H. (2010). An analysis of international cooperation in the public research and development programs of Korea. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 18(2), 43–67. Olmos-Peñuela, J., Molas-Gallart, J., & Castro-Martínez, E. (2014). Informal collaborations between social sciences and humanities researchers and non-academic partners. Science and Public Policy, 41(4), 493–506. Peng, J. E., & Gao, X. (2019). Understanding TEFL academics research motivation and its relations with research productivity. SAGE Open, 9(3), 2158244019866295. Porter, S. R., & Umbach, P. D. (2001). Analyzing faculty workload data using multilevel modeling. Research in Higher Education, 42, 171–196. Ryan, J. C. (2014). The work motivation of research scientists and its effect on research performance. R&D Management, 44(4), 355–369. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. Shih, T., & Forsberg, E. (2023). Origins, motives, and challenges in Western-Chinese research collaborations amid recent geopolitical tensions: Findings from Swedish-Chinese research collaborations. Higher Education, 85, 651–667. Skakni, I., Moreno, M. D. C., Seuba, M. C., & McAlpine, L. (2019). Hanging tough: Post-PhD researchers dealing with career uncertainty. Higher Education Research Development, 38(7), 1489–1503. Smeby, J.-C., & Gornitzka, Å. (2008). All cosmopolitans now? The changing international contacts of university researchers. In Å. Gornitzka & L. Langfeldt (Eds.), Borderless knowledge: Understanding “new” internationalisation of research and higher education in Norway (pp. 37–50). Springer. Stupnisky, R. H., BrckaLorenz, A., & Laird, T. F. N. (2019). How does faculty research motivation type relate to success? A test of self-determination theory. International Journal of Educational Research, 98, 25–35. Stupnisky, R. H., Larivière, V., Hall, N. C., & Omojiba, O. (2023). Predicting research productivity in STEM faculty: The role of self-determined motivation. Research in Higher Education, 64, 598–621. 2770 Scientometrics (2024) 129:2749–2770 1 3 Thunnissen, M., & Van Arensbergen, P. (2015). A multi-dimensional approach to talent: An empirical analysis of the definition of talent in Dutch academia. Personnel Review, 44(2), 182–199. Turpin, T., Woolley, R., Marceau, J., & Hill, S. (2008). Conduits of knowledge in the Asia Pacific: Research training, networks and country of work. Asian Population Studies, 4(3), 247–265. Ulrich, W., & Dash, D. P. (2013). Research skills for the future: Summary and critique of a comparative study in eight countries. Journal of Research Practice, 9(1), V1–V1. Vieira, E. S., Cerdeira, J., & Teixeira, A. A. C. (2022). Which distance dimensions matter in international research collaboration? A cross-country analysis by scientific domain. Journal of Informetrics, 16(2), 101259. Wagner, C. S., & Leydesdorff, L. (2005). Network structure, self-organization, and the growth of international collaboration in science. Research Policy, 34(10), 1608–1618. Wagner, C. S., Park, H. W., & Leydesdorff, L. (2015). The continuing growth of global cooperation networks in research: A conundrum for national governments. PLoS ONE, 10(7), e0131816. Wagner, C. S., Whetsell, T. A., & Mukherjee, S. (2019). International research collaboration: Novelty, conventionality, and atypicality in knowledge recombination. Research Policy, 48(5), 1260–1270. Woldegiyorgis, A. A., Proctor, D., & de Wit, H. (2018). Internationalization of research: Key considerations and concerns. Journal of Studies in International Education, 22(2), 161–176. Woolley, R., Turpin, T., Marceau, J., & Hill, S. (2008). Mobility matters: Research training and network building in science. Comparative Technology Transfer and Society, 6(3), 159–184. Yemini, M. (2021). International research collaborations as perceived by top-performing scholars. Journal of Studies in International Education, 25(1), 3–18. Yukl, G. (2012). Effective leadership behavior: What we know and what questions need more attention. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(4), 66–85. Zhang, L., & Cheng, J. (2015). Effect of knowledge leadership on knowledge sharing in engineering project design teams: The role of social capital. Project Management Journal, 46(5), 111–124. Zhang, Y., Zhang, L., Zhu, J., Liu, C.-H., Yang, M., & Liu, G. (2023). Group leader emotional intelligence and group performance: A multilevel perspective. Asian Business Management, 22, 570–592. Zhao, E. Y., Thatcher, S. M., & Jehn, K. A. (2019). Instigating, engaging in, and managing group conflict: A review of the literature addressing the critical role of the leader in group conflict. Academy of Management Annals, 13(1), 112–147. Zheng, W. (2010). A social capital perspective of innovation from individuals to nations: Where is empirical literature directing us? International Journal of Management Reviews, 12(2), 151–183. Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.