# Research Duos: Unveiling the Collaborative Essence of Research

Ekaterina Glebova

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Ekaterina Glebova. Research Duos: Unveiling the Collaborative Essence of Research. Societies, 2024, 14, pp.175. 10.3390/soc14090175. hal-05184746

HAL Id: hal-05184746

https://hal.science/hal-05184746v1

Submitted on 24 Jul 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Concept Paper

# Research Duos: Unveiling the Collaborative Essence of Research

Ekaterina Glebova <fnref n="1" />,<fnref n="2" /> ID

**Abstract:** Through an integrative literature review and theory adaption approach, this research aims to shed light on the efficacy of research partnerships and their implications for academic scholarship and knowledge production. Adapting the concept of creative duos to research activities presents a promising avenue for interdisciplinary collaboration and enhanced productivity. This review explores the application of research partnerships, akin to creative duos, in academic contexts. Research duos involve pairs of scholars who collaborate closely to investigate specific topics, address complex problems, or advance knowledge within their respective fields. This paper delineates the characteristics and potential benefits of research duos, drawing parallels to creative partnerships in various artistic domains. Additionally, it examines the advantages and disadvantages of researching in duos, roles within partnerships, the possible role of artificial intelligence as a partner within a duo, and factors contributing to successful research collaborations and identifies best practices for forming and sustaining effective research duos. By recognizing duos as the fundamental unit of collaborative research, we can understand how their inherent strengths contribute to the effectiveness of larger groups, supporting efficient communication, strong interpersonal bonds, and clear organizational structures.

**Keywords:** research; academic productivity; research collaboration; theory adaption; partnership; creative duo

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

### check for updates

**Citation:** Glebova, E. Research Duos: Unveiling the Collaborative Essence of Research. *Societies* **2024**, *14*, 175. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc14090175

Academic Editors: Liza Lee, Kuei-Kuei Lai, Linda Pavitola, Kate Chen and Teen-Hang Meen

Received: 28 May 2024
Revised: 27 August 2024
Accepted: 4 September 2024
Published: 6 September 2024

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

**Copyright:** © 2024 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## 1. Introduction

The concept of a “creative duo” typically refers to a “power of two”, a partnership between two individuals who collaborate closely in creative fields such as art, design, writing, filmmaking, music, or any other form of artistic expression [1]. Creative duos often complement each other’s skills and talents, working together to generate ideas, solve problems, and produce innovative work.

These partnerships can take various forms, with each member bringing their unique strengths to the table. For example, in filmmaking, a creative duo might consist of a director and a screenwriter who collaborate on crafting compelling stories and bringing them to life on screen. In the world of design, a duo might include a graphic designer and an illustrator who work together to create visually striking artwork [2]. Creative duos can be found across many different industries and disciplines, and their collaborative efforts often result in some of the most impactful and memorable works of art and entertainment [3,4].

To further contextualize the concept of research duos, it is necessary to draw parallels with creative duos in the Arts. Historically, close collaborative partnerships in the Arts have been pivotal in driving significant creative breakthroughs, providing a foundational understanding of how two individuals can work together to achieve innovative outcomes. This concept has been adapted to research contexts, offering valuable insights into the dynamics of dyadic collaboration within scientific inquiry.

A comprehensive review of the literature on research duos is included, examining their implications across various fields beyond the Arts. The discussion also traces the evolution of research duos, exploring their relevance within the current research landscape. This exploration situates research duos within the broader trend towards more collaborative

<footnote n="1">¹ CIAMS, University Paris Saclay, 91405 Orsay, France; katrina.glebova@universite-paris-saclay.fr</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Business Department, Higher Colleges of Technology, Dubai P.O. Box 41012, United Arab Emirates</footnote>
forms of research, highlighting how they complement rather than contradict the movement towards larger collaborative networks.

Moreover, the potential tension between focusing on research duos and the broader push for extensive collaboration is addressed. It underscores their role in providing depth and focus that can enhance the success of broader collaborative initiatives. This perspective contributes to a more nuanced understanding of how research duos function as an integral component of the collaborative research ecosystem. It is important to note that this paper intends to underline the significance of broader collaborative networks, such as research consortia or Open Science initiatives [5]. The concept of research duos is proposed as a lens through which to explore the intimate, dyadic relationships that often form the building blocks of larger collaborative efforts. These duos, characterized by close interpersonal interactions and a deep level of mutual understanding, can serve as a microcosm of larger scientific collaborations, offering unique insights into how trust, communication, and shared goals are cultivated. While research in recent years has indeed shifted towards more networked and open forms, the value of studying research duos lies in their ability to illuminate the fundamental interpersonal dynamics that drive successful collaboration.

Adapting the concept of creative duos to research activities brings a fruitful approach, existing in practice for a long time, but still not articulated in theory. In this context, a "research duo" or "research partnership" could involve two researchers working closely together to investigate a particular topic, solve complex problems, or advance knowledge in their field [6]. Duos are seen as the basic unit or core of collaborative operations, forming the structural foundation from which trios and quartets are built. Also, it explains the phenomenon of forming duos or creative groups within research teams [7], from different perspectives, involving productivity, efficiency, creativity, phycological, economic, and social aspects [8,9].

## 2. Theoretical Background and Perspectives

As an integrative literature review [10] and theory adaption [11] conceptual article, this article integrates relevant theories to develop a comprehensive framework for understanding and enhancing the effectiveness of research duos in academic, scientific, and professional settings. Thus, in applying the concept of creative duos to research activities, several theories are included within the framework of theory adaptation design. Theory adaptation involves amending existing theories by integrating insights from other theories, thereby offering alternative frames of reference and proposing novel perspectives. The nature of collaboration in creative duos differs significantly from that in research settings. Creative duos often involve distinct but complementary roles, whereas researchers from different disciplines may have more overlapping skill sets and approaches.

For instance, the social network theory focuses on the relationships between individuals or entities within a network [12]; it is followed by actor-network theory (ANT), concentrated on the network nature of the relationship as exhibited between actors [13] within a network [14]. Adapting ANT to research activities could involve exploring how research duos form, evolve, and interact within academic and professional networks [15] and how these interactions influence research outcomes [16]. Applying ANT and conducting studies thorough empirical analysis can help to gain a deeper understanding of the dynamics within research duos, seeing ANT's primary role as a social theory rather than a methodological approach, detailing how it offers unique insights into understanding research duos. This approach can provide valuable insights into how effective collaboration is structured and maintained, ultimately contributing to more successful research outcomes.

To distinguish the concept of research duos from the broader literature, this study clarifies how research duos offer a distinct perspective on collaborative research. While the literature has extensively explored collective research practices and the dynamics of interdisciplinary collaboration, the research duos model provides a unique framework by focusing specifically on the dyadic nature of collaboration. Unlike general discussions of research networks or consortia, research duos emphasize the intimate, often highly
specialized partnership between two individuals, which can offer unique insights into the micro-dynamics of collaborative work. This model highlights how pairs of researchers, with complementary yet closely aligned expertise, navigate and negotiate their collaborative relationships to address complex research challenges. By detailing these specific aspects, the research duo approach not only complements but also extends existing STS perspectives on collaboration, providing a nuanced view of how small-scale, high-intensity partnerships contribute to the broader collaborative landscape in research.

Collaborative (cooperative, see [17]) learning theory examines how individuals learn and acquire knowledge through collaboration with others [18], and the “research duo” extension involves investigating how exactly research duos engage in collaborative problem-solving, knowledge sharing, and skill development to enhance their research capabilities [19].

Team effectiveness models [20], such as the Input-Process-Output (IPO) model [21] or the Hackman model of team effectiveness [22], help to understand the dynamics of research partnerships and identify factors that contribute to their success [23], notably examining inputs (e.g., individual characteristics, team composition), processes (e.g., communication and decision-making), and outputs (e.g., productivity, impact).

Transactive memory theory suggests that individuals in a group develop a shared memory system where each member specializes in certain knowledge areas [24]. It is interesting from the perspective of exploring how members develop complementary expertise [6], share information, and coordinate their efforts to effectively manage and utilize their collective knowledge [25] in research activities, inputs, and outputs [26].

Theories such as the componential theory of creativity [27] and creative problem solving [28] need to be adapted to understand how research duos generate innovative ideas, overcome obstacles, and produce novel research outcomes. This could involve examining cognitive processes, such as divergent thinking and idea generation, as well as social processes, such as brainstorming and feedback exchange.

Distributed creativity is a theoretical framework that challenges the traditional view of creativity as an individualistic process and instead emphasizes its dynamic, socio-cultural, and developmental nature [29]. Unlike conventional psychological perspectives that focus on the internal traits or qualities of individual creators, the distributed account of creativity shifts the spotlight to the collaborative and interactive aspects of creative expression.

This theoretical approach, often referred to as the “We-paradigm”, underscores the relational nature of creativity, highlighting how creative acts emerge from interactions between individuals and their social and cultural environments. In contrast to paradigms that prioritize the “He” or “I” which center on the individual as the sole locus of creative expression, the We-paradigm emphasizes the distributed quality of creativity, recognizing that creativity unfolds through collective endeavors and shared practices [9].

Research activities may serve as an example of how distributed creativity operates. Through collaborative processes (e.g., literature review, identifying a research problem, data collection, data analysis), individuals contribute to and draw from a collective pool of knowledge and expertise [6], shaping and reshaping creative outcomes in a dynamic and iterative manner.

By situating the concept of distributed creativity within a broader landscape of scientific and everyday conceptions of creativity, this theoretical framework offers a nuanced understanding of how creativity is enacted and experienced in diverse contexts [30], including research [31]. It is important since creativity plays a crucial role at every stage of the research process, from generating ideas and designing studies to analyzing data and communicating findings [32]. By embracing creativity, researchers can push the boundaries of knowledge, foster innovation, and make meaningful contributions to their fields [31].

# 3. Discussion and Application of the Research Duo Concept

## 3.1. *Advantages and Disadvantages of Researching in Dous*

Research activities in duos possibly brings a number of evident advantages (Figure 1). (1) Just as creative duos often bring together individuals with different skills and per-
spectives [33], such as a typical copywriter and designer duo, research duos can involve researchers from different disciplines collaborating to tackle multifaceted problems [17,34]. For example, an engineer and a biologist might partner to develop innovative medical devices. (2) Research duos can benefit from each member's complementary expertise [35]. One researcher might excel in data analysis and statistical modeling, while the other might have deep domain knowledge in a specific area of study [17,36]. Together, they can leverage their strengths to conduct thorough and rigorous research. (3) Collaboration between researchers can foster the exchange of ideas and the exploration of new research directions [26]. Brainstorming sessions, discussions, and debates within the research duo can lead to innovative approaches and novel insights [32]. (4) Research duos can often accomplish more together than they could individually. By dividing tasks, sharing workload, and leveraging each other's resources and networks, they can increase their productivity and efficiency in conducting research [37]. (5) Working as part of a research duo provides built-in peer support and feedback [14]. Researchers can critique each other's work, offer constructive criticism, and provide encouragement, which can help improve the quality of research outputs [25]. (6) Research duos can collaborate not only on conducting research but also on writing papers, preparing presentations, and disseminating their findings. By working together on these activities, they can enhance the impact of their research and reach a wider audience [38].

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 1.** Advantages and disadvantages of researching in duos.</figcaption></figure>

Like any partnership, there can also be potential disadvantages and drawbacks of research duos (Figure 1). (1) Dependency on one another's expertise can become a limitation if either member is unavailable or unwilling to contribute [35]. This dependency may also stifle creativity and independence in research approaches. (2) Effective communication is essential in any collaboration, and research duos are no exception. Differences in communication styles, misunderstandings, or poor communication can hinder progress and lead to frustration [25]. (3) While collaboration can bring diverse perspectives to the table, a research duo may still lack the breadth of viewpoints that a larger team or interdisciplinary collaboration might offer. This could limit the creativity and innovation in problem-solving. (4) As research projects grow in scope or complexity, a duo may find it challenging to scale up their collaboration effectively. They may struggle to recruit additional team members or secure the necessary resources to support larger projects. (5) Working primarily as a
duo may limit opportunities for networking [14] and collaboration with other researchers, potentially reducing access to new ideas, funding opportunities, and professional development. (6) Personal conflicts between research partners can arise due to differences in personality, work habits, or conflicting priorities. These conflicts can escalate and jeopardize the success of the collaboration if not managed effectively [39].

Despite these potential disadvantages, research duos can still be highly successful with effective communication, clear expectations, and mutual respect [30]. Recognizing and addressing these challenges proactively can help mitigate their impact on the collaboration.

## 3.2. Possible Role Distribution within Research Duos

In a research duo, roles can be distributed in various ways depending on the nature of the research, the expertise of each member, and the preferences of the individuals involved; the following are some possible roles that could be distributed within a research duo [40]:

A Lead Investigator provides an overall direction and coordination for the research project and may be responsible for setting research goals, developing the research plan, and overseeing the implementation of the project.

A member of the duo may focus primarily on data collection and analysis, designing experiments, conducting fieldwork or surveys, gathering and organizing data, and performing statistical analysis or other data-processing tasks.

One member may specialize in conducting literature reviews and background research to provide context for the study. This involves synthesizing existing research findings, identifying gaps in the literature, and developing theoretical frameworks or conceptual models.

A partner may be responsible for designing the experimental protocols or research methodologies, selecting appropriate research methods, designing experiments or surveys, and ensuring that ethical considerations are addressed.

Often, someone takes the lead on writing and documentation tasks, including drafting research proposals, writing manuscripts for publication, preparing presentations or reports, and maintaining documentation related to the research project.

Another role is about handling project management and administrative tasks to ensure that the research project stays on track. It embraces coordinating schedules, managing deadlines and milestones, handling communication with collaborators or funders, and managing budgets and resources.

Depending on the specific expertise of each member, roles may be distributed to leverage their specialized skills. For example, one member may have expertise in a particular research methodology, analytical technique, or domain knowledge relevant to the research project.

Both members may share responsibility for reviewing and providing feedback on each other's work to ensure quality and accuracy: reviewing manuscripts, double-checking data analysis, and providing constructive criticism to improve research outputs.

One or both members may take on the responsibility of disseminating research findings and engaging with stakeholders or the broader community, presenting research findings at conferences, writing blog posts or press releases, and engaging with the media or policymakers.

Both partners in a duo should be prepared to provide backup and support to each other as needed, namely, stepping in to cover tasks in case of illness or unforeseen circumstances, providing emotional support during challenging periods, and fostering a collaborative and supportive working environment.

It is essential for research duos to communicate openly and regularly to ensure that roles are distributed effectively and that each member feels valued and supported in their contributions to the research project [30]. Flexibility and adaptability are also important, as roles may evolve over the course of the project based on changing needs and priorities.

The following are examples of scenarios and role combinations within research duos (Table 1):
<table><caption>**Table 1.** Examples of scenarios and role combinations within research duos.</caption><thead><tr><td>#</td><td>Titles</td><td>Explanation</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>Principal Investigator and Project Coordinator</td><td>One member assumes the role of the Principal Investigator, providing strategic direction and leadership for the research project. Simultaneously, their counterpart acts as the Project Coordinator, overseeing logistical aspects, scheduling, and team coordination to ensure smooth project execution.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Data Specialist and Statistical Analyst</td><td>While one member specializes in data acquisition, management, and organization, the other focuses on statistical analysis and interpretation. Together, they form a cohesive team adept at handling the complexities of data-driven research.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Literature Reviewer and Contextual Scholar</td><td>One member undertakes comprehensive literature reviews to establish the theoretical foundation and contextual framework for the research. Meanwhile, their partner critically synthesizes this literature, incorporating relevant insights to enrich the study's theoretical underpinnings.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Experimental Designer and Methodological Expert</td><td>The Experimental Designer formulates experimental protocols and research methodologies, ensuring their alignment with research objectives and ethical standards. Their counterpart provides expertise in methodology selection, implementation, and refinement, ensuring the rigor and validity of research procedures.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Writing Lead and Documentation Manager</td><td>One member takes the lead in drafting research proposals, manuscripts, and presentations, adhering to scholarly conventions and standards. Concurrently, their partner manages documentation tasks, maintaining comprehensive records and ensuring regulatory compliance throughout the research process.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Project Manager and Administrative Coordinator</td><td>The Project Manager oversees project planning, resource allocation, and timeline adherence, ensuring the project's overall success. Meanwhile, their counterpart handles administrative responsibilities, including budget management, communication facilitation, and logistical coordination.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Specialized Expert and Knowledge Integrator</td><td>One member brings specialized expertise or domain-specific knowledge to the partnership, enriching the research with depth and insight. Their partner serves as a knowledge integrator, synthesizing diverse perspectives and disciplines to enhance the study's interdisciplinary relevance and impact.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Review Coordinator and Quality Assurance Specialist</td><td>Both members collaborate in reviewing and critiquing each other's work, ensuring rigor, accuracy, and adherence to scholarly standards. Together, they uphold the integrity and quality of research outputs through thorough peer evaluation and constructive feedback.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Outreach Liaison and Dissemination Strategist</td><td>While one member focuses on engaging stakeholders, disseminating findings, and fostering collaborations, the other develops strategic dissemination plans to maximize the research's impact and visibility. Together, they facilitate knowledge exchange and promote the translation of research into actionable insights.</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Mutual Support Partners</td><td>Both members offer mutual support, sharing responsibilities, mitigating challenges, and fostering a supportive work environment. Through collaborative efforts and effective communication, they capitalize on each other's strengths, maximizing their collective potential in advancing the research agenda.</td></tr></tbody></table>

By clearly defining and pairing roles, research duos can enhance collaboration, improve efficiency, and ensure that each member's strengths are utilized effectively in the research project.

### 4. Research Duos Examples and Empirical Evidence

For instance, Moody (2004) [41] demonstrates an evident linkage between social interaction patterns and the structure of ideas, suggesting that scientific collaboration networks affect scientific practice, examining three competing models for sociological collaboration networks and finding that a structurally cohesive core that has been growing
steadily since the early 1960s characterizes the discipline of co-authorship network. The results show that participation in the sociology collaboration network depends on research specialty and that quantitative work is more likely to be coauthored than non-quantitative work [41].

Shin et al. (2022) [42] examine five levels of collaboration for each article—country, three levels of regions, and institutions—and measures novelty using keyword information. The findings reveal a negative and significant relationship between scientific collaboration and research novelty. Interestingly, papers that received funding exhibited lower novelty compared to unfunded ones, although funding was found to significantly moderate the relationship between collaboration and novelty. By linking diverse levels of collaboration and funding sources to the novelty of research articles, this study extends the scope of bibliometric research and highlights the intricate dynamics at play in scholarly innovation.

Cetina (1999) [43] explains the approach to social organization in the labs studied by picking their way through two central themes: one, these laboratories are structurally set up in individuated units, focused upon single researchers (who can be united in research duos); two, the laboratory itself also constitutes such a unit, though this one is focused on the laboratory leader (who could be a part of a research duo or manage how the research duo is shaped).

Insisting on the collaborative nature of research, Durante (2022) [44] recommends the integration of key topics into faculty development seminars and student training sessions to bolster collaborative research practices. These topics, derived from the DRREAM model, include the following:

a. Diversity of Values, Experience, and Expertise;

b. Role Assignments in Collaboration;

c. Relationship-Building and Peer Interdependence;

d. Ergonomic, Flexible, and Adaptable Processes;

e. Acquisition of Knowledge, Skills, and Expertise;

f. Motivation Consideration.

These elements are identified as significant factors influencing the effective conduct of collaborative research projects. Additionally, organizing a colloquium where faculty and student researchers can share their research projects, experiences, struggles, and challenges will be beneficial. Listening to how others have overcome difficulties can provide inspiration and valuable insights. Sharing narratives of success and failure, the highs and lows, and the good and bad aspects of research can offer meaningful content for reflection and growth. To further support collaborative research, training and workshops on the Institutional, Professional, and Personal (IPP) Strategies for Effectual Collaborative Research Writing should be conducted. These sessions would cover the following:

i. Institutional Strategies (orientation on university research guidelines, timelines, and information on university funding support);

ii. Professional Strategies (training on research project leadership, accountability, receiving and providing feedback, and communication skills development);

iii. Personal Strategies (development of time management and stress management skills).

Research conducted in pairs has gained attention for its potential to enhance productivity and collaboration among researchers. A study from MIT explored the concept of pair research [45], where members of a research group are paired weekly to work on each other's projects. This approach has shown to significantly boost productivity, as participants engage in various activities, including pair programming, user testing, and brainstorming. The structured interaction allows researchers to share expertise and maintain accountability, leading to tangible progress on their projects. Pair research not only fosters collaboration but also promotes informal learning. By working closely with different partners, researchers are exposed to diverse perspectives and skill sets, which can enhance their understanding and approach to their own work. This method has been particularly
beneficial for early-career researchers, who may lack extensive feedback mechanisms in traditional settings [45].

Table 2 captures the essence of each duo's contributions and their complementary skills that led to significant advancements in their respective fields. This list is far from being exhaustive; there is a number of great examples. For instance, Benabid and Pollak are known for their pioneering work in developing deep brain stimulation as a treatment for Parkinson's disease. Benabid's background in neurosurgery and Pollak's expertise in neurology allowed them to refine this technology, which has since been widely adopted in treating movement disorders. Their collaboration has had a significant impact on neurological research and clinical practice, illustrating the effectiveness of research duos in translating scientific innovation into therapeutic applications.

<table><caption>**Table 2.** Examples of legendary research duos.</caption><thead><tr><td>Duo Names</td><td>Field</td><td>Contribution</td><td>Complementary Skills</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>James Watson and Francis Crick</td><td>Biology</td><td>Discovered the double-helix structure of DNA</td><td>Watson's genetics expertise and Crick's background in physics and X-ray diffraction</td></tr><tr><td>Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr</td><td>Physics</td><td>Advanced quantum mechanics</td><td>Einstein's theoretical insights and Bohr's experimental and philosophical approaches to quantum theory</td></tr><tr><td>Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman</td><td>Psychology/Economics</td><td>Developed the prospect theory</td><td>Tversky's mathematical and analytical skills and Kahneman's psychological insights into human behavior</td></tr><tr><td>Marie Curie and Pierre Curie</td><td>Chemistry/Physics</td><td>Pioneering research on radioactivity</td><td>Marie's meticulous experimental work and Pierre's expertise in physical theory and instrumentation</td></tr><tr><td>Andrew Wiles and Richard Taylor</td><td>Mathematics</td><td>Solved Fermat's Last Theorem</td><td>Wiles' understanding of elliptic curves and Taylor's expertise in modular forms</td></tr><tr><td>John Von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern</td><td>Economics</td><td>Founded game theory</td><td>Von Neumann's mathematical prowess and Morgenstern's economic theories</td></tr><tr><td>Elizabeth Blackburn and Carol Greider</td><td>Biology</td><td>Discovered the enzyme telomerase</td><td>Blackburn's focus on telomere structure and Greider's molecular biology techniques</td></tr><tr><td>Peter Higgs and François Englert</td><td>Physics</td><td>Predicted the Higgs boson</td><td>Both had theoretical insights into particle physics, highlighting different aspects of the Higgs mechanism</td></tr><tr><td>James March and Herbert Simon</td><td>Organizational Theory</td><td>Developed the theory of organizational decision-making, including the concepts of bounded rationality and satisficing</td><td>March's expertise in organizational theory and Simon's insights into decision-making processes</td></tr><tr><td>Michael Porter and Mark Kramer</td><td>Strategic Management</td><td>Developed the concept of Creating Shared Value (CSV)</td><td>Porter's expertise in competitive strategy and Kramer's focus on social impact and corporate responsibility</td></tr><tr><td>Kathleen Eisenhardt and Jeffrey Martin</td><td>Strategic Management</td><td>Developed theories on dynamic capabilities and competitive advantage</td><td>Eisenhardt's research on strategic decision-making and Martin's focus on resource-based views and dynamic capabilities</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><caption>**Table 2.** *Cont.*</caption><thead><tr><td>Duo Names</td><td>Field</td><td>Contribution</td><td>Complementary Skills</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Paul Lawrence and Jay Lorsch</td><td>Organizational Behavior</td><td>Developed the Contingency Theory of Organizations</td><td>Lawrence's expertise in organizational structure and design and Lorsch's insights into organizational behavior and adaptation</td></tr><tr><td>Peter Drucker and Warren Bennis</td><td>Leadership and Management</td><td>Contributed significantly to modern management and leadership theory</td><td>Drucker's broad knowledge of management practices and Bennis's focus on leadership and organizational change</td></tr><tr><td>Gary Hamel and C.K. Prahalad</td><td>Strategic Management</td><td>Developed the concept of Core Competencies</td><td>Hamel's innovative approaches to strategy and Prahalad's focus on resource-based views and competitive advantage</td></tr><tr><td>Robert Kaplan and David Norton</td><td>Performance Management</td><td>Developed the Balanced Scorecard framework</td><td>Kaplan's expertise in accounting and management control systems and Norton's focus on performance measurement and strategic management</td></tr><tr><td>John Kotter and James Heskett</td><td>Change Management</td><td>Developed theories on corporate culture and change leadership</td><td>Kotter's research on change management and leadership and Heskett's focus on corporate culture and its impact on performance</td></tr></tbody></table>

## 5. Human and AI as a Research Duo: Generative Artificial Intelligence as a Research Companion?

Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly viewed as a vital tool in research, aiding researchers in generating novel ideas, solving complex problems, and enhancing productivity [46]. This concept extends the traditional idea of creative duos by incorporating AI as a virtual partner in different fields [47,48], including research activities, thereby creating a "research pair" where AI serves as a powerful companion to a human researcher; however, AI cannot entirely replace a human research companion in terms of communication, expertise exchange, analytical thinking, research dissemination, and other practices.

Generative AI refers to machine learning models capable of producing new content, such as text, images, or music, based on the data they have been trained on [49]. These models are designed to understand and generate human-like text, making them valuable in various stages of the research process. The componential theory of creativity and the framework of distributed creativity both emphasize AI's capacity to stimulate creativity and facilitate distributed creative processes across various geographic locations and disciplines [50]. In practice, generative AI can be helpful in the scanning of literature and assisting in the drafting and proofreading of research papers and documentation. Additionally, AI can help design experiments by suggesting methodologies, identifying variables, and predicting outcomes based on existing data. It also plays a crucial role in recommending potential collaborators, facilitating communication, and managing project timelines and tasks, thereby enhancing the efficiency of research teams.

The advantages of integrating AI into research are manifold. AI enhances productivity by automating routine tasks, allows researchers to focus on higher-level cognitive activities, provides unique insights and alternative viewpoints, and processes large datasets more efficiently and accurately than humans [51]. Furthermore, AI offers real-time feedback, accelerating the research process. However, the integration of AI also presents challenges. There is a risk of over-reliance on technology and human vulnerability, which may diminish researchers' critical thinking and problem-solving skills. AI models can perpetuate existing
biases in data, leading to potentially inaccurate or misleading results. Ethical concerns arise regarding data privacy, consent, and the potential misuse of AI-generated content. Additionally, not all researchers have access to advanced AI tools, leading to disparities in research capabilities.

The ethical issues surrounding AI in research are complex and multifaceted. Key concerns include data privacy and security, bias and fairness, accountability and transparency, intellectual property and authorship, ethical use, and societal impact. Addressing these concerns requires a proactive and interdisciplinary approach involving researchers, ethicists, policymakers, and technologists. Ensuring robust data anonymization techniques, compliance with data protection regulations, and transparent data usage policies is crucial. Regular auditing of AI systems for bias, using diverse and representative datasets, and developing explainable AI systems are necessary to maintain accountability and transparency. Establishing clear authorship guidelines, ethical review boards, and equitable access to AI technologies will help mitigate the potential negative impacts.

## 6. Conclusions

Adapting the concept of creative duos to research activities presents a promising avenue for interdisciplinary collaboration and enhanced productivity. This study explains the application of research partnerships, akin to creative duos, in academic contexts. Research duos involve pairs of scholars who collaborate closely to investigate specific topics, address complex problems, or advance knowledge within their respective fields. This paper delineates the characteristics and potential benefits of research duos, drawing parallels to creative partnerships in various artistic domains since it examines factors contributing to successful research collaborations and identifies best practices for forming and sustaining effective research duos, and possible roles and scenarios with research duos. By recognizing duos as the fundamental unit of collaborative research, we can understand how their inherent strengths contribute to the effectiveness of larger groups, supporting efficient communication, strong interpersonal bonds, and clear organizational structures.

### Future Research Directions

Through empirical investigation followed by quantitative and qualitative analysis, future research activities will shed light on the efficacy of research partnerships and their implications for academic scholarship and knowledge production, particularly as a pathway for conceptual innovation in the social sphere is the construction of theoretical ideas based on empirical data [52]. Future perspective research directions that embrace detailed empirical studies (where “empirical” is used in a very broad sense) of research duos, with the aim of carving out the conditions of (un)successful collaboration, would be a promising route to take to answer the following question: What makes these duos (un)successful in various domains? Especially interesting are factors that contribute to successful research collaborations and identifying the best practices for forming and maintaining research duos and teams. Promoting the concept of research duos encourages collaboration and teamwork in the academic and scientific community, ultimately leading to more innovative and impactful research outcomes.

**Funding:** This research received no external funding.

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.

## References

1. Amabile, T. *Componential Theory of Creativity*; Harvard Business School: Boston, MA, USA, 2011; pp. 538–559.

2. Baer, J. The importance of domain-specific expertise in creativity. *Roeper Rev.* **2015**, *37*, 165–178. [CrossRef]

3. Bailey, N. Academic Collaboration in the Early Enlightenment: Daniel Waterland (1683–1740) and his Cambridge Tyros. *Engl. Hist. Rev.* **2024**, *139*, 126–154. [CrossRef]

4. Cetina, K.K. The Dual Organization of Molecular Biology Laboratories. In *Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge*; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1999; pp. 216–240.
5. Dania, A.; Griffin, L.L. Using social network theory to explore a participatory action research collaboration through social media. *Qual. Res. Sport Exerc. Health* **2020**, *13*, 41–58. [CrossRef]

6. Piña, M.I.D.; Martínez, A.M.R.; Martínez, L.G. Teams in organizations: A review on team effectiveness. *Team Perform. Manag. Int. J.* **2008**, *14*, 7–21. [CrossRef]

7. Durante, P.G.C. Strengthening collaborative research practices in academia: Factors, challenges, and strategies. *Probl. Educ. 21st Century* **2022**, *80*, 531–546. [CrossRef]

8. Elisondo, R. Creativity is always a social process. *Creat. Theor.–Res.–Appl.* **2016**, *3*, 194–210. [CrossRef]

9. Gajda, A.; Karwowski, M.; Beghetto, R.A. Creativity and academic achievement: A meta-analysis. *J. Educ. Psychol.* **2017**, *109*, 269–299. [CrossRef]

10. German, K.; Limm, M.; Wölfel, M.; Helmerdig, S. Towards artificial intelligence serving as an inspiring co-creation partner. *EAI Endorsed Trans. Creative Technol.* **2019**, *6*, e3. [CrossRef]

11. Gisick, L.M. The Impact of Individual and Team-Level Variables on Burnout in Healthcare Providers. Ph.D. Thesis and Master's Thesis, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, 2022; p. 648. Available online: https://commons.erau.edu/edt/648 (accessed on 27 May 2024).

12. Glăveanu, V.P. *Distributed Creativity: What Is It?* Springer International Publishing: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 1–13.

13. Glebova, E.; Desbordes, M.; Czegledi, O. The "Clockwork" Model for Deployment Technology Innovations in Sports Industry Ecosystem: Holistic Approach. *Societies* **2024**, *14*, 23. [CrossRef]

14. Glebova, E.; Madsen, D.; Mihaľová, P.; Géczi, G.; Mittelman, A.; Jorgič, B. Artificial intelligence development and dissemination impact on the sports industry labor market. *Front. Sports Act. Living* **2024**, *6*, 1363892. [CrossRef]

15. Grinberg, A. *Touch Divided: Artistic Research in Duo Piano Performance*. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, 2017.

16. Hackman, J.R. A Normative Model of Work Team Effectiveness. 1983. Available online: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA136398.pdf (accessed on 27 May 2024).

17. Hmelo-Silver, C.; Chinn, C.; Chan, C.; O'Donnell, A. *The International Handbook of Collaborative Learning*, 1st ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [CrossRef]

18. Hollingshead, A.B.; Gupta, N.; Yoon, K.; Brandon, D.P. Transactive memory theory and teams: Past, present, and future. In *Theories of Team Cognition*; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 421–455.

19. Jaakkola, E. Designing conceptual articles: Four approaches. *AMS Rev.* **2020**, *10*, 18–26. [CrossRef]

20. Jarrahi, M.H.; Askay, D.; Eshraghi, A.; Smith, P. Artificial intelligence and knowledge management: A partnership between human and AI. *Bus. Horiz.* **2023**, *66*, 87–99. [CrossRef]

21. Jolly, A.; Caulfield, L.; Massie, R.; Sojka, B.; Iafrati, S.; Rees, J. *Café Delphi: Strategies for successful remote academic collaboration*. *Authorea Prepr.* **2024**. [CrossRef]

22. Kalnbalkite, A.; Brakovska, V.; Terjanika, V.; Pubule, J.; Blumberga, D. The tango between the academic and business sectors: Use of co-management approach for the development of green innovation. *Innov. Green Dev.* **2023**, *2*, 100073. [CrossRef]

23. Kantosalo, A.; Riihiaho, S. Quantifying co-creative writing experiences. *Digit. Creat.* **2019**, *30*, 23–38. [CrossRef]

24. Karwowski, M.; Jankowska, D.M.; Brzeski, A.; Czerwonka, M.; Gajda, A.; Lebuda, I.; Beghetto, R.A. Delving into creativity and learning. In *Creative Learning in Digital and Virtual Environments*; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2020; pp. 7–29.

25. Kolli, S.; Khajeheian, D. How actors of social networks affect differently on the others? Addressing the critique of equal importance on actor-network theory by use of social network analysis. *Contemp. Appl. Actor Netw. Theory* **2020**, 211–230. [CrossRef]

26. Kunat, B.; Uszyńska-Jarmoc, J.; Żak-Skalimowska, M. How Are Creative Abilities Related to Meta-Learning Competences? Creativity. *Theor.–Res.–Appl.* **2019**, *6*, 77–90.

27. Latour, B. On recalling ANT. *Sociol. Rev.* **1999**, *47* (Suppl. S1), 15–25. [CrossRef]

28. Lewis, J.M.; Ross, S.; Holden, T. The how and why of academic collaboration: Disciplinary differences and policy implications. *High. Educ.* **2012**, *64*, 693–708. [CrossRef]

29. Mahmud, B.U.; Hong, G.Y.; Fong, B. A Study of Human–AI Symbiosis for Creative Work: Recent Developments and Future Directions in Deep Learning. *ACM Trans. Multimedia Comput. Commun. Appl.* **2023**, *20*, 1–21. [CrossRef]

30. Miller, R.C.; Zhang, H.; Gilbert, E.; Gerber, E. Pair Research: Matching People for Collaboration, Learning, and Productivity. In *Proceedings of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing*, Baltimore, MD, USA, 15–19 February 2014. [CrossRef]

31. Moody, J. The Structure of a Social Science Collaboration Network: Disciplinary Cohesion from 1963 to 1999. *Am. Sociol. Rev.* **2004**, *69*, 213–238. [CrossRef]

32. Nielsen, M. The Open Science Imperative. In *Reinventing Discovery: The New Era of Networked Science*; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 2012; pp. 187–208. Available online: http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7s4vx.11 (accessed on 27 May 2024).

33. Oleynick, V.C.; Thrash, T.M.; LeFew, M.C.; Moldovan, E.G.; Kieffaber, P.D. The Scientific Study of Inspiration in the Creative Process: Challenges and Opportunities. *Front. Hum. Neurosci.* **2014**, *8*, 436. [CrossRef]

34. Park, L.E.; Aknin, L.B.; Gaither, S.E.; Impett, E.A.; Whillans, A.V. Starting and sustaining fruitful collaborations in psychology. *Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass* **2024**, *18*, e12950. [CrossRef]

35. Peltokorpi, V.; Hood, A.C. Communication in theory and research on transactive memory systems: A literature review. *Top. Cogn. Sci.* **2018**, *11*, 644–667. [CrossRef]
36. Rezwana, J.; Maher, M.L. Designing creative AI partners with COFI: A framework for modeling interaction in human-AI co-creative systems. *ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact.* **2023**, *30*, 1–28. [CrossRef]

37. Schneider, F.; Tribaldos, T.; Adler, C.; Biggs, R.O.; de Bremond, A.; Buser, T.; Krug, C.; Loutre, M.-F.; Moore, S.; Norström, A.V.; et al. Co-production of knowledge and sustainability transformations: A strategic compass for global research networks. *Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain.* **2021**, *49*, 127–142. [CrossRef]

38. Shenk, J.W. *Powers of Two: Finding the Essence of Innovation in Creative Pairs*; Houghton Mifflin Harcourt: Boston, MA, USA, 2014.

39. Shin, H.; Kim, K.; Kogler, D.F. Scientific collaboration, research funding, and novelty in scientific knowledge. *PLoS ONE* **2022**, *17*, e0271678. [CrossRef]

40. Sik, A. Creativity in cross-domain collaborations: Searching factors to increase efficiency. *Manag. Res. Rev.* **2016**, *39*, 144–166. [CrossRef]

41. Stone, C. Examining the Input, Process, Output Model of Team Effectiveness (IPOMTE), Leadership Styles, and Relational Coordination as Contributors to a Profile of Team Effectiveness. Ph.D. Thesis, St. John Fisher University, Rochester, NY, USA, 2019; p. 400.

42. St-Onge, M.; Aggarwal, B.; Allison, M.A.; Berger, J.S.; Castañeda, S.F.; Catov, J.; Hochman, J.S.; Hubel, C.A.; Jelic, S.; Kass, D.A.; et al. Go Red for Women strategically focused research network: Summary of findings and network outcomes. *J. Am. Heart Assoc.* **2021**, *10*, e019519. [CrossRef]

43. Szen-Ziemiańska, J.; Lebuda, I.; Karwowski, M. Mix and match: Opportunities, conditions, and limitations of cross-domain creativity. In *The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity across Domains*; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2017; pp. 18–40.

44. Tan, A.G. Creativity in cross-disciplinary research. In *Creativity Research*; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 68–85.

45. Timmermans, S.; Tavory, I. Theory Construction in Qualitative Research. *Sociol. Theory* **2012**, *30*, 167–186. [CrossRef]

46. Treffinger, D.J.; Isaksen, S.G.; Stead-Dorval, K.B. *Creative Problem Solving: An Introduction*; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2023.

47. Viney, L.; Grinberg, A. Collaboration in Duo Piano Performance—‘Piano Spheres’. In *Collaborative Creative Thought and Practice in Music*; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 157–172.

48. Vuichard, A.; Botella, M.; Puozzo, I.C. Creative Process and Multivariate Factors through a Creative Course “Keep Calm and Be Creative”. *J. Intell.* **2023**, *11*, 83. [CrossRef] [PubMed]

49. Waham, J.J.; Asfahani, A.; Ulfa, R.A. International collaboration in higher education: Challenges and opportunities in a globalized world. *Edujavare Int. J. Educ. Res.* **2023**, *1*, 49–60.

50. Wegner, D.M. Transactive memory: A contemporary analysis of the group mind. In *Theories of Group Behavior*; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 1987; pp. 185–208.

51. Wolf, T.; Goupil, L.; Canonne, C. Beyond togetherness: Interactional dissensus fosters creativity and tension in freely improvised musical duos. *Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts* **2023**. [CrossRef]

52. Yang, X. A historical review of collaborative learning and cooperative learning. *TechTrends* **2023**, *67*, 718–728. [CrossRef]

**Disclaimer/Publisher's Note:** The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.