Finding Collaboration Partners in a Scientific Community: The Role of Cognitive Group Awareness, Career Level, and Disciplinary Background

Integrating newcomers and fostering collaboration between researchers with different disciplinary backgrounds is a challenge for scientific communities. Prior research suggests that both network-driven selection patterns (reciprocity and transitivity) and the active selection of specific others are important. Selecting appropriate collaboration partners may moreover require what we call cognitive group awareness, (i.e. knowledge about the knowledge of others). In a field study at two multidisciplinary scientific events (Alpine RendezVous 2011 and 2013) including N= 287 researchers, we investigated selection patterns, looking specifically at career level and disciplinary background, and included a cognitive group awareness intervention. While we could not completely explain how researchers choose with whom they interact, we found that transitivity and interaction duration are relevant for later collaboration. Cognitive group awareness support was beneficial for fostering interdisciplinary collaboration. Career level was a less relevant factor. We discuss measures for supporting newcomer integration and community buildings based on our findings.

[1]  Ciro Cattuto,et al.  What's in a crowd? Analysis of face-to-face behavioral networks , 2010, Journal of theoretical biology.

[2]  Gerhard Fischer,et al.  Symmetry of ignorance, social creativity, and meta-design , 2000, Knowl. Based Syst..

[3]  J. Coleman,et al.  Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital , 1988, American Journal of Sociology.

[4]  C. Goodwin Action and embodiment within situated human interaction , 2000 .

[5]  Jim Knight Mp The future of learning , 2007 .

[6]  G. Heimeriks,et al.  Disciplinary, Multidisciplinary, Interdisciplinary: Concepts and Indicators. , 2001 .

[7]  Mimi Recker,et al.  What a Long Strange Trip It's Been: A Comparison of Authors, Abstracts, and References in the 1991 and 2010 ICLS Proceedings , 2012, ICLS.

[8]  G. Clore,et al.  A reinforcement model of evaluative responses. , 1970 .

[9]  M. McPherson,et al.  Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks , 2001 .

[10]  Ciro Cattuto,et al.  Social Dynamics in Conferences: Analyses of Data from the Live Social Semantics Application , 2010, SEMWEB.

[11]  Rossano Schifanella,et al.  Link Creation and Profile Alignment in the aNobii Social Network , 2010, 2010 IEEE Second International Conference on Social Computing.

[12]  D. Wegner Transactive Memory: A Contemporary Analysis of the Group Mind , 1987 .

[13]  J. Janssen,et al.  Coordinated Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning: Awareness and Awareness Tools , 2013 .

[14]  Ciro Cattuto,et al.  Dynamics of Person-to-Person Interactions from Distributed RFID Sensor Networks , 2010, PloS one.

[15]  Andrea Kienle,et al.  Principles for Cultivating Scientific Communities of Practice , 2005 .

[16]  N. Lin Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action , 2001 .

[17]  E. Salas,et al.  Reflections on shared cognition , 2001 .

[18]  J. Levine,et al.  Knowledge Transmission in Work Groups: Helping Newcomers to Succeed , 1999 .

[19]  Martin Wessner,et al.  The CSCL community in its first decade: development, continuity, connectivity , 2006, Int. J. Comput. Support. Collab. Learn..