{"title":"The power of social talk: A longitudinal network analysis of conversations in fostering interdisciplinary collaboration.","authors":"Yingshi Huang, Jinwen Luo, Vivek Shetty, Minjeong Jeon","doi":"10.1017/cts.2025.10124","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Interdisciplinary collaboration is essential for addressing scientific challenges, particularly in integrated fields like mobile health (mHealth), which combines computer communication and medicine to deliver healthcare services. The formation of collaborative relationships in such field is an emerging topic, with conversations among interdisciplinary scholars serving as a critical indicator of relationship development. This study aims to examine the specific effects of different conversation types (research or social oriented) on interdisciplinary collaboration and explore the impact of communication mode.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We tracked conversations among interdisciplinary scholars participating in a 15-day hybrid mHealth training program, which uniquely captures both scholars' conversation networks and the conversation quality. Three types of conversation networks were recorded (topics about current research, future research, or small talk). Using longitudinal network models, we compared the effect of different types of conversation quality on network formation and evaluated the interaction between conversation quality and communication mode (in-person or online).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found that the quality of social conversations on non-research-related topics had robust effects in promoting the formation of interdisciplinary communications. In-person communication is more conducive for current and future research conversations, while online communication is valued for small talk.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study highlights the power of perception of personal conversation in interdisciplinary collaboration formation. The diverse effects of communication mode on different conversation networks are revealed. Our findings offer valuable insights for the event designs of interdisciplinary training program.</p>","PeriodicalId":15529,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science","volume":"9 1","pages":"e194"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12444692/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2025.10124","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Interdisciplinary collaboration is essential for addressing scientific challenges, particularly in integrated fields like mobile health (mHealth), which combines computer communication and medicine to deliver healthcare services. The formation of collaborative relationships in such field is an emerging topic, with conversations among interdisciplinary scholars serving as a critical indicator of relationship development. This study aims to examine the specific effects of different conversation types (research or social oriented) on interdisciplinary collaboration and explore the impact of communication mode.
Methods: We tracked conversations among interdisciplinary scholars participating in a 15-day hybrid mHealth training program, which uniquely captures both scholars' conversation networks and the conversation quality. Three types of conversation networks were recorded (topics about current research, future research, or small talk). Using longitudinal network models, we compared the effect of different types of conversation quality on network formation and evaluated the interaction between conversation quality and communication mode (in-person or online).
Results: We found that the quality of social conversations on non-research-related topics had robust effects in promoting the formation of interdisciplinary communications. In-person communication is more conducive for current and future research conversations, while online communication is valued for small talk.
Conclusion: This study highlights the power of perception of personal conversation in interdisciplinary collaboration formation. The diverse effects of communication mode on different conversation networks are revealed. Our findings offer valuable insights for the event designs of interdisciplinary training program.