organization of research work

How to Organize Research Papers: A Cheat Sheet for Graduate Students

• August 8, 2022
• PRODUCTIVITY

It is crucial to organize research papers so that the literature survey process goes smoothly once the data has been gathered and analyzed. This is where a research organizer is useful.

It may be helpful to plan the structure of your writing before you start writing: organizing your ideas before you begin to write will help you decide what to write and how to write it.

It can be challenging to keep your research organized when writing an essay. The truth is, there’s no one “ best ” way to get organized, and there’s no one answer. Whatever system you choose, make sure it works for your learning style and writing habits.

As a graduate student, learning how to organize research papers is therefore essential.

This blog post will cover the basics of organizing research papers and the tools I use to organize my research. 

Before you start

The importance of organizing research papers.

No matter how good your paper management system is, even if you keep all your literature in places that are easy to find, you won’t be able to “create” anything unless you haven’t thought about organizing what you get from them.

The goal of the research is to publish your own work to society for the benefit of everyone in the field and, ultimately, humanity.

In your final year of your PhD, when you see all the papers you’ve stored over the years, imagine the frustration you might experience if you hadn’t gathered the information from those papers in a way that allows you to “create” something with i.

This is why organizing research papers is important when starting your research.

Research with your final product in mind

It is very important to have a clear idea of what your research’s outcome will be to collect the information you really need.

If you don’t yet have all your information, consider what “subheadings” or chunks you could write about.

Write a concept map if you need help identifying your topic chunks. As an introduction to concept mapping, it involves writing down a term or idea and then brainstorming other ideas within it.

To gather information like this, you can use a mind map.

When you find useful information.

Come up with a proper file management system.

Sort your literature with a file management system. There’s no need to come up with a very narrow filing system at this point. Try sorting your research into broader areas of your field. When you’re more familiar with your own research, you’ll be able to narrow down your filing system.

Start with these methods:

Don’t waste your time on stuff that’s interesting but not useful :  

In your own research, what’s the most important part of a particular paper? You won’t have to pay attention to other sections of that paper if you find that section first. 

What is the argument behind your research? Make notes on that information, and then throw everything else away.

Create multiple folders :

Create a file containing related topics if you’re using a computer. Bind the related articles together if you like to print out papers. In other words, keep related things together!

Color code your research papers:   

To organize notes and articles, assign different colors to each sub-topic and use highlighters, tabs, or font colors.

Organize your literature chronologically: 

Even in a short period of time, you might have missed overarching themes or arguments if you hadn’t read them previously. It’s best to organize your research papers chronologically.

If you want to do all this at once, I suggest using a reference manager like Zotero or Mendeley (more on reference managers later).

File renaming 

Make sure you rename your files on your computer according to your own renaming strategy. Taking this step will save you time and confusion as your research progresses.

My usual way of naming a pdf is to use the first author’s last name, followed by the first ten letters of the title and then the year of publication. As an example, For the paper “ Temperature-Dependent Infrared Refractive Index of Polymers from a Calibrated Attenuated Total Reflection Infrared Measurement ” by Azam et al., I renamed the file as “ Azam_Temperature-Dependent_2022.pdf “.

One thing to notice is that I don’t do this manually for all the papers I download. That wouldn’t be as productive, and I’d probably give up after some time renaming every single file. In my reference manager of choice (Zotero), I use a plugin called Zotfile to do this automatically. Zotfile automatically renames files and puts them in the folder I specify every time I add a new paper.

Organizing your research articles by the last names of the lead authors will simplify your citation and referencing process since you have to cite the names of the researchers everywhere. The articles will also be easier to find because they’ll be lined up alphabetically by any researcher’s name you can remember.

Use keywords wisely

Keywords are the most important part of sorting. It’s easy to forget to move a paper to a specific file sometimes because you’re overwhelmed. But you can tag a paper in seconds. 

When organizing research papers, don’t forget to develop a better keyword system, especially if you use a reference manager.

My reference manager, for instance, allows me to view all the keywords I have assigned in the main window, making life much easier.

Create annotations

When reading literature, it is very important to create your own annotations, as discussed in the blog post series, “ Bulletproof literature management system “.

This is the fourth post of the four-part blog series:  The Bulletproof Literature Management System . Follow the links below to read the other posts in the series:

• How to How to find Research Papers
• How to Manage Research Papers
• How to Read Research Papers
• How to Organize Research Papers (You are here)

The best thing to do is to summarize each section of the article/book you are reading that interests you. Don’t forget to include the key parts/arguments/quotes you liked.

Write your own notes

If you decide to read the whole paper, make sure you write your own summary. The reason is that 95% of the things you read will be forgotten after a certain period of time. When that happens, you may have to read the paper all over again if you do not take notes and write your own summary.

By writing your own summary, you will likely memorize the basic idea of the research paper. Additionally, you can link to other similar papers. In this way, you can benefit from the knowledge you gain from reading research papers.

After reading a paper, make sure to ask these questions:

• Why is this source helpful for your essay?  
• How does it support your thesis?  

Keep all the relevant information in one place so that you can refer to it when writing your own thesis.

Use an app like Obsidian to link your thinking if you keep all your files on a computer, making things much easier.

When you are ready to write

Write out of order .

Once you have all the necessary information, you can use your filing system, PDF renaming strategy, and keywords to draw the annotations and notes you need.

Now that you’re all set to write, don’t worry about writing the perfect paper or thesis right away.

Your introduction doesn’t have to come first.

If necessary, you can change your introduction at the end – sometimes, your essay takes a different direction. Nothing to worry about!

Write down ideas as they come to you

As you complete your research, many full-sentence paragraphs will come to your mind. Do not forget to write these down – even in your notes or annotations. Keep a notebook or your phone handy to jot down ideas as you get them. You can then find the information and revise it again to develop a better version if you’re working on the same project for a few days/weeks.

My toolbox to organize research papers

Stick with the free stuff.

Trying to be a productive grease monkey, I’ve tried many apps over the years. Here’s what I learned.

• The simplest solution is always the best solution (the Occam razor principle always wins!).
• The free solution is always the best (because they have the best communities to help you out and are more customizable).

As someone who used to believe that if something is free, you’re the product, I’ve learned that statement isn’t always true.

Ironically, open-source software tends to get better support than proprietary stuff. It’s better to have millions of enthusiasts working for free than ten paid support staff.

There are a lot of reviews out there, and EndNote usually comes out at the bottom. I used EndNote for five years – it worked fine, but other software improved faster. Now I use Zotero, which I like for its web integration. 

Obsidian, my note-taking app of choice, is also free software. Furthermore, you own your files; also, you’ve got a thriving community.

There are a lot of similarities between the software as they adopt each other’s features, and it’s just a matter of preference.

In any researcher’s toolbox, a reference manager is an essential tool.

A reference manager has two important features: the ability to get citation data into the app and the ability to use the citation data in your writing tool.

It should also work on Windows just as well as macOS or Linux, be free, and allow you to manage PDFs of papers or scanned book chapters.

Zotero , in my opinion, gives you all of this and more.

Zotero is one of the best free reference managers for collecting citation data. It includes a browser plugin that lets you save citation information on Google Scholar, journal pages, YouTube, Amazon, and many other websites, including news articles. It automatically downloads a PDF of the associated source when available for news articles, which is very convenient.

One of the things I really like about Zotero is that it has so many third-party plugins that we have almost complete control over how we use it.

With Zotero 6, you can also read and annotate PDFs, which is perfect for your needs.

My Research paper organizing workflow in Zotero :

• Get References and PDF papers into Zotero : I use Zotero’s web plugin to import PDFs directly 
• Filing and sorting : I save files from the web plugin into the file system I already have created in Zotero and assign tags as I do so.
• File renaming : When I save the file, the Zotero plugin (Zotfile) automatically renames it and stores the pdf where I specified.
• Extracting Annotations and taking notes : I use Zotero in the build pdf reader to take notes and annotate, and then I extract them and link them in Obsidian (next section).

You need to keep your notes organized and accessible once you’ve established a strong reading habit. For this purpose, I use Obsidian . I use Obsidian to manage everything related to my graduate studies, including notes, projects, and tasks. 

Using a plugin called mdnotes , Obsidian can also sync up with my reference manager of choice, Zotero. It automatically adds new papers to my Obsidian database whenever I add them to Zotero.

Obsidian may have a steep learning curve for those unfamiliar with bi-directional linking , but using similar software will make things much easier. Thus, you may be better off investing your time in devising a note-taking system that works for you.

You can also use a spreadsheet! Make a table with all the papers you read, whatever tool you choose. Include the paper’s status (e.g., whether you’ve read it) and any relevant projects. This is what mine looks like.

I keep all my notes on an associated page for each paper. In a spreadsheet, you can write your notes directly in the row or link to a Google document for each row. Zotero, for example, allows you to attach notes directly to reference files.

While it might seem like a lot of work, keeping a database of papers you’ve read helps with literature reviews, funding applications, and more. I can filter by keywords or relevant projects, so I don’t have to re-read anything.

The habit of reading papers and learning how to organize research papers has made me a better researcher. It takes me much less time to read now, and I use it to improve my experiments. I used this system a lot when putting together my PhD fellowship application and my candidacy exam. In the future, I will thank myself for having the foresight to take these steps today before starting to write my dissertation.

I am curious to know how others organize their research papers since there is no “ right ” way. Feel free to comment, and we will update the post with any interesting responses!

Images courtesy : Classified vector created by storyset – www.freepik.com

Aruna Kumarasiri

Founder at Proactive Grad, Materials Engineer, Researcher, and turned author. In 2019, he started his professional carrier as a materials engineer with the continuation of his research studies. His exposure to both academic and industrial worlds has provided many opportunities for him to give back to young professionals.

Did You Enjoy This?

Then consider getting the ProactiveGrad newsletter. It's a collection of useful ideas, fresh links, and high-spirited shenanigans delivered to your inbox every two weeks.

I accept the Privacy Policy

Hand-picked related articles

Why do graduate students struggle to establish a productive morning routine? And how to handle it?

• March 17, 2024

How to stick to a schedule as a graduate student?

• October 10, 2023

The best note-taking apps for graduate students: How to choose the right note-taking app

• September 20, 2022

Leave a Reply Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name  *

Email  *

Add Comment  *

Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

Notify me of new posts by email.

Post Comment

• U.S. Locations
• UMGC Europe
• Learn Online
• Find Answers
• 855-655-8682
• Current Students

Online Guide to Writing and Research

The research process, explore more of umgc.

• Online Guide to Writing

Structuring the Research Paper

Formal research structure.

These are the primary purposes for formal research:

enter the discourse, or conversation, of other writers and scholars in your field

learn how others in your field use primary and secondary resources

find and understand raw data and information

For the formal academic research assignment, consider an organizational pattern typically used for primary academic research.  The pattern includes the following: introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions/recommendations.

Usually, research papers flow from the general to the specific and back to the general in their organization. The introduction uses a general-to-specific movement in its organization, establishing the thesis and setting the context for the conversation. The methods and results sections are more detailed and specific, providing support for the generalizations made in the introduction. The discussion section moves toward an increasingly more general discussion of the subject, leading to the conclusions and recommendations, which then generalize the conversation again.

Sections of a Formal Structure

The introduction section.

Many students will find that writing a structured  introduction  gets them started and gives them the focus needed to significantly improve their entire paper. 

Introductions usually have three parts:

presentation of the problem statement, the topic, or the research inquiry

purpose and focus of your paper

summary or overview of the writer’s position or arguments

In the first part of the introduction—the presentation of the problem or the research inquiry—state the problem or express it so that the question is implied. Then, sketch the background on the problem and review the literature on it to give your readers a context that shows them how your research inquiry fits into the conversation currently ongoing in your subject area. 

In the second part of the introduction, state your purpose and focus. Here, you may even present your actual thesis. Sometimes your purpose statement can take the place of the thesis by letting your reader know your intentions. 

The third part of the introduction, the summary or overview of the paper, briefly leads readers through the discussion, forecasting the main ideas and giving readers a blueprint for the paper. 

The following example provides a blueprint for a well-organized introduction.

Example of an Introduction

Entrepreneurial Marketing: The Critical Difference

In an article in the Harvard Business Review, John A. Welsh and Jerry F. White remind us that “a small business is not a little big business.” An entrepreneur is not a multinational conglomerate but a profit-seeking individual. To survive, he must have a different outlook and must apply different principles to his endeavors than does the president of a large or even medium-sized corporation. Not only does the scale of small and big businesses differ, but small businesses also suffer from what the Harvard Business Review article calls “resource poverty.” This is a problem and opportunity that requires an entirely different approach to marketing. Where large ad budgets are not necessary or feasible, where expensive ad production squanders limited capital, where every marketing dollar must do the work of two dollars, if not five dollars or even ten, where a person’s company, capital, and material well-being are all on the line—that is, where guerrilla marketing can save the day and secure the bottom line (Levinson, 1984, p. 9).

By reviewing the introductions to research articles in the discipline in which you are writing your research paper, you can get an idea of what is considered the norm for that discipline. Study several of these before you begin your paper so that you know what may be expected. If you are unsure of the kind of introduction your paper needs, ask your professor for more information.  The introduction is normally written in present tense.

THE METHODS SECTION

The methods section of your research paper should describe in detail what methodology and special materials if any, you used to think through or perform your research. You should include any materials you used or designed for yourself, such as questionnaires or interview questions, to generate data or information for your research paper. You want to include any methodologies that are specific to your particular field of study, such as lab procedures for a lab experiment or data-gathering instruments for field research. The methods section is usually written in the past tense.

THE RESULTS SECTION

How you present the results of your research depends on what kind of research you did, your subject matter, and your readers’ expectations. 

Quantitative information —data that can be measured—can be presented systematically and economically in tables, charts, and graphs. Quantitative information includes quantities and comparisons of sets of data. 

Qualitative information , which includes brief descriptions, explanations, or instructions, can also be presented in prose tables. This kind of descriptive or explanatory information, however, is often presented in essay-like prose or even lists.

There are specific conventions for creating tables, charts, and graphs and organizing the information they contain. In general, you should use them only when you are sure they will enlighten your readers rather than confuse them. In the accompanying explanation and discussion, always refer to the graphic by number and explain specifically what you are referring to; you can also provide a caption for the graphic. The rule of thumb for presenting a graphic is first to introduce it by name, show it, and then interpret it. The results section is usually written in the past tense.

THE DISCUSSION SECTION

Your discussion section should generalize what you have learned from your research. One way to generalize is to explain the consequences or meaning of your results and then make your points that support and refer back to the statements you made in your introduction. Your discussion should be organized so that it relates directly to your thesis. You want to avoid introducing new ideas here or discussing tangential issues not directly related to the exploration and discovery of your thesis. The discussion section, along with the introduction, is usually written in the present tense.

THE CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS SECTION

Your conclusion ties your research to your thesis, binding together all the main ideas in your thinking and writing. By presenting the logical outcome of your research and thinking, your conclusion answers your research inquiry for your reader. Your conclusions should relate directly to the ideas presented in your introduction section and should not present any new ideas.

You may be asked to present your recommendations separately in your research assignment. If so, you will want to add some elements to your conclusion section. For example, you may be asked to recommend a course of action, make a prediction, propose a solution to a problem, offer a judgment, or speculate on the implications and consequences of your ideas. The conclusions and recommendations section is usually written in the present tense.

Key Takeaways

• For the formal academic research assignment, consider an organizational pattern typically used for primary academic research. 
•  The pattern includes the following: introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusions/recommendations.

Mailing Address: 3501 University Blvd. East, Adelphi, MD 20783 This work is licensed under a  Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License . © 2022 UMGC. All links to external sites were verified at the time of publication. UMGC is not responsible for the validity or integrity of information located at external sites.

Table of Contents: Online Guide to Writing

Chapter 1: College Writing

How Does College Writing Differ from Workplace Writing?

What Is College Writing?

Why So Much Emphasis on Writing?

Chapter 2: The Writing Process

Doing Exploratory Research

Getting from Notes to Your Draft

Introduction

Prewriting - Techniques to Get Started - Mining Your Intuition

Prewriting: Targeting Your Audience

Prewriting: Techniques to Get Started

Prewriting: Understanding Your Assignment

Rewriting: Being Your Own Critic

Rewriting: Creating a Revision Strategy

Rewriting: Getting Feedback

Rewriting: The Final Draft

Techniques to Get Started - Outlining

Techniques to Get Started - Using Systematic Techniques

Thesis Statement and Controlling Idea

Writing: Getting from Notes to Your Draft - Freewriting

Writing: Getting from Notes to Your Draft - Summarizing Your Ideas

Writing: Outlining What You Will Write

Chapter 3: Thinking Strategies

A Word About Style, Voice, and Tone

A Word About Style, Voice, and Tone: Style Through Vocabulary and Diction

Critical Strategies and Writing

Critical Strategies and Writing: Analysis

Critical Strategies and Writing: Evaluation

Critical Strategies and Writing: Persuasion

Critical Strategies and Writing: Synthesis

Developing a Paper Using Strategies

Kinds of Assignments You Will Write

Patterns for Presenting Information

Patterns for Presenting Information: Critiques

Patterns for Presenting Information: Discussing Raw Data

Patterns for Presenting Information: General-to-Specific Pattern

Patterns for Presenting Information: Problem-Cause-Solution Pattern

Patterns for Presenting Information: Specific-to-General Pattern

Patterns for Presenting Information: Summaries and Abstracts

Supporting with Research and Examples

Writing Essay Examinations

Writing Essay Examinations: Make Your Answer Relevant and Complete

Writing Essay Examinations: Organize Thinking Before Writing

Writing Essay Examinations: Read and Understand the Question

Chapter 4: The Research Process

Planning and Writing a Research Paper

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Ask a Research Question

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Cite Sources

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Collect Evidence

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Decide Your Point of View, or Role, for Your Research

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Draw Conclusions

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Find a Topic and Get an Overview

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Manage Your Resources

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Outline

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Survey the Literature

Planning and Writing a Research Paper: Work Your Sources into Your Research Writing

Research Resources: Where Are Research Resources Found? - Human Resources

Research Resources: What Are Research Resources?

Research Resources: Where Are Research Resources Found?

Research Resources: Where Are Research Resources Found? - Electronic Resources

Research Resources: Where Are Research Resources Found? - Print Resources

Structuring the Research Paper: Formal Research Structure

Structuring the Research Paper: Informal Research Structure

The Nature of Research

The Research Assignment: How Should Research Sources Be Evaluated?

The Research Assignment: When Is Research Needed?

The Research Assignment: Why Perform Research?

Chapter 5: Academic Integrity

Academic Integrity

Giving Credit to Sources

Giving Credit to Sources: Copyright Laws

Giving Credit to Sources: Documentation

Giving Credit to Sources: Style Guides

Integrating Sources

Practicing Academic Integrity

Practicing Academic Integrity: Keeping Accurate Records

Practicing Academic Integrity: Managing Source Material

Practicing Academic Integrity: Managing Source Material - Paraphrasing Your Source

Practicing Academic Integrity: Managing Source Material - Quoting Your Source

Practicing Academic Integrity: Managing Source Material - Summarizing Your Sources

Types of Documentation

Types of Documentation: Bibliographies and Source Lists

Types of Documentation: Citing World Wide Web Sources

Types of Documentation: In-Text or Parenthetical Citations

Types of Documentation: In-Text or Parenthetical Citations - APA Style

Types of Documentation: In-Text or Parenthetical Citations - CSE/CBE Style

Types of Documentation: In-Text or Parenthetical Citations - Chicago Style

Types of Documentation: In-Text or Parenthetical Citations - MLA Style

Types of Documentation: Note Citations

Chapter 6: Using Library Resources

Finding Library Resources

Chapter 7: Assessing Your Writing

How Is Writing Graded?

How Is Writing Graded?: A General Assessment Tool

The Draft Stage

The Draft Stage: The First Draft

The Draft Stage: The Revision Process and the Final Draft

The Draft Stage: Using Feedback

The Research Stage

Using Assessment to Improve Your Writing

Chapter 8: Other Frequently Assigned Papers

Reviews and Reaction Papers: Article and Book Reviews

Reviews and Reaction Papers: Reaction Papers

Writing Arguments

Writing Arguments: Adapting the Argument Structure

Writing Arguments: Purposes of Argument

Writing Arguments: References to Consult for Writing Arguments

Writing Arguments: Steps to Writing an Argument - Anticipate Active Opposition

Writing Arguments: Steps to Writing an Argument - Determine Your Organization

Writing Arguments: Steps to Writing an Argument - Develop Your Argument

Writing Arguments: Steps to Writing an Argument - Introduce Your Argument

Writing Arguments: Steps to Writing an Argument - State Your Thesis or Proposition

Writing Arguments: Steps to Writing an Argument - Write Your Conclusion

Writing Arguments: Types of Argument

Appendix A: Books to Help Improve Your Writing

Dictionaries

General Style Manuals

Researching on the Internet

Special Style Manuals

Writing Handbooks

Appendix B: Collaborative Writing and Peer Reviewing

Collaborative Writing: Assignments to Accompany the Group Project

Collaborative Writing: Informal Progress Report

Collaborative Writing: Issues to Resolve

Collaborative Writing: Methodology

Collaborative Writing: Peer Evaluation

Collaborative Writing: Tasks of Collaborative Writing Group Members

Collaborative Writing: Writing Plan

General Introduction

Peer Reviewing

Appendix C: Developing an Improvement Plan

Working with Your Instructor’s Comments and Grades

Appendix D: Writing Plan and Project Schedule

Devising a Writing Project Plan and Schedule

Reviewing Your Plan with Others

By using our website you agree to our use of cookies. Learn more about how we use cookies by reading our  Privacy Policy .

Chapter 2 Synopsis: The Organization of a Research Article

This chapter outlined the organizational structure of a research article, which is commonly referred to as IMRD/C. Each of those sections has specific goals and strategies that writers can use to optimize their ability to communicate research successfully. One way to envision the relationships between each of the IMRD/C sections is with the image of an hourglass.

The hourglass demonstrates the generality of the Introduction and the Discussion/Conclusion sections in contrast to the more specific nature of the middle two sections — Methods and Results. In the next four chapters, you’ll learn about each of those sections, respectively.

Key Takeaways

Each research article will contain distinct sections that tend to be rather consistent across disciplines, but could contain some individual variation within your discipline or even academic journal. The argument in an overall research article moves from being general to specific then back to more general again.

Preparing to Publish Copyright © 2023 by Sarah Huffman; Elena Cotos; and Kimberly Becker is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base
• Research paper

How to Write a Research Paper | A Beginner's Guide

A research paper is a piece of academic writing that provides analysis, interpretation, and argument based on in-depth independent research.

Research papers are similar to academic essays , but they are usually longer and more detailed assignments, designed to assess not only your writing skills but also your skills in scholarly research. Writing a research paper requires you to demonstrate a strong knowledge of your topic, engage with a variety of sources, and make an original contribution to the debate.

This step-by-step guide takes you through the entire writing process, from understanding your assignment to proofreading your final draft.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

Table of contents

Understand the assignment, choose a research paper topic, conduct preliminary research, develop a thesis statement, create a research paper outline, write a first draft of the research paper, write the introduction, write a compelling body of text, write the conclusion, the second draft, the revision process, research paper checklist, free lecture slides.

Completing a research paper successfully means accomplishing the specific tasks set out for you. Before you start, make sure you thoroughly understanding the assignment task sheet:

• Read it carefully, looking for anything confusing you might need to clarify with your professor.
• Identify the assignment goal, deadline, length specifications, formatting, and submission method.
• Make a bulleted list of the key points, then go back and cross completed items off as you’re writing.

Carefully consider your timeframe and word limit: be realistic, and plan enough time to research, write, and edit.

The only proofreading tool specialized in correcting academic writing - try for free!

The academic proofreading tool has been trained on 1000s of academic texts and by native English editors. Making it the most accurate and reliable proofreading tool for students.

Try for free

There are many ways to generate an idea for a research paper, from brainstorming with pen and paper to talking it through with a fellow student or professor.

You can try free writing, which involves taking a broad topic and writing continuously for two or three minutes to identify absolutely anything relevant that could be interesting.

You can also gain inspiration from other research. The discussion or recommendations sections of research papers often include ideas for other specific topics that require further examination.

Once you have a broad subject area, narrow it down to choose a topic that interests you, m eets the criteria of your assignment, and i s possible to research. Aim for ideas that are both original and specific:

• A paper following the chronology of World War II would not be original or specific enough.
• A paper on the experience of Danish citizens living close to the German border during World War II would be specific and could be original enough.

Note any discussions that seem important to the topic, and try to find an issue that you can focus your paper around. Use a variety of sources , including journals, books, and reliable websites, to ensure you do not miss anything glaring.

Do not only verify the ideas you have in mind, but look for sources that contradict your point of view.

• Is there anything people seem to overlook in the sources you research?
• Are there any heated debates you can address?
• Do you have a unique take on your topic?
• Have there been some recent developments that build on the extant research?

In this stage, you might find it helpful to formulate some research questions to help guide you. To write research questions, try to finish the following sentence: “I want to know how/what/why…”

A thesis statement is a statement of your central argument — it establishes the purpose and position of your paper. If you started with a research question, the thesis statement should answer it. It should also show what evidence and reasoning you’ll use to support that answer.

The thesis statement should be concise, contentious, and coherent. That means it should briefly summarize your argument in a sentence or two, make a claim that requires further evidence or analysis, and make a coherent point that relates to every part of the paper.

You will probably revise and refine the thesis statement as you do more research, but it can serve as a guide throughout the writing process. Every paragraph should aim to support and develop this central claim.

Scribbr Citation Checker New

The AI-powered Citation Checker helps you avoid common mistakes such as:

• Missing commas and periods
• Incorrect usage of “et al.”
• Ampersands (&) in narrative citations
• Missing reference entries

A research paper outline is essentially a list of the key topics, arguments, and evidence you want to include, divided into sections with headings so that you know roughly what the paper will look like before you start writing.

A structure outline can help make the writing process much more efficient, so it’s worth dedicating some time to create one.

Your first draft won’t be perfect — you can polish later on. Your priorities at this stage are as follows:

• Maintaining forward momentum — write now, perfect later.
• Paying attention to clear organization and logical ordering of paragraphs and sentences, which will help when you come to the second draft.
• Expressing your ideas as clearly as possible, so you know what you were trying to say when you come back to the text.

You do not need to start by writing the introduction. Begin where it feels most natural for you — some prefer to finish the most difficult sections first, while others choose to start with the easiest part. If you created an outline, use it as a map while you work.

Do not delete large sections of text. If you begin to dislike something you have written or find it doesn’t quite fit, move it to a different document, but don’t lose it completely — you never know if it might come in useful later.

Paragraph structure

Paragraphs are the basic building blocks of research papers. Each one should focus on a single claim or idea that helps to establish the overall argument or purpose of the paper.

Example paragraph

George Orwell’s 1946 essay “Politics and the English Language” has had an enduring impact on thought about the relationship between politics and language. This impact is particularly obvious in light of the various critical review articles that have recently referenced the essay. For example, consider Mark Falcoff’s 2009 article in The National Review Online, “The Perversion of Language; or, Orwell Revisited,” in which he analyzes several common words (“activist,” “civil-rights leader,” “diversity,” and more). Falcoff’s close analysis of the ambiguity built into political language intentionally mirrors Orwell’s own point-by-point analysis of the political language of his day. Even 63 years after its publication, Orwell’s essay is emulated by contemporary thinkers.

Citing sources

It’s also important to keep track of citations at this stage to avoid accidental plagiarism . Each time you use a source, make sure to take note of where the information came from.

You can use our free citation generators to automatically create citations and save your reference list as you go.

APA Citation Generator MLA Citation Generator

The research paper introduction should address three questions: What, why, and how? After finishing the introduction, the reader should know what the paper is about, why it is worth reading, and how you’ll build your arguments.

What? Be specific about the topic of the paper, introduce the background, and define key terms or concepts.

Why? This is the most important, but also the most difficult, part of the introduction. Try to provide brief answers to the following questions: What new material or insight are you offering? What important issues does your essay help define or answer?

How? To let the reader know what to expect from the rest of the paper, the introduction should include a “map” of what will be discussed, briefly presenting the key elements of the paper in chronological order.

The major struggle faced by most writers is how to organize the information presented in the paper, which is one reason an outline is so useful. However, remember that the outline is only a guide and, when writing, you can be flexible with the order in which the information and arguments are presented.

One way to stay on track is to use your thesis statement and topic sentences . Check:

• topic sentences against the thesis statement;
• topic sentences against each other, for similarities and logical ordering;
• and each sentence against the topic sentence of that paragraph.

Be aware of paragraphs that seem to cover the same things. If two paragraphs discuss something similar, they must approach that topic in different ways. Aim to create smooth transitions between sentences, paragraphs, and sections.

The research paper conclusion is designed to help your reader out of the paper’s argument, giving them a sense of finality.

Trace the course of the paper, emphasizing how it all comes together to prove your thesis statement. Give the paper a sense of finality by making sure the reader understands how you’ve settled the issues raised in the introduction.

You might also discuss the more general consequences of the argument, outline what the paper offers to future students of the topic, and suggest any questions the paper’s argument raises but cannot or does not try to answer.

You should not :

• Offer new arguments or essential information
• Take up any more space than necessary
• Begin with stock phrases that signal you are ending the paper (e.g. “In conclusion”)

There are four main considerations when it comes to the second draft.

• Check how your vision of the paper lines up with the first draft and, more importantly, that your paper still answers the assignment.
• Identify any assumptions that might require (more substantial) justification, keeping your reader’s perspective foremost in mind. Remove these points if you cannot substantiate them further.
• Be open to rearranging your ideas. Check whether any sections feel out of place and whether your ideas could be better organized.
• If you find that old ideas do not fit as well as you anticipated, you should cut them out or condense them. You might also find that new and well-suited ideas occurred to you during the writing of the first draft — now is the time to make them part of the paper.

The goal during the revision and proofreading process is to ensure you have completed all the necessary tasks and that the paper is as well-articulated as possible. You can speed up the proofreading process by using the AI proofreader .

Global concerns

• Confirm that your paper completes every task specified in your assignment sheet.
• Check for logical organization and flow of paragraphs.
• Check paragraphs against the introduction and thesis statement.

Fine-grained details

Check the content of each paragraph, making sure that:

• each sentence helps support the topic sentence.
• no unnecessary or irrelevant information is present.
• all technical terms your audience might not know are identified.

Next, think about sentence structure , grammatical errors, and formatting . Check that you have correctly used transition words and phrases to show the connections between your ideas. Look for typos, cut unnecessary words, and check for consistency in aspects such as heading formatting and spellings .

Finally, you need to make sure your paper is correctly formatted according to the rules of the citation style you are using. For example, you might need to include an MLA heading  or create an APA title page .

Scribbr’s professional editors can help with the revision process with our award-winning proofreading services.

Discover our paper editing service

Checklist: Research paper

I have followed all instructions in the assignment sheet.

My introduction presents my topic in an engaging way and provides necessary background information.

My introduction presents a clear, focused research problem and/or thesis statement .

My paper is logically organized using paragraphs and (if relevant) section headings .

Each paragraph is clearly focused on one central idea, expressed in a clear topic sentence .

Each paragraph is relevant to my research problem or thesis statement.

I have used appropriate transitions  to clarify the connections between sections, paragraphs, and sentences.

My conclusion provides a concise answer to the research question or emphasizes how the thesis has been supported.

My conclusion shows how my research has contributed to knowledge or understanding of my topic.

My conclusion does not present any new points or information essential to my argument.

I have provided an in-text citation every time I refer to ideas or information from a source.

I have included a reference list at the end of my paper, consistently formatted according to a specific citation style .

I have thoroughly revised my paper and addressed any feedback from my professor or supervisor.

I have followed all formatting guidelines (page numbers, headers, spacing, etc.).

You've written a great paper. Make sure it's perfect with the help of a Scribbr editor!

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

Is this article helpful?

Other students also liked.

• Writing a Research Paper Introduction | Step-by-Step Guide
• Writing a Research Paper Conclusion | Step-by-Step Guide
• Research Paper Format | APA, MLA, & Chicago Templates

More interesting articles

• Academic Paragraph Structure | Step-by-Step Guide & Examples
• Checklist: Writing a Great Research Paper
• How to Create a Structured Research Paper Outline | Example
• How to Write a Discussion Section | Tips & Examples
• How to Write Recommendations in Research | Examples & Tips
• How to Write Topic Sentences | 4 Steps, Examples & Purpose
• Research Paper Appendix | Example & Templates
• Research Paper Damage Control | Managing a Broken Argument
• What Is a Theoretical Framework? | Guide to Organizing

What is your plagiarism score?

• Privacy Policy

Buy Me a Coffee

Home » Research Paper – Structure, Examples and Writing Guide

Research Paper – Structure, Examples and Writing Guide

Table of Contents

Research Paper

Definition:

Research Paper is a written document that presents the author’s original research, analysis, and interpretation of a specific topic or issue.

It is typically based on Empirical Evidence, and may involve qualitative or quantitative research methods, or a combination of both. The purpose of a research paper is to contribute new knowledge or insights to a particular field of study, and to demonstrate the author’s understanding of the existing literature and theories related to the topic.

Structure of Research Paper

The structure of a research paper typically follows a standard format, consisting of several sections that convey specific information about the research study. The following is a detailed explanation of the structure of a research paper:

The title page contains the title of the paper, the name(s) of the author(s), and the affiliation(s) of the author(s). It also includes the date of submission and possibly, the name of the journal or conference where the paper is to be published.

The abstract is a brief summary of the research paper, typically ranging from 100 to 250 words. It should include the research question, the methods used, the key findings, and the implications of the results. The abstract should be written in a concise and clear manner to allow readers to quickly grasp the essence of the research.

Introduction

The introduction section of a research paper provides background information about the research problem, the research question, and the research objectives. It also outlines the significance of the research, the research gap that it aims to fill, and the approach taken to address the research question. Finally, the introduction section ends with a clear statement of the research hypothesis or research question.

Literature Review

The literature review section of a research paper provides an overview of the existing literature on the topic of study. It includes a critical analysis and synthesis of the literature, highlighting the key concepts, themes, and debates. The literature review should also demonstrate the research gap and how the current study seeks to address it.

The methods section of a research paper describes the research design, the sample selection, the data collection and analysis procedures, and the statistical methods used to analyze the data. This section should provide sufficient detail for other researchers to replicate the study.

The results section presents the findings of the research, using tables, graphs, and figures to illustrate the data. The findings should be presented in a clear and concise manner, with reference to the research question and hypothesis.

The discussion section of a research paper interprets the findings and discusses their implications for the research question, the literature review, and the field of study. It should also address the limitations of the study and suggest future research directions.

The conclusion section summarizes the main findings of the study, restates the research question and hypothesis, and provides a final reflection on the significance of the research.

The references section provides a list of all the sources cited in the paper, following a specific citation style such as APA, MLA or Chicago.

How to Write Research Paper

You can write Research Paper by the following guide:

• Choose a Topic: The first step is to select a topic that interests you and is relevant to your field of study. Brainstorm ideas and narrow down to a research question that is specific and researchable.
• Conduct a Literature Review: The literature review helps you identify the gap in the existing research and provides a basis for your research question. It also helps you to develop a theoretical framework and research hypothesis.
• Develop a Thesis Statement : The thesis statement is the main argument of your research paper. It should be clear, concise and specific to your research question.
• Plan your Research: Develop a research plan that outlines the methods, data sources, and data analysis procedures. This will help you to collect and analyze data effectively.
• Collect and Analyze Data: Collect data using various methods such as surveys, interviews, observations, or experiments. Analyze data using statistical tools or other qualitative methods.
• Organize your Paper : Organize your paper into sections such as Introduction, Literature Review, Methods, Results, Discussion, and Conclusion. Ensure that each section is coherent and follows a logical flow.
• Write your Paper : Start by writing the introduction, followed by the literature review, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Ensure that your writing is clear, concise, and follows the required formatting and citation styles.
• Edit and Proofread your Paper: Review your paper for grammar and spelling errors, and ensure that it is well-structured and easy to read. Ask someone else to review your paper to get feedback and suggestions for improvement.
• Cite your Sources: Ensure that you properly cite all sources used in your research paper. This is essential for giving credit to the original authors and avoiding plagiarism.

Research Paper Example

Note : The below example research paper is for illustrative purposes only and is not an actual research paper. Actual research papers may have different structures, contents, and formats depending on the field of study, research question, data collection and analysis methods, and other factors. Students should always consult with their professors or supervisors for specific guidelines and expectations for their research papers.

Research Paper Example sample for Students:

Title: The Impact of Social Media on Mental Health among Young Adults

Abstract: This study aims to investigate the impact of social media use on the mental health of young adults. A literature review was conducted to examine the existing research on the topic. A survey was then administered to 200 university students to collect data on their social media use, mental health status, and perceived impact of social media on their mental health. The results showed that social media use is positively associated with depression, anxiety, and stress. The study also found that social comparison, cyberbullying, and FOMO (Fear of Missing Out) are significant predictors of mental health problems among young adults.

Introduction: Social media has become an integral part of modern life, particularly among young adults. While social media has many benefits, including increased communication and social connectivity, it has also been associated with negative outcomes, such as addiction, cyberbullying, and mental health problems. This study aims to investigate the impact of social media use on the mental health of young adults.

Literature Review: The literature review highlights the existing research on the impact of social media use on mental health. The review shows that social media use is associated with depression, anxiety, stress, and other mental health problems. The review also identifies the factors that contribute to the negative impact of social media, including social comparison, cyberbullying, and FOMO.

Methods : A survey was administered to 200 university students to collect data on their social media use, mental health status, and perceived impact of social media on their mental health. The survey included questions on social media use, mental health status (measured using the DASS-21), and perceived impact of social media on their mental health. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and regression analysis.

Results : The results showed that social media use is positively associated with depression, anxiety, and stress. The study also found that social comparison, cyberbullying, and FOMO are significant predictors of mental health problems among young adults.

Discussion : The study’s findings suggest that social media use has a negative impact on the mental health of young adults. The study highlights the need for interventions that address the factors contributing to the negative impact of social media, such as social comparison, cyberbullying, and FOMO.

Conclusion : In conclusion, social media use has a significant impact on the mental health of young adults. The study’s findings underscore the need for interventions that promote healthy social media use and address the negative outcomes associated with social media use. Future research can explore the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing the negative impact of social media on mental health. Additionally, longitudinal studies can investigate the long-term effects of social media use on mental health.

Limitations : The study has some limitations, including the use of self-report measures and a cross-sectional design. The use of self-report measures may result in biased responses, and a cross-sectional design limits the ability to establish causality.

Implications: The study’s findings have implications for mental health professionals, educators, and policymakers. Mental health professionals can use the findings to develop interventions that address the negative impact of social media use on mental health. Educators can incorporate social media literacy into their curriculum to promote healthy social media use among young adults. Policymakers can use the findings to develop policies that protect young adults from the negative outcomes associated with social media use.

References :

• Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2019). Associations between screen time and lower psychological well-being among children and adolescents: Evidence from a population-based study. Preventive medicine reports, 15, 100918.
• Primack, B. A., Shensa, A., Escobar-Viera, C. G., Barrett, E. L., Sidani, J. E., Colditz, J. B., … & James, A. E. (2017). Use of multiple social media platforms and symptoms of depression and anxiety: A nationally-representative study among US young adults. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 1-9.
• Van der Meer, T. G., & Verhoeven, J. W. (2017). Social media and its impact on academic performance of students. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 16, 383-398.

Appendix : The survey used in this study is provided below.

Social Media and Mental Health Survey

• How often do you use social media per day?
• Less than 30 minutes
• 30 minutes to 1 hour
• 1 to 2 hours
• 2 to 4 hours
• More than 4 hours
• Which social media platforms do you use?
• Others (Please specify)
• How often do you experience the following on social media?
• Social comparison (comparing yourself to others)
• Cyberbullying
• Fear of Missing Out (FOMO)
• Have you ever experienced any of the following mental health problems in the past month?
• Do you think social media use has a positive or negative impact on your mental health?
• Very positive
• Somewhat positive
• Somewhat negative
• Very negative
• In your opinion, which factors contribute to the negative impact of social media on mental health?
• Social comparison
• In your opinion, what interventions could be effective in reducing the negative impact of social media on mental health?
• Education on healthy social media use
• Counseling for mental health problems caused by social media
• Social media detox programs
• Regulation of social media use

Thank you for your participation!

Applications of Research Paper

Research papers have several applications in various fields, including:

• Advancing knowledge: Research papers contribute to the advancement of knowledge by generating new insights, theories, and findings that can inform future research and practice. They help to answer important questions, clarify existing knowledge, and identify areas that require further investigation.
• Informing policy: Research papers can inform policy decisions by providing evidence-based recommendations for policymakers. They can help to identify gaps in current policies, evaluate the effectiveness of interventions, and inform the development of new policies and regulations.
• Improving practice: Research papers can improve practice by providing evidence-based guidance for professionals in various fields, including medicine, education, business, and psychology. They can inform the development of best practices, guidelines, and standards of care that can improve outcomes for individuals and organizations.
• Educating students : Research papers are often used as teaching tools in universities and colleges to educate students about research methods, data analysis, and academic writing. They help students to develop critical thinking skills, research skills, and communication skills that are essential for success in many careers.
• Fostering collaboration: Research papers can foster collaboration among researchers, practitioners, and policymakers by providing a platform for sharing knowledge and ideas. They can facilitate interdisciplinary collaborations and partnerships that can lead to innovative solutions to complex problems.

When to Write Research Paper

Research papers are typically written when a person has completed a research project or when they have conducted a study and have obtained data or findings that they want to share with the academic or professional community. Research papers are usually written in academic settings, such as universities, but they can also be written in professional settings, such as research organizations, government agencies, or private companies.

Here are some common situations where a person might need to write a research paper:

• For academic purposes: Students in universities and colleges are often required to write research papers as part of their coursework, particularly in the social sciences, natural sciences, and humanities. Writing research papers helps students to develop research skills, critical thinking skills, and academic writing skills.
• For publication: Researchers often write research papers to publish their findings in academic journals or to present their work at academic conferences. Publishing research papers is an important way to disseminate research findings to the academic community and to establish oneself as an expert in a particular field.
• To inform policy or practice : Researchers may write research papers to inform policy decisions or to improve practice in various fields. Research findings can be used to inform the development of policies, guidelines, and best practices that can improve outcomes for individuals and organizations.
• To share new insights or ideas: Researchers may write research papers to share new insights or ideas with the academic or professional community. They may present new theories, propose new research methods, or challenge existing paradigms in their field.

Purpose of Research Paper

The purpose of a research paper is to present the results of a study or investigation in a clear, concise, and structured manner. Research papers are written to communicate new knowledge, ideas, or findings to a specific audience, such as researchers, scholars, practitioners, or policymakers. The primary purposes of a research paper are:

• To contribute to the body of knowledge : Research papers aim to add new knowledge or insights to a particular field or discipline. They do this by reporting the results of empirical studies, reviewing and synthesizing existing literature, proposing new theories, or providing new perspectives on a topic.
• To inform or persuade: Research papers are written to inform or persuade the reader about a particular issue, topic, or phenomenon. They present evidence and arguments to support their claims and seek to persuade the reader of the validity of their findings or recommendations.
• To advance the field: Research papers seek to advance the field or discipline by identifying gaps in knowledge, proposing new research questions or approaches, or challenging existing assumptions or paradigms. They aim to contribute to ongoing debates and discussions within a field and to stimulate further research and inquiry.
• To demonstrate research skills: Research papers demonstrate the author’s research skills, including their ability to design and conduct a study, collect and analyze data, and interpret and communicate findings. They also demonstrate the author’s ability to critically evaluate existing literature, synthesize information from multiple sources, and write in a clear and structured manner.

Characteristics of Research Paper

Research papers have several characteristics that distinguish them from other forms of academic or professional writing. Here are some common characteristics of research papers:

• Evidence-based: Research papers are based on empirical evidence, which is collected through rigorous research methods such as experiments, surveys, observations, or interviews. They rely on objective data and facts to support their claims and conclusions.
• Structured and organized: Research papers have a clear and logical structure, with sections such as introduction, literature review, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. They are organized in a way that helps the reader to follow the argument and understand the findings.
• Formal and objective: Research papers are written in a formal and objective tone, with an emphasis on clarity, precision, and accuracy. They avoid subjective language or personal opinions and instead rely on objective data and analysis to support their arguments.
• Citations and references: Research papers include citations and references to acknowledge the sources of information and ideas used in the paper. They use a specific citation style, such as APA, MLA, or Chicago, to ensure consistency and accuracy.
• Peer-reviewed: Research papers are often peer-reviewed, which means they are evaluated by other experts in the field before they are published. Peer-review ensures that the research is of high quality, meets ethical standards, and contributes to the advancement of knowledge in the field.
• Objective and unbiased: Research papers strive to be objective and unbiased in their presentation of the findings. They avoid personal biases or preconceptions and instead rely on the data and analysis to draw conclusions.

Advantages of Research Paper

Research papers have many advantages, both for the individual researcher and for the broader academic and professional community. Here are some advantages of research papers:

• Contribution to knowledge: Research papers contribute to the body of knowledge in a particular field or discipline. They add new information, insights, and perspectives to existing literature and help advance the understanding of a particular phenomenon or issue.
• Opportunity for intellectual growth: Research papers provide an opportunity for intellectual growth for the researcher. They require critical thinking, problem-solving, and creativity, which can help develop the researcher’s skills and knowledge.
• Career advancement: Research papers can help advance the researcher’s career by demonstrating their expertise and contributions to the field. They can also lead to new research opportunities, collaborations, and funding.
• Academic recognition: Research papers can lead to academic recognition in the form of awards, grants, or invitations to speak at conferences or events. They can also contribute to the researcher’s reputation and standing in the field.
• Impact on policy and practice: Research papers can have a significant impact on policy and practice. They can inform policy decisions, guide practice, and lead to changes in laws, regulations, or procedures.
• Advancement of society: Research papers can contribute to the advancement of society by addressing important issues, identifying solutions to problems, and promoting social justice and equality.

Limitations of Research Paper

Research papers also have some limitations that should be considered when interpreting their findings or implications. Here are some common limitations of research papers:

• Limited generalizability: Research findings may not be generalizable to other populations, settings, or contexts. Studies often use specific samples or conditions that may not reflect the broader population or real-world situations.
• Potential for bias : Research papers may be biased due to factors such as sample selection, measurement errors, or researcher biases. It is important to evaluate the quality of the research design and methods used to ensure that the findings are valid and reliable.
• Ethical concerns: Research papers may raise ethical concerns, such as the use of vulnerable populations or invasive procedures. Researchers must adhere to ethical guidelines and obtain informed consent from participants to ensure that the research is conducted in a responsible and respectful manner.
• Limitations of methodology: Research papers may be limited by the methodology used to collect and analyze data. For example, certain research methods may not capture the complexity or nuance of a particular phenomenon, or may not be appropriate for certain research questions.
• Publication bias: Research papers may be subject to publication bias, where positive or significant findings are more likely to be published than negative or non-significant findings. This can skew the overall findings of a particular area of research.
• Time and resource constraints: Research papers may be limited by time and resource constraints, which can affect the quality and scope of the research. Researchers may not have access to certain data or resources, or may be unable to conduct long-term studies due to practical limitations.

About the author

Muhammad Hassan

Researcher, Academic Writer, Web developer

You may also like

How to Cite Research Paper – All Formats and...

Data Collection – Methods Types and Examples

Delimitations in Research – Types, Examples and...

Research Paper Format – Types, Examples and...

Research Process – Steps, Examples and Tips

Research Design – Types, Methods and Examples

• University of Michigan Library
• Research Guides

Organizational Studies

• Reference and Background
• Getting Started
• Journal Articles
• Research Methods

About Reference Works and Background Information

"The purpose of an encyclopedia is to summarize and codify knowledge in a given field. This is in contrast to a handbook, which offers essays on cutting-edge research in a field, or a dictionary, which provides short, to-the-point definitions of key concepts in a field." Source: Sica, A. (2001). Encyclopedias, Handbooks, and Dictionaries. In N.J. Smelser & P.B. Baltes (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences . Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/00039-5 . As cited in American Library Association. (2011). ALA Guide to Sociology & Psychology Reference . Chicago: Author.

Use reference materials to find background information.  Reference books can help you:

• Explore a topic: find out what has been said about this subject, trends, issues, etc.
• Identify and define unfamiliar terms or people in your reading
• Find references to other books and articles on the subject
• Find specific keywords to use in online searches

Reference Works

Organizational studies & behavior.

Search for additional handbooks on organizational behavior in the Library Catalog with the subject classification Organizational behavior Handbooks, manuals, etc

General Social Sciences

Reference Databases

Search across multiple subject specific encyclopedias and handbooks:

• U-M Library Articles Search This link opens in a new window Search across many reference books at once. Articles Search is a gateway to discovering a wide range of the library's resources. ***Refine search by format to "Reference"***
• SAGE Knowledge This link opens in a new window A searchable collection of e-books, reference books and documentary videos in the social sciences.
• Gale eBooks This link opens in a new window Provides online access to over 1,500 reference works from Gale, Macmillan, and other publishers.
• Oxford Reference Online This link opens in a new window Over 400 dictionary, language reference, and subject reference works published by Oxford University Press.

Other Books

• U-M Library Catalog Search Catalog Search is the definitive place for finding materials held by the U-M Library. Catalog Search results include everything in our physical collection (books, audio, video, maps, musical scores, archival materials, and more), and materials available online such as e-books, streaming audio and video, and online journals.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

With whom do researchers collaborate and why?

Hajdeja iglič.

1 University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia

Patrick Doreian

2 University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, USA

Luka Kronegger

Anuška ferligoj.

Although research collaboration has been studied extensively, we still lack understanding regarding the factors stimulating researchers to collaborate with different kinds of research partners including members of the same research center or group, researchers from the same organization, researchers from other academic and non-academic organizations as well as international partners. Here, we provide an explanation of the emergence of diverse collaborative ties. The theoretical framework used for understanding research collaboration couples scientific and technical human capital embodied in the individual with the social organization and cognitive characteristics of the research field. We analyze survey data collected from Slovenian scientists in four scientific disciplines: mathematics; physics; biotechnology; and sociology. The results show that while individual characteristics and resources are among the strongest predictors of collaboration, very different mechanisms underlie collaboration with different kinds of partners. International collaboration is particularly important for the researchers in small national science systems. Collaboration with colleagues from various domestic organizations presents a vehicle for resource mobilization. Within organizations collaboration reflects the elaborated division of labor in the laboratories and high level of competition between different research groups. These results hold practical implications for policymakers interested in promoting quality research.

Introduction

Knowledge production in the twentieth century was characterized by a steady rise in the scale and importance of scientific collaboration. Although science has always been a social rather than a solitary enterprise due to the need to share ideas and validate scientific findings with colleagues (Finholt and Olson 1997 ), various social, economic, technological, and cognitive changes created an unprecedented level of research cooperation (Bozeman and Boardman 2014 ).

Recent explanations of the ever-increasing research collaboration suggest it is driven by the growing number of scientists applying for research funds (O’Brien 2012 ). This contributed to greater competitiveness and specialization at the individual level (Wenger 1998 ; Blau 1994 ). In such highly competitive research environments, increased specialization puts pressure on scientists to cooperate with colleagues possessing complementary skills and knowledge. When looking for partners, they often consider those having high prominence and greater scientific productivity (Crane 1972 ; Beaver and Rosen 1978 , 1979a , b ) who can help them gain access to scarce resources. This era has been characterized by Big Science in which the scale and comprehensiveness of research projects have increased (Price 1963 ; Galison and Hevly 1992 ) increasing the resource dependencies between scientists. Equally important, science made the transition from the Mode l to the Mode 2 type of knowledge production where multi-, inter- and trans-disciplinary teams were formed to work on very applied or real-life problems (Gibbons et al. 1994 ). The recent shift from an Industrial to a Knowledge Society implies also increased triadic cooperative relationships involving academia, industry, and government, known as the Triple Helix thesis (Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff 1995 , 2000 ).

Further, advances in information and communication technologies enabled collaboration between geographically dispersed research units increasing the incidence of more successful research (Kouzes et al. 1996 ; Finholt 2002 ; Atkins et al. 2003 ; Hara et al. 2003 ; Nentwich 2003 ). Policy leaders and academic managers also encourage research collaboration crossing disciplinary, organizational, sectorial, and national boundaries by employing the co-opetition strategy (Brandenburger and Nalebuff 2011 ), understood as “cooperation between competitors” to improve the competitive advantage of research units and stimulate economic growth (Sonnenwald 2007 ). The best results for institutions and individuals are thought to be achieved not solely through competition but also through careful collaboration stimulated in multiple ways: financing and evaluating research work with a focus on research groups and institutions rather than on individuals; having funding agencies impose conditions for acquiring research funds including imposing minimum sizes for research groups; by requiring research groups to work with teams from different institutions, sectors, disciplines, and countries; emphasizing large-scale funding rather that smaller grants; and supporting applied research topics rather than theoretically-oriented research. Together with stimulating collaboration, policy leaders and academic managers intensify their role in setting the standards of quality through the elaborated evaluation processes and reward structures.

Patterns of individual-level collaboration express researchers’ choices for working together in the context of contemporary science processes characterizing the last decades of the twentieth century and continuing into the twenty-first Century. Our model of collaboration includes the scientific and technical human capital theory (Bozeman et al. 2001 ) and a resource-based view on collaboration (Van Rijnsoever et al. 2008 ). Both stress the role of resources embodied in individuals and assume that individuals undertake collaboration to enhance their human capital (Bozeman and Boardman 2014 ). We extend this model to capture also the features of the changing social organization of the research fields and their cognitive (intellectual) characteristics (Birnholtz 2007 ), and argue that individual collaborative strategies are promoted or hindered by these contextual factors.

Van Rijnsoever et al. ( 2008 ) suggested factors often associated with collaboration levels have different impacts in distinct types of collaborative networks. It is important to examine the factors promoting collaboration with different types of partners. Since our study is of a small national science system, we anticipate factors explaining international collaboration differ considerably from those accounting for domestic collaboration. In small science systems, international collaboration allows researchers to specialize and connect with partners holding complementary knowledge unavailable inside the country. It also allows scientists from smaller and less central science systems to connect with global knowledge production centers and with more prominent researchers. In the domestic arena, the primary distinction is between intra- and inter-organizational collaboration. We anticipate inter-organizational collaboration being a vehicle for resource mobilization. Researchers turn to colleagues in other organizations to gain access to additional resources and to apply jointly for research funds from national research agencies. In contrast, strong intra-organizational collaboration is expected to relate to the elaborated division of labor, especially in laboratories, and highly competitive research environments.

In summary, the major aim of this study is to understand scientific collaboration between different types of research partners by using three groups of factors: human capital of individual researcher, cognitive aspects of knowledge production and the social organization of science. The results are informative regarding which kinds of collaboration are stimulated by the major changes in contemporary knowledge production including the increased competition for resources and prestige, specialization of scientific knowledge, intensification of resource dependence, greater emphasis on interdisciplinary, innovative and applicable knowledge, and standardization of the criteria regarding quality research.

While this study is limited to the Slovenian science system, we assume researchers there—as elsewhere—work in very different cognitive and social contexts given their specific fields of research.

The empirical context: Slovenian science

The Slovenian scientific research system is small. About 15,000 persons are involved, among them 8500 researchers (measured in Full Time Equivalents, FTEs) who are employed in 42 higher education institutions, 47 research institutes and 777 business units registered for conducting research and development (Udovič et al. 2016 ). Trends in the number of researchers, gross domestic expenditure on R&D and bibliometric data reveal the high level of dynamism characterizing Slovenian science after the political transition in the early 1990s. The number of researchers increased by about 50% in the last 10 years. Gross domestic expenditures on R&D, as a percentage of GDP, increased between 1996 and 2015 from 1.33 to 2.39%, with business R&D expenditure accounting for about three quarters of the total R&D (Udovič et al. 2016 ). Both the number of researchers per million inhabitants and the overall R&D intensity are comparatively high, especially compared to other Central and Eastern European countries (OECD 2012 ).

The public financing of research programs and projects is highly centralized and competitive. Slovenian research policies placed great emphasis on increasing publications and their impact over the last decades. Currently, Slovenia ranks high among the EU members for the rate of growth of the number of publications and the growth of received citations. Among the four research fields included in our study, physics and mathematics achieved above-average impact factors by 2012. Biotechnology changed from being primarily domestic to involving international publications. The number of its received citations tripled with its impact factor doubling. The number of international publications and citations also increased in sociology. However, domestic publications still outstrip international ones in this field (Sorčan et al. 2008 ). Despite these improved performances, the share of Slovenian scientific publications among top 10% most cited remains below the EU average (Hollanders et al. 2016 ).

The rise in the number of domestic and international publications, along with increased citations, was accompanied by increasing scientific collaboration. According to the European Innovation Scoreboard (Hollanders et al. 2016 ), Slovenia’s performance is especially strong regarding collaborations involving international scientific co-publications, public–private scientific co-publications and innovative SME’s collaborating with others. Various Slovene research policies aimed at strengthening the international and domestic collaborative potential of Slovenian science, varied from supporting the involvement of researchers into the EU research projects to financing bilateral collaboration, establishing centers of excellence and centers of competence (Udovič et al. 2016 ). The latter are specifically targeted at strengthening long-term cooperation between the public research and business spheres, and of interdisciplinary research (Stare et al. 2014 ). When applying for public funds to support basic research, researchers must collaborate with colleagues from at least one other organization. When they apply for grants supporting applied research they should collaborate with non-academic partners contributing their share of funds.

An important part of the steep increase in research collaboration by Slovenian researchers involves collaboration with researchers outside Slovenia. A recent review in Knowledge, Networks and Nations (Wilsdon 2011 ) indicates that for 1996–2000, Slovenian researchers collaborated most intensely with colleagues from Germany, while in the period 2004–2008 they expanded collaboration to include also Italy and France. This is consistent with findings showing the collaboration patterns of smaller countries when their researchers tend to cooperate with colleagues from selected larger countries rather than across all of Europe (Frenken 2002 ; Frenken and Leydesdorff 2004 ; Ukrainski et al. 2014 ).

Bibliometric data show the number of co-authored publications grew significantly faster than the number of solo publications in all four scientific disciplines included in this study. In the period from 1986 to 2005: the incidence of solo publications in sociology dropped from 70 to 30%; in mathematics from 65 to 30%; in physics from 16 to 11%; and in biotechnology from 17 to 4% (Kronegger 2011 ). Together, the increased number of researchers, strong competition for funds, especially among researchers depending on public R&D funds, strong emphases on academic excellence and international prominence, and research policies favoring collaboration across disciplines and sectors, contributed to the trend towards increased number of co-authored publications. Clearly, Slovenian science is representative of modern day science.

The Scientific and Technical Human Capital theory (STHC), formulated by Bozeman et al. ( 2001 ), states that individuals bring unique sets of resources to their work and collaborative efforts such as formal education and training, research experience, knowledge, skills and reputation, as well as social ties with a variety of actors. The STHC theory assumes researchers engage in collaboration to enhance their human capital. Empirical studies of motives for collaboration confirmed researchers as viewing collaboration strategically to create new synergies in knowledge and skills, increase the number and visibility of their publications, and improve the professional prestige (Melin 2000 ; see Bozeman and Corley 2004 for a review). In the resource-based perspective on collaboration (Van Rijnsoever et al. 2008 ) it is further assumed that collaborating with colleagues in different types of organizations (e.g. university research centers, private companies, international partners) enhances different aspects of human capital.

While building on STHC theory and resource-based perspective, we examine also the contextual features of science including both cognitive and social dimensions of research fields (Birnholtz 2007 ) facilitating or hindering researchers' efforts to improve their STHC through collaboration. Although the literature provides a long list of social and cognitive aspects of the research contexts that are relevant for collaboration, we focus only on those reflecting the changing nature of contemporary knowledge production: competition-related secrecy and distrust between the scientists; the need for professional help from colleagues due to greater specialization of knowledge; resource dependence resulting from skyrocketing costs of research; interdisciplinary composition of research teams as answers to demands for innovative knowledge; the promotion of standardized criteria of quality as enforced by rewards structures and evaluation processes.

To examine the extent of research collaboration involving different types of research partners, we organize predictor variables into three sets: (1) individuals’ human capital; (2) cognitive aspects of research fields; and (3) social aspects of these fields. Our hypotheses deal with the relationships between the three sets of predictor variables and research collaboration. As the hypotheses for the same outcome can be viewed as either complementary or rival hypotheses, they were all tested while controlling for other predictor variables.

Individual human capital

This set of predictor variables includes research experience and career advancement .

Research experience is individual endowments of human and social capital separate from, while influenced by, their research environments. The longer researchers engage in research, the more knowledge and skills they accumulate. Furthermore, the larger the number of potential collaborators, since engaging in past collaborations, the greater the access to social capital useful for engaging in future research projects. Yet the relationship between research experience and collaboration is nonlinear. Van Rijnsoever et al. ( 2008 ) found that after approximately 20 years of an active research career, collaborative activity starts decreasing. The resulting inverted U-shaped relationship between research experience and collaborations must be included in any analysis of collaboration. One argument for this downward turn is that experienced researchers have accumulated enough human capital—knowledge and skills—permitting them greater freedom for solo research. Another claim is that older researchers are more likely to occupy administrative and other engagements, leaving them with less time for extensive collaborations (Van Rijnsoever et al. 2008 ). It has also been shown that younger and mid-career scientists have greater productivity pay off from collaboration than older researchers (Lee and Bozeman 2005 ). This leads to:

Hypothesis 1

The relationship between research experience and level of collaboration takes an inverted U-shape.

Administrators and managers set requirements for professional and academic promotion. These requirements demand the production of greater quantities of work having high visibility to advance a researcher’s academic career (Ponomariov and Boardman 2010 ). Collaborating with others leads to higher quality academic work which opens the doors for publishing in international journals and enhances citation-related productivity (Katz and Hicks 1997 ; Lee and Bozeman 2005 ; Persson 2010 ). Also in university–industry collaboration there is a strong tendency toward publications-focused outputs (Ambos et al. 2008 ; Levy et al. 2009 ). Yet, recent studies have found the positive impact of collaboration on academic careers to be limited to academic collaboration. Collaboration with colleagues from industry and interdisciplinary collaboration can have negative impacts on the careers of academic researchers (Van Rijnsoever and Hessels 2011 ). Academic reward structures appear to be designed to favor monodisciplinary research (De Boer et al. 2006 ) since monodisciplinary papers tend to receive more citations than interdisciplinary papers (Levitt and Thelwall 2008 ). For researchers in small science systems, collaboration with international academic partners is especially rewarding when their papers are published in more prestigious journals and receive more citations (Kyvik and Larsen 1997 ). This suggests:

Hypothesis 2

The more researchers see collaboration as a means for career advancement the more they collaborate, especially with international partners.

Cognitive aspects of research fields

Among the predictors capturing cognitive aspects of research fields are specialization of knowledge , the prevalence of common quality standards between the researchers, and the composition of the research teams.

The specialization of knowledge is considered as one of the prime reasons for increased collaboration in contemporary science (Wenger 1998 ). Scientists encountering research problems unresolvable using their highly-specialized knowledge and skills, need to collaborate with others outside their specialty. Yet there are concerns regarding specialization as fostering deep divisions in science and how this serves to encourage scientists to work with colleagues in their own specialty area. One study of collaboration patterns in sociology identified three collaboration patterns confirming the predominance of within-specialty collaboration over engaging in complementary collaboration across different intellectual terrain styles (Leahey and Reikowsky 2008 ). Studies comparing large and small national scientific systems have pointed to some disadvantages for small countries. In Slovenia and in other small countries where the domestic scientific community is too small to permit higher levels of internal specialization, researchers turn to international colleagues for help via collaboration (Narin and Whitlow 1990 ; Luukkonen et al. 1992 ). This suggests:

Hypothesis 3

The more often researchers encounter research problems unresolvable using their own knowledge and skills, the more they seek collaboration with other researchers, especially international partners.

Even though researchers could find help from colleagues to be very useful, this does not guarantee collaborations are realized, especially in the presence of serious obstacles to effective communication between potential collaborators. Consistent with Birnholtz ( 2007 ), we expect agreement between scientists on the standards for quality scientific work to affect positively collaboration. Agreement on quality work eliminates particularistic judgments, often sources of uncertainty, uneasiness, and interpersonal conflict. This suggests:

Hypothesis 4

Agreement on the quality of research work creates higher levels of collaboration.

The complex research questions scientists work on today require innovative and comprehensive answers compelling them to collaborate across scientific disciplines. Interdisciplinary research can be understood as “the integration of disciplines within the research environment”? (Qin et al. 1997 ) which positively contributes to knowledge production and innovativeness (Gibbons et al. 1994 ; Schmickl and Kieser 2008 ). To produce innovative knowledge scientists are encouraged by funding agencies and administrators to engage in multi-discipline university research centers, university–industry partnerships and centers of excellence, and industry interdisciplinary research collaboration (Bozeman and Corley 2004 ; Bozeman and Boardman 2014 ; Cummings and Kiesler 2005 ; Corley et al. 2006 ). Thus, the focus on interdisciplinarity widens collaboration patterns to include colleagues from other domestic organizations, academic and non-academic. This leads to:

Hypothesis 5

Researchers involved in interdisciplinary research projects are more likely to collaborate across the organizational boundaries.

Social aspects of research fields

The social organization of research includes the competition-related distrust , and the relationship of resource dependence between the researchers.

Many studies confirm trust as correlating positively with collaborative behavior and the creation of new collaborative ties (Hara et al. 2003 ; Sonnenwald 2007 ; Maglaughlin and Sonnenwald 2005 ). As in other social contexts, expecting others to misuse collaborative relationships by appropriating ideas and research results creates strong disincentives for engaging in collaborative relationships. The highly competitive nature of science potentially reduced collaboration by lowering incentives for sharing research results with competitors and increasing secrecy (Walsh and Hong 2003 ). But, as noted by Birnholtz ( 2007 ), competition does not necessarily reduce collaboration as much as it constrains the set of possible collaborators to close and known colleagues. This leads to:

Hypothesis 6

Researchers having less trust in colleagues outside their research unit collaborate less, and when they do collaborate they are more likely to engage with researchers within their research units.

Resource dependence theory, initially developed to explain ties between firms (Pfeffer and Salancik 1978 ; Hagedoorn 2002 ) engaging in collaboration to build competitive advantage, reduce uncertainty, lower the costs and realize economies of scale, also has been used to explain collaboration between non-firm research organizations (Barney 1991 ; Grant 1996 ; Galison 1997 ). Researchers collaborate when the costs of doing research related to equipment, materials, infrastructures, field work, etc. are too high to be carried by a single individual or research group. Such mutual dependence is found in research fields where resources are scarce and concentrated (Fuchs 1992 ; Whitley 1984 ) and in smaller science systems having limited resources for conducting research. This suggests:

Hypothesis 7

The more scientists depend on pooling resources to conduct research, the more time they spend collaborating with researchers in other academic and non-academic organizations.

Control variables

Several other factors shown in other studies to affect collaboration were included as control variables. Among them are scientific disciplines, gender , and prior experience with collaboration.

Scientific disciplines usually show significant impacts on collaboration but only in bivariate analysis: these effects diminish or vanish when other predictor variables are included. Prior effective collaborative experiences were consistently related positively to interest in future collaborations (Birnholtz 2007 ; Toral et al. 2011 ). Regarding the effect of gender on collaboration, studies showed women had smaller or similar sized collaboration networks as men (Cameron 1978 ; Cole and Zuckerman 1984 ; Bozeman and Corley 2004 ; McDowell et al. 2006 ; Van Rijnsoever et al. 2008 ). Female researchers are more involved in boundary-spanning collaborations involving industry-based researchers (Bozeman and Gaughan 2011 ) and engage more with interdisciplinary research collaboration efforts (Rhoten and Pfirman 2007 ; Van Rijnsoever and Hessels 2011 ), but they have fewer international collaborators than men (Rosenfeld and Jones 1987 ).

An empirical study

This study is part of a larger research project on scientific collaboration of Slovenian researchers combining survey and bibliographical data to examine the role of research networks for understanding research collaboration and scientific production. Some results using bibliographical data appeared in Kronegger et al. ( 2011 , 2012 ), Ferligoj et al. ( 2015 ) and Cugmas et al. ( 2016 ). Here, we focus exclusively on the findings of a web survey conducted among researchers from four different disciplines: mathematics, physics, biotechnology, and sociology.

The targeted population included all researchers from these scientific disciplines registered in mid-2008 in the SICRIS (Slovenian Current Research Information System) database. They include researchers from universities, public and private research centers, and business firms. The researchers’ disciplinary boundaries are not unambiguously defined as the information system ascribes to each researcher at most two fields. Here, we used only the first listed identification as the primary one.

The questionnaire was sent out at the end of 2010 to researchers using 662 email addresses. After two reminders, the response rate was 52%. However, the population structure and the realized sample correspond quite closely (Table  1 ). The four fields differ with physicists forming the largest field. Biotechnologists, working in a new emerging techno-science, were the smallest group. Women comprise one-third of this population. The average research experience of these scientists, defined as the time since they published their first professional article, is 19 years.

Data regarding the realized sample

Despite having limited resources, our aim was to include a broad spectrum of scientific disciplines to include natural, formal and social sciences. Also, we wanted to include older well-established disciplines and new scientific fields. Disciplines vary by having different emphases on team-work. We also wanted to include basic and applied sciences. Biotechnology is a new and rapidly developing scientific field characterized by research collaboration among researchers from various academic backgrounds. It features collaboration between universities, public research institutions and industry (Heimeriks 2012 ). Mathematics and physics are mature and relatively stable scientific disciplines with high levels of functional dependence between scientists who must refer to research results of their colleagues to be recognized as competent. Sciences with high functional dependence usually exhibit a strong sense of community and identity clear boundaries with other fields. Mutual dependence between researchers in physics is further reinforced by strategic dependence making this scientific field more competitive and stratified (Whitley 1984 ). In contrast, sociology is considered a weakly bounded scientific field, with lower levels of mutual dependence, a weaker sense of identity with less agreement regarding research goals, and a less hierarchical social order than in physics.

Yet there has been some convergence between scientific disciplines due to changes in the knowledge production in recent decades. Becher and Trowler ( 2001 ) claim most scientific disciplines have moved “beyond the basic-applied dichotomy” with research fields within scientific disciplines exhibiting various levels of applicability. However, the scientific disciplines included in our study remain different in some important aspects: the need for professional help from colleagues is the highest in mathematics and the lowest in sociology. Agreement regarding the standards of quality research is lowest in sociology and the highest in mathematics. Resource dependence is the highest in both physics and biotechnology, lower in sociology and the lowest in mathematics. Interdisciplinary research environments are most common in biotechnology and least common in mathematics.

Measurement

Katz and Martin ( 1997 : 7) defined collaboration as “working together of individuals to achieve a common goal”. If so, many different people including technicians, administrative staff, and research assistants collaborate in research projects at different points in time. Yet their collaborative roles are not always publicly recognized in the authors’ list or in the acknowledgements. Sometimes, authors are listed in a publication for non-academic reasons (Hagstrom 1965 ). These deficiencies led to the recognition that co-authorship, a widely-used measure of collaboration since the pioneering works of Price ( 1963 ), despite its many advantages including high reliability and comparability of data, has limitations when studying different scientific disciplines where different practices developed and persisted regarding attributions of authorship. This implies in-depth interviews and surveys have value also. Their key feature is measuring collaboration by obtaining information from researchers who are asked to describe aspects of their collaborations with others (Melin 2000 ; Hackett 2005 ; Van Rijnsoever et al. 2008 ; Van Rijnsoever and Hessels 2011 ; Lewis et al. 2012 ). This approach was adopted here.

Predicted variables

We measured collaboration by asking respondents what percentage of their research work in the last 12 months was done: (a) individually; (b) in collaboration with immediate colleagues from the same research unit; (c) with colleagues from the same research organization in different unit; (d) with researchers from other academic organizations in Slovenia (universities and research institutes); (e) with researchers from industry and public sector organizations; (f) with researchers from abroad; and (g) others. This is a slightly modified version of the survey question used by Lee and Bozeman ( 2005 ) who studied the impact of collaboration on scientific productivity. The question was posed this way to not introduce an a priori understanding of collaboration. Researchers could define the boundaries of collaborative relations and decide what counts as collaboration. Also, the overall measure extent of collaboration was constructed by summing the percentages of time spent collaborating with others, regardless of where the collaborators were located.

Descriptive analyses for all predicted variables—collaborating in general and with different kinds of partners—are provided in “ Appendix 1 ”. Two predicted variables—collaborating with colleagues from academic and non-academic institutions—required a logarithmic transformation for the regression analyses since their distributions are right-skewed.

Predictor variables

The predictor variables were operationalized by using the following questions to garner information:

• Needing help of other colleagues as an indicator of knowledge specialization: “Would you say that in your research work you often encounter a problem for which you need the support and advice of your colleagues?”
• Agreement about quality work was measured with two questions: “Would you say that, when you assess the work of your colleagues, you usually agree with the evaluations of others?” and “Would you say that, when other colleagues assess your work, you usually agree with their evaluations?”
• Codification of scientific knowledge: “Would you say that most colleagues use the same approaches and research methods while doing research?”
• Trust in researchers outside one’s own research group: “Would you say that in your field you can freely discuss work with colleagues outside your research group without being concerned they would appropriate the results of your research group?”
• Resource dependence: “Would you say that in your field, collaboration is necessary due to the need to share equipment and resources?”
• Contribution of collaboration to career advancement: “Would you say that collaborating with others (could) benefits your career?”
• Prior experience with collaboration: “What is your experience with different aspects of previous collaboration: (a) division of labor in the group; (b) coordination of research work; (c) composition of the research group; and (d) attribution of authorship?”
• Composition of the project team: “Now please think about the co-authored academic work you have written during the last five years which you are especially proud of. Please tell us what was the composition of the research team. Was it: (a) disciplinary and very homogeneous; (b) disciplinary but heterogeneous involving different sub-disciplines; (c) interdisciplinary with moderate heterogeneity, (d) interdisciplinary with strong heterogeneity?”
• Research experience: the number of years since the publication of the first scientific work.

Some predictor variables were developed specifically for this study, others were borrowed from other authors (Van de Ven et al. 1976 ; Walsh and Hong 2003 ; Birnholtz 2007 ). Most answers were measured on a scale from 1-strongly disagree to 5-strongly agree. Prior experience had a scale ranging from 1-very bad to 5-very good. Composition of the research group was recoded into 1- disciplinary, homogeneous; 2-disciplinary, heterogeneous; 3-interdisciplinary. When more than one question was posed for a specific concept, the average score was used. Correlation matrix for predictor variables is provided in “ Appendix 2 ”.

Our data show researchers spend about 40% of their research time working alone and 60% in collaboration with others (see Table  2 ). Differences in collaboration between the four scientific disciplines are small but statistically significant. Mathematics is the lowest and biotechnology the highest.

Comparing the extent of collaboration and co-authorship

Extent of collaboration measures the percentage of research time spent collaborating with other researchers. Co-authorship of publications measures the percentage of co-authored publications among all publications. The number of respondents in different disciplines ( N ) is smaller than in Table  1 due to having a few item-specific instances of missing data

While the ranking of disciplines is similar when collaboration is studied using bibliometric and survey data, variations between them are much smaller in survey data, suggesting mathematics and sociology are also ’social’ fields despite this not being seen clearly in the multiple co-authorships. Using co-authorships as an indicator of collaboration underestimates the presence of ’less visible and invisible forms’ of collaboration in some disciplinary fields (Cronin et al. 2003 , 2004 ).

Explaining the extent of collaboration

The results of regression analyses regarding the prediction of collaboration are reported in Table  3 . The reported coefficients are standardized to compare the relative contributions of the predictors. We include in the regression model both research experience and its squared version to capture the inverted U-shape effect of research experience on collaboration.

Regression results predicting the extent of collaboration (using standardized regression coefficients)

*  p  < 0.10 , **  p  < 0.01 , ***  p  < 0.001

Model 1 reports only differences by disciplines in the levels of collaboration. Mathematics was used as the comparison base to avoid exact collinearity. Researchers working in physics and biotechnology have significantly higher levels of collaboration than sociologists and mathematicians. However, these differences vanish with the inclusion of other predictor variables in Model 2. There is more to understanding collaboration beyond considering only the disciplines involved.

Our results show human capital variables had mixed impacts on collaboration. Both terms for research experience are statistically significant with the appropriate signs, supporting Hypothesis 1 (beginning researchers increase their involvement in collaborative research while the collaboration efforts decrease during the later stages of their careers). Hypothesis 2 about the collaboration being promoted as a means for advancing one’s career is not supported.

Cognitive aspects of research also have mixed impacts regarding the extent of collaboration. Having a need for collaboration, when there are research problems researchers cannot resolve promotes collaboration (Hypothesis 3) is supported. The significant effect for agreement on what constitutes quality research confirms Hypothesis 4. But the scope of collaboration in general does not depend on the disciplinary or inter-disciplinary composition of the project group, disconfirming Hypothesis 5.

Researchers spend more time collaborating when they do not trust researchers outside their own research unit. This significant result contradicts Hypothesis 6 about the negative impact of distrust on establishing and maintaining collaborative relations. This suggests a need to reexamine the link between trust and specific collaborative ties. We do this below. Collaboration is stimulated also by having to share resources to conduct research confirming Hypothesis 7. This is the second strongest predictor of collaboration.

Explaining collaboration with different kinds of partners

The time researchers spend collaborating is the sum of their collaborative activities with different kinds of research partners. The foregoing analysis of the extent of collaboration assumed the underlying mechanism leading researchers to collaborate with others is tie-neutral, with the same model explaining the emergence of different kinds of collaborative ties. The results reported in Table  4 challenge this assumption by testing the hypotheses for different kinds of collaborative ties.

Regression results for collaboration with different partner types (using standardized regression coefficients)

*  p  < 0.10 ; **  p  < 0.01 , ***  p  < 0.001

Variables measuring collaboration with partners from other academic and non-academic organizations are log-transformed

The inverse U-shaped relationship between research experience and extent of collaboration, as specified in Hypothesis 1, holds only for international collaboration. Clearly, researchers having longer research experience reduce their international involvement, most probably because long-distance collaboration is time consuming and difficult to combine with administrative and other engagements, and the productivity pay off is lower. It is also reasonable to think more experienced researchers form and lead their own research groups, leaving them less time for international collaboration.

Hypothesis 2, about the positive relationship between collaboration and career advancement, also holds only for international collaboration. Motivations regarding career advancement increase collaborative activity with international partners. In contrast to other studies, we cannot claim collaborating with colleagues from other Slovenian academic and non-academic organizations has a negative impact on researcher’s careers. While both coefficients are negative they are not significant.

Consistent with hypothesis 3, needing help from colleagues promotes collaboration, but again only with international partners. In small countries, such as Slovenia, researchers working in very specialized fields of work are more likely to collaborate with colleagues elsewhere.

Shared agreement about quality work (Hypothesis 4) has a significant impact on collaboration in general, as well as on two specific forms of collaboration within the organizations. This interpersonal element plays a role in opting for collaboration when more instrumental concerns such as resource dependence are absent (see below).

The interdisciplinary nature of research projects promotes collaboration with colleagues in other academic organizations supporting Hypothesis 5 to a limited extent. Collaborative research teams within the same organization and with non-academic organizations are as often interdisciplinary as disciplinary including various sub-specialties. Very differently, international collaboration is disciplinary. In the international context researchers tend to work together with colleagues from their narrow field of expertise.

The results in Table  4 support hypotheses regarding the social aspects of the organization of science. The distrust of other researchers promotes collaboration within research centers. Consistent with Hypothesis 6, a high level of collaborative engagement within the research group accompanies intense competition with and distrust of those outside the group. However, distrust of colleagues in other research centers and organizations does not have negative effect on establishing collaboration with them: this suggests high within-unit collaboration ought not be understood as a withdrawal but rather as an intense mobilization of internal human resources to improve the center’s competitive advantage. Also, considering researchers’ motivations, it might be that the negative effects of competition and distrust on the collaboration outside the research center are out-weighed by the positive effects of seeking competitive advantages by working with prominent colleagues and teams, resulting in non-significant effect for distrust.

Resource dependence does promote collaboration with colleagues in other academic and non-academic organizations supporting Hypothesis 7. Pooling resources to be able to conduct research is a less important factor when it comes to international collaboration or collaboration within same organization.

Regarding the control variables, gender affects collaborative work with colleagues working in different organizational domains and other countries. While there are no gender differences in the level of collaboration in general, women are more likely to connect with members of other research units and departments within same organization: the gender of researchers is important for maintaining intra-organizational networks where they bridge sub-disciplinary boundaries. At the same time, women are less likely to collaborate with international partners.

Summary and conclusion

Considering both survey and bibliometric data adds complementary but contrasting information regarding collaboration. This comparison, at least for Slovenian researchers, reveals bibliometric data as underestimating collaboration levels in some scientific disciplines, most notably for mathematics and sociology, compared to biotechnology and physics. For biotechnology, where research collaboration is assumed to consume most of researchers’ time, researchers report they spend about two-thirds of their time collaborating with others. The consistency of our survey results with the bibliometric studies regarding collaboration patterns in different scientific disciplines can be viewed as a sign of the quality of the survey data. Despite the arguments claiming survey data being highly unreliable, we could account for a substantial portion of the variation of various measures of collaboration.

The extent of collaboration across different types of partners can be explained by three sets of factors: (1) individual human capital (2) cognitive aspects of research fields; and (3) social aspects of these fields. Regarding individual human capital: the temporal collaboration pattern over research careers has the expected inverted U-shape, but the motivation of career advancement through collaboration is not significant. This factor had differing impacts on collaboration with different types of research partners. Both the cognitive characteristics and social organization of research fields have strong impacts on overall collaboration.

Higher levels of collaboration with partners in the same research unit characterize both biotechnology and physics due, most likely, to laboratory work. Higher collaborative levels within research units is promoted also by coordinated mobilization of human resources within the research group which is intimately related to competition between researchers, and facilitated by the agreement on quality standards.

Intra-organizational collaboration tends to be sustained more by women with greater collaboration levels with colleagues across sub-disciplinary areas, an effort also facilitated with the agreement on the quality standards.

When researchers need to pool resources to conduct large scale and comprehensive research projects they turn to colleagues in other domestic, academic and non-academic, organizations with the latter being especially important. They also collaborate with colleagues from other academic organizations and their research centers to pursue interdisciplinary research. Interdisciplinarity is less of a stimulus for collaboration with non-academic organizations where researchers combine knowledge and practical expertise within the disciplinary and interdisciplinary research environment alike.

Although the collaboration with researchers in other organizations helps to realize the researchers’ ambitions for involvement in research projects to work on specific research problems, it contributes little towards faster promotions. Only collaboration with international colleagues has a positive impact on this aspect of researchers’ careers. Researchers dependent on visible international publications, tend to collaborate more with international colleagues. These contacts tend to be narrowly disciplinary. Yet collaboration with international partners tended to decline for researchers having more years of research experience.

Several policy implications stem from of our results. First, it is crucial for research policy in small countries to support the internationalization of research networks of its scientists. These networks are crucial at the time when standards for promotion and criteria for acquiring public research funds place higher emphases on academic excellence. To this end, researchers are more actively engaged with international collaboration when the length of their research careers is between 10 and 25 years. Women are significantly less involved in international collaboration than men. The latter calls for the policies targeted especially to women scientists facing the challenge of balancing the work and family. Second, having an equal representation of men and women in science is critical since women bring a potential for collaboration across intra-organizational divisions. Third, competition for resources related to distrust of others need not jeopardize large-scale collaboration when it promotes stronger local research units and centers. Finally, regardless of the kind of collaboration, creating common standards of quality stimulates collaboration. This is especially important in research fields where collaboration is less a result of instrumental considerations (as in sociology, for example) but depends on various facilitating factors including agreement on quality.

This summary of our results suggests strongly that studying collaboration with different kinds of collaboration partners merits further attention. While some of our results may have relevance only in small science systems, especially regarding the international collaboration and its effect on the career on researcher careers, contemporary processes of science promote different kinds of collaboration patterns for creating scientific knowledge. These include: scientific competition creating internally connected and collaborative research centers; common standards of quality promoting within-organization collaboration; resource dependence and interdisciplinary research stimulating collaborations between researchers in different organizations; knowledge specialization leading to extensive international collaborations, albeit in narrowly disciplinary foci. These patterns require further examination by studying and comparing more scientific disciplines, including the humanities. Having deeper understandings of multiple collaboration–specific mechanisms can help create research policies aimed at promoting even more productive collaboration.

In the last 12 months, what proportion of your research time was spent working alone and collaborating with specific partners? (percentages)

• Working alone.
• Collaborating with colleagues from the same research unit (research center or group).
• Collaborating with colleagues from the same organization, but not the same research unit.
• Collaborating with colleagues from other Slovenian academic institutions (universities and institutes).
• Collaborating with Slovenian colleagues from non-academic institutions (business sector, public sector, non-governmental sector).
• Collaborating with colleagues from abroad.

The variable extent of collaboration is approximately normally distributed. Variables measuring collaboration with different research partners are right-skewed. When the skewness statistics were larger than 3, we logtransformed the variables. These variables are collaborating with researchers from academic and non-academic organizations (Table ​ (Table5 5 ).

Descriptive statistics for the extent of collaboration and collaborating with different kinds of partners

See Table ​ Table6 6 .

Correlation matrix

• Ambos TC, Mäkelä K, Birkinshaw J, d’Este P. When does university research get commercialized? Creating ambidexterity in research institutions. Journal of Management Studies. 2008; 45 (8):1424–1447. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6486.2008.00804.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Atkins DE, Droegemeier KK, Feldman SI, Garcia-Molina H, Klein ML, Messerschmitt DG, Messina P, Ostriker JP, Wright MH. Revolutionizing science and engineering through cyberinfrastructure: Report of the National Science Foundation Blue-Ribbon Advisory Panel on Cyberinfrastructure. Washington: National Science Foundation; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Barney J. Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of management. 1991; 17 (1):99–120. doi: 10.1177/014920639101700108. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beaver D, Rosen R. Studies in scientific collaboration - Part I. The professional origins of scientific co-authorship. Scientometrics. 1978; 1 (1):65–84. doi: 10.1007/BF02016840. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beaver D, Rosen R. Studies in scientific collaboration—Part II. Scientific co-authorship, research productivity and visibility in the French scientific elite, 1799–1830. Scientometrics. 1979; 1 (2):133–149. doi: 10.1007/BF02016966. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Beaver D, Rosen R. Studies in scientific collaboration—Part III. Professionalization and the natural history of modern scientific co-authorship. Scientometrics. 1979; 1 (3):231–245. doi: 10.1007/BF02016308. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Becher, T., & Trowler, P. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. SRHE and Open University Press Imprint, Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.
• Birnholtz JP. When do researchers collaborate? Toward a model of collaboration propensity. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2007; 58 (14):2226–2239. doi: 10.1002/asi.20684. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Blau PM. Structural contexts of opportunities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bozeman, B., & Boardman, C. (2014). Research collaboration and team science: A state-of-the-art review and agenda. SpringerBriefs in Entrepreneurship and Innovation . Springer International Publishing.
• Bozeman B, Corley E. Scientists’ collaboration strategies: Implications for scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy. 2004; 33 :599–616. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.008. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bozeman B, Gaughan M. How do men and women differ in research collaborations? An analysis of the collaborative motives and strategies of academic researchers. Research Policy. 2011; 40 (10):1393–1402. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2011.07.002. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bozeman B, Dietz J, Gaughan M. Scientific and technical human capital: An alternative model for research evaluation. International Journal of Technology Management. 2001; 22 (7–8):716–740. doi: 10.1504/IJTM.2001.002988. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brandenburger AM, Nalebuff BJ. Co-opetition. New York: Crown Business; 2011. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cameron K. Measuring organizational effectiveness in institutions of higher education. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1978; 23 (4):604–632. doi: 10.2307/2392582. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cole JR, Zuckerman H. The productivity puzzle: Persistence and change in patterns of publication of men and women scientists. Advances in Motivation and Achievement. 1984; 2 :217–258. [ Google Scholar ]
• Corley EA, Boardman PC, Bozeman B. Design and the management of multi-institutional research collaborations: Theoretical implications from two case studies. Research Policy. 2006; 35 (7):975–993. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2006.05.003. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Crane D. Invisible colleges: Diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1972. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cronin B, Shaw D, La Barre K. 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 Technology. 2003; 54 (9):855–871. doi: 10.1002/asi.10278. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cronin B, Shaw D, Barre KL. Visible, less visible, and invisible work: Patterns of collaboration in 20th century chemistry. Journal of the American Society for information Science and Technology. 2004; 55 (2):160–168. doi: 10.1002/asi.10353. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cugmas M, Ferligoj A, Kronegger L. The stability of co-authorship structures. Scientometrics. 2016; 106 (1):163–186. doi: 10.1007/s11192-015-1790-4. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cummings JN, Kiesler S. Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Social Studies of Science. 2005; 35 (5):703–722. doi: 10.1177/0306312705055535. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• De Boer Y, De Gier A, Verschuur M, De Wit B. Building Bridges. Researchers on their experiences with interdisciplinary research in the Netherlands. Amsterdam: Rmno, Knaw, Nwo & Cso; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L. The Triple Helix-University-industry-government relations: A laboratory for knowledge based economic development. EASST review. 1995; 14 (1):14–19. [ Google Scholar ]
• Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L. The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry-government relations. Research Policy. 2000; 29 (2):109–123. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ferligoj A, Kronegger L, Mali F, Snijders TA, Doreian P. Scientific collaboration dynamics in a national scientific system. Scientometrics. 2015; 104 (3):985–1012. doi: 10.1007/s11192-015-1585-7. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Finholt T, Olson G. From laboratories to collaboratories: A new organizational form for scientific collaboration. Psychological Science. 1997; 8 (1):28–36. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00540.x. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Finholt TA. Collaboratories. Annual review of information science and technology. 2002; 36 (1):73–107. doi: 10.1002/aris.1440360103. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Frenken K. A new indicator of European integration and an application to collaboration in scientific research. Economic Systems Research. 2002; 14 (4):345–361. doi: 10.1080/0953531022000024833. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Frenken K, Leydesdorff L. Scientometrics and the evaluation of European integration. In: Brown T, Ulijn J, editors. Innovation, entrepreneurship and culture: The interaction between technology, progress and economic growth. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2004. pp. 87–102. [ Google Scholar ]
• Fuchs S. The professional quest for truth: A social theory of science and knowledge. Albany: Suny Press; 1992. [ Google Scholar ]
• Galison P. Three laboratories. Social Research. 1997; 64 (3):1127–1155. [ Google Scholar ]
• Galison P, Hevly B. Big science: The growth of large-scale research. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press; 1992. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gibbons M, Nowotny H, Scott P. The new production of knowledge. The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. New York: Sage Publications; 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Grant RM. Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strategic Management Journal. 1996; 17 (S2):109–122. doi: 10.1002/smj.4250171110. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hackett EJ. Essential tensions identity, control, and risk in research. Social Studies of Science. 2005; 35 (5):787–826. doi: 10.1177/0306312705056045. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hagedoorn J. Inter-firm R&D partnerships: An overview of major trends and patterns since 1960. Research Policy. 2002; 31 (4):477–492. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00120-2. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hagstrom W. The scientific community. New York: Basic Books; 1965. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hara N, Solomon P, Kim SL, Sonnenwald DH. An emerging view of scientific collaboration: Scientists’ perspectives on collaboration and factors that impact collaboration. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. 2003; 54 (10):952–965. doi: 10.1002/asi.10291. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Heimeriks G. Interdisciplinarity in biotechnology, genomics and nanotechnology. Science and Public Policy. 2012; 40 (1):97–112. doi: 10.1093/scipol/scs070. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hollanders, H., Es-Sadki, N., & Kanerva, M. (2016). European Innovation Scoreboard 2016. Tech. rep., European Commission. URL http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/17822
• Katz JS, Hicks D. How much is collaboration worth? A calibrated bibliometric model. Scientometrics. 1997; 40 (3):541–554. doi: 10.1007/BF02459299. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Katz JS, Martin BR. What is research collaboration? Research Policy. 1997; 26 :1–18. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(96)00917-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kouzes RT, Myers JD, Wulf WA. Collaboratories: Doing science on the internet. Computer. 1996; 29 (8):40–46. doi: 10.1109/2.532044. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kronegger, L. (2011). Dinamika omrežij soavtorstev slovenskih raziskovalcev: doktorska disertacija. Ph.D. thesis, University of Ljubljana.
• Kronegger L, Ferligoj A, Doreian P. On the dynamics of national scientific systems. Quality & Quantity. 2011; 45 (5):989–1015. doi: 10.1007/s11135-011-9484-3. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kronegger L, Mali F, Ferligoj A, Doreian P. Collaboration structures in Slovenian scientific communities. Scientometrics. 2012; 90 (2):631–647. doi: 10.1007/s11192-011-0493-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kyvik S, Larsen IM. The exchange of knowledge a small country in the international research community. Science Communication. 1997; 18 (3):238–264. doi: 10.1177/1075547097018003004. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Leahey E, Reikowsky RC. Research specialization and collaboration patterns in sociology. Social Studies of Science. 2008; 38 (3):425–440. doi: 10.1177/0306312707086190. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee S, Bozeman B. The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Social Studies of Science. 2005; 35 (5):673–702. doi: 10.1177/0306312705052359. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Levitt JM, Thelwall M. Patterns of annual citation of highly cited articles and the prediction of their citation ranking: A comparison across subjects. Scientometrics. 2008; 77 (1):41–60. doi: 10.1007/s11192-007-1946-y. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Levy R, Roux P, Wolff S. An analysis of science-industry collaborative patterns in a large European University. The Journal of Technology Transfer. 2009; 34 (1):1–23. doi: 10.1007/s10961-007-9044-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lewis JM, Ross S, Holden T. The how and why of academic collaboration: Disciplinary differences and policy implications. Higher Education. 2012; 64 (5):693–708. doi: 10.1007/s10734-012-9521-8. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Luukkonen T, Persson O, Sivertsen G. Understanding patterns of international scientific collaboration. Science, Technology & Human Values. 1992; 17 (1):101–126. doi: 10.1177/016224399201700106. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maglaughlin, K. L., & Sonnenwald, D. H. (2005). Factors that impact interdisciplinary natural science research collaboration in academia. In: Proceedings of the ISSI, Citeseer (pp 24–25).
• McDowell JM, Singell LD, Stater M. Two to tango? Gender differences in the decisions to publish and coauthor. Economic Inquiry. 2006; 44 (1):153–168. doi: 10.1093/ei/cbi065. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Melin G. Pragmatism and self-organization: Research collaboration on the individual level. Research Policy. 2000; 29 :31–40. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00031-1. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Narin F, Whitlow E. Measurement of scientific cooperation and coauthorship in CEC-related areas of science. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 1990. [ Google Scholar ]
• Nentwich M. Cyberscience: Research in the age of the internet. Vienna: Austrian Academy of Sciences Press; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Brien TL. Change in Academic Coauthorship, 1953–2003. Science, Technology & Human Values. 2012; 37 (3):210–234. doi: 10.1177/0162243911406744. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• OECD. (2012). OECD reviews of innovation policy: Slovenia 2012. Tech. rep. URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264167407-en
• Persson O. Are highly cited papers more international? Scientometrics. 2010; 83 (2):397–401. doi: 10.1007/s11192-009-0007-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pfeffer J, Salancik GR. The external control of organizations: A resource dependence approach. New York: Harper and Row Publishers; 1978. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ponomariov BL, Boardman PC. Influencing scientists’ collaboration and productivity patterns through new institutions: University research centers and scientific and technical human capital. Research Policy. 2010; 39 (5):613–624. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2010.02.013. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Price DS. Little science, big science and beyond. New York: Columbia University Press; 1963. [ Google Scholar ]
• Qin J, Lancaster FW, Allen B. Types and levels of collaboration in interdisciplinary research in the sciences. JASIS. 1997; 48 (10):893–916. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199710)48:10<893::AID-ASI5>3.0.CO;2-X. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rhoten D, Pfirman S. Women in interdisciplinary science: Exploring preferences and consequences. Research Policy. 2007; 36 (1):56–75. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2006.08.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rosenfeld RA, Jones JA. Patterns and effects of geographic mobility for academic women and men. The Journal of Higher Education. 1987; 58 (5):493–515. doi: 10.2307/1981784. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Schmickl C, Kieser A. How much do specialists have to learn from each other when they jointly develop radical product innovations? Research Policy. 2008; 37 (3):473–491. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2007.12.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sonnenwald DH. Scientific collaboration. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology. 2007; 41 (1):643–681. doi: 10.1002/aris.2007.1440410121. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sorčan, S., Demšar, F., & Valenci, T. (2008). Znanstvenoraziskovanje v Sloveniji : primerjalna analiza. Javna agencija zaraziskovalno dejavnost Republike Slovenije.
• Stare M, Udovič B, Bučar M. Soustvarjanje znanja med javnimi raziskovalnimi organizacijami in gospodarstvom za povečanje konkurenčnosti. IB Revija. 2014; 3 (48):53–59. [ Google Scholar ]
• Toral, S.L., Bessis, N., Martinez-Torres, M.d.R., Franc, F.,Barrero, F., & Xhafa, F. (2011). An exploratory social networkanalysis of academic research networks. In 2011 third international conference on intelligent networking and collaborative systems (INCoS) (pp 21–26).
• Udovič, B., Bučar, M., Hristov, H., et al. (2016). RIO Country Report 2015: Slovenia . Tech. rep., Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, Joint Research Centre.
• Ukrainski K, Masso J, Kanep H. Cooperation patterns in science within Europe: The standpoint of small countries. Scientometrics. 2014; 99 (3):845–863. doi: 10.1007/s11192-013-1224-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Van de Ven AH, Delbecq AL, Koenig R., Jr Determinants of coordination modes within organizations. American Sociological Review. 1976; 41 (2):322–338. doi: 10.2307/2094477. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Rijnsoever FJ, Hessels LK. Factors associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary research collaboration. Research Policy. 2011; 40 (3):463–472. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2010.11.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Van Rijnsoever FJ, Hessels LK, Vandeberg RL. A resource-based view on the interactions of university researchers. Research Policy. 2008; 37 (8):1255–1266. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.020. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Walsh JP, Hong W. Secrecy is increasing in step with competition. Nature. 2003; 422 (6934):801–802. doi: 10.1038/422801c. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wenger E. Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Learning in doing: Social, cognitive and computational perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Whitley R. The intellectual and social organization of the sciences. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1984. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilsdon J, et al. Knowledge, networks and nations: Global scientific collaboration in the 21st century. London: The Royal Society; 2011. [ Google Scholar ]

Organization of Work

The NIOSH National Occupational Research Agenda (NORA) identifies “organization of work” as one of 21 priorities for occupational health research in the United States. In the NORA document The Changing Organization of Work and the Safety and Health of Working People , the organization of work refers to the work process and the organizational practices that influence job design, including how jobs are and human resource policies are structured. While there is a growing awareness of the importance of these macro-level variables in determining the conditions of work, and thus their impact on worker safety, health and well-being, researchers currently have no efficient way to identify organizational assessment tools or instruments for use in their occupational health studies.

This Web site enhances research in this priority area by providing a means for researchers to quickly and easily identify available instruments for measuring organizational characteristics that may be useful for advancing research on the associations between work organization and worker safety, health, and well-being.

Search for a Measure

Frequently asked questions, organization of work taxonomy, other measurement resources, national survey links, niosh stress web resources, comments and questions, contributors.

In pursuit of value—not work

In 2018, Scrum.org and McKinsey started collaborating around a shared purpose: to help companies innovate how their organizations, teams, and individuals work.

In this article, the latest in a series of research and insight papers, we examine the differences between doing work and creating value in an agile context. The findings here are based on interviews with agile practitioners across the Scrum.org community.

About the authors

How valuable is the work you do? The productivity gains realized from moving to agile have felt great for teams, but are they seeing better customer outcomes and organizational performance from the adoption of agile?

Agile and scrum have never been more widely adopted 1 15th state of agile report , Digital.ai, July 2021. and these methods are delivering results across many performance measures. For example, in our McKinsey Global Survey of 2,190 participants, highly successful agile transformations were shown to result in a 30 percent increase in customer satisfaction and operational decision making, while the speed of decision making increased by five- to tenfold.

Agile approaches ensure continuous improvement and make clear for the team the tasks to be completed clear through a daily and weekly cadence. They also allow for opportunities to reflect and improve on how the work gets done. But here’s the rub: teams that adopt agile often do so with an industrial mindset, focused not on value but on work. When done right, agile can unlock the power of bottom-up intelligence, innovation, and highly motivated teams that own not only the work but, more important, the outcome that work creates.

Often in agile teams, there is attention on completing work to the detriment of a focus on creating value. There are several symptoms of this overemphasis on work at the expense of value. First, sprint or product backlogs include tasks, and status is measured through task completion. Second, efficiency is seen as more important than outcomes with a focus on velocity—which results in the primary aim of sprint planning to fill team capacity for the two-week period. Third, customers are not connected to teams—most team members don’t talk to customers, and customers are rarely present at sprint reviews. Fourth, outcomes are not measured, so there is no clear, measurable definition of success beyond the velocity of the work completed. Producing things faster is the aim, rather than aiming for defined outcomes.

What is value versus work?

It seems simple, but it is easy to slip back into telling teams what to do and not focusing on the why. Leaders need to ensure that direction is described regarding the goals that can be measured, allowing teams to fill in the detail of the how. The customer needs to be front and center even if that customer is internal. Everyone is responsible for the value delivered, not just the manager. By keeping the goal in mind as the environment changes, teams are still positioned for success.

We take the idea of value as being commercial market value (see, for example, “ The Liberators” and its piece on value 2 Christiaan Verwijs, “Five types of value,” The Liberators, Medium, February 8, 2021. ). There are other kinds of value, however (for example, efficiency, customer, future). For market value, a product’s success is measured by the number of potential users and customers who are aware of it. Invariably, product development involves efforts to increase this awareness, to move into new markets, or to distinguish from competing products. This work creates market value. Given the potential impact on organizational performance for those able to implement successful agile transformations, organizations should be highly motivated to move beyond a focus on work to a focus on value (see sidebar, “What is value versus work?”).

Organizations are waking up to value focus

Organizations are increasingly adopting objectives and key results (OKR) as part of their agile transformations, thereby ensuring that success is well defined (the O in OKRs), understood by the whole team, and measurable. This is emerging as one key component to get teams to focus on value.

Further, there continues to be growing interest in lean user experience and design thinking. Combining these approaches with agile helps to ensure a focus on the end user. A number of recent academic articles explore this topic. Our review of recent academic literature suggests that more than 90 percent of organizations are practicing agile.

An adoption of agile practices should, according to a recent McKinsey survey , correspond to a 30 percent increase in customer satisfaction. 3 Wouter Aghina, Christopher Handscomb, Olli Salo, and Shail Thaker, “ The impact of agility: How to shape your organization to compete ,” May 25, 2021. But we aren’t seeing more than 90 percent of companies getting those returns. Our fundamental view is that many organizations using agile are ultimately doing so to deliver work and not value.

The 2020 update of the Scrum guide 4 Ken Schwaber and Jeff Sutherland, The 2020 Scrum guide , ScrumGuides.org. also made value more explicit. With a focus on value, the guide now includes a new commitment to the product backlog that provides a description of the product goal. The aim was to move away from the idea that the product backlog is an ordered backlog of work where product backlog items are tasks that the team diligently works through. Teams are now more clearly invited to write each backlog item so that it describes a defined product goal. This makes it easier for teams to be self-managing and innovative. More important, it also brings greater focus and clarity to the outcomes and value that teams are creating.

With this reemphasis on value, there are four key missed opportunities that companies can take to shift their focus from productivity to value.

1. Management treats agile teams like cogs in a machine without empowering them to focus on value

The opportunity.

There is a systemic leadership gap in defining business problems, setting a vision, and positioning a mission in the context of value . For some managers, agile represents an opportunity to return to a time-and-motion approach to work. But this builds on the knowledge of 19th-century mechanical engineer Frederick Taylor: managers are willing to let agile teams decide how they work but not willing to let go of control to enable teams to optimize the value of what they work on and when.

“Customer value is business value, but many teams focus on output, shipping something, getting a new feature out. They do not engage with the customer enough. They do not experiment with the customer and deliver real learning about what the customer values or not.” —Jeff Gothelf, author, Lean UX: Designing Great Products with Agile Teams

In our global survey of 93 agile practitioners, 48 percent of respondents agree that in their organization, their team’s purpose is handed down to them; they have no say in it. And 44 percent of respondents disagree that team members are empowered to challenge organizational goals. In addition, in the crucial area of budgeting, 65 percent of respondents disagree that their organizations’ budgeting processes are transparent and that a typical team understands how the budgeting process might affect them.

“While I am a coach, and I admire good coaches, agile coaches often frustrate me. They’re often uncomfortable with value metrics and focus on team harmony and culture while underemphasizing business impact. Culture, harmony, and safety are all important, but delivering value is existential. Unless teams deliver measurable business outcomes, harmony is irrelevant and safety is an illusion for the teams and everyone in the business.” —Evan Campbell, chief transformation architect, Gtmhub

The solution

This is about giving teams greater agency and empowering them to make their own decisions . There are three steps:

• Make the organizations’ strategic plans transparent to scrum teams so they can better understand the purpose behind their efforts and how their work fits in.
• Empower product owners to make budgetary decisions.
• Empower developers to make design, architecture, and delivery decisions.

A large consumer-packaged-goods organization needed to deliver a next-generation product to market in an aggressive time frame. Senior leadership tried the “Tayloristic” model of dividing this large body of work into smaller teams, each of which didn’t see the entire picture and were not empowered to make decisions without running it by a central steering committee (composed primarily of senior leaders).

After a few months, management realized the product launch was going nowhere. So they pushed all decision making (including financial, architecture, and delivery) to their agile teams, providing a clear vision of the customer outcomes they expected to change. They also provided guardrails, such as releasing a product to a customer every few weeks and getting their feedback. Additionally, management encouraged the teams to challenge the status quo and aggressively solved for organizational inefficiencies that this way of working made transparent. The result was one of their best products. It was released in record time by five teams of excited, motivated people who felt they had made a difference.

2. Work is prioritized by the size of the task and team capacity; the team itself is not focused on or measuring value metrics

Teams are not focused enough on creating value, as they don’t have a sufficient understanding of the metrics that define success . It is often easier to “fill the hopper” and have the team start working on tasks that take them to capacity than to reflect on what creates value.

In our global survey, 46 percent of respondents agree or strongly agree that during sprint planning, their teams ensure that everyone is fully utilized, with only 25 percent disagreeing. Moreover, teams habitually define success or feel accountable in terms of activity and delivery as opposed to—or in preference to—outcomes and value. There is insufficient time spent on defining goals for the team, who the end customer is, and what purpose the work of the team is serving.

“Many of the executives I talk to focus on team efficiency and ask me to put in metrics that highlight waste and when people are not utilized to 100 percent. The reality is that by focusing on everyone being busy, they remove the opportunity for working together to deliver great customer outcomes. And when the team realizes that at a review, it is often too late.” —Daniel Vacanti, cofounder, ProKanban.org

This is about defining success not in terms of activity but in terms of value . Get your teams to think more about value. There are three key elements:

• The product owner should work with management to define success clearly, including measurable metrics with targets that correspond to what customers value.
• Spend time and effort to create a baseline of these metric. This won’t be easy but is the only way to understand whether the team is having the desired impact on outcomes versus outputs.
• Celebrate impact on those metrics as a success instead of only completion of a to-do item that kept everyone busy—100 percent utilization is not a good sign.

A European telecommunications company had a prepaid-mobile team that was focused on creating new and elaborate offers for their current and future clients, yet they never actually checked to see whether the customers were happy. They quickly realized they were losing customers (the number of active prepaid mobile cards was dropping) and furthermore, they learned they had the lowest customer satisfaction score in the market.

Every two-week sprint, they sought to improve at least one thing that was adversely affecting their internal and external customers; they started measuring what really mattered (in this case, the number of active cards and their relative value) and they looked into internal customer satisfaction scores of call-center employees, as well as the number of calls about their product. All these changes helped them go from position four to position one in their customer satisfaction score, and they realized that their clients wanted one simple offer, not many different ones.

3. Agile coaching is biased toward enabling scrum done right at the expense of value delivered well

While agile coaching is essential for the establishment and smooth running of agile practices according to agile principles, it can focus too much on getting the process right to the detriment of the focus on value . Similarly, scrum masters tend to focus on velocity and speed of decision making to the detriment of making value-based decisions.

In our survey, 54 percent of respondents say their typical scrum master or agile coach spends significant time helping teams do agile “the right way” as opposed to engaging teams in ways that enable them to build “the right thing.” An example of this thinking is a blame game; we often hear, “My team delivered everything they could, but the product can’t be released to production, because the design team, the data team, the testing team, the other development team, the legal team, and the controlling team didn’t do their part. But my team is perfect.”

“Agile coaches frustrate me. They do not dig metrics and rather focus on the team harmony. Team harmony is important but in the context of delivering value. They need to work with the business to drive harmony while delivering real outcomes.” —Evan Campbell, Gtmhub

This is about scrum masters and agile coaches recognizing and using the already strong correlation between organizational alignment, team empowerment, and the team’s understanding of value that we found in our survey.

There are two key components:

• More than 70 percent of our survey respondents agree that agile coaching helps them gain value from transparency, inspection, and adaptation (empirical process control).
• While agile coaching should help the team understand value directly (for example, by having them focus on the success metrics described above), it can also help to pay attention to broader organizational alignment and transparency that then lead to value.
• Our survey also shows the link between agile coaching and alignment and empowerment of the organization. These, in turn, demonstrate that they are correlated with an understanding of value, implying that agile coaching that targets organizational alignment may positively “move the needle” on value.

A Japanese pharmaceutical company saw the effects of this firsthand when its agile coaches and scrum masters focused an inordinate amount of time trying to get scrum right. They mistakenly assumed that some common practices in the industry, such as applying user stories and story points, were required scrum practices. However, when they spent time removing these complementary practices—along with several layers of people who acted as proxies between users and engineers—the notion of value became more transparent to their engineers.

Scrum masters and agile coaches started changing their viewpoint, collaborating more with their teams to establish basic customer personas and impact maps for the primary users and customers of their product. They worked through the network of proxies in the organization to bring their teams closer to the customers they defined. This resulted in a profoundly different level of drive from their teams.

The teams, which could get firsthand information about how their users and customers were affected, could autonomously and effectively determine why, what, and how to work every sprint. Removing the network of proxies resulted in better team empowerment, and making customer impact transparent resulted in better alignment with organizational goals. Overall, this resulted in effective value being delivered every sprint.

4. The whole team isn’t engaging with customers enough

Often, the agile team—and, more important, the product owner—are isolated and prevented (by structure, process, or culture) from actually interacting with customers . They become—and feel—like a cog in a machine, unable to engage with the outside world. The product owner turns out to be a poor (but necessary) proxy for interacting frequently with customers. Equally, team colleagues might not want to initiate and maintain relationships with customers, because it is stressful and requires them to leave their work bubble.

This can become culturally embedded within an organization. Many businesses think that they know best and don’t want to engage with customers, preferring to broadcast rather than to listen: “We just need to tell them what’s right.” This might be true, but continued dialogue can help to smooth the transition of the product and also create advocates to whom other customers can relate.

“I hear from my team that they do not need to talk to customers. That they know best. But from my experience, they need to ask better questions. There is always something to learn when you get a customer in the room, and you are listening to them rather than telling them.” —A senior IT leader at a financial-services company

It’s common in many organizations to assume that a product owner is the only one who is supposed to talk to customers; they represent the voice of the customer. Unfortunately, this assumption is another common misunderstanding of both product owner and scrum team accountabilities. The primary accountability of a product owner is to bring transparency to the notion of value and to the bets made in pursuit of that value, through a product backlog and a product goal.

More broadly, a lack of customer interaction means the team is blind to understanding how to create value for the customer; there is often a culture of giving stakeholders a perfect solution and then refining or polishing it further. This approach reduces the opportunities to course correct based on early customer feedback.

This is about listening widely, deeply, and carefully to customers and finding the right formal way to do this . There are two key stages:

• Mandate that each sprint review has a customer representative. If the team can’t get access to someone to represent the customer, then question the value this work provides and how you can better serve the customer. What review meetings would they attend?
• Ask the team to engage with customers during the sprint—ask them questions! Access to customers and other stakeholders is not owned by managers. Everyone in an agile team should be able to have time with customers or people who represent them.

A large technology company was moving to a new customer relationship management (CRM) system. It was well known that salespeople used the current system only just before quarterly business reviews and that the real customer data was held by each salesperson. This was diminishing the team’s ability to treat customers well. The company was large, complex, and had many different needs placed on this customer data.

The traditional approach was to embark on a massive requirements exercise, to talk to every stakeholder, and to build a huge and complex CRM system. Instead, they decided to engage a small representative group of salespeople up front, focusing on their needs to get the data in. They also introduced an incremental approach to delivery, giving these salespeople access and seeing if it worked for them. Slowly, they built the CRM system, engaging more salespeople and making them feel that they owned the CRM system.

Elena Chong is an associate partner in McKinsey’s London office, where Christopher Handscomb is a partner; Tomasz Maj is an expert in the Warsaw office; Rishi Markenday is an expert in the Washington, DC, office; and Leslie Morse is a product owner at Scrum.org, where Dave West is the CEO.

Explore a career with us

Related articles.

The impact of agility: How to shape your organization to compete

• SUGGESTED TOPICS
• The Magazine
• Newsletters
• Managing Yourself
• Managing Teams
• Work-life Balance
• The Big Idea
• Data & Visuals
• Reading Lists
• Case Selections
• HBR Learning
• Topic Feeds
• Account Settings
• Email Preferences

Transformations That Work

• Michael Mankins
• Patrick Litre

More than a third of large organizations have some type of transformation program underway at any given time, and many launch one major change initiative after another. Though they kick off with a lot of fanfare, most of these efforts fail to deliver. Only 12% produce lasting results, and that figure hasn’t budged in the past two decades, despite everything we’ve learned over the years about how to lead change.

Clearly, businesses need a new model for transformation. In this article the authors present one based on research with dozens of leading companies that have defied the odds, such as Ford, Dell, Amgen, T-Mobile, Adobe, and Virgin Australia. The successful programs, the authors found, employed six critical practices: treating transformation as a continuous process; building it into the company’s operating rhythm; explicitly managing organizational energy; using aspirations, not benchmarks, to set goals; driving change from the middle of the organization out; and tapping significant external capital to fund the effort from the start.

Lessons from companies that are defying the odds

Idea in Brief

The problem.

Although companies frequently engage in transformation initiatives, few are actually transformative. Research indicates that only 12% of major change programs produce lasting results.

Why It Happens

Leaders are increasingly content with incremental improvements. As a result, they experience fewer outright failures but equally fewer real transformations.

The Solution

To deliver, change programs must treat transformation as a continuous process, build it into the company’s operating rhythm, explicitly manage organizational energy, state aspirations rather than set targets, drive change from the middle out, and be funded by serious capital investments.

Nearly every major corporation has embarked on some sort of transformation in recent years. By our estimates, at any given time more than a third of large organizations have a transformation program underway. When asked, roughly 50% of CEOs we’ve interviewed report that their company has undertaken two or more major change efforts within the past five years, with nearly 20% reporting three or more.

• Michael Mankins is a leader in Bain’s Organization and Strategy practices and is a partner based in Austin, Texas. He is a coauthor of Time, Talent, Energy: Overcome Organizational Drag and Unleash Your Team’s Productive Power (Harvard Business Review Press, 2017).
• PL Patrick Litre leads Bain’s Global Transformation and Change practice and is a partner based in Atlanta.

Partner Center

• Open access
• Published: 08 April 2024

Transformational nurse leadership attributes in German hospitals pursuing organization-wide change via Magnet® or Pathway® principles: results from a qualitative study

• Joan Kleine   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0005-1727-3683 1 ,
• Julia Köppen   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7941-641X 1 , 2 ,
• Carolin Gurisch   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0008-3763-7220 3 &
• Claudia B. Maier   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-7734-2258 2  

BMC Health Services Research volume  24 , Article number:  440 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

19 Accesses

Metrics details

Budget constraints, staff shortages and high workloads pose challenges for German hospitals. Magnet® and Pathway® are concepts for implementing organization-wide change and redesigning work environments. There is limited research on the key elements that characterize nurse leaders driving the implementation of Magnet®/Pathway® principles outside the U.S. We explored the key attributes of nurse leaders driving organization-wide change through Magnet®/Pathway® principles in German hospitals.

Using a qualitative study design, semi-structured interviews ( n  = 18) were conducted with nurse leaders, managers, and clinicians, in five German hospitals known as having started implementing Magnet® or Pathway® principles. The interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed in Atlas.ti using content analysis. For the analysis, a category system was created using a deductive-inductive approach.

Five leadership attributes and eleven sub-attributes were identified as main themes and sub-themes: Visionary leaders who possess and communicate a strong vision and serve as role models to inspire change. Strategic leaders who focus on strategic planning and securing top management support. Supportive leaders who empower, emphasizing employee motivation, individualized support, and team collaboration. Stamina highlights courage, assertiveness, and resilience in the face of challenges. Finally, agility which addresses a leader’s presence, accessibility, and rapid responsiveness, fostering adaptability.

Conclusions

The study demonstrates leadership attributes explicitly focusing on instigating and driving organization-wide change through Magnet®/Pathway® principles in five German hospitals. The findings suggest a need for comprehensive preparation and ongoing development of nurse leaders aimed at establishing and sustaining a positive hospital work environment.

Peer Review reports

European hospitals are facing multiple challenges, including economic pressure, cost containment strategies, technological advancements, and shortages of healthcare professionals, which require constant adaptation [ 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ]. Particularly concerning is the high burden of mental distress reported by nurses and other healthcare professionals [ 5 , 6 ]. It is increasingly recognized that the root causes of increased stress and burnout among nurses are linked to the work environment in hospitals and other healthcare settings, that is why hospitals should strive to change their working conditions [ 7 , 8 ].

The Magnet Recognition Program® (Magnet) and the Pathway to Excellence® Program (Pathway), both originating in the United States (U.S.) and held at the American Nurses Credentialing Center (ANCC), are designed to facilitate organizational-wide change of work environments, enhancing employee well-being, retention, productivity, and patient outcomes [ 9 , 10 , 11 ]. These concepts can provide a structured approach for European hospitals to tackle the challenges of the future effectively.

Research on Magnet hospitals, primarily conducted in the U.S., suggests that Magnet can enhance working conditions, job satisfaction, and nurse well-being in hospitals [ 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 ], while also improving patient outcomes [ 14 , 15 , 16 ]. However, findings across studies and outcomes vary. In contrast, the impact of Pathway has received less attention in research. Nevertheless, some studies have indicated that Pathway promotes increased nurse autonomy and decision-making authority, fosters leadership development, improves safety and quality standards, enhances employee well-being, and supports professional growth [ 17 , 18 ].

As of December 2023, 591 organizations worldwide had Magnet designation [ 19 ], and 214 had Pathway designation [ 20 ], with the majority in the U.S. Internationally, only 17 hospitals hold Magnet designation [ 19 ] and 16 have Pathway designation [ 20 ]. While none of them are in Germany, some German hospitals have proactively started implementing Magnet/Pathway principles to drive organization-wide changes aiming at enhancing job satisfaction, attracting and retaining healthcare professionals [ 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 ]. Hence, the inclusion of Magnet and Pathway principles as comparable case examples of organization-wide change in the current study is justified by the growing proactive adoption of these concepts by some German hospitals.

Magnet and Pathway focus on promoting nurse engagement and supporting professional nursing practice environments. The difference lies in their specific objectives: Magnet emphasizes sustained quality patient care, nursing excellence, and innovations in professional practice, while Pathway highlights creating supportive practice environments that empower and engage staff and is known for having less stringent data requirements [ 25 , 26 ]. However, both aim to cultivate a culture of nursing care excellence, supported by a transformational leadership style [ 25 ], which is the central focus of the present study.

Leadership skills do play a crucial role in successfully promoting organization-wide change [ 27 , 28 , 29 ] and has also been shown to have a profound impact on employee stress and emotional well-being [ 30 ]. Transformational leadership was identified as one effective leadership style in healthcare settings [ 29 , 31 , 32 , 33 ]. Transformational leaders motivate employees towards an organizational vision by inspiring and empowering them to continuously develop themselves and addressing their individual needs [ 34 , 35 ]. The theoretical framework for transformational leadership was first conceptualized in the 1970s, defining it as a relationship between leaders and employees who motivate, empower, and elevate each other’s moral values in pursuit of fulfilling common interests [ 36 ]. Further expansion by Bass and Avolio introduced four subcategories that represent the characteristics of transformational leaders: Idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration [ 34 , 35 ].

Several U.S. studies have analyzed the relationship between transformational leadership and the implementation of Magnet principles [ 37 , 38 , 39 ]. In a southern U.S. nonprofit acute care hospital seeking Magnet designation, a survey of 115 staff nurses showed that transformational leadership style was positively associated with nurses’ job satisfaction and satisfaction with promotion opportunities [ 37 ]. Magnet hospital CNOs rated their transformational leadership practices highly and reported a strong positive correlation between engagement and leadership practice, with empowering others as the most important practice [ 38 ]. A study of clinical nurse leaders, who attended the 2016 Magnet Conference in Orlando, Florida, showed a positive relationship between transformational leadership practices and work engagement, but observed differences in leadership practices and work engagement based on varying levels of education [ 39 ].

The majority of research conducted outside of the U.S. has focused on investigating the impact of transformational leadership style within healthcare settings, with no focus on the implementation of Magnet/Pathway [ 29 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 37 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 ]. Several studies found that forms of transformational leadership styles resulted in positive organizational performance, such as improved staff retention, lower turnover, and better quality of care [ 31 , 32 , 33 , 37 , 40 , 41 ]. A systematic review including 12 studies from the US, Canada, Saudi Arabia, China, Ethiopia, Italy, and Jordan, showed a positive correlation between transformational leadership and nurses’ job satisfaction in the hospital setting [ 29 ].

To date, most of the qualitative studies analyzed transformational leadership style from the nurse leaders’ perspective. A study from Finland used a qualitative design to examine nurses’ leadership skills in leading change [ 44 ]. They identified three main roles: First, ‘leading interpersonal relationships’ including competencies of being a team player, coach, and parental figure. Second, ‘leading processes’ including competencies such as organizing, coordinating, and being a conductor based on the organization’s mission. And third, ‘leading a culture’ is defined as advocating values and norms and creating an open, resilient, and evidence-based culture [ibid.]. Another study from 2016 explored senior nurses’ experiences of organization-wide change leadership in three NHS acute hospitals in England through in-depth interviews [ 43 ]. The aspect of leadership was frequently discussed in relation to organization-wide change. An effective nurse leader was characterized as a strong, inspiring, and supportive leader with novel and heroic approaches [ibid.]. Weak leaders were those who did not encourage their teams, had poor presence and were unresponsive to the need for change [ibid]. Another qualitative study used a grounded theory approach to examine the processes nursing management uses to promote change on their wards in five hospitals in Japan [ 45 ]. According to the interviewees, the change management process led by nurse managers consists of having beliefs and being able to empathize with the nursing staff to achieve common goals [ibid.]. Four characteristics of nurse leaders were reported as indispensable factors for change: having both a micro and macro perspective; respecting their own beliefs and external standards; being proactive; having empathy for nursing staff [ibid.]. A 2020 study conducted in a university hospital in Brazil, examined the challenges of exercising transformational leadership and strategies nurses leaders used to address these challenges include being role models for the team, proactively maintaining dialogue with co-workers, and building empathetic relationships [ 42 ].

In German hospitals, a cross-sectional study investigated nursing leadership styles, analyzing the self-assessment of 93 ward managers and the external evaluation of 1,567 employees with the multifactorial leadership questionnaire (MLQ-5X), revealing the presence of transformational leadership practices [ 46 ]. The ward management consistently achieved mean values above the scale mean in all dimensions of transformational leadership, both in the self-assessment and in the external evaluation [ibid.]. However, despite the acknowledged existence of transformational leadership practices in nursing within German hospitals, research on the attributes of nurse leaders that support organization-wide change through implementation of Magnet/Pathway principles remains scarce. This study aims to identify beneficial attributes of nurse leaders from German hospitals, shedding light on their role in driving organization-wide change through Magnet/Pathway and advancing the understanding of leadership practices’ impact within the German healthcare systems. Research on this topic is critical to fill a gap in the literature regarding nurse leader attributes that facilitate organization-wide change and can provides insights that could inform nursing leadership development initiatives tailored to the needs of German hospitals seeking Magnet/Pathway designation.

Design and setting

This study was conducted as part of the German Magnet pioneer study, based on a qualitative research design in five pioneer hospitals. Semi-structured interviews were conducted between March and October 2020 with nurse leaders, managers, and clinicians involved in introducing Magnet or Pathway principles in five German hospitals. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (i) hospitals known as pioneers, defined as early adopters of the Magnet or Pathway principles, (ii) having started the implementation on their own initiative prior to 2020. For the purposes of this study, the primary focus was on the leadership attributes of nurses driving organization-wide change using Magnet/Pathway principles. The research protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Charité (No. EA4/185/19). This study used the consolidated qualitative research reporting criteria (COREQ) [ 47 ].

The semi-structured interview guide contained a total of nine question with a set of probing questions. Topics covered motivation and rationale for implementing Magnet/Pathway, the identification of facilitators and barriers, of which one question was specifically on the role of leadership. However, interviewees referred to leadership attributes and practices throughout the interview in various instances. All interviewees filled out a short questionnaire on demographic characteristics and information about their role in the hospital, position, and years of work experience.

Sample recruitment

The purposive sample consisted of 18 persons from the five hospitals. Hospital size ranged between 200 and 2000 beds. Interviewees were nurse leaders, managers, and clinicians who had gained experience with the implementation of Magnet/Pathway. All requested interview partners agreed to be interviewed.

Data collection and analysis

Interviews were conducted in German and face-to-face by three members of the research team, following the semi-structured interview guide. The interviews lasted between 30 and 135 min. The interviews were anonymized and transcribed verbatim and were coded with ID01-ID18. The analysis of the anonymized transcripts was carried out in a multi-stage procedure based on content analysis, with a content structuring and summarising approach according to Mayring [ 48 ].

A deductive-inductive approach was chosen. The transcripts were coded using the data analysis software ATLAS.ti. For the deductive coding a coding guide was developed prior to the analysis based on the five components of the Magnet model [ 10 ]. Subsequently, the content of the deductive code leadership was re-analyzed in-depth inductively to answer the research question.

Several measures were applied to ensure transparency and quality. This involved investigator triangulation whereby the three researchers were involved in the data collection, analysis, and interpretation of the study [ 49 ].

Prior to the interviews, the three researchers conducted pilot interviews among themselves to ensure consistency. The coding of the interviews was performed by the three researchers who also conducted the interviews. Each coder was familiar with all 18 transcripts. After a pilot analysis phase with three interviews which were coded together and discussed at length to achieve high interrater agreement, the transcripts were randomly allocated. In regularly scheduled meetings, the coders reported the interim status and discussed problems or questions regarding the analysis and reviewed sample content of the codes together. In the next step, themes and sub-themes were formed by the researchers and discussed. Examples of quotes from interviewees are provided in the results section to enhance understanding of the interpretation of the results.

Interviewee characteristics

The 18 interviewees had a mean age of 48.9 (SD: 10.0) years, seven were female and eleven male. The majority ( n  = 16) had a degree in nursing and two a degree in medicine. Leadership and/or staff responsibilities had 17 interviewees and on average they had five (SD: 2.8) years of experience with implementing Magnet/Pathway (see Table  1 ).

All 18 transcripts were included in the analysis, regardless of whether direct quotes are shown in this study. Five main leadership attributes (subsequently referred to as main themes) driving organization-wide change using the Magnet/Pathway principles were identified: visionary, strategic, supportive, stamina, and agility. The main themes consist of eleven sub-themes (see Table  2 ).

Main theme 1: Visionary

Two sub-themes were clustered as the main theme visionary. It emerged that having a vision and acting as a role model were identified as requirement to implement organization-wide change.

Having a vision

Most interviewees agreed that leaders need a vision that they carry with conviction and strive to realize with high motivation. Interviewees suggested that a leader who is visionary would inspire employees for the change process. Furthermore, some interviewees mentioned that it is beneficial if leaders communicate well their vision of the future to their employees.

“With a vision I can inspire people. So, I need something that is strong enough, that really radiates energy, that […] gives people courage.” (ID9) .

It was seen as essential that the visions should be catchy, based on clinical practice and reflect the needs of clinical practitioners. One of the interviewees also mentioned the involvement of employees in the practical elaboration of the vision.

“So, I […] presented the vision to my team. […] And we went into working groups on how we can implement it, how we can live it. We have three keywords in there: human, competent, pioneering.” (ID14) .

The interviewees described the need for people who serve as role models that adhere to their vision, ideals, and values and stand up for them. Leaders acting as role models were identified as being less concerned with fulfilling specific criteria for maintaining a label or certificate but focused on improving the well-being of employees and quality of care. Interviewees explained a role model function of leaders as beneficial when employees could identify with their leaders, as this makes it easier to formulate and accept the vision and values as common goals. One interviewee stressed the importance of the personality of the leader and their manner of communicating with their staff.

“I would almost reduce it to the personalities that drive the whole thing. So, it always depends on how you transmit something, how do you communicate, how do you deal with your staff.” (ID4) .

A role model as an inspiration was suggested to increase the motivation of the employees to develop themselves and eventually to work towards the achievement of common goals.

“For me it was […] exciting to have a nursing director who brought special knowledge and an enthusiasm that I sometimes missed in the nursing field. […] just ahead of the times and […] powerful with motivation and of course that caught me.” (ID2) .

Main theme 2: Strategic

Two sub-themes were identified under the main theme strategic: Critical attributes as strategic planning and convincing top management contribute to effective implementation of positive change.

Strategic planning

Interviewees mentioned that leadership attributes included the ability to plan strategically to meet the goals of the hospital. For example, one of the interviewees described that the implementation of transformational leadership had been the key to driving further changes in the direction of Magnet.

“I think that the key component to live the Magnet concept is transformational leadership. […] I first must manage through leadership to keep people and attract new ones. And if that succeeds, […] then I can bring the other components into life […].” (ID9) .

Some interviewees highlighted the relevance of strategic resource allocation to be able to initiate and sustain the hospital-wide change via Magnet/Pathway principles. This included investing in human resources, e.g. nursing scientists or project coordinators, and in structural development, e.g. data management or digitalization. One interviewee described the strategy of providing budget or other cost-related information for the top management and the board required for Magnet/Pathway implementation.

“There needs to be at least […] an overarching Magnet project manager or director. […] last year I made an initial rough calculation for the board […] as a template, what it would cost the hospital. […] because that is of course indispensable.” (ID7) .

Convincing top management

Most interviewees addressed the importance of seeking and gaining the support of top management to advance change processes.

“The first step, […], was to convince the executive director, because the combination is simply necessary to do anything at all.” (ID4) .

One interviewee underscored the importance of active involvement and dedication from top-level decision makers and management in driving organization-wide change processes.

“So, I think you definitely need […] - the decision makers, the management - they must commit themselves clearly to it, and they must have a vision in this direction […].” (ID5) .

Main theme 3: Supportive

Three sub-themes were clustered under the main theme supportive. To be a supportive leader who fosters an empowering workplace to meet Magnet/Pathway principles, it was described as important to inspire and motivate employees to evolve professionally, support employees individually in developing themselves and their ideas further and cultivate a strong team spirit as a team player to pursue common goals.

Inspiration and motivation

Some of the interviewees talked about encouraging and inspiring employees to go beyond themselves. Increasing employees’ self-confidence enabled them to make their own decisions and motivated them to evolve professionally. This increased the motivation to drive positive change within the organization. One of the interviewees further explained that the higher the motivation in the team, the faster positive changes could be implemented.

“The half of it is […] that you get moving forward and, of course, the more motivated you are, the faster and the better you get moving forward. So, it’s about strengthening motivation and this for the whole team and making sure that you get better professionally.” (ID2) .

A leader should have a passion for the intended changes to persuade and motivate all employees and should take into account the time component of implementing organization-wide change using the Magnet/Pathway concept.

“And you have to be passionate about the topic, otherwise the concept won’t work either. That takes time at first. And then the biggest task is to get all the employees on board.” (ID4) .

Individual support of employees

The individual support of employees by leaders was recognized as indispensable when it comes to empowering them. According to the interviewees it was important to create a trusting working environment and to make employees feel that they are supported in developing themselves and their ideas further.

“[T]he employees must feel something is getting better for me. Managers are standing up for me, they are behind me. That is what is important for employees.” (ID9) .

However, finding the right support for each employee required individual consultation. Only in this way special circumstances and needs could be considered in a targeted manner. In particular, support for the academic training of bedside nurses is mentioned by interviewees as an example which underscores the significance of management’s role in facilitating and encouraging such endeavors.

“[…] there was […] a young [male nurse] sitting there […] who says, ‘Yeah, did I get this right, you want us all to have academic degrees?’ And he says, ‘Listen, I’m 35, I have three kids, I can’t afford to give up one euro right now at all.’ And [the CNO] understands, of course, there are priorities. But then you must see how you can support someone like that. […] If someone wants the [bachelor in nursing] […] then there is massive support, especially at the management level.” (ID7) .

Team player

The interviewees shared the idea that inspiration, motivation, and support of staff succeed more effectively when leaders are perceived as team players. According to the interviewees, a strong team spirit strengthens motivation to pursue common goals and helps not to give up. It also supports the well-being of all employees in their daily work.

“The team spirit is so important because if you motivate a team, if you win a team, and if you, as the leader of such a team, ensure that people enjoy working together and that the day-to-day problems can be sorted out, and if it says at the top and at the front: We are a team, we do this together, and together we are strong, Then you have already won half of everything that can be won.” (ID2) .

An interviewee at a higher managerial level additionally stated that it is important to always maintain a friendly atmosphere and show appreciation to receive important information about current issues and concerns in the teams. Decisions should not be made alone, but should always be considered with the teams, as they know more about the day-to-day matters of the staff members.

“We have […] a very, very friendly interaction, because I think that they are not my subordinates, they are my ward managers and they are the most important source of work for me, so to speak. Without them, I wouldn’t need to show up here to work, without my ward managers interacting with their teams, knowing exactly what’s going on here right now […], where’s the tension right now? What’s going well right now, what’s not going well right now?” (ID17) .

Main theme 4: Stamina

Two of the sub-themes were clustered as the main theme stamina. It emerged that implementing organization-wide change requires leaders who have strong personalities with courage and assertiveness.

The interviews showed that courage and a willingness to take risks in a context of uncertainty, which requires change, is experienced as a beneficial leader attribute. For the interviewees, courage meant being committed to the community and pursuing a vision and goals and being persistent about them. The step of opting for the implementation of organization-wide change with the Magnet/Pathway is described by some interviewees as a dare and leaders should be prepared for negative effects and to face resistance.

“I would say: Yes, you can always change something. And I didn’t let myself be discouraged […]. Sometimes people have said that we can’t really implement the Magnet concept here. And for me it was always important which ideas from the concept can be implemented and this I want to implement […], but I don’t let that stop me. […] And of course you also need leaders who are strong enough to say: ‘I know, even if it sounds crazy, we’re going in that direction now’.” (ID9) .

Nevertheless, especially in times of nursing shortages and high workload, it was important to have a sense of achievement to summon up courage. One of the CNOs interviewed reported that due to a high number of applicants to study nursing in the interviewee’s initial phase at the hospital, the interviewee had gained the courage to believe in the change concept and continued to pursue the interviewee’s vision despite high workloads and poor moods among the nursing staff and continued to pursue their vision.

“[…] despite reports of work overload, which reached me in droves at that time in my starting phase […], and then I was talking about academic training, actually I almost got a slap in the face, but at the same time [many] applied [to study nursing]. And then that was again the point where I had confidence: ‘You’re sticking to it; you have the courage’.” (ID3) .

Assertiveness

Interviewees agreed that implementing organization-wide change requires a high level of commitment and that leaders should have assertiveness. It was mentioned that it is important to prepare for the long term and to be aware of the length of time required to drive change processes using the Magnet/Pathway concept.

“I think the concepts themselves are very, very complex and take an incredible amount of time to implement. But it is possible. You just need someone who has stamina and who stands there and says, ‘So, and I want this, and this is the way, and this is my way, and I’m going to follow through.‘” (ID14) .

A sufficient individual resilience of leaders in hospitals was described as crucial to be able to overcome past failures, learn from them and stay positive. An interviewee described that initial rejection of new intervention plans by employees was initially perceived as a setback, but the leaders remained strong and learned from it.

“Well, that certainly took its time. [The CNO] came back [from U.S.] to the hospital with lots of new ideas and everyone who hears something new first says: ‘Stop, hold this. […], English words, now we only use English words. What does Magnet mean at all?’ and there was already a lot of distance from the employees […]. But then [the CNO] was able to convince […] at least the mangement level.” (ID4) .

Convincing top management was also described as an endeavor and requires the attributes of assertiveness and courage. One example is to advocate for one’s employees.

“And my job as a CNO, of course, is to fight to make sure that my nurse leaders have the resources, from time, to space, to other things, to be able to do good leadership.” (ID9) .

Main theme 5: Agility

In the context of this study, agility means the ability to adapt flexibly and quickly to changing tasks, circumstances, and demands as well as fostering a sense of team spirit. Two of the sub-themes were clustered as the main theme agility; showing presence and demonstrate well and fast accessibility and responsiveness.

Showing presence

It emerged from the statements of the interviewees that showing presence and direct personal contact of the leaders towards the employees was an important competence to keep up the commitment of the employees for implementing positive change within the hospital.

“Of course, I’m also in favour of the director of nursing not working at the bedside anymore […], but they should also not forget the direct contact to those who do the frontline work.“(ID2) .

With personal presence the leader’s appreciation of frontline workers and the interest in their well-being could become more tangible. It would also be a better way to transmit enthusiasm for the overarching, common goal to employees. Likewise, communication lines would be shortened, and employee concerns and needs could be addressed quicker. One of the interviewees shared a key moment when the CNO introduced himself unannounced at a staff meeting, and this sparked a sense of optimism among the employees.

“And I don’t think there’s ever been anything like this before, where a team meets for a dialogue and all of a sudden the CNO comes in and introduces himself and also says something about his philosophy and how he would like it to be. […] And that was the first jolt, because the employees realized, there’s someone who’s not untouchable, but there’s someone who’s like us.” (ID14) .

Another interviewee stated that they were expected as a nurse leader to know as many of the employees personally as possible. This was an essential factor for equal interaction between the professional groups.

“I know a lot of our nurses […], I know all the academic nurses, […] people expect me to take an interest in them. The whole eye-level system means that you really give everyone a name as well, not just a number anymore.” (ID1) .

One of the interviewees acknowledged that a lack of presence at the frontline work, as well as a lack of interest in the processes by the leader, had negatively impacted the success of implementing change processes.

“He [CNO] wasn’t on the wards; he didn’t see that as his responsibility either. It was more like; he gives the strategy and then the others are supposed to do the implementation. That just didn’t work out well. […] it was certainly a barrier that the [CNO] had little understanding of the daily operational problems. […] It would still have been easier if the employees had experienced him as being a little closer to the employees.” (ID10) .

Accessibility and responsiveness

In addition, interviewees explained that by showing presence outside of their own office, leaders should also cultivate an “open door”-culture and be available to meet with employees at short notice. This includes accessibility via various communication channels but also quick responsiveness.

“My door is open all day. I am not the leader who is available once a year for one hour […], but I am permanently there for dialogue, I do have time.” (ID6) . “We do a topical hour with the nursing directorate where they can come and get in touch with science here. [AND] Cappuccino with the nursing directors; where everyone can come without an appointment and also have individual talks […].” (ID3) .

Another interviewee used a current occurrence to stress the importance of responding to employee requests as soon as possible to keep them motivated.

“Right before you came in, there was a colleague who asked me […] if he could do a work shadowing. Within three minutes he got his answer […]. What use has a rigid structure, if you let someone like him wait for two weeks and say ‘Well, I was overworked’? You have to address these things.” (ID2) .

The findings of this study shed light on the attributes of nurse leaders in German hospitals that drive organization-wide change using Magnet/Pathway, which are aimed at improving employee well-being, productivity, and patient outcomes. A key component of the concepts is the practice of transformational leadership [ 9 ]. The results highlight five main themes that encompass beneficial leadership attributes: visionary, strategic, supportive, stamina, and agility.

The theme of visionary underscores the significance of visionary leadership in driving organization-wide change towards Magnet/Pathway. Having a clear and compelling vision that is communicated effectively to employees emerged as a key factor. The role of leaders as role models who embody vision and values was also emphasized. This aligns with existing literature on transformational leadership, which emphasizes the importance of idealized influence and inspirational motivation [ 34 , 35 ]. Leaders who serve as role models and inspire others create a sense of identification and motivation among employees to work towards common goals.

The theme of strategic highlights the role of strategic planning and resource allocation in Magnet/Pathway implementation. Several studies confirmed that strategic thinkers are among the most effective leaders. People with the ability to think strategically are more likely to ensure the sustainable success of an organization and are better able to put existing strategic plans into execution [ 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 ]. Furthermore, this study emphasizes the importance of leaders advocating for Magnet/Pathway principles to gain the support and commitment of the top management. Convincing the top management was seen as crucial for the success of change efforts.

The supportive theme emphasizes the significance of individualized support for employees’ development and well-being. This includes empowering employees to pursue further education, addressing their unique needs, and fostering a trusting work environment. This study highlights the role of leaders in providing resources and support for academic advancement, which aligns with the Magnet key component on structural empowerment. Furthermore, the importance of team spirit and collaboration was emphasized, echoing the Magnet/Pathway principle of exemplary professional practice and a collaborative work environment. Supportive leaders act as team players and inspire and motivate their staff to perform beyond the norm [ 38 , 54 ]. They support staff nurses to assessing their own performance, working out their goals and defining their responsibilities [ 38 , 43 , 44 ]. As a result, nurse leaders can promote knowledge building, intrinsic motivation and innovative work behavior among nurses [ 54 ].

In the German healthcare system, it is noteworthy that not every nursing director automatically holds a position on the hospital’s executive board, underscoring the importance of engaging top management in organizational change initiatives. Additionally, given that lifelong learning and continuous professional development are not standard practices in nursing in Germany, contrasting with the conditions required for Magnet/Pathway implementation, it highlights the crucial role of CNOs in empowering their staff and fostering a culture of lifelong learning and professional growth.

Results of previous qualitative studies analyzing transformational leadership style from the nurse leaders’ perspective confirm these findings. They include competencies such as a strong, inspiring, and supportive leader with novel approaches. The leaders serve as role models and are able to empathize with nursing staff to achieve common goals [ 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 ]. By cultivating a visionary outlook and a supportive stance, nurse leaders can effectively foster work engagement, address burnout, and create a motivating environment for healthcare professionals. Importantly, these leadership qualities can be learned and improved over time among nurses through targeted educational interventions, training, mentoring, and hands-on experiences [ 55 , 56 , 57 ]. Nevertheless, while some leadership skills can be developed through training and experience, certain innate character traits may provide an inherent advantage in the cultivation of effective leadership [ 58 ]. For instance, personality traits such as emotional intelligence, empathy, and authenticity have been linked to leadership effectiveness [ibid.]. Although these traits may not be directly teachable, they may serve as foundational elements that contribute to the development of successful transformational leadership practices.

The alignment between the findings of this study and those from various international contexts raises important implications for both the Magnet/Pathway implementation process and the broader understanding of transformational leadership. The resemblance between the identified leadership attributes and those found in studies conducted in different countries suggests a level of universality in the leadership qualities required for successful organization-wide change, particularly in healthcare settings. Furthermore, the consensus between the leadership attributes identified in this study and those from international research may imply that studies solely focused on transformational leadership can offer relevant insights for organizations pursuing Magnet/Pathway designation.

Given the diversity of leadership approaches across other sectors (including industry), it is important to recognize the contextual relativity of specific leadership traits. While the leadership attributes identified in this study are tailored specifically to nursing within hospitals, they may be relevant in other sectors, but require further evaluations in different contexts. While a leader’s ability to communicate a clear vision and motivate employees is as crucial in the business sector as in healthcare, the best way of communication and motivation may vary.

New insights that expand the understanding of the role of leadership in driving organization-wide change that emerge from this study is the perspective on the themes of stamina and agility in the context of transformational leadership and Magnet/Pathway implementation.

The theme of stamina reflects the perseverance and resilience required for implementing Magnet/Pathway principles. Leaders need courage to navigate uncertainty and take calculated risks. Leaders should want to make changes and push them forward with stamina and assertiveness, and who are not afraid to speak up and ask for support from higher authorities. In the context of transformational leadership, stamina has often been discussed as a leader’s perseverance, determination, and resilience in the face of challenges [ 34 ]. However, the findings of this study emphasize a more profound dimension of stamina as the leader’s ability not only to persevere, but also to inspire and sustain momentum during complex, long-term endeavors such as Magnet/Pathway implementation.

The concept of agility as an essential leadership skill has gained attention in recent years and refers to a leader’s ability to adapt quickly to changing circumstances. This aligns with the dynamic nature of healthcare settings, where leaders must respond to changing demands [ 59 ]. Interviewees in this study emphasized the positive impact of agile leadership, which enables leaders to respond rapidly, purposefully, and individually to different situations [ 59 , 60 , 61 ]. By adapting task structures and difficulty levels to match employees’ needs and commitment, leaders can prevent both under- and over-challenging their team members, thereby facilitating their professional development [ 59 , 60 , 61 ]. With the sub-themes showing presence as well as accessibility and responsiveness, it became clear that leaders should be in regular exchange with their employees to be able to react agilely to the requirements and needs [ 62 ]. In contrast, the findings confirm that the lack of frontline presence as well as the leader’s lack of interest in the processes negatively impacted the success of Magnet/Pathway implementation. However, in the context of Magnet/Pathway implementation, agility goes beyond flexibility to include a dynamic responsiveness to evolving healthcare challenges. The results show that leaders need to be flexible not only in their decision-making, but also in their accessibility and responsiveness to employees. This reflects a proactive approach that not only supports the implementation of the Magnet/Pathway principles, but also ensures that employees remain engaged and motivated throughout the transformation process.

Limitations

This study has several limitations. Firstly, the interviews were conducted in only five German hospitals, yet they were the first ones known to have started introducing Magnet or Pathway in Germany. While these hospitals provided valuable insights into the implementation process, the perspectives shared by leaders and staff are not representative of all hospitals in Germany, limiting the generalizability of the findings. Secondly, the majority of interviewees in this study were nurse managers or individuals with leadership responsibilities. As a result, the findings primarily reflect the management and leadership perspective, potentially overlooking the viewpoints and experiences of frontline nurses. It is important to consider a wider range of perspectives to gain a comprehensive understanding of the challenges and opportunities associated with leadership while implementing Magnet/Pathway principles.

This study provides in-depth insights into the leadership attributes that drives the implementation of organization-wide change through Magnet/Pathway principles in German. It offers guidance for nurse leaders seeking to drive positive organization-wide change and enhance employee well-being.

The interviewees in this study emphasized the importance of leadership competencies such as visionary direction, strategic planning, personalized support, resolute stamina, and adaptive agility. The themes of stamina and agility offer new insights, showcasing the need for courage, assertiveness, and adaptability in leaders driving long-term organization-wide change towards Magnet/Pathway.

Given the vital role of transformational leadership in driving organization-wide change, as well as the fact that transformational leadership skills can be trained, a comprehensive preparation and ongoing development of nurse leaders toward transformational leadership skills may support establishing and sustaining a positive work environment in hospitals.

Data availability

A 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups (COREQ) and the coding tree are provided as supplementary material. The transcripts used and analyzed during the Magnet pioneer study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

American Nurses Association

American Nurses Credentialing Center

Chief Nursing Officer

Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative

Interviewee Identification

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

National Health Service

Standard deviation

United Sates of America

Rafferty AE, Griffin MA. Perceptions of organizational change: a stress and coping perspective. J Appl Psychol. 2006;91:1154–62. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.1154 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Duncan S, Rodney PA, Thorne S. Forging a strong nursing future: insights from the Canadian context. J Res Nurs. 2014;19:621–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987114559063 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Alonso JM, Clifton J, Díaz-Fuentes D. The impact of New Public Management on efficiency: an analysis of Madrid’s hospitals. Health Policy. 2015;119:333–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.12.001 .

Nilsen P, Seing I, Ericsson C, Birken SA, Schildmeijer K. Characteristics of successful changes in health care organizations: an interview study with physicians, registered nurses and assistant nurses. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020;20:147. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-4999-8 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Kim M-S, Kim T, Lee D, Yook J-H, Hong Y-C, Lee S-Y, et al. Mental disorders among workers in the healthcare industry: 2014 national health insurance data. Ann Occup Environ Med. 2018;30:31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40557-018-0244-x .

Skoda E-M, Teufel M, Stang A, Jöckel K-H, Junne F, Weismüller B, et al. Psychological burden of healthcare professionals in Germany during the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic: differences and similarities in the international context. J Public Health. 2020;42:688–95. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdaa124 .

Nowrouzi B, Lightfoot N, Larivière M, Carter L, Rukholm E, Schinke R, Belanger-Gardner D. Occupational Stress Management and Burnout Interventions in nursing and their implications for healthy work environments: a Literature Review. Workplace Health Saf. 2015;63:308–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165079915576931 .

West CP, Dyrbye LN, Erwin PJ, Shanafelt TD. Interventions to prevent and reduce physician burnout: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2016;388:2272–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31279-X .

ANCC. 2023 MAGNET Application Manual; 2021.

Magnet Model ANA. 2017. https://www.nursingworld.org/organizational-programs/magnet/magnet-model/ . Accessed 19 Mar 2023.

Pabico C, Cadmus E. Using the pathway to Excellence® Framework to create a culture of sustained Organizational Engagement. Nurse Lead. 2016;14:203–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mnl.2016.01.005 .

Kelly LA, McHugh MD, Aiken LH. Nurse outcomes in Magnet® and non-magnet hospitals. J Nurs Adm. 2012;42:S44–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NNA.0000420394.18284.4f .

Kutney-Lee A, Stimpfel AW, Sloane DM, Cimiotti JP, Quinn LW, Aiken LH. Changes in patient and nurse outcomes associated with magnet hospital recognition. Med Care. 2015;53:550–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000000355 .

Petit Dit Dariel O, Regnaux J-P. Do Magnet®-accredited hospitals show improvements in nurse and patient outcomes compared to non-magnet hospitals: a systematic review. JBI Database Syst Rev Implement Rep. 2015;13:168–219. https://doi.org/10.11124/jbisrir-2015-2262 .

Rodríguez-García MC, Márquez-Hernández VV, Belmonte-García T, Gutiérrez-Puertas L, Granados-Gámez G. Original Research: how Magnet Hospital Status affects nurses, patients, and organizations: a systematic review. Am J Nurs. 2020;120:28–38. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000681648.48249.16 .

McHugh MD, Kelly LA, Smith HL, Wu ES, Vanak JM, Aiken LH. Lower mortality in magnet hospitals. Med Care. 2013;51:382–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182726cc5 .

Hume L, Hall M. Sustaining a positive practice environment after pathway to Excellence® designation. Nurs Manage. 2020;51:6–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NUMA.0000651208.47176.91 .

Sepe P, Hargreaves J. Responding to the COVID-19 pandemic with the pathway to Excellence® framework. Nurs Manage. 2020;51:6–8. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NUMA.0000688980.49993.c0 .

ANA, Find a Magnet. Organization. 2017. https://www.nursingworld.org/organizational-programs/magnet/find-a-magnet-organization/ . Accessed 20 Feb 2024.

ANA, Find a Pathway. Organization. 2017. https://www.nursingworld.org/organizational-programs/pathway/find-a-pathway-organization/ . Accessed 20 Feb 2024.

Schweiger J. Das Magnet-Krankenhaus — Anziehend durch Qualität und Transparenz. Pflegez. 2017;70:18–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41906-017-0090-4 .

Osterloh F. Zusammenarbeit Von Ärzten Und Pflegekräften: Der Kulturwandel hat begonnen. Deutsches Ärzteblatt. 2019;116:930–1.

Google Scholar  

Maier C, Köppen J, Kleine J. Das Arbeitsumfeld in Krankenhäusern verbessern - das Magnet4Europe-Projekt. Die Schwester Der Pfleger. 2022:84–7.

Kleine J, Maier CB, Köppen J, Busse R. Magnet®-Krankenhäuser: Eine Chance für Deutschland? In: Klauber J, Wasem J, Beivers A, Mostert C, editors. Schwerpunkt Personal. Berlin: Springer; 2023. pp. 107–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-66881-8_7 .

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Graystone R, Pabico C. Magnet® or Pathway® recognition: comparing and contrasting. J Nurs Adm. 2018;48:233–4. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNA.0000000000000606 .

Lal MM, Pabico CG. Magnet® and pathway: partners for nursing Excellence. J Nurs Adm. 2021;51:175–6. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNA.0000000000000992 .

Mororó DDS, Enders BC, Lira ALBC, Da Silva CMB, de Menezes RMP. Concept analysis of nursing care management in the hospital context. Acta Paul Enferm. 2017;30:323–32. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-0194201700043 .

de Moura AA, Bernardes A, Balsanelli AP, Zanetti ACB, Gabriel CS. Liderança E satisfação no trabalho da enfermagem: revisão integrativa. Acta Paul Enferm. 2017;30:442–50. https://doi.org/10.1590/1982-0194201700055 .

Specchia ML, Cozzolino MR, Carini E, Di Pilla A, Galletti C, Ricciardi W, Damiani G. Leadership styles and nurses’ job satisfaction. Results of a systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18041552 .

Schaufeli W. Engaging Leadership: how to promote Work Engagement? Front Psychol. 2021;12:754556. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.754556 .

Wang X, Chontawan R, Nantsupawat R. Transformational leadership: effect on the job satisfaction of registered nurses in a hospital in China. J Adv Nurs. 2012;68:444–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2011.05762.x .

Cummings GG, Tate K, Lee S, Wong CA, Paananen T, Micaroni SPM, Chatterjee GE. Leadership styles and outcome patterns for the nursing workforce and work environment: a systematic review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2018;85:19–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2018.04.016 .

Moon SE, van Dam PJ, Kitsos A. Measuring transformational Leadership in establishing nursing Care Excellence. Healthc (Basel). 2019. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare7040132 .

Bass B, Avolio B. Improving Organisational Eectiveness through transformational Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage; 1994.

Avolio B. Full range leadership development. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; 2011.

Book   Google Scholar  

Burns JM. Leadership. New York. NY, USA: Harper & Row; 1978.

Bormann L, Abrahamson K. Do staff nurse perceptions of nurse leadership behaviors influence staff nurse job satisfaction? The case of a hospital applying for Magnet® designation. J Nurs Adm. 2014;44:219–25. https://doi.org/10.1097/nna.0000000000000053 .

Prado-Inzerillo M, Clavelle JT, Fitzpatrick JJ. Leadership practices and Engagement among Magnet® Hospital Chief nursing officers. J Nurs Adm. 2018;48:502–7. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNA.0000000000000658 .

Shaughnessy MK, Quinn Griffin MT, Bhattacharya A, Fitzpatrick JJ. Transformational Leadership practices and Work Engagement among Nurse leaders. J Nurs Adm. 2018;48:574–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/NNA.0000000000000682 .

Labrague LJ, Nwafor CE, Tsaras K. Influence of toxic and transformational leadership practices on nurses’ job satisfaction, job stress, absenteeism and turnover intention: a cross-sectional study. J Nurs Manag. 2020;28:1104–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/jonm.13053 .

Suliman M, Aljezawi M, Almansi S, Musa A, Alazam M. Ta’an WF. Identifying the nurse characteristics that affect anticipated turnover. Nurs Manag (Harrow). 2020. https://doi.org/10.7748/nm.2020.e1956 .

Ferreira VB, Amestoy SC, Da Silva GTR, Trindade LL, Santos IARD, Varanda PAG. Transformational leadership in nursing practice: challenges and strategies. Rev Bras Enferm. 2020;73:e20190364. https://doi.org/10.1590/0034-7167-2019-0364 .

Boyal A, Hewison A. Exploring senior nurses’ experiences of leading organizational change. Leadersh Health Serv (Bradf Engl). 2016;29:37–51. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHS-03-2015-0005 .

Salmela S, Eriksson K, Fagerström L. Leading change: a three-dimensional model of nurse leaders’ main tasks and roles during a change process. J Adv Nurs. 2012;68:423–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2011.05802.x .

Kodama Y, Fukahori H. Nurse managers’ attributes to promote change in their wards: a qualitative study. Nurs Open. 2017;4:209–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/nop2.87 .

Kilian R. Transformationale Führung in der Pflege als Beitrag zur Managemententwicklung [Dissertation]. Private Universität für Gesundheitswissenschaften: Medizinische Informatik u. Technik Hall in Tirol (UMIT); 2013.

Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19:349–57. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042 .

Mayring P. Qualitative inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen Und Techniken. 11th ed. Weinheim: Beltz; 2010.

Golafshani N. Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research. TQR. 2015. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2003.1870 .

Gavetti G. PERSPECTIVE—Toward a behavioral theory of strategy. Organ Sci. 2012;23:267–85. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0644 .

Gavetti G, Levinthal DA, Rivkin JW. Strategy making in novel and complex worlds: the power of analogy. Strat Mgmt J. 2005;26:691–712. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.475 .

Moon B-J. Antecedents and outcomes of strategic thinking. J Bus Res. 2013;66:1698–708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.11.006 .

Smriti V, Dhir S, Dhir S. Strategic thinking in Professional Environment: a review of the literature. IJBIR. 2020;1:1. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJBIR.2020.10028592 .

Masood M, Afsar B. Transformational leadership and innovative work behavior among nursing staff. Nurs Inq. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1111/nin.12188 .

Hamdani MR. Learning how to be a transformational leader through a skill-building, role-play exercise. Int J Manage Educ. 2018;16:26–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2017.11.003 .

Cummings GG, Lee S, Tate K, Penconek T, Micaroni SPM, Paananen T, Chatterjee GE. The essentials of nursing leadership: a systematic review of factors and educational interventions influencing nursing leadership. Int J Nurs Stud. 2021;115:103842. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103842 .

Cohrs C, Bormann KC, Diebig M, Millhoff C, Pachocki K, Rowold J. Transformational leadership and communication. LODJ. 2020;41:101–17. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-02-2019-0097 .

Avolio BJ, Walumbwa FO, Weber TJ. Leadership: current theories, research, and future directions. Annu Rev Psychol. 2009;60:421–49. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163621 .

Ahmed Mohamed Ibrahim S, Mohammed Araby Ebraheem S, Hassan EL-S, Mahfouz H. Effect of Educational Program about Head nurses’ Agile Leadership on Staff nurses’ Workplace spirituality and job reputation. Egypt J Health Care. 2022;13:1638–58. https://doi.org/10.21608/ejhc.2022.231783 .

Aij KH, Teunissen M. Lean leadership attributes: a systematic review of the literature. J Health Organ Manag. 2017;31:713–29. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHOM-12-2016-0245 .

Simonovich SD, Spurlark RS, Badowski D, Krawczyk S, Soco C, Ponder TN, et al. Examining effective communication in nursing practice during COVID-19: a large-scale qualitative study. Int Nurs Rev. 2021;68:512–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/inr.12690 .

Bailey KD, Losty LS, Albert D, Rodenhausen N, Santis JP. de. Leadership presence: A concept analysis. Nurs Forum. 2022;57:1069–79. https://doi.org/10.1111/nuf.12784 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

We extend our thanks to the 18 interviewees for their time and valuable insights, especially considering the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic during the interview data collection period. Their willingness to participate in this study is greatly appreciated and has significantly contributed to our research. We also thank the consortium of the Magnet4Europe study.

The Magnet pioneer study was funded by the B. Braun Foundation (Grant No. 18001021). Additional time on the study was funded by a grant from Robert Bosch Foundation. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Healthcare Management, Technische Universität Berlin, Straße des 17. Juni 135, 10623, Berlin, Germany

Joan Kleine & Julia Köppen

School of Public Health, Universität Bielefeld, Universitätsstraße 25, 33615, Bielefeld, Germany

Julia Köppen & Claudia B. Maier

BQS Institute for Quality & Patient Safety GmbH, Wendenstraße 375, 20537, Hamburg, Germany

Carolin Gurisch

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

CBM was the PI of the Magnet pioneer study and planned the study and its methodology. CBM and JuK contributed to the study’s design. CBM, JuK and JoK performed data collection and conducted the deductive analysis of the data. JoK conducted the main inductive analyses for the purpose of the current study. CBM and JuK provided critical review and discussion of inductive coding. JoK wrote the first draft manuscript, and prepared tables. CBM, JuK and CG were involved in subsequent iterations and conducted critical review of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joan Kleine .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This research has been performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki with ethics approval through the Ethics Committee of the Charité (No. EA4/185/19). Written informed consent was obtained from all interviewees prior to the interviews. For interviewees, neither advantages nor disadvantages resulted from participation or non-participation in the study. Participation could be withdrawn at any time without consequences till anonymizations.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary material 2, supplementary material 3, rights and permissions.

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/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Kleine, J., Köppen, J., Gurisch, C. et al. Transformational nurse leadership attributes in German hospitals pursuing organization-wide change via Magnet® or Pathway® principles: results from a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res 24 , 440 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-10862-y

Download citation

Received : 27 November 2023

Accepted : 13 March 2024

Published : 08 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-024-10862-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Nurse leadership
• Transformational leadership
• Organization-wide change
• German hospitals

BMC Health Services Research

ISSN: 1472-6963

• General enquiries: [email protected]