navigating interdisciplinary collaboration

NAVIGATINGNAVIGATINGINTERDISCIPLINARY INTERDISCIPLINARY

COLLABORATIONCOLLABORATION

Funded by the National Science Funded by the National Science Foundation Biocomplexity in the Foundation Biocomplexity in the

Environment ProgramEnvironment Program

Diana Rhoten (PI)Diana Rhoten (PI)

http://www.hybridvigor.net/publications.pl?s=interdishttp://www.hybridvigor.net/publications.pl?s=interdis

What Did We Want to Know?What Did We Want to Know?

Rudi

Ike

Saul

Ed

Jun

Axel

■ Model the structure of research networks in Model the structure of research networks in different “interdisciplinary” research different “interdisciplinary” research centerscenters

Study Objectives and Study Objectives and QuestionsQuestions

■ Assess the effect of individual, Assess the effect of individual, organizational, and relational factors on organizational, and relational factors on the structure of these research networks the structure of these research networks

■ Analyze the dynamics and Analyze the dynamics and outcomes of the network’s outcomes of the network’s collaborative (inter)activitiescollaborative (inter)activities

Network CharacteristicsNetwork Characteristics

Disciplinary Disciplinary

Information Information SharingSharing

Disciplinary Disciplinary Knowledge Knowledge ProducingProducing

Interdisciplinary Interdisciplinary Information Information

SharingSharing

Interdisciplinary Interdisciplinary Knowledge Knowledge ProducingProducing

Deg

ree of

Deg

ree of

(Inter)D

isciplin

arity(In

ter)Discip

linarity

Nature of (Inter)ActivityNature of (Inter)Activity

Who? (position, discipline)

How? (forum, venue)

When? (frequency, duration)

Why? (necessity, novelty)

What? (production, innovation)

■ Organizational Size Organizational Size

■ Organizational Age Organizational Age

■ Organizational TypeOrganizational Type

■ Diversity by FieldDiversity by Field(53% life, 21% physical, 8% engineering, 8% environmental, 5% (53% life, 21% physical, 8% engineering, 8% environmental, 5% social, ~1% humanities, and ~1% computational/ mathematical, social, ~1% humanities, and ~1% computational/ mathematical, 3% unknown)3% unknown)

■ Diversity by RankDiversity by Rank(27% nontenure, 25% professor, 18% graduate student, 9% (27% nontenure, 25% professor, 18% graduate student, 9% postdoc, 9% associate professor, 8% assistant professor, postdoc, 9% associate professor, 8% assistant professor, 1% PI/Director, 3% unknown)1% PI/Director, 3% unknown)

■ Organizational StructureOrganizational Structure

Study SampleStudy Sample(N=6 centers, N=935 researchers)(N=6 centers, N=935 researchers)

Individual CollaborationIndividual CollaborationCenter 1 is one example of an individual collaboration Center 1 is one example of an individual collaboration centercenter

Institutional CollaborationInstitutional CollaborationCenter 2 is an example of an institutional collaboration Center 2 is an example of an institutional collaboration centercenter

““Team” CollaborationTeam” CollaborationCenter 5 is an example of a team collaboration centerCenter 5 is an example of a team collaboration center

What Did We Learn? What Did We Learn?

A Few Aggregate StatisticsA Few Aggregate Statistics(N(N11=632 respondents, N=632 respondents, N22=605 respondents)=605 respondents)

■ On average, researchers in a center commit about On average, researchers in a center commit about 52% of 52% of TOTAL WORK TIME TOTAL WORK TIME to center-related activitiesto center-related activities

■ Of total current research connections in a center, a mean Of total current research connections in a center, a mean of of 84% of RELATIONS were INITIATED POST-CENTER84% of RELATIONS were INITIATED POST-CENTER

■ Researchers in a center interact with a mean of Researchers in a center interact with a mean of 10 other 10 other researchers WEEKLY or MOREresearchers WEEKLY or MORE, and , and 14 researchers 14 researchers MONTHLY or LESS MONTHLY or LESS

■ 76% 76% of the researchers employ of the researchers employ INFORMAL FACE-TO-INFORMAL FACE-TO-FACE FORUMS as their VENUE OF COLLABORATION FACE FORUMS as their VENUE OF COLLABORATION

■ 60% 60% of the researchers believe that the research he/she of the researchers believe that the research he/she does does INSIDE the center isINSIDE the center is multi-/inter-disciplinarymulti-/inter-disciplinary ((52% have 52% have ≥1≥1 interdisciplinary knowledge producing collaboration) interdisciplinary knowledge producing collaboration)

■ 51% 51% of the researchers describe the work they do of the researchers describe the work they do OUTSIDE the center as multi- or interdisciplinary OUTSIDE the center as multi- or interdisciplinary

■ 83% 83% of the researchers believe that his/her participation in of the researchers believe that his/her participation in the center hasthe center has positively influenced his/her RESEARCH positively influenced his/her RESEARCH

■ 74% 74% of the researchers believe that his/her participation of the researchers believe that his/her participation has has positively influenced his/her CAREER positively influenced his/her CAREER (16% of graduate students believe it has had an explicitly negative (16% of graduate students believe it has had an explicitly negative

effect)effect)

A Few Aggregate StatisticsA Few Aggregate Statistics

■ Multidisciplinary more than InterdisciplinaryMultidisciplinary more than InterdisciplinaryWhile the centers have initiated new research networks While the centers have initiated new research networks with representation of various disciplines, they tend to be with representation of various disciplines, they tend to be more multidisciplinary than interdisciplinary and to more multidisciplinary than interdisciplinary and to demonstrate pockets of disciplinary collaborations demonstrate pockets of disciplinary collaborations connected by fewer cross-disciplinary ties connected by fewer cross-disciplinary ties

A Few Key Cross-Center A Few Key Cross-Center ThemesThemes

Network MeasuresNetwork MeasuresDensity = 8%Density = 8%

Cohesion = 2.6Cohesion = 2.6Ave. Centrality = 5Ave. Centrality = 5

= Hydro Engineering= Hydro Engineering

DisciplineDiscipline

= Civil/Enviro Engineering= Civil/Enviro Engineering= Mechanical Engineering= Mechanical Engineering

= Ecology= Ecology

= Chemical Engineering= Chemical Engineering

= Applied Mathematics= Applied Mathematics

= Industrial Engineering= Industrial Engineering

= Eng Public Policy= Eng Public Policy= Sustain/ Resource Mgt= Sustain/ Resource Mgt

= Applied Anthropology= Applied Anthropology= History of Science= History of Science= Decision Science= Decision Science

= Applied Physics= Applied Physics

= Epidemiology= Epidemiology

= Land Use Geography= Land Use Geography

= Env Soc Sci Policy= Env Soc Sci Policy= Resource Economics= Resource Economics

= Behavioral Economics= Behavioral Economics

= Risk Analysis/Assess= Risk Analysis/Assess

Multi- more than Inter- Multi- more than Inter- DisciplinaryDisciplinaryCenter 2 demonstrates “disciplinary pocket” pattern found in Center 2 demonstrates “disciplinary pocket” pattern found in

most centers, particularly at level of knowledge producingmost centers, particularly at level of knowledge producing

Shows all CLOSE connections by DISCIPLINE/FIELD Shows all CLOSE connections by DISCIPLINE/FIELD based on responses to the following survey item: based on responses to the following survey item:

““Please indicate the strength of your relationship with other center affiliates.” Please indicate the strength of your relationship with other center affiliates.”

= Physical Sciences= Physical Sciences

Science FieldScience Field

= Life Sciences= Life Sciences= Social Sciences= Social Sciences

= Environmental Sci Eng= Environmental Sci Eng

= Engineering= Engineering

= Comp & Math Sciences= Comp & Math Sciences

= Environmental Soc Sci= Environmental Soc Sci= Arts & Humanities= Arts & Humanities

Network MeasuresNetwork MeasuresDensity = 10%Density = 10%Cohesion = 2.6Cohesion = 2.6

Ave. Centrality = 6Ave. Centrality = 6

Shows all CLOSE connections by SCIENCE Shows all CLOSE connections by SCIENCE based on responses to the following survey item: based on responses to the following survey item:


Center 3 demonstrates the even more dramatic pattern of Center 3 demonstrates the even more dramatic pattern of segregation of researchers by fields of science segregation of researchers by fields of science

Multi- more than Inter- Multi- more than Inter- DisciplinaryDisciplinary

■More Information Sharing than Knowledge More Information Sharing than Knowledge ProducingProducing

On average, researchers have 8On average, researchers have 8 information sharing vs. information sharing vs. 6 knowledge producing collaborations in general 6 knowledge producing collaborations in general andand 5 5 interdisciplinary information sharing vs. 3 interdisciplinary information sharing vs. 3 interdisciplinary knowledge producing collaborationsinterdisciplinary knowledge producing collaborations


■Multidisciplinary more than InterdisciplinaryMultidisciplinary more than InterdisciplinaryWhile the centers have initiated new research networks While the centers have initiated new research networks with representation of various disciplines, they tend to with representation of various disciplines, they tend to be more multidisciplinary than interdisciplinary and to be more multidisciplinary than interdisciplinary and to demonstrate pockets of disciplinary collaborations demonstrate pockets of disciplinary collaborations connected by fewer cross-disciplinary tiesconnected by fewer cross-disciplinary ties




ScienceScience






Interdisciplinary Information Interdisciplinary Information SharingSharing

Shows all CLOSE and COLLEGIAL INTERDISCIPLINARY connections by SCIENCE Shows all CLOSE and COLLEGIAL INTERDISCIPLINARY connections by SCIENCE based on responses to the following survey item: based on responses to the following survey item:


Center 1 networks illustrate the role of information sharing Center 1 networks illustrate the role of information sharing collaborations …collaborations …




ScienceScience






in the density of the interdisciplinary research networks in in the density of the interdisciplinary research networks in most centersmost centers

Interdisciplinary Information Interdisciplinary Information Sharing Sharing

Shows all CLOSE INTERDISCIPLINARY connections by SCIENCE Shows all CLOSE INTERDISCIPLINARY connections by SCIENCE based on responses to the following survey item: based on responses to the following survey item:



■Network “Hubs”Network “Hubs”While center directors/PI’s tend to be network “hubs”, While center directors/PI’s tend to be network “hubs”, graduate students are among the most central graduate students are among the most central

researchers in the network -- particularly at the level of researchers in the network -- particularly at the level of knowledge productionknowledge production

= Associate Professor= Associate Professor

PositionPosition

= Assistant Professor= Assistant Professor= Post Doc= Post Doc

= Non-Tenure Researcher= Non-Tenure Researcher

= Professor= Professor

= Graduate Research Asst= Graduate Research Asst

= Center Director= Center Director



Shows all CLOSE and COLLEGIAL connections by POSITIONShows all CLOSE and COLLEGIAL connections by POSITIONbased on responses to the following survey item: based on responses to the following survey item:


Network “Hubs”Network “Hubs” Center 4 demonstrates the common network pattern in which Center 4 demonstrates the common network pattern in which “hub” positions are occupied by directors/PIs and the “hub” positions are occupied by directors/PIs and the central “core” is dominated by graduate studentscentral “core” is dominated by graduate students

■Network “Bridges” Network “Bridges” Graduate students and non-tenure track scientists tend Graduate students and non-tenure track scientists tend to serve as the interdisciplinary “bridges” in the center to serve as the interdisciplinary “bridges” in the center networks. They often come from “hybrid” disciplines, networks. They often come from “hybrid” disciplines, have higher rates of previous interdisciplinary exposure, have higher rates of previous interdisciplinary exposure, and/or are methodologists/ technicians versus content and/or are methodologists/ technicians versus content expertsexperts


■Network “Hubs” Network “Hubs” While center directors/PI’s tend to be network “hubs”, While center directors/PI’s tend to be network “hubs”, graduate students are among the most central graduate students are among the most central

researchers in the network -- particularly at the level of researchers in the network -- particularly at the level of knowledge productionknowledge production


Cohesion = 3.4Cohesion = 3.4Ave. Centrality = 3Ave. Centrality = 3


ScienceScience


= Environ Sci/Eng Pol= Environ Sci/Eng Pol




s

Network “Bridges” Network “Bridges”



Center 2 illustrates the centrality of researchers with Center 2 illustrates the centrality of researchers with “hybrid” backgrounds in interdisciplinary knowledge “hybrid” backgrounds in interdisciplinary knowledge producing networks producing networks


ScienceScience




= Environmental Soc Sc= Environmental Soc Sci= Arts & Humanities= Arts & Humanities

= Environ Sci/Eng Pol= Environ Sci/Eng Pol

Network “Bridges”Network “Bridges”Removing them, demonstrates their importance to the Removing them, demonstrates their importance to the overall connectivity of an interdisciplinary research networkoverall connectivity of an interdisciplinary research network

Shows all CLOSE INTERDISCIPLINARY connections by SCIENCE (bridges removed) Shows all CLOSE INTERDISCIPLINARY connections by SCIENCE (bridges removed) based on responses to the following survey item: based on responses to the following survey item:



Cohesion = n/aCohesion = n/aAve. Centrality = 2Ave. Centrality = 2








Network “Bridges”Network “Bridges”



Center 4 does the same … Center 4 does the same …








Network “Bridges”Network “Bridges”

The network falls apart when the 7 “bridges” are removedThe network falls apart when the 7 “bridges” are removed

Shows all CLOSE INTERDISCIPLINARY connections by SCIENCE (bridges removed) Shows all CLOSE INTERDISCIPLINARY connections by SCIENCE (bridges removed) based on responses to the following survey item: based on responses to the following survey item:


■ Center Size Center Size Large centers (60+) may increase the average amount of Large centers (60+) may increase the average amount of information sharing collaborations between researchers information sharing collaborations between researchers but do not appear to increase the number of knowledge but do not appear to increase the number of knowledge producing relations. Large centers may actually decrease producing relations. Large centers may actually decrease the average number of interdisciplinary knowledge the average number of interdisciplinary knowledge producing collaborations. producing collaborations.

■Center Age Center Age The length of researcher relations and the frequency of The length of researcher relations and the frequency of their interactions are more significant than the age of the their interactions are more significant than the age of the research center in terms of network cohesiveness. research center in terms of network cohesiveness.

Knowledge creating collaborations seem to peak between Knowledge creating collaborations seem to peak between 3 and 6 years, whereas information sharing collaborations 3 and 6 years, whereas information sharing collaborations can often peak immediately. can often peak immediately.


■Organizing PrincipleOrganizing PrincipleCollaboration practices and products benefit from a Collaboration practices and products benefit from a

unifying vision, a common problem, a shared tool unifying vision, a common problem, a shared tool (methodological, technological) – (methodological, technological) – “boundary object”“boundary object” – – that that could ground and guide the work could ground and guide the work


■Nature of Research Nature of Research Experimental and applied research projects tend to lend Experimental and applied research projects tend to lend themselves better to collaborative work themselves better to collaborative work –– particularly particularly

interdisciplinary collaboration interdisciplinary collaboration ––than theoretical researchthan theoretical research

■Publication, Application, InnovationPublication, Application, InnovationAbout 30% of all knowledge producing collaborations in About 30% of all knowledge producing collaborations in these centers had NOT resulted in a “scholarly” these centers had NOT resulted in a “scholarly” publication. About 60% of those are identified as publication. About 60% of those are identified as interdisciplinaryinterdisciplinary knowledge producing activities. Outputs knowledge producing activities. Outputs include items for other media outlets, policy discussions, include items for other media outlets, policy discussions, program design, product development, etc. program design, product development, etc.

A Few Key Cross-Center A Few Key Cross-Center ThemesThemes■From Source to Structure From Source to Structure

Interdisciplinary collaboration can be motivated by Interdisciplinary collaboration can be motivated by intellectual curiosity, scientific opportunity, technical intellectual curiosity, scientific opportunity, technical necessity, resource paucity, political priority, social necessity, resource paucity, political priority, social proximity. The nature of the motivation has – proximity. The nature of the motivation has – should should havehave – direct implications for the structure of the – direct implications for the structure of the collaboration and thus the host center.collaboration and thus the host center.

A Few Key Cross-Center A Few Key Cross-Center ThemesThemes■Personnel, Personalities, and ProgressPersonnel, Personalities, and Progress

Productive interdisciplinary collaborations require the Productive interdisciplinary collaborations require the “right” scientific and technical expertise “right” scientific and technical expertise as well asas well as the the “right” social and management skills to serve the project “right” social and management skills to serve the project and evolve the process. and evolve the process.

Stage 1Stage 1 Stage 2Stage 2 Stage 3Stage 3

Knowledge Knowledge EngagementEngagement

ExpertExpert CoordinatedCoordinated CollaborativeCollaborative

Work Work OrientationOrientation

Individual Individual GroupGroup TeamTeam

LeadershipLeadership HierarchicalHierarchical FacilitativeFacilitative HorizontalHorizontal

Discipline Discipline OrientationsOrientations

DominantDominant ParallelParallel IntegrativeIntegrative

Amey and Brown, 2002

navigating interdisciplinary collaboration

Documents

team collaboration center

researchers weekly

structure of research

new research networks

research heshe

hisher participation

hisher career

venue of collaboration