Collaborations between researchers and non-academic partners are increasingly encouraged, but do they truly enhance scientific impact? Drawing on survey data from Spanish scientists, Carolin Nast, Oscar Llopis, Dima Yankova and Pablo D’Este show that joint research projects are associated with higher citation impact, especially for scientists with strong academic reputations.
Collaboration between scientists and non-academic partners, such as firms, hospitals, NGOs, and beyond, commonly referred to as academic engagement, is a growing priority in science policy. To encourage such connections, universities and research institutions have rolled out a variety of incentives, and scientists are now increasingly evaluated on how effectively they engage with the world beyond academia. These partnerships are credited with driving innovation, whether by developing new technologies for industry or tackling societal challenges. But do they also benefit scientists’ research output? And if so, in what ways?
Asking these questions is important since advancing scientific knowledge provides a crucial building ground for future discoveries and for addressing complex challenges.
There is a growing recognition that academic engagement is positively linked to higher research productivity – scientists who collaborate outside academia tend to publish more papers. However, its contribution to significant advances in science remains far less clear. Yet, it’s easy to imagine that the impact of these collaborations would go beyond traditional quantitative metrics, potentially leading to more substantive qualitative benefits.
The pros and cons of collaboration
Of course, for many researchers, working with non-academic partners isn’t exactly smooth sailing. Beyond differences in expertise, these collaborations often involve mismatched priorities, conflicting research timelines, and communication barriers. Scientists are more likely to focus on long-term discovery, while businesses and policymakers are typically driven by immediate, practical needs and election cycles. Balancing these demands can be both time-consuming and logistically complicated.
By engaging with industry leaders, policymakers, or healthcare professionals, researchers gain insights into the practical challenges and real-world needs of society.
Yet, despite the hurdles, some theoretical perspectives suggest that academic engagement can unlock valuable opportunities for scientific advancements. For one thing, academics who collaborate across institutional boundaries often find themselves in what researchers call a “brokerage position” which enables them to tap into the best of both worlds, accessing fresh ideas and a plurality of perspectives. This can inspire “outside-the-box thinking” and lead to creative combinations of knowledge and the emergence of original research topics. But the benefits could potentially extend further. By engaging with industry leaders, policymakers, or healthcare professionals, researchers gain insights into the practical challenges and real-world needs of society, making their scientific contributions more relevant to the final beneficiary.
The benefits of collaboration for scientific impact
To test whether these benefits hold up in practice, we analysed the results of a nationwide survey of Spanish scientists, conducted in 2016. The questionnaire asked respondents about the nature of their interactions with non-academic actors, the frequency and mode of collaboration, along with other relevant details. The results revealed a fascinating and nuanced picture. First, we found compelling evidence that scientists who engage with non-academic partners produce more impactful research.
Let’s first clarify what we mean by “more impactful”. Although multiple conceptualisations of impact exist, we’re interested in how much a scholar’s work influences the academic community as measured by the number of top-cited academic papers. Naturally, this impact can derive from multiple factors associated with the intrinsic merits of a particular piece of research, including its novelty, originality and relevance. In other words, high-impact research pushes boundaries and sparks new conversations within the broader scientific community. To assess this, we examined the publications of the surveyed scientists in Web of Science-listed journals and tracked their citations to measure the extent to which their work shaped academic discourse.
The role of reputation and mode of collaboration
Curiously, the documented advantages of engagement were not the same for everyone. Scientists with strong reputation and high levels of peer recognition get the most out of these collaborations. They appear better positioned to maximise the knowledge-sharing opportunities that partnerships with non-academic actors provide. This is in line with Merton’s cumulative advantage theory, also known as the Matthew Effect, which posits that recognised scientists are more likely to benefit from additional resources and opportunities.
How scientists engage with non-academics also matters. Our analysis showed that the positive relationship between engagement and scientific impact is stronger in the case of joint research projects – where both sides are actively involved in most or all aspects of the research process – as opposed to consultancy and contract research, where it is the non-academic partner who typically sets the terms, defines research goals and time schedules in a demand-driven arrangement (see the figures below).
Note: The graphs illustrate the relationship between our raw values of academic engagement and scientific impact. For better clarity, data points are grouped, with each dot representing the average value within a group. Source: Authors’ elaboration.
This difference likely stems from the sustained bi-directional flow of knowledge in joint projects, which offers unique opportunities for knowledge co-creation and cross-learning. It also suggests that the depth and nature of engagement matter just as much as the act of collaborating itself.
Given the evidence, one might wonder, how can we maximise the benefits of academic engagement? One approach is for funding bodies to provide more targeted grants that support long-term collaborations between academic and non-academic partners. Universities can also play a role by investing in capacity-building, networking events, and mentorship programmes – especially for early-career researchers. By fostering structured support, institutions can ensure that all researchers – not just the most experienced ones – reap the rewards of engagement outside academia. Ultimately, while reaching across sectors presents its challenges, our study highlights its potential to enhance not just research productivity but also the production of cutting-edge research. It is the promise of groundbreaking, high-impact advances that makes engagement beyond academia a particularly valuable investment for scientists and society alike.
***
This study was conducted as part of the POLISS project, funded by the Horizon 2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No. 860887, and it involved extensive analysis of data partially collected in a previous project (EXTRA-project).
The content generated on this blog is for information purposes only. This Article gives the views and opinions of the authors and does not reflect the views and opinions of the Impact of Social Science blog (the blog), nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science. Please review our comments policy if you have any concerns on posting a comment below.
Image Credit: Rawpixel.com on Shutterstock.
