Collective and individual interdisciplinarity in a sustainability research group: A social network analysis

Abstract

In sustainability science, interdisciplinarity, i.e. the integration of perspectives from different disciplines, is built collectively from interactions among researchers of various disciplines ("collective interdisciplinarity") but also results from the fact that researchers have backgrounds in multiple disciplines ("individual interdisciplinarity"). We applied social network analysis tools to analyze how individual interdisciplinarity influences collective interdisciplinarity, using the case of a forest sustainability science group. We hypothesized that researchers with higher individual interdisciplinarity had more interdisciplinary interactions and were interdisciplinary brokers within the group. We first analyzed individual interdisciplinarity using a bipartite network of researchers and disciplines. We then analyzed networks of management, research, and publication interactions among researchers in the research group. This showed how disciplines influenced interactions and how researchers contributed to interdisciplinary interactions and brokerage. Results of the first analysis identified large disciplinary communities in the center of the bipartite network, whereas smaller ones were more distant. The second analysis highlighted disciplinary homophily in interaction networks, as two researchers interacted more if they were from the same disciplinary community. Results also showed that the interactions among researchers were not only structured by disciplinary homophily, but also by other forms of homophily related to location or region of work. The key brokers of interactions across disciplinary communities were distributed across several communities, showing that brokerage was not controlled by the large, dominant communities. Analysis of correlations between individual interdisciplinarity and contributions to collective interdisciplinarity did not support our hypothesis but rather hinted at the alternative hypothesis that researchers with high individual interdisciplinarity interacted less with other disciplinary communities.

Gender heterophily and equality: a contribution to gender equality in the Chilean scientific sector

“…With the last four variables presented here, the authors estimated homophily by the ‘EI’ index ( Krackhardt and Stern, 1988 ). Such an index has been recently used in studies about research communities (see Leifeld, 2018 ; Hopkins et al, 2019 ; Locatelli et al, 2021 ; Hangül et al, 2022 ). Furthermore, social scientists have used the EI index to study research communities and their relations with gender ( Yamamoto et al, 2018 ).…”

Ecosystem services research trends in Indonesia: a bibliometric analysis

“…Instead, collaboration with neighboring Southeast Asian countries was more circumscribed. It appears to be related to many factors requiring further development, such as researcher affinity (including educational background and expertise) (Locatelli et al 2021), capacity building to form international collaboration, access to more advanced research infrastructure, and access to global funding resources. However, these factors are substantial and will affect researchers' ability to construct international collaboration (Contandriopoulos et al 2018;Tydecks et al 2018).…”

Identification of cohesive subgroups in a university hall of residence during the COVID-19 pandemic using a social network analysis approach

“…The ability to serve as a bridge in a network is given by the personal characteristics of the individual 47 . In this sense, we have collected some attributes that highlight the importance of gender and location within the university residence.…”