Examining cross-disciplinary communication's impact on multidisciplinary collaborations: implications for innovations

References

• Agneessens, F., & Wittek, R. (2012). Where do intra-organizational advice relations come from? The role of informal status and social capital in social exchange. Social Networks, 34(3), 333–345.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, N. B. (1998). Levels of analysis in health science: A framework for integrating sociobehavioral and biomedical research. Neuroimmunomodulation, 840, 563–576.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bales, M. E., Dine, D. C., Merrill, J. A., Johnson, S. B., Bakken, S., & Weng, C. (2014). Associating co-authorship patterns with publications in high-impact journals. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 52, 311–318.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Becker, G. S. (1974). A theory of marriage: Part II. Journal of Political Economy, 82(2), S11–S26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blau, P. M. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity. New York: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Blau, P. M. (1994). Structural contexts of opportunities. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Castells, M. (1996). The rise of the network society. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Cox, T. H., Lobel, S. A., & Mcleod, P. L. (1991). Effects of ethnic-group cultural-differences on cooperative and competitive behavior on a group task. Academy of Management Journal, 34(4), 827–847.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cummings, J. N., & Kiesler, S. (2005). Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Social Studies of Science, 35(5), 703–722.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cummings, J. N., & Kiesler, S. (2008). Who collaborates successfully? Prior experience reduces collaboration barriers in distributed interdisciplinary research. San Diego, CA: ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work.
   Google Scholar
• Dimitrova, D., & Koku, E. (2010). Managing collaborative research networks: The dual life of a virtual community of practice. International Journal of Virtual Communities and Social Networking, 2(4), 1–22.
   Google Scholar
• Egghe, L. (2006). Theory and practise of the g-index. Scientometrics, 69(1), 131–152.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Florida, R. L. (2002). The rise of the creative class. New York, NY: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Galison, P., & Hevly, B. (1992). Big Science. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hall, T. E., & O'Rourke, M. (2014). Responding to communication challenges in transdisciplinary sustainability science. In K. Huutoniemi & P. Tapio (Eds.), Heuristics for transdisciplinary sustainability studies (pp. 119–139). Oxford: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hargadon, A., & Sutton, R. I. (1997). Technology brokering and innovation in a product development firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(4), 716–749.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henneke, D., & Luthje, C. (2007). Interdisciplinary heterogeneity as a catalyst for product innovativeness of entrepreneurial teams. Creativity and Innovation Management, 16(2), 121–132.
   Google Scholar
• Herring, C. (2009). Does diversity pay? Race, gender, and the business case for diversity. American Sociological Review, 74(2), 208–224.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson, S. E., Joshi, A., & Erhardt, N. L. (2003). Recent research on team and organizational diversity: SWOT analysis and implications. Journal of Management, 29(6), 801–830.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jehn, K. A. (1997). A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42(3), 530–557.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keyton, J., & Beck, S. J. (2010). Perspective: Examining communication as macro cognition in STS. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 52(2), 335–339.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kilduff, M., Angelmar, R., & Mehra, A. (2000). Top management team diversity and firm performance: examining the role of cognitions. Organization Science, 11(1), 21–34.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (2001). The impact of team members’ cultural values on productivity, cooperation, and empowerment in self-managing work teams. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(5), 597–617.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kotlarsky, J., van den Hooff, B., & Houtman, L. (2015). Are we on the same page? Knowledge boundaries and transactive memory system development in cross-functional teams. Communication Research, 42(3), 319–344.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• La Follette, M. C. (1992). Stealing into print. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lambiotte, R., & Panzarasa, P. (2009). Communities, knowledge creation, and information diffusion. Journal of Informetrics, 3(3), 180–190.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lasker, R. D., Weiss, E. S., & Miller, R. (2001). Partnership synergy: A Practical framework for studying and strengthening the collaborative advantage. The Milbank Quarterly, 79(2), 179–205.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leimu, R., & Koricheva, J. (2005). Does scientific collaboration increase the impact of ecological articles? Bioscience, 55(5), 438–443.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mathieu, J., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T., & Gilson, L. (2008). Team effectiveness 1997–2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34(3), 410–476.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mo, G. Y., Hayat, Z., & Wellman, B. (2015). How far can scholarly networks go? Examining the relationships between distance, disciplines, motivations, and clusters. Emerald Studies in Media and Communication, 1(1), 107–133.
   Google Scholar
• Monteiro, M., & Keating, E. (2009). Managing misunderstandings: The role of language in interdisciplinary scientific collaboration. Science Communication, 31(1), 6–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Newman, M. E. J. (2004). Coauthorship networks and patterns of scientific collaboration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101, 5200–5205.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olson, J. S., Hofer, E. C., Bos, N., Zimmerman, A., Olson, G. M., Cooney, D., & Faniel, I. (2008). A theory of remote scientific collaboration (TORSC). In G. M. Olson, A. Zimmerman, & N. Bos (Eds.), Scientific collaboration on the internet (pp. 73–98). Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pepe, A. (2011). The relationship between acquaintanceship and coauthorship in scientific collaboration networks. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 62(11), 2121–2132.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Podolny, J. M., & Page, K. L. (1998). Network forms of organization. Annual Review of Sociology, 24(1), 57–76.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Powell, W. W. (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organization. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 295–336.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pravdic, N., & Oluić-Vuković, V. (1986). Dual approach to multiple authorship in the study of collaboration scientific output relationship. Scientometrics, 10(5–6), 259–280.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quan-Haase, A., & Wellman, B. (2005). Local virtuality in an organization: Implications for community of practice. Communities and Technologies 2005, 215–238.
   Google Scholar
• Rainie, L., & Wellman, B. (2012). Networked. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Reagans, R., Zuckerman, E., & McEvily, B. (2004). How to make the team: Social networks vs. demography as criteria for designing effective teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49(1), 101–133.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenthal, J., Jessup, C., Felknor, S., Humble, M., Bader, F., & Bridbord, K. (2012). International environmental and occupational health: From individual scientists to networked science hubs. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 55(12), 1069–1077.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sigelman, L. (2009). Are two (or three or four … or nine) heads better than one? Collaboration, multidisciplinarity, and publishability. PS: Political Science and Politics, 42(3), 507–512.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, M. (1958). The trend toward multiple authorship in psychology. American Psychologist, 13(10), 596–599.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spallek, H., Schleyer, T., & Butler, B. S. (2008). Good partners are hard to find: The search for and selection of collaborators in the health sciences. Paper presented at the Fourth IEEE International Conference on eScience, Indianapolis, IN.
   Google Scholar
• Stevenson, W. B. (1990). Formal-structure and networks of interaction within organizations. Social Science Research, 19(2), 113–131.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tuire, P., & Erno, L. (2001). Exploring invisible scientific communities: Studying networking relations within an educational research community. A Finnish case. Higher Education, 42(4), 493–513.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wellman, B., Dimitrova, D., Hayat, Z., Mo, G. Y., & Smale, L. (2014). Networking scholars in a networked organization. In D. Brass, G. J. Labianca, A. Mehra, D. S. Halgin, & S. Borgatti (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on organizational social network analysis (Vol. 40, pp. 475–493). Bingley: Emerald.
   Google Scholar