Skip to main content

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

Sustainability Science volume 16, pages 37–52 (2021)Cite this article

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aboelela SW, Merrill JA, Carley KM, Larson E (2007b) Social network analysis to evaluate an interdisciplinary research center. J Res Administr 38:61–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Aram JD (2004) Concepts of interdisciplinarity: configurations of knowledge and action. Human Relat 57:379–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barry A, Born G, Weszkalnys G (2008) Logics of interdisciplinarity. Econ Soc 37:20–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biancani S, McFarland DA (2013) Social networks research in higher education. Higher education: handbook of theory and research. Springer, Berlin, pp 151–215

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Binz-Scharf MC, Kalish Y, Paik L (2015) Making science: new generations of collaborative knowledge production. Am Behav Sci 59:531–547

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bruce A, Lyall C, Tait J, Williams R (2004) Interdisciplinary integration in Europe: the case of the Fifth Framework programme. Futures 36:457–470

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Cranmer SJ, Desmarais BA (2011) Inferential network analysis with exponential random graph models. Polit Anal 19:66–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis M (1992) Disciplines, interdisciplinarity and migration in family research. Res Evaluat 2:177–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gould RV, Fernandez RM (1989) Structures of mediation: a formal approach to brokerage in transaction networks. Sociol Methodol 19:89–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt L (1994) The virtues of disciplinarity. Eighteenth Centur Stud 28:1–7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huutoniemi K, Klein JT, Bruun H, Hukkinen J (2010) Analyzing interdisciplinarity: typology and indicators. Res Policy 39:79–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ingold K (2011) Network structures within policy processes: coalitions, power, and brokerage in Swiss climate policy. Policy studies journal 39:435–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jollivet M (ed) (1992) Sciences de la nature, sciences de la société: Les passeurs de frontières. CNRS Editions, Paris, p 589

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kates RW (2011) What kind of a science is sustainability science? Proc Natl Acad Sci 108:19449

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knoke D, Yang S (2008) Social network analysis. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Komiyama H, Takeuchi K (2006) Sustainability science: building a new discipline. Sustain Sci 1:1–6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krackhardt D, Stern RN (1988) Informal networks and organizational crises: an experimental simulation. Social Psychol Quart 51(2):123–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long JC, Cunningham FC, Braithwaite J (2013) Bridges, brokers and boundary spanners in collaborative networks: a systematic review. BMC Health Services Research 13:158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Marzano M, Carss DN, Bell S (2006) Working to make interdisciplinarity work: investing in communication and interpersonal relationships. J Agric Econ 57:185–197

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM (2001) Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Ann Rev Sociol 27:415–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molteberg E, Bergstrøm C, Haug R (2000) Interdisciplinarity in development studies: Myths and realities. Forum for Development Studies. London, Taylor & Francis, pp 317–330

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Paxson TD (1996) Modes of interaction between disciplines. The Journal of General Education 45:79–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter A, Rafols I (2009) Is science becoming more interdisciplinary? Measuring and mapping six research fields over time. Scientometrics 81:719–745

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rafols I, Meyer M (2010) Diversity and network coherence as indicators of interdisciplinarity: case studies in bionanoscience. Scientometrics 82:263–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Riaux J, Massuel S (2014) Building a sociohydrological perspective (2). sharing fieldwork to develop scientific convergences. Nat Sci Soc 22:329–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schummer J (2004) Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology. Scientometrics 59:425–465

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uddin S, Hossain L, Rasmussen K (2013) Network effects on scientific collaborations. PLoS ONE 8:e57546

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Leeuwen T, Tijssen R (2000) Interdisciplinary dynamics of modern science: analysis of cross-disciplinary citation flows. Res Eval 9:183–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Noorden R (2015) Interdisciplinary research by the numbers. Nature 525:306–307

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Van Rijnsoever FJ, Hessels LK (2011) Factors associated with disciplinary and interdisciplinary research collaboration. Res Policy 40:463–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang J, Thijs B, Glänzel W (2015) Interdisciplinarity and impact: distinct effects of variety, balance, and disparity. PLoS ONE 10:e0127298

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wenger E (1999) Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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

  1. Cirad, Univ Montpellier, 34398, Montpellier, France

    Bruno Locatelli, Jacques Tassin, Denis Gautier & Plinio Sist

  2. Cifor, Lima, Peru

    Bruno Locatelli

  3. Ecologie Systématique Evolution, AgroParisTech, CNRS, Université Paris-Sud, Université Paris-Saclay, Orsay, France

    Améline Vallet

  4. CIRED, AgroParisTech, Cirad, CNRS, EHESS, Ecole Des Ponts ParisTech, Université Paris-Saclay, Nogent-Sur-Marne, France

    Améline Vallet

  5. Pacte, Univ Grenoble-Alpes, Grenoble, France

    Aurélie Chamaret

Authors
  1. Bruno Locatelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Améline Vallet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jacques Tassin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Denis Gautier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Aurélie Chamaret
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Plinio Sist
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

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

Correspondence to Bruno Locatelli.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Handled by Ram Avtar, Hokkaido University, Japan.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (PDF 359 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00860-4

Keywords

  • Interdisciplinarity
  • Science
  • Collaboration
  • Social network analysis
  • ERGM
  • Homophily
  • Broker