Interdisciplinary collaboration from diverse science teams can produce significant outcomes

Scientific teams are increasingly diverse in discipline, international scope and demographics. Diversity has been found to be a driver of innovation but also can be a source of interpersonal friction. Drawing on a mixed-method study of 22 scientific working groups, this paper presents evidence that team diversity has a positive impact on scientific output (i.e., the number of journal papers and citations) through the mediation of the interdisciplinarity of the collaborative process, as evidenced by publishing in and citing more diverse sources. Ironically these factors also seem to be related to lower team member satisfaction and perceived effectiveness, countered by the gender balance of the team. Qualitative data suggests additional factors that facilitate collaboration, such as trust and leadership. Our findings have implications for team design and management, as team diversity seems beneficial, but the process of integration can be difficult and needs management to lead to a productive and innovative process.

Evolving framework of studies on global gulf ecosystems with Sustainable Development Goals

Gulf ecosystems provide many beneficial services to humanity and play a key role in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). However, the sustainability of gulf ecosystems has been severely threatened by climatic and anthropogenic stresses. Using network analysis of article records downloaded from Web of Science, we summarize the current research framework of gulf ecosystems via the perspectives of research themes, interdisciplinarity, and international collaborations. Research themes involve nutrient and eutrophication, biodiversity, mangrove and sediment pollution, and ecosystem service and climate change. Nevertheless, these themes usually focus on gulf ecosystems themselves with little consideration of their connectivity with other ecosystems. Interdisciplinarity has remained mostly within natural sciences while international collaborations exist mainly between developed and developing countries and among developed countries. Combined with the SDGs, we propose the future research framework where research themes should consider the impacts of terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems on gulf ecosystems at the watershed scale. Interdisciplinarity between natural and social and management sciences needs to be promoted by utilizing the advantages of data sciences. Collaborations with developing countries led by China, Mexico, Brazil, and India need to be strengthened. The evolved research framework could offer decision support for stakeholders to manage gulf ecosystems and achieve the SDGs.

Unpacking the perceived benefits and costs of integrating gender into conservation projects: voices of conservation field practitioners

Many in the conservation sphere have noted that robust and gender-equitable stakeholder engagement is crucial in achieving conservation outcomes, ensuring project sustainability and supporting human well-being. However, despite policies, international agreements and increasing requirements of donors, gender is still often viewed as an add-on rather than as a fundamental element of effective conservation. In an effort to overcome this, Conservation International has invested in nearly 20 project sites since 2014 to support targeted gender integration into existing conservation projects. We conducted a survey with practitioners across these sites to examine the barriers to and enablers of gender integration, and practitioners’ perceptions of the benefits and challenges involved in this. Our findings demonstrate the importance of both external drivers (funding requirements) and a supportive environment (capacity building, technical and financial support) in incentivising a focus on gender. Respondents also reported a suite of benefits (e.g. increased participation, higher quality of the project) and costs (mainly financial) related to gender integration. In documenting these efforts to build gender-related capacity, and the associated benefits and challenges, we highlight the importance of gender-responsive conservation initiatives, and evaluate a method of achieving this. As conservation practitioners may be more inclined to listen to each other (given their shared objectives) rather than to gender specialists, this research can help to shift practitioner dialogue and conservation practice to be more open and responsive to gender.

Evolution of interdisciplinarity in biodiversity science

The study of biodiversity has grown exponentially in the last thirty years in response to demands for greater understanding of the function and importance of Earth's biodiversity and finding solutions to conserve it. Here, we test the hypothesis that biodiversity science has become more interdisciplinary over time. To do so, we analyze 97,945 peer‐reviewed articles over a twenty‐two‐year time period (1990–2012) with a continuous time dynamic model, which classifies articles into concepts (i.e., topics and ideas) based on word co‐occurrences. Using the model output, we then quantify different aspects of interdisciplinarity: concept diversity, that is, the diversity of topics and ideas across subdisciplines in biodiversity science, subdiscipline diversity, that is, the diversity of subdisciplines across concepts, and network structure, which captures interactions between concepts and subdisciplines. We found that, on average, concept and subdiscipline diversity in biodiversity science were either stable or declining, patterns which were driven by the persistence of rare concepts and subdisciplines and a decline in the diversity of common concepts and subdisciplines, respectively. Moreover, our results provide evidence that conceptual homogenization, that is, decreases in temporal β concept diversity, underlies the observed trends in interdisciplinarity. Together, our results reveal that biodiversity science is undergoing a dynamic phase as a scientific discipline that is consolidating around a core set of concepts. Our results suggest that progress toward addressing the biodiversity crisis via greater interdisciplinarity during the study period may have been slowed by extrinsic factors, such as the failure to invest in research spanning across concepts and disciplines. However, recent initiatives such as the Intergovernmental Science‐Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) may attract broader support for biodiversity‐related issues and hence interdisciplinary approaches to address scientific, political, and societal challenges in the coming years.

Phylogeography and niche modelling: reciprocal enlightenment

Phylogeography examines the spatial genetic structure of species. Environmental niche modelling (or ecological niche modelling; ENM) examines the environmental limits of a species’ ecological niche. These two fields have great potential to be used together. ENM can shed light on how phylogeographical patterns develop and help identify possible drivers of spatial structure that need to be further investigated. Specifically, ENM can be used to test for niche differentiation among clades, identify factors limiting individual clades and identify barriers and contact zones. It can also be used to test hypotheses regarding the effects of historical and future climate change on spatial genetic patterns by projecting niches using palaeoclimate or future climate data. Conversely, phylogeographical information can populate ENM with within-species genetic diversity. Where adaptive variation exists among clades within a species, modelling their niches separately can improve predictions of historical distribution patterns and future responses to climate change. Awareness of patterns of genetic diversity in niche modelling can also alert conservationists to the potential loss of genetically diverse areas in a species’ range. Here, we provide a simplistic overview of both fields, and focus on their potential for integration, encouraging researchers on both sides to take advantage of the opportunities available.

Development of a measure to evaluate competence perceptions of natural and social science

Interdisciplinary scientific research teams are essential for responding to society’s complex scientific and social issues. Perceptual barriers to collaboration can inhibit the productivity of teams crossing traditional disciplinary boundaries. To explore these perceptual barriers, survey measures related to perceived competence were developed and validated with a population of earth scientists (n = 449) ranging from undergraduates through professionals. Resulting competence scales included three factors that we labeled as Perceived Respect (P_R), Perceived Methodological Rigor (P_M), and Perceived Intelligence (P_i). A Mann-Whitney U test revealed that earth scientists perceived social science/scientists as significantly less competent than natural science/scientists. A multivariate multilevel analysis indicated that women perceived scientists as more intelligent than did men. Working with social scientists and holding an earth science PhD changed earth scientists’ perceptions of social science on multiple scales. Our study indicates that competence in scientific disciplines is a multidimensional construct. Our results from earth scientists also indicate that perceptual barriers towards other scientific disciplines should be studied further as interdisciplinarity in scientific research continues to be encouraged as a solution to many socio-scientific problems.

Challenges and Opportunities Developing Mathematical Models of Shared Pathogens of Domestic and Wild Animals

Diseases that affect both wild and domestic animals can be particularly difficult to prevent, predict, mitigate, and control. Such multi-host diseases can have devastating economic impacts on domestic animal producers and can present significant challenges to wildlife populations, particularly for populations of conservation concern. Few mathematical models exist that capture the complexities of these multi-host pathogens, yet the development of such models would allow us to estimate and compare the potential effectiveness of management actions for mitigating or suppressing disease in wildlife and/or livestock host populations. We conducted a workshop in March 2014 to identify the challenges associated with developing models of pathogen transmission across the wildlife-livestock interface. The development of mathematical models of pathogen transmission at this interface is hampered by the difficulties associated with describing the host-pathogen systems, including: (1) the identity of wildlife hosts, their distributions, and movement patterns; (2) the pathogen transmission pathways between wildlife and domestic animals; (3) the effects of the disease and concomitant mitigation efforts on wild and domestic animal populations; and (4) barriers to communication between sectors. To promote the development of mathematical models of transmission at this interface, we recommend further integration of modern quantitative techniques and improvement of communication among wildlife biologists, mathematical modelers, veterinary medicine professionals, producers, and other stakeholders concerned with the consequences of pathogen transmission at this important, yet poorly understood, interface.

What does interdisciplinarity look like in practice: Mapping interdisciplinarity and its limits in the environmental sciences

In this paper we take a close look at current interdisciplinary modeling practices in the environmental sciences, and suggest that closer attention needs to be paid to the nature of scientific practices when investigating and planning interdisciplinarity. While interdisciplinarity is often portrayed as a medium of novel and transformative methodological work, current modeling strategies in the environmental sciences are conservative, avoiding methodological conflict, while confining interdisciplinary interactions to a relatively small set of pre-existing modeling frameworks and strategies (a process we call crystallization). We argue that such practices can be rationalized as responses in part to cognitive constraints which restrict interdisciplinary work. We identify four salient integrative modeling strategies in environmental sciences, and argue that this crystallization, while contradicting somewhat the novel goals many have for interdisciplinarity, makes sense when considered in the light of common disciplinary practices and cognitive constraints. These results provide cause to rethink in more concrete methodological terms what interdisciplinarity amounts to, and what kinds of interdisciplinarity are obtainable in the environmental sciences and elsewhere.

Economic effects of ocean acidification: Publication patterns and directions for future research

Human societies derive economic benefit from marine systems, yet these benefits may be modified as humans drive environmental change. Here, we conducted the first systematic review of literature on the potential economic effects of ocean acidification. We identified that while there is a growing literature discussing this topic, assessments of the direction and magnitude of anticipated economic change remain limited. The few assessments which have been conducted indicate largely negative economic effects of ocean acidification. Insights are, however, limited as the scope of the studies remains restricted. We propose that understanding of this topic will benefit from using standard approaches (e.g. timescales and emissions scenarios) to consider an increasing range of species/habitats and ecosystem services over a range of spatial scales. The resulting understanding could inform decisions such that we maintain, or enhance, economic services obtained from future marine environments.

Necessary but challenging: Multiple disciplinary approaches to solving conservation problems

Contemporary conservation problems are typically positioned at the interface of complex ecological and human systems. Traditional approaches aiming to compartmentalize a phenomenon within the confines of a single discipline and failing to engage non-science partners are outmoded and cannot identify solutions that have traction in the social, economic, and political arenas in which conservation actions must operate. As a result, conservation science teams must adopt multiple disciplinary approaches that bridge not only academic disciplines but also the political and social realms and engage relevant partners. Five reasons are presented that outline why conservation problems demand multiple disciplinary approaches in order to move forward because: (i) socio-ecological systems are complex, (ii) multiple perspectives are better than one, (iii) the results of research must influence practice, (iv) the heterogeneity of scale necessitates it, and (v) conservation involves compromise. Presenting reasons that support multiple disciplinarity demands a review of the barriers that impede this process, as we are far from attaining a model or framework that is applicable in all contexts. Two challenges that impede multiple disciplinarity are discussed, in addition to pragmatic solutions that conservation scientists and practitioners can adopt in their work. Overall, conservation researchers and practitioners are encouraged to explore the multiple disciplinary dimensions of their respective realms to more effectively solve problems in biodiversity and sustainability.

Interdisciplinary Collaboration between Natural and Social Sciences - Status and Trends Exemplified in Groundwater Research

Interdisciplinary collaboration, particularly between natural and social sciences, is perceived as crucial to solving the significant challenges facing humanity. However, despite the need for such collaboration being expressed more frequently and intensely, it remains unclear to what degree such collaboration actually takes place, what trends and developments there are and which actors are involved. Previous studies, often based on bibliometric analysis of large bodies of literature, partly observed an increase in interdisciplinary collaboration in general, but in particular, the collaboration among distant fields was less explored. Other more qualitative studies found that interdisciplinary collaboration, particularly between natural and social scientists was not well developed, and obstacles abounded. To shed some light on the actual status and developments of this collaboration, we performed an analysis based on a sample of articles on groundwater research. We first identified journals and articles therein that potentially combined natural and social science aspects of groundwater research. Next, we analysed the disciplinary composition of their authors' teams, cited references, titles and keywords, making use of our detailed personal expertise in groundwater research and its interdisciplinary aspects. We combined several indicators developed from this analysis into a final classification of the degree of multidisciplinarity of each article. Covering the period between 1990 and 2014, we found that the overall percentage of multidisciplinary articles was in the low single-digit range, with only slight increases over the past decades. The interdisciplinarity of individuals plays a major role compared to interdisciplinarity involving two or more researchers. If collaboration with natural sciences takes place, social science is represented most often by economists. As a side result, we found that journals publishing multidisciplinary research had lower impact factors on average, and multidisciplinary papers were cited much less than mono-disciplinary ones.

"One Health" or Three? Publication Silos Among the One Health Disciplines

The One Health initiative is a global effort fostering interdisciplinary collaborations to address challenges in human, animal, and environmental health. While One Health has received considerable press, its benefits remain unclear because its effects have not been quantitatively described. We systematically surveyed the published literature and used social network analysis to measure interdisciplinarity in One Health studies constructing dynamic pathogen transmission models. The number of publications fulfilling our search criteria increased by 14.6% per year, which is faster than growth rates for life sciences as a whole and for most biology subdisciplines. Surveyed publications clustered into three communities: one used by ecologists, one used by veterinarians, and a third diverse-authorship community used by population biologists, mathematicians, epidemiologists, and experts in human health. Overlap between these communities increased through time in terms of author number, diversity of co-author affiliations, and diversity of citations. However, communities continue to differ in the systems studied, questions asked, and methods employed. While the infectious disease research community has made significant progress toward integrating its participating disciplines, some segregation--especially along the veterinary/ecological research interface--remains.