Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.
Advertisement
Nature volume 623, pages 987–991 (2023)
24k
19
1305
Metrics details
Theories of innovation emphasize the role of social networks and teams as facilitators of breakthrough discoveries1,2,3,4. Around the world, scientists and inventors are more plentiful and interconnected today than ever before4. However, although there are more people making discoveries, and more ideas that can be reconfigured in new ways, research suggests that new ideas are getting harder to find5,6—contradicting recombinant growth theory7,8. Here we shed light on this apparent puzzle. Analysing 20 million research articles and 4 million patent applications from across the globe over the past half-century, we begin by documenting the rise of remote collaboration across cities, underlining the growing interconnectedness of scientists and inventors globally. We further show that across all fields, periods and team sizes, researchers in these remote teams are consistently less likely to make breakthrough discoveries relative to their on-site counterparts. Creating a dataset that allows us to explore the division of labour in knowledge production within teams and across space, we find that among distributed team members, collaboration centres on late-stage, technical tasks involving more codified knowledge. Yet they are less likely to join forces in conceptual tasks—such as conceiving new ideas and designing research—when knowledge is tacit9. We conclude that despite striking improvements in digital technology in recent years, remote teams are less likely to integrate the knowledge of their members to produce new, disruptive ideas.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
24,99 € / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
185,98 € per year
only 3,65 € per issue
Buy this article
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
The datasets used in this paper are available at https://lyl010.github.io/ and https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21295725. Source data are provided with this paper.
All code is available at https://lyl010.github.io/.
Burt, R. S. Structural holes and good ideas. Am. J. Sociol. 110, 349–399 (2004).
Article Google Scholar
Jones, B. F. The rise of research teams: benefits and costs in economics. J. Econ. Perspect. 35, 191–216 (2021).
Article Google Scholar
Muthukrishna, M. & Henrich, J. Innovation in the collective brain. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 371, 20150192 (2016).
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F. & Uzzi, B. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 316, 1036–1039 (2007).
Article ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Bloom, N., Jones, C. I., Van Reenen, J. & Webb, M. Are ideas getting harder to find? Am. Econ. Rev. 110, 1104–1144 (2020).
Article Google Scholar
Park, M., Leahey, E. & Funk, R. J. Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time. Nature 613, 138–144 (2023).
Article ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Weitzman, M. L. Recombinant growth. Q. J. Econ. 113, 331–360 (1998).
Article MathSciNet MATH Google Scholar
Uzzi, B., Mukherjee, S., Stringer, M. & Jones, B. Atypical combinations and scientific impact. Science 342, 468–472 (2013).
Article ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Polanyi, M. The Tacit Dimension (Univ. Chicago Press, 1966).
Jones, B. F. The burden of knowledge and the ‘death of the renaissance man’: is innovation getting harder? Rev. Econ. Stud. 76, 283–317 (2009).
Article MATH Google Scholar
Leahey, E. & Reikowsky, R. C. Research specialization and collaboration patterns in sociology. Soc. Stud. Sci. 38, 425–440 (2008).
Article Google Scholar
Cummings, J. N. & Kiesler, S. Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Soc. Stud. Sci. 35, 703–722 (2005).
Article Google Scholar
Freeman, R., Ganguli, I. & Murciano-Goroff, R. Why and Wherefore of Increased Scientific Collaboration Working Paper 19819 (NBER, 2014); https://doi.org/10.3386/w19819.
Fleming, L., Mingo, S. & Chen, D. Collaborative brokerage, generative creativity, and creative success. Adm. Sci. Q. 52, 443–475 (2007).
Article Google Scholar
Lahiri, N. Geographic distribution of R&D activity: how does it affect innovation quality? Acad. Manage. J. 53, 1194–1209 (2010).
Article Google Scholar
Maskell, P., Bathelt, H. & Malmberg, A. Building global knowledge pipelines: the role of temporary clusters. Eur. Plan. Stud. 14, 997–1013 (2006).
Article Google Scholar
Cramton, C. D. The mutual knowledge problem and its consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organ. Sci. 12, 346–371 (2001).
Article Google Scholar
Azoulay, P., Zivin, J. S. G. & Sampat, B. The Diffusion of Scientific Knowledge across Time and Space: Evidence from Professional Transitions for the Superstars of Medicine Working Paper 16683 (NBER, 2011); https://doi.org/10.3386/w16683.
Catalini, C. Microgeography and the direction of inventive activity. Manage. Sci. 64, 4348–4364 (2018).
Article Google Scholar
Brucks, M. S. & Levav, J. Virtual communication curbs creative idea generation. Nature 605, 108–112 (2022).
Article ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Yang, L. et al. The effects of remote work on collaboration among information workers. Nat. Hum. Behav. 6, 43–54 (2022).
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Xu, F., Wu, L. & Evans, J. Flat teams drive scientific innovation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2200927119 (2022).
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Dane, E. Reconsidering the trade-off between expertise and flexibility: a cognitive entrenchment perspective. Acad. Manage. Rev. 35, 579–603 (2010).
Google Scholar
Azoulay, P., Fons-Rosen, C. & Zivin, J. S. G. Does science advance one funeral at a time? Am. Econ. Rev. 109, 2889–2920 (2019).
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Wu, L., Wang, D. & Evans, J. A. Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology. Nature 566, 378–382 (2019).
Article ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Bloom, N., Liang, J., Roberts, J. & Ying, Z. J. Does working from home work? Evidence from a Chinese experiment. Q. J. Econ. 130, 165–218 (2014).
Article Google Scholar
Hinds, P. J. & Bailey, D. E. Out of sight, out of sync: understanding conflict in distributed teams. Organ. Sci. 14, 615–632 (2003).
Article Google Scholar
Hinds, P. J. & Weisband, S. P. in Virtual Teams That Work: Creating Conditions for Virtual Team Effectiveness (eds Gibson, C. B. & Cohen, S. G.) 21–36 (Wiley, 2003).
Funk, R. J., & Owen-Smith, J. A dynamic network measure of technological change. Manage. Sci. 63, 791–817 (2017).
Watson, J. D. & Crick, F. H. Molecular structure of nucleic acids: a structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid. Nature 171, 737–738 (1953).
Article ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Lander, E. S. et al. Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome. Nature 409, 860–921 (2001).
Article ADS CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Orús, R. & Vidal, G. Infinite time-evolving block decimation algorithm beyond unitary evolution. Phys. Rev. B 78, 155117 (2008).
Article ADS Google Scholar
Tamano, M., Okuda, H., Yajima, H., Hirose, T. & Kagaya, N. Retrieval method using image information. US patent US5857199A (1999).
Waltman, L., Tijssen, R. J. W. & van Eck, N. J. Globalisation of science in kilometres. J. Informetr. 5, 574–582 (2011).
Article Google Scholar
Kiesler, S. & Cummings, J. N. What do we know about proximity and distance in work groups? A legacy of research. Distributed Work 1, 57–80 (2002).
Article Google Scholar
Van Noorden, R. Global mobility: science on the move. Nature 490, 326–329 (2012).
Article ADS PubMed Google Scholar
Holten, D. & van Wijk, J. J. Force-directed edge bundling for graph visualization. Comput. Graph. Forum 28, 983–990 (2009).
Article Google Scholar
Wang, K. et al. Microsoft Academic Graph: when experts are not enough. Quant. Sci. Stud. 1, 396–413 (2020).
Article ADS Google Scholar
Shen, Z., Ma, H. & Wang, K. A Web-scale system for scientific knowledge exploration. In Proc. ACL 2018, System Demonstrations 87–92 (Association for Computational Linguistics, 2018); https://aclanthology.org/P18-4015/.
Rajkumar, K., Saint-Jacques, G., Bojinov, I., Brynjolfsson, E. & Aral, S. A causal test of the strength of weak ties. Science 377, 1304–1310 (2022).
Article ADS MathSciNet CAS PubMed MATH Google Scholar
Kaltenberg, M., Jaffe, A. B. & Lachman, M. The Age of Invention: Matching Inventor Ages to Patents Based on Web-Scraped Sources Working Paper 28768 (NBER, 2021); https://www.nber.org/papers/w28768.
Haeussler, C. & Sauermann, H. Division of labor in collaborative knowledge production: the role of team size and interdisciplinarity. Res. Policy 49, 103987 (2020).
Article Google Scholar
Cui, H., Wu, L. & Evans, J. A. Aging scientists and slowed advance. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.04044 (2022).
Granovetter, M. S. The strength of weak ties. Am. J. Sociol. 78, 1360–1380 (1973).
Article Google Scholar
Mors, M. L. & Waguespack, D. M. Fast success and slow failure: the process speed of dispersed research teams. Res. Policy 50, 104222 (2021).
Article Google Scholar
Correia, S. Correia S. reghdfe: Estimating linear models with multi-way fixed effects. 2016 Stata Conference https://econpapers.repec.org/paper/bocscon16/24.htm (2016).
Download references
We thank F. Xu, J. A. Evans, F. Neffke, J. Huang, G. Presidente, H. Youn, Y. Lin, M. Frank and S. Bana for helpful comments or discussions. We are grateful for support from Citi, the Dieter Schwarz Foundation (C.B.F.), the Richard King Mellon Foundation, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation and the National Science Foundation grant SOS:DCI 2239418 (L.W.).
These authors jointly supervised this work: Carl Benedikt Frey, Lingfei Wu
School of Computing and Information, The University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Yiling Lin & Lingfei Wu
Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
Carl Benedikt Frey
Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
Carl Benedikt Frey
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Y.L., C.B.F. and L.W. collaboratively conceived and designed the study, contributed to the interpretation of data, and drafted, revised and edited the manuscript. Y.L. analysed the data and implemented the models.
Correspondence to Carl Benedikt Frey or Lingfei Wu.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Nature thanks Melanie Brucks and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
For 20,134,803 research papers published between 1960 and 2020, and 4,060,564 patent applications filed between 1976 and 2020, we show that the negative association between collaboration distance and the probability of producing disruptive work (D > 0) is robust against team sizes (a,d), team periods (b,e), and fields of study (c,f). For each value of the controlled variable (e.g., team size equals two for the blue curve in Panel a), the gray dotted line marks the average disruption probability across all distances. We then display the relative probability of disruption (colored curves), calculated as the ratio of disruption probability for the group of given collaboration distance to the average probability across all distances. The plotted curves have been normalized by dividing their raw values by the group mean, so that the intercepts are not meaningful. We note that Panels b and e appear to show that the remote penalty has strengthened after 2000. However, this effect is confounded by the increase in team size over this time period. See Extended Data Table 1–2 for the effect of distance on innovation when a host of control variables are accounted for.
For 20,134,803 research papers published between 1960 and 2020, and 4,060,564 patent applications filed between 1976 and 2020, we calculate three different, alternative measures of collaboration distance other than our main specification—the average geographic distance between team members. These include the maximum distance between team members34 (a); the average distance between the unique cities where team members are located (b); and a colocation index varying from zero to one, which measures the probability that a randomly selected pair of team members are in the same location45 (c). This colocation index is a continuous variable that complements the binary measures of onsite and remote teams, as it captures boundary cases where some but not all members of a remote team are onsite. In Panel a–c, the gray dotted lines mark the average disruption probability for papers and patents across all distances. The colored curves (or bars) mark the relative probability of disruption, calculated as the ratio of disruption probability for the analyzed group to the average probability across all distances.
For 20,134,803 research papers published between 1960 and 2020, and 4,060,564 patent applications filed between 1976 and 2020, we calculate two alternative measures of innovation and find that remote teams are consistently less likely to disrupt science and technology than onsite teams. The percentile of the average D-score falls from 89 to 84 for papers (a) and from 76 to 67 for patents (b) across the full sample. The probability of proposing new scientific concepts decreases from 0.40% to 0.32% for papers and the probability of introducing new technology codes decreases from 3.33% to 3.22% for patents, when switching from onsite to remote (c). The gray dotted line marks the probability of introducing new concepts or code for an average paper (0.37%) or patent (3.24%). The color bars show the relative probability, calculated as the ratio of probability for the analyzed group relative to the population’s average probability.
We analyzed 89,575 author contribution disclosures underlying papers across four journals, including Nature, Science, PNAS, and PLOS ONE, between 2003 and 2020. We associate authors with their contribution to four research activities, including “conceiving research,” “performing experiments,” “analyzing data,” and “writing the paper.” For each of the 21,373 scientists who worked in both onsite and remote teams, we track the distribution of their contributions across four activities within each paper and average this distribution within the onsite-team and remote-team papers they published, respectively. This way, we obtained two distributions for each scientist. We then averaged these two distributions across all the 21,373 scientists in our sample. Finally, we displayed the obtained distributions using the Gaussian kernel density estimate. We observe that the key contribution of the same scientist, marked by the peak of the density curves, shifted from “conceiving research” to “performing experiments” when they switched from onsite to remote. These two distributions are significantly different from each other (Chi-squared test statistic = 3188, p-value < 0.001).
Our author contribution data covers disclosures from PNAS (18,354), Nature (9,364), Science (1,176), and PLOS ONE (60,681) between 2003 and 2020. We select PNAS (a) and PLOS ONE (b), which have the most observations, and explore the distinct scalability of engagement across research activities. We group four research activities into two broad categories according to their different scalability, including 1) conceptual tasks that contain conceiving and writing, which scale up slowly with team size (red curves), and 2) technical tasks comprising performing and analyzing, which scale up fast with team size (blue curves). As shown in the insets, while the fraction of performing members stabilizes at 0.6 as the team size increases from two to ten, the fraction of conceiving members even decreases from 0.9 to 0.4.
Using the ground-truth dataset mentioned in Extended Data Fig. 5, we train a neural-network model to infer these two author roles within 16,397,750 papers where author contributions are not explicit. This machine learning model uses eight different variables to predict the dichotomy of author roles, including 1) contribution to references, defined as the overlap between references of the focal paper and all references across previously published papers for each author; 2) contribution to topics, defined as the overlap between MAG topic keywords for the focal paper and all keywords across previously published papers for each author; 3) contribution to leading the research, defined as the probability of being the first author(s); 4) contribution to managing correspondence and presentation, defined as the probability of being the corresponding author(s); 5) career age, defined as the number of years from the first publication to the publication of the focal paper for a given author, 6) citation impact, defined as the total number of citations an author has received to all previous publications; 7) topic diversity, defined as the total number of unique MAG topic keywords across previous publications, and finally; 8) publication productivity, defined as the total number of previous papers until the publication of the focal paper. The machine learning model gives a precision of 0.790 and a recall of 0.793. The predicted and empirical values of the fraction of conceptual workers are highly correlated (Pearson correlation coefficient 0.66, P-value < 0.001). The eight predictors and their contribution to the prediction are displayed. The figure is reproduced from our earlier research22.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
Reprints and permissions
Lin, Y., Frey, C.B. & Wu, L. Remote collaboration fuses fewer breakthrough ideas. Nature 623, 987–991 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06767-1
Download citation
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06767-1
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
Nature (2024)
Scientometrics (2024)
The Journal of Supercomputing (2024)
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.
Advertisement
© 2024 Springer Nature Limited
Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.