Integration vs segregation: network analysis of interdisciplinarity in funded and unfunded research on infectious diseases

TL;DR

This study analyzes how funding influences interdisciplinarity in infectious disease research, revealing funded work is less interdisciplinary and more conservative, while unfunded research fosters exploration and knowledge integration over time.

Contribution

It introduces a network analysis framework to compare funded and unfunded research interdisciplinarity across infectious diseases from 1995 to 2022.

Findings

Funded research is less interdisciplinary than unfunded research.

Unfunded research tends to be more exploratory and bridge distant knowledge.

Interdisciplinary research on diseases like HIV and tuberculosis facilitates global knowledge integration.

Abstract

Interdisciplinary research fuels innovation. In this paper, we examine the interdisciplinarity of research output driven by funding. Considering 36 major infectious diseases, we model interdisciplinarity through temporal correlation networks based on funded and unfunded research from 1995-2022. Using hierarchical clustering, we identify coherent periods of time or regimes characterised by important research topics like vaccinations or the Zika outbreak. We establish that funded research is less interdisciplinary than unfunded research, but the effect has decreased markedly over time. In terms of network growth, we find a tendency of funded research to focus on readily established connections leading to compartmentalisation and conservatism. In contrast, unfunded research tends to be exploratory and bridge distant knowledge leading to knowledge integration. Our results show that interdisciplinary research on prominent infectious diseases like HIV and tuberculosis tends to have strong bridging effects facilitating global knowledge integration in the network. At the periphery of the network, we observe the emergence of vaccination-related and Zika-related knowledge clusters, both with limited systemic impact. We further show that despite the surge in publications related to COVID-19, its systematic impact on the disease network remains relatively low. Overall, this research provides a generalisable framework to examine the impact of funding in interdisciplinary knowledge creation. It can assist in priority setting, for example with horizon scanning for new and emerging threats to health, such as pandemic planning. Policymakers, funding agencies, and research institutions should consider revamping evaluation systems to reward interdisciplinary work and implement mechanisms that promote and support intelligent risk-taking.