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 structured not only 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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aboelela SW, Larson E, Bakken S, Carrasquillo O, Formicola A, Glied SA, Haas J, Gebbie KM (2007a) Defining interdisciplinary research: conclusions from a critical review of the literature. Health Serv Res 42:329–346
Aboelela SW, Merrill JA, Carley KM, Larson E (2007b) Social network analysis to evaluate an interdisciplinary research center. J Res Administr 38:61–75
Aram JD (2004) Concepts of interdisciplinarity: configurations of knowledge and action. Human Relat 57:379–412
Barry A, Born G, Weszkalnys G (2008) Logics of interdisciplinarity. Econ Soc 37:20–49
Becker E (2012) Social-ecological systems as epistemic objects. In: Glaser M (ed) Human-Nature Interactions in the Anthropocene. Routledge, New York, pp 55–77
Bennett NJ, Roth R, Klain SC, Chan KM, Clark DA, Cullman G, Epstein G, Nelson MP, Stedman R, Teel TL (2017) Mainstreaming the social sciences in conservation. Conserv Biol 31:56–66
Biancani S, McFarland DA (2013) Social networks research in higher education. Higher education: handbook of theory and research. Springer, Berlin, pp 151–215
Binz-Scharf MC, Kalish Y, Paik L (2015) Making science: new generations of collaborative knowledge production. Am Behav Sci 59:531–547
Blanchard A, Vanderlinden J-P (2010) Dissipating the fuzziness around interdisciplinarity: the case of climate change research. SAPIENS Surv Perspect Integr Environ Soc 16:1–22
Boyack KW, Klavans R (2014) Creation of a highly detailed, dynamic, global model and map of science. J Assoc Inform Sci Technol 65:670–685
Bromme R (2000) Beyond one’s own perspective: the psychology of cognitive interdisciplinarity. In: Weingart P, Stehr N (eds) Practicing interdisciplinarity. University of Toronto Press, Toronto, pp 115–133
Bruce A, Lyall C, Tait J, Williams R (2004) Interdisciplinary integration in Europe: the case of the Fifth Framework programme. Futures 36:457–470
Butts CT (2016) sna: Tools for Social Network Analysis. R package version 2.4. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=sna
Butts CT, Morris M, Krivitsky PN, Almquist Z, Handcock MS, Hunter DR, Goodreau SM, de-Moll SB (2015) Introduction to Exponential-family Random Graph (ERG or p*) modeling with ergm. CRAN project, http://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ergm/vignettes/ergm.pdf,
Calvert J (2010) Systems biology, interdisciplinarity and disciplinary identity. In: Vermeulen N, Penders B, Parker J (eds) Collaboration in the new life sciences. Ashgate Publishing, Farnham, pp 201–218
Cranmer SJ, Desmarais BA (2011) Inferential network analysis with exponential random graph models. Polit Anal 19:66–86
Csardi G (2018) igraph: Routines for simple graphs and network analysis, version 1.2.2. https://cran.r-project.org/package=igraph,
Cummings JN, Kiesler S (2005) Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Soc Stud Sci 35:703–722
Davis M (1992) Disciplines, interdisciplinarity and migration in family research. Res Evaluat 2:177–187
Di Gregorio M, Fatorelli L, Paavola J, Locatelli B, Pramova E, Nurrochmat DR, May PH, Brockhaus M, Sari IM, Kusumadewi SD (2019) Multi-level governance and power in climate change policy networks. Glob Environ Change 54:64–77
Fraser ED, Dougill AJ, Hubacek K, Quinn CH, Sendzimir J, Termansen M (2011) Assessing vulnerability to climate change in dryland livelihood systems: conceptual challenges and interdisciplinary solutions. Ecology and Society 16(3):3
Gould RV, Fernandez RM (1989) Structures of mediation: a formal approach to brokerage in transaction networks. Sociol Methodol 19:89–126
Hackenburg DM, Adams A, Brownson K, Borokini IT, Gladkikh TM, Herd-Hoare SC, Jolly H, Kadykalo AN, Kraus EB, McDonough KR (2019) Meaningfully engaging the next generation of ecosystem services specialists. Ecosyst Services 40:101041
Haider LJ, Hentati-Sundberg J, Giusti M, Goodness J, Hamann M, Masterson VA, Meacham M, Merrie A, Ospina D, Schill C, Sinare H (2018) The undisciplinary journey: early-career perspectives in sustainability science. Sustain Sci 13:191–204
Handcock MS, Hunter DR, Butts CT, Goodreau SM, Krivitsky PN, Bender-deMoll S, Morris M (2016) Package ‘statnet’: Software Tools for the Statistical Analysis of Network Data, version 2016.9. https://cran.r-project.org/package=statnet,
Hein CJ, Ten Hoeve JE, Gopalakrishnan S, Livneh B, Adams HD, Marino EK, Susan Weiler C (2018) Overcoming early career barriers to interdisciplinary climate change research. Wiley Interdiscipl Rev 9:e530
Hunt L (1994) The virtues of disciplinarity. Eighteenth Centur Stud 28:1–7
Huutoniemi K, Klein JT, Bruun H, Hukkinen J (2010) Analyzing interdisciplinarity: typology and indicators. Res Policy 39:79–88
Ingold K (2011) Network structures within policy processes: coalitions, power, and brokerage in Swiss climate policy. Policy studies journal 39:435–459
Jollivet M (ed) (1992) Sciences de la nature, sciences de la société: Les passeurs de frontières. CNRS Editions, Paris, p 589
Jung Y, Kim E, Kim W (2019) The scientific and technological interdisciplinary research of government research institutes: network analysis of the innovation cluster in South Korea. Policy Stud. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2019.1593343
Kates RW (2011) What kind of a science is sustainability science? Proc Natl Acad Sci 108:19449
Kibanov M, Heiberger RH, Rödder S, Atzmueller M, Stumme G (2019) Social studies of scholarly life with sensor-based ethnographic observations. Scientometrics 119:1387–1428
Knoke D, Yang S (2008) Social network analysis. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Komiyama H, Takeuchi K (2006) Sustainability science: building a new discipline. Sustain Sci 1:1–6
Krackhardt D, Stern RN (1988) Informal networks and organizational crises: an experimental simulation. Social Psychol Quart 51(2):123–140
Leydesdorff L, Rafols I (2009) A global map of science based on the ISI subject categories. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 60:348–362
Locatelli B, Pramova E, Di Gregorio M, Brockhaus M, Armas Chávez D, Tubbeh R, Sotés J, Perla J (2020) Climate change policy networks: connecting adaptation and mitigation in multiplex networks. Clim Policy 20:354–372
Long JC, Cunningham FC, Braithwaite J (2013) Bridges, brokers and boundary spanners in collaborative networks: a systematic review. BMC Health Services Research 13:158
Lusher D, Robins G (2013) Formation of Social Network Structure. In: Lusher D, Robins G, Koskinen J (eds) Exponential random graph models for social networks: theory, methods, and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 16–28
Maldonado H, Klemmer SR, Pea RD (2009) When is collaborating with friends a good idea? insights from design education. Proc 29th Int Conf Comput Support Collaborat Learn 1:227–231
Marzano M, Carss DN, Bell S (2006) Working to make interdisciplinarity work: investing in communication and interpersonal relationships. J Agric Econ 57:185–197
McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM (2001) Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Ann Rev Sociol 27:415–444
Molteberg E, Bergstrøm C, Haug R (2000) Interdisciplinarity in development studies: Myths and realities. Forum for Development Studies. London, Taylor & Francis, pp 317–330
Nash JM, Collins BN, Loughlin SE, Solbrig M, Harvey R, Krishnan-Sarin S, Unger J, Miner C, Rukstalis M, Shenassa E (2003) Training the transdisciplinary scientist: a general framework applied to tobacco use behavior. Nicotine Tob Res 5:S41–S53
Neal JW, Neal ZP, Mills KJ, Lawlor JA, McAlindon K (2019) What types of brokerage bridge the research-practice gap? The case of public school educators. Social Netw 59:41–49
O’Donnell AM, Derry SJ (1997) Cognitive processes in interdisciplinary groups: problems and possibilities. In: Derry SJ, Schunn CD, Gernsbacher MA (eds) Interdisciplinary collaboration: an emerging cognitive science. Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers, Mahwah, pp 51–82
Paxson TD (1996) Modes of interaction between disciplines. The Journal of General Education 45:79–94
Porter A, Rafols I (2009) Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics 81:719–745
Qin J, Lancaster FW, Allen B (1997) Types and levels of collaboration in interdisciplinary research in the sciences. J Am Soc Inform Sci 48:893–916
Rafols I, Meyer M (2010) Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: case studies in bionanoscience. Scientometrics 82:263–287
Repko A, Navakas F, Fiscella J (2007) Integrating interdisciplinarity: how the theories of common ground and cognitive interdisciplinarity are informing the debate on interdisciplinary integration. Issues in Interdisciplinary Studies 25:1–31
Riaux J, Massuel S (2014) Building a sociohydrological perspective (2). sharing fieldwork to develop scientific convergences. Nat Sci Soc 22:329–339
Robins G, Lusher D (2013a) Illustrations: Simulation, Estimation, and Goodness of Fit. In: Lusher D, Robins G, Koskinen J (eds) Exponential Random graph models for social networks: theory, methods, and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 167–186
Robins G, Lusher D (2013b) What Are Exponential Random Graph Models? In: Lusher D, Robins G, Koskinen J (eds) Exponential random graph models for social networks: theory, methods, and applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 9–15
Schoolman ED, Guest JS, Bush KF, Bell AR (2012) How interdisciplinary is sustainability research? Analyzing the structure of an emerging scientific field. Sustain Sci 7:67–80
Schummer J (2004) Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics 59:425–465
Star SL (1989) The structure of ill-structured solutions: Boundary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving. In: Gasser L, Huhns MN (eds) Distributed artificial intelligence. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San Mateo, pp 37–54
R Core Team (2018) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R version 3.5.1 (2018-07-02). R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, https://www.r-project.org/,
Tse HH, Dasborough MT (2008) A study of exchange and emotions in team member relationships. Group Organiz Manag 33:194–215
Uddin S, Hossain L, Rasmussen K (2013) Network effects on scientific collaborations. PLoS ONE 8:e57546
van Leeuwen T, Tijssen R (2000) Interdisciplinary dynamics of modern science: analysis of cross-disciplinary citation flows. Res Eval 9:183–187
Van Noorden R (2015) Interdisciplinary research by the numbers. Nature 525:306–307
Van Rijnsoever FJ, Hessels LK (2011) Factors associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary research collaboration. Res Policy 40:463–472
Vojak BA, Price RL, Griffin A (2010) Corporate innovation. In: Frodeman R (ed) The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 546–559
Wagner CS, Roessner JD, Bobb K, Klein JT, Boyack KW, Keyton J, Rafols I, Börner K (2011) Approaches to understanding and measuring interdisciplinary scientific research (IDR): a review of the literature. Journal of informetrics 5:14–26
Wang J, Thijs B, Glänzel W (2015) Interdisciplinarity and impact: distinct effects of variety, balance, and disparity. PLoS ONE 10:e0127298
Wenger E (1999) Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Yang C, Park H, Heo J (2010) A network analysis of interdisciplinary research relationships: the Korean government’s R&D grant program. Scientometrics 83:77–92
Acknowledgements
This study was funded by the French funding agency for research (project TRASSE ANR-17-CE32-0012). The authors thank participants for their responses to the survey.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
BL, JT, and PS were involved in conceptualization and methodology; BL was involved in data collection and analysis and writing—original draft preparation; and all authors were involved in result interpretation and writing—review and editing.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Handled by Ram Avtar, Hokkaido University, Japan.
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.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Locatelli, B., Vallet, A., Tassin, J. et al. Collective and individual interdisciplinarity in a sustainability research group: A social network analysis. Sustain Sci 16, 37–52 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00860-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00860-4