Collaborative learning in networks

Edited by Kenneth Wachter, University of California, Berkeley, CA, and approved November 3, 2011 (received for review June 27, 2011)
December 19, 2011
109 (3) 764-769

Abstract

Complex problems in science, business, and engineering typically require some tradeoff between exploitation of known solutions and exploration for novel ones, where, in many cases, information about known solutions can also disseminate among individual problem solvers through formal or informal networks. Prior research on complex problem solving by collectives has found the counterintuitive result that inefficient networks, meaning networks that disseminate information relatively slowly, can perform better than efficient networks for problems that require extended exploration. In this paper, we report on a series of 256 Web-based experiments in which groups of 16 individuals collectively solved a complex problem and shared information through different communication networks. As expected, we found that collective exploration improved average success over independent exploration because good solutions could diffuse through the network. In contrast to prior work, however, we found that efficient networks outperformed inefficient networks, even in a problem space with qualitative properties thought to favor inefficient networks. We explain this result in terms of individual-level explore-exploit decisions, which we find were influenced by the network structure as well as by strategic considerations and the relative payoff between maxima. We conclude by discussing implications for real-world problem solving and possible extensions.

Supporting Information

Supporting Information (PDF)
Supporting Information

References

1
SA Kauffman The Origins of Order: Self Organization and Selection in evolution (Oxford Univ Press, New York, 1993).
2
DA Levinthal, Adaptation on rugged landscapes. Manage Sci 43, 934–950 (1997).
3
JG March, Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organ Sci 2, 71–87 (1991).
4
AK Gupta, KG Smith, CE Shalley, The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Acad Manage J 49, 693–706 (2006).
5
A Bavelas, Communication patterns in task-oriented groups. J Acoust Soc Am 22, 725–730 (1950).
6
HJ Leavitt, Some effects of certain communication patterns on group performance. J Abnorm Psychol 46, 38–50 (1951).
7
B Uzzi, J Spiro, Collaboration and creativity: The small world problem. Am J Sociol 111, 447–504 (2005).
8
K Miller, M Zhao, R Calantone, Adding interpersonal learning and tacit knowledge to March's exploration-exploitation model. Acad Manage J 49, 709–722 (2006).
9
R Guimerà, B Uzzi, J Spiro, LAN Amaral, Team assembly mechanisms determine collaboration network structure and team performance. Science 308, 697–702 (2005).
10
L Rendell, et al., Why copy others? Insights from the social learning strategies tournament. Science 328, 208–213 (2010).
11
D Lazer, A Friedman, The network structure of exploration and exploitation. Adm Sci Q 52, 667–694 (2007).
12
WA Mason, A Jones, RL Goldstone, Propagation of innovations in networked groups. J Exp Psychol Gen 137, 422–433 (2008).
13
C Fang, J Lee, MA Schilling, Balancing exploration and exploitation through structural design: The isolation of subgroups and organizational learning. Organ Sci 21, 625–642 (2010).
14
JW Rivkin, Imitation of complex strategies. Manage Sci 46, 824–844 (2000).
15
WA Mason, DJ Watts Financial Incentives and the Performance of Crowds Proceedings of ACM SIGKDD Workshop on Human Computation,, pp. 77–85 (2009).
16
G Paolacci, J Chandler, P Ipeirotis, Running experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Judgm Decis Mak 5, 411–419 (2010).
17
W Mason, S Suri, Conducting Behavioral Research on Amazon's Mechanical Turk. Behavior Research Methods, 2011).
18
L von Ahn, L Dabbish, Designing games with a purpose. Commun ACM 51, 58–67 (2008).
19
J Horton, D Rand, R Zeckhauser, The online laboratory: Conducting experiments in a real labor market. Exp Econ 14, 399–425 (2011).
20
S Suri, DJ Watts, A study of cooperation and contagion in networked public goods experiments. PLoS One 6, e16836 (2011).
21
P Bonacich, Power and centrality: A family of measures. Am J Sociol 92, 1170–1182 (1987).
22
RS Burt Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition (Harvard Univ Press, Cambridge, MA, 1992).
23
K Perlin, Improving noise. ACM Trans Graph 21, 681–682 (2002).
24
LC Freeman, A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry 40, 35–41 (1977).
25
MA Beauchamp, An improved index of centrality. Behav Sci 10, 161–163 (1965).
26
DJ Watts, SH Strogatz, Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature 393, 440–442 (1998).
27
D Centola, M Macy, Complex contagions and the weakness of long ties1. Am J Sociol 113, 702–734 (2007).
28
S Page The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies (Princeton Univ Press, Princeton, 2008).
29
AW Woolley, CF Chabris, A Pentland, N Hashmi, TW Malone, Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science 330, 686–688 (2010).
30
C Phelps, A longitudinal study of the influence of alliance network structure and composition on firm exploratory innovation. Acad Manage J 53, 890–913 (2010).

Information & Authors

Information

Published in

The cover image for PNAS Vol.109; No.3
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Vol. 109 | No. 3
January 17, 2012
PubMed: 22184216

Classifications

Submission history

Published online: December 19, 2011
Published in issue: January 17, 2012

Keywords

  1. collaboration
  2. diffusion
  3. exploration-exploitation trade off

Notes

This article is a PNAS Direct Submission.

Authors

Affiliations

Winter Mason1 [email protected]
Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, NJ 07030; and
Duncan J. Watts1 [email protected]
Yahoo! Research, New York, NY 10018

Notes

1
To whom correspondence may be addressed. E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected].
Author contributions: W.M. and D.J.W. designed research; W.M. performed research; W.M. analyzed data; and W.M. and D.J.W. wrote the paper.

Competing Interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Metrics & Citations

Metrics

Note: The article usage is presented with a three- to four-day delay and will update daily once available. Due to ths delay, usage data will not appear immediately following publication. Citation information is sourced from Crossref Cited-by service.


Altmetrics

Citations

Export the article citation data by selecting a format from the list below and clicking Export.

Cited by

    Loading...

    View Options

    View options

    PDF format

    Download this article as a PDF file

    DOWNLOAD PDF

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Personal login Institutional Login

    Recommend to a librarian

    Recommend PNAS to a Librarian

    Purchase options

    Purchase this article to access the full text.

    Single Article Purchase

    Collaborative learning in networks
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
    • Vol. 109
    • No. 3
    • pp. 647-995

    Figures

    Tables

    Media

    Share

    Share

    Share article link

    Share on social media