4.7 Article

The inverted U-shaped relationship between knowledge diversity of researchers and societal impact

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 12, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-21821-0

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [YD2110002014]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study explores the relationship between knowledge diversity of collaborating team members and research performance. It finds that the relationship between interdisciplinary collaboration diversity and societal impact follows an inverted U-shaped pattern, rather than a simple linear one. Additionally, as the number of collaborative disciplines increases, the negative influences start to outweigh the benefits, indicating that diversity does not always lead to positive impacts.
With the increasing importance of interdisciplinary research, some studies have focused on the role of reference diversity by analysing reference lists of published papers. However, the relationship between the knowledge diversity of collaborating team members and research performance has been overlooked. In this study, we measured knowledge diversity through the disciplinary attributes of collaborating authors and research performance (understood as societal impact) through altmetric data. The major findings are: (1) The relationship between interdisciplinary collaboration diversity and societal impact is not a simple linear one, showing an inverted U-shaped pattern; and (2) As the number of collaborative disciplines increases, the marginal effects diminish or even become outweighed by the costs, showing a predominance of negative influences. Hence, diversity in interdisciplinary collaboration does not always have a positive impact. Research collaborations need to take into account the cost issues associated with the diversity of member disciplines.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available