Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Scientific Collaboration in a Multidisciplinary Organization Revealed by Network Science

  • Original Research
  • Published:
SN Computer Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Multidisciplinary scientific organizations have sought to face the challenges of digital transformation through new governance models that optimize network collaboration and innovation. We studied the collaboration network from the long-term coauthoring system of a Brazilian multidisciplinary organization (Embrapa). The study shows that nodes degree distribution of the network is scale free and degree correlation analysis suggests a disassortative regime from competition and minimal but sufficient control that emerges as a hub-and-spoke pattern. The jobs of controller and researcher are twice as many occupied by males, except for the jobs of analyst, who act like network gatekeeper. With the largest number of individuals in product units, the southern region of the country is more likely to form clusters. Alternatively, hubs in thematic and ecoregional units in the Midwest have greater gravitational attraction, positioning themselves in the inner core of the giant component. The optimization of innovation by the organization should combine greater individual autonomy through improved human capital, with a universal labeling of units as, for instance, centers of innovation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Strogatz SH. Exploring complex networks. Nature. 2001;410:268–76. https://doi.org/10.1038/35065725.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Newman MEJ. Mixing patterns in networks. Phys Rev E. 2003;67:026126. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.67.026126.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Vosoughi S, Roy D, Aral S. The spread of true and false news online. Science. 2018;359(6380):1146–51. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Scheufele DA, Krause NM. Science audiences misinformation and fake news. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2019;116(16):7662–9. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1805871115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Barabási A-L. Network science. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2016.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. Watts DJ, Strogatz SH. Collective dynamics of “small-world” networks. Nature. 1998;393:440–2. https://doi.org/10.1038/30918.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Barabási A-L, Albert R. Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science. 1999;286:509–12. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.286.5439.509.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Barabási A-L, Albert R, Jeong H. Mean-field theory for scale-free random networks. Phys A. 1999;272:173–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4371(99)00291-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Albert R, Barabási A-L. Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Rev Mod Phys. 2002;74:47–97. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.74.47.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Newman MEJ. The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2001;98(2):404–9. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.98.2.404.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Aiello W, Chung F, Lu L. A random graph model for massive graphs. In: STOC '00 Proceedings of the thirty-second annual ACM symposium on theory of computing. 2000;171–80. https://doi.org/10.1145/335305.335326

  12. Grossman JW, Ion PDF. On a portion of the well-known collaboration graph. Congr Numer. 1995;108:129–31. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.35.4242&rep=rep1&type=pdf.

  13. Newman MEJ. Co-authorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2004;101(1):5200–5. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0307545100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Wang Z, Wang N. Knowledge sharing innovation and firm performance. Expert Syst Appl. 2012;39(10):8899–908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.02.017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Caseiro N, Coelho A. The influence of business intelligence capacity network learning and innovativeness on startups performance. J Innov Knowl. 2019;4(3):139–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2018.03.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Axtell RL. Zipf distribution of US firm sizes. Science. 2001;293:1818–20. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1062081.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gaffeo E, Gallegati M, Palestrini A. On the size distribution of firms: additional evidence from the G7 countries. Phys A. 2003;324(12):117–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-4371(02)01890-3.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Fix B. Energy hierarchy and the origin of inequality. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(4):e0215692. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215692.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  19. Nacher JC, Akutsu T. Dominating scale-free networks with variable scaling exponent: heterogeneous networks are not difficult to control. New J Phys. 2012;14:073005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/14/7/073005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Takemoto K, Akutsu T. Analysis of the effect of degree correlation on the size of minimum dominating sets in complex networks. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(6):e0157868. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157868.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Rodrigues GS, Campanhola C, Kitamura PC. An environmental impact assessment system for agricultural RD. Environ Impact Assess Rev. 2003;23:219–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0195-9255(02)00097-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Embrapa. Brazilian Agriculture: one of the most efficient and sustainable in tropical zones. 2017. http://ainfo.cnptia.embrapa.br/digital/bitstream/item/164815/1/38137-folder-sustentabilidade.pdf. Accessed 15 Oct 2020.

  23. Salnikova E, Grunert KG. The role of consumption orientation in consumer food preferences in emerging markets. J Bus Res. 2020;112:147–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.03.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Freitas-Filho A, Paez MLDA, Goedert WJ. Strategic planning in public R&D organizations for agribusiness: Brazil and the United States of America. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2002;69(8):833–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-1625(01)00139-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Figueiredo PN. New challenges for public research organisations in agricultural innovation in developing economies: evidence from Embrapa in Brazil’s soybean industry. Q Rev Econ Financ. 2016;62:21–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.qref.2016.07.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Alves AA, Hoffmann A, Nepomuceno AL, Oster AH, Fonseca CEF, Torres CRB et al. Task force to support structural and functional improvement of Embrapa’s Decentralized Units. In: Internal Executive Report. Embrapa Brasília-DF. 2018. p. 28.

  27. Bittencourt DMC, Campos MM, Euclides-Filho K, Moretti C. Análise de redes sociais como ferramenta para a gestão da pesquisa e desenvolvimento (PD) na Embrapa. In: Desafíos y oportunidades de las Ciencias de la Información y la Documentación en la era digital: actas del VII Encuentro Ibérico EDICIC 2015 (Madrid 16–17 November 2015). Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid. https://eprints.ucm.es/34645/1/293-Matias_redes-sociais.pdf.

  28. Mankins J. Technology readiness assessments: a retrospective. Acta Astronaut. 2009;65(9–10):1216–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actaastro.2009.03.058.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Capdeville G, Alves AA, Brasil BSAF. Modelo de Inovação e Negócios da Embrapa Agroenergia: Gestão Estratégica Integrada de P&D e TT. Documentos 24 Embrapa Brasília-DF, 2017. p. 45. https://www.embrapa.br/busca-de-publicacoes/-/publicacao/1085322/modelo-de-inovacao-e-negocios-da-embrapa-agroenergia-gestao-estrategica-integrada-de-pd-e-tt. Accessed 16 Oct 2020.

  30. Embrapa. SEG—Embrapa Management System: manual on the use of the TRL/MRL scale. 2018. https://cloud.cnpgc.embrapa.br/nap/files/2018/08/EscalaTRL-MRL-17Abr2018.pdf. Accessed 16 Oct 2020.

  31. Golbeck J. Analyzing the social web. 1st ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Marsden PV. Measures of network centrality. Int Encycl Soc Behav Sci. 2015;16:532–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.43115-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Newman MEJ, Park J. Why social networks are different from other types of networks. Phys Rev E. 2003;68:036122. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.68.036122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Bastian M, Heymann S, Jacomy M. Gephi: an open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. In: AAI Publications of the third international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media. San Jose CA USA; 2009. https://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/09/paper/view/154.

  35. Blondel VD, Guillaume J-L, Lambiotte R, Lefebvre E. Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. J Stat Mech. 2008. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-5468/2008/10/P10008.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  36. Brandes U. A faster algorithm for betweenness centrality. J Math Soc. 2001;25(2):163–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022250X.2001.9990249.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  37. Hu Y. Efficient high-quality force-directed graph drawing. Math J. 2005;10(1):37–71. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.353.4547&rep=rep1&type=pdf.

  38. Jacomy M, Venturini T, Heymann S, Bastian M. ForceAtlas2 a continuous graph layout algorithm for handy network visualization designed for the Gephi software. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e98679. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0098679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Price DS. A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes. J Assoc Inform Sci Technol. 1976;27(5–6):292–306. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630270505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Zuo Z, Zhao K. The more multidisciplinary the better?—The prevalence and interdisciplinarity of research collaborations in multidisciplinary institutions. J Inform. 2018;12:736–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.06.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Wise J, Barron AB, Splendiani A, Balali-Mood B, Vansant D, Little E, et al. Implementation and relevance of FAIR data principles in biopharmaceutical RD. Drug Discov Today. 2019;24(4):933–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis.2019.01.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Sun X, Li H, Ghosal V. Firm-level human capital and innovation: evidence from China. China Econ Rev. 2020;59:101388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2019.101388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Breton A. Organizational hierarchies and bureaucracies: an integrated essay. Eur J Polit Econ. 1995;11:411–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/0176-2680(95)00011-L.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Callois J-M. Social interaction and economic organization: toward an integrative microeconomic model. Econ Lett. 2013;121(1):98–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2013.07.013.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  45. Andrés R-P, Min Z. The cost of weak institutions for innovation in China. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2020;153:119937. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.119937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank to Embrapa for providing open data that supported this work. The anonymous dataset explored in this research can be available on request to the corresponding author.

Funding

Nothing to declare.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Embrapa Pantanal, Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation, Corumbá, MS, Brazil

    Ivan Bergier

  2. Embrapa Pecuária Sudeste, Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation, São Carlos, SP, Brazil

    Patrícia Menezes Santos

  3. Embrapa Uva e Vinho, Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation, Bento Gonçalves, RS, Brazil

    Andreia Hansen Oster

Authors
  1. Ivan Bergier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Patrícia Menezes Santos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andreia Hansen Oster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: IB; Methodology: IB; Formal analysis and investigation: IB; Writing—original draft preparation: IB; Writing—review and editing: PMS, AHO.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ivan Bergier.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors are members of the studied organization, whose motivation is to find new organizational models that improve the capacity for scientific innovation based on ethical and transparency principles to cope with a digital world with increasing spread of misinformation and denial.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 242 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bergier, I., Santos, P.M. & Oster, A.H. Scientific Collaboration in a Multidisciplinary Organization Revealed by Network Science. SN COMPUT. SCI. 2, 4 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-020-00393-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42979-020-00393-8

Keywords