BEGIN:VCALENDAR VERSION:2.0 PRODID:-//pretalx//conferences.acspri.org.au//2026//speaker//7TAE3H BEGIN:VTIMEZONE TZID:AEST BEGIN:STANDARD DTSTART:20000326T040000 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=-1SU;BYMONTH=3;UNTIL=20050326T170000Z TZNAME:AEST TZOFFSETFROM:+1100 TZOFFSETTO:+1000 END:STANDARD BEGIN:STANDARD DTSTART:20060402T040000 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=1SU;BYMONTH=4;UNTIL=20060401T170000Z TZNAME:AEST TZOFFSETFROM:+1100 TZOFFSETTO:+1000 END:STANDARD BEGIN:STANDARD DTSTART:20070325T040000 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=4SU;BYMONTH=3;UNTIL=20070324T170000Z TZNAME:AEST TZOFFSETFROM:+1100 TZOFFSETTO:+1000 END:STANDARD BEGIN:STANDARD DTSTART:20080406T040000 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=1SU;BYMONTH=4 TZNAME:AEST TZOFFSETFROM:+1100 TZOFFSETTO:+1000 END:STANDARD BEGIN:DAYLIGHT DTSTART:20000827T030000 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=4SU;BYMONTH=8;UNTIL=20000826T170000Z TZNAME:AEDT TZOFFSETFROM:+1000 TZOFFSETTO:+1100 END:DAYLIGHT BEGIN:DAYLIGHT DTSTART:20011028T030000 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=-1SU;BYMONTH=10;UNTIL=20071027T170000Z TZNAME:AEDT TZOFFSETFROM:+1000 TZOFFSETTO:+1100 END:DAYLIGHT BEGIN:DAYLIGHT DTSTART:20081005T030000 RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=1SU;BYMONTH=10 TZNAME:AEDT TZOFFSETFROM:+1000 TZOFFSETTO:+1100 END:DAYLIGHT END:VTIMEZONE BEGIN:VEVENT UID:pretalx-2026-NRKNNQ@conferences.acspri.org.au DTSTART;TZID=AEST:20261125T111500 DTEND;TZID=AEST:20261125T113000 DESCRIPTION:Interdisciplinarity is commonly understood as the integration o f knowledge from two or more distinct academic disciplines in scientific c ollaboration. Rather than treating interdisciplinarity solely as an outcom e of knowledge integration\, this study conceptualises it as the product o f ongoing boundary negotiations among researchers from different disciplin ary traditions (Gieryn\, 1983). Existing studies predominantly assess inte rdisciplinarity at the level of publications\, authors\, journals\, resear ch fields\, and formal organisational arrangements such as research centre s\, laboratories and grant scheme (Wang & Schneider\, 2020). Less attentio n has been paid to cohesive collaborative communities formed through resea rchers’ informal collaborative ties\, for example professional networks\ , conference interactions\, and long-term interpersonal relationships\, th at may transcend organisational boundaries (Calvert\, 2024). Examining suc h communities provides an opportunity to investigate how disciplinary boun daries are maintained\, negotiated\, or crossed within collaborative resea rch.\nFurthermore\, existing interdisciplinary measures often implicitly a ssume that diversity scores are comparable across collaborations of differ ent sizes (Porter & Rafols\, 2009). However\, group size constrains the ma ximum variety could be achieved\, while group size and variety jointly con strain the range of possible diversity values. As a result\, observed dive rsity should not be interpreted independently of the structural opportunit ies available to a collaboration. While existing measures quantify discipl inary diversity\, they do not indicate whether a collaboration exhibits lo wer\, expected\, or higher diversity relative to its structural conditions . Consequently\, they provide limited insight into whether diversity refle cts structural characteristics of a collaboration\, or active processes of disciplinary boundary maintenance and boundary crossing.\nTo address thes e gaps\, we propose a framework that uses maximal clique as the unit of co llaboration and residualised Shannon entropy as a measure of disciplinary boundary permeability. By modelling expected disciplinary diversity as a f unction of clique size and disciplinary variety\, the framework evaluates interdisciplinarity relative to the structural opportunities available to each collaboration. This approach enables the identification of collaborat ive communities that exhibit higher or lower levels of boundary work than would be expected from their size and disciplinary composition. We subsequ ently classify maximal cliques into three types based on residualised Shan non entropy and interpret them through the lens of boundary work. Boundary -maintaining cliques have negative residual values\, indicating lower obse rved diversity than expected.\; boundary-neutral cliques have residual val ues close to zero\, indicating diversity levels consistent with structural expectations\; and boundary-crossing cliques have positive residual value s\, indicating higher observed diversity than expected.\nTo demonstrate th e proposed framework\, we constructed a coauthor network of 6\,730 authors \nfrom1\,909 smart cities research articles published in 2022 indexed in S copus. Maximal clique analysis identified 1\,356 collaboration communities with at least 3 members. The overall residual diversity scores were negat ive (mean = -0.24\, median = -0.49)\, with 58% of cliques were classified as boundary-maintaining (mean = -0.74)\, 24 % as boundary-neutral (mean = 0)\, and 18% as boundary-crossing (mean = 0.11). These findings suggest th at while smart cities research is commonly characterised as interdisciplin ary (Bibri\, 2019)\, collaborations in this field largely maintained disci plinary boundaries with only a minority actively crossed disciplinary boun daries beyond what would be expected from their structural characteristics .\nThe proposed framework enables identification of informal collaborative communities that are observable only through co-author networks. It also disentangles structural opportunities from boundary work by distinguishing expected diversity from observed diversity. By doing so\, it shifts atten tion from interdisciplinarity as an aggregated outcome to the ongoing proc esses through which disciplinary boundaries are maintained\, negotiated\, and crossed within collaborative communities. DTSTAMP:20261013T070135Z LOCATION:MacCallum Room SUMMARY:Measuring the structure and permeability of disciplinary boundaries in scientific collaboration - Xiaolan Cai\, Mathieu O'Neil URL:https://conferences.acspri.org.au/2026/talk/NRKNNQ/ END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT UID:pretalx-2026-PPABDF@conferences.acspri.org.au DTSTART;TZID=AEST:20261126T110000 DTEND;TZID=AEST:20261126T111500 DESCRIPTION:One of the challenges for mixed-method research is how to integ rate findings from diverse methodological traditions. Network-based method s can identify patterns of associations among actors\, issues\, and concep ts\, but provide limited insight into how these associations are negotiate d and sustained. Qualitative approaches\, meanwhile\, can reveal meanings\ , yet often difficult to connect systematically across large and complex r elational settings. This paper proposes to addresses this methodological c hallenge through a framework that integrates semantic network analysis\, c artography of controversies\, and boundary theory.\nThe framework was deve loped through a doctoral study of smart city development in Australia. The first component employs semantic network analysis across multiple dataset s\, including documents\, news coverages\, and codebases of government-fun ded and open source smart city (OSSC) initiatives. Rather than treating se mantic networks as an end point\, they were used as exploratory map to ide ntify both shared conceptual spaces and conceptually distinct areas associ ated with different actors. Across datasets\, concepts such as ‘open dat a’ and ‘citizen-centric’ emerged as common reference points linking government agencies and OSSC initiatives. At the same time\, the networks revealed divergent thematic clusters. Government-funded projects commonly associated with sustainability\, energy efficiency\, public safety\, and u rban service delivery\, while OSSC initiatives tended to emphasis democrac y\, accountability\, food security\, sustainable agriculture\, and communi ty empowerment.\nThese patterns of convergence and divergence informed the second component of the framework: qualitative case studies using cartogr aphy of controversies. Following statements\, actors\, issues\, documents\ , technologies\, and institutional arrangements over time\, the case studi es traced how shared concepts were interpreted and enacted. While semantic networks suggested broad agreement around ideas such as openness and citi zen-centric development\, qualitative tracing revealed substantial differe nces in meaning. For example\, government agencies frequently framed citiz ens as service users\, consultees\, or sources of urban data\, whit partic ipation occurring primarily through consultation processes and sensor-enab led urban management. In contrast\, OSSC organisations positioned citizens as active participants in oversight\, accountability\, and knowledge prod uction. Likewise\, while both endorsed open data\, they framed and practic ed differently. Government agencies primarily associated open data with Op en Government Data (OGD) and administrative procedures\, whereas OSSC orga nisations linked both OGD and Freedom of Information to transparency\, ac countability\, and the strengthening of community capacity.\nTo integrate these findings\, the paper draws on the concepts of boundary work and boun dary objects. boundary object explains how concepts such as open data and citizen-centric can operate as shared reference points across heterogenous communities while remaining sufficiently flexible to accommodate divergen t interpretations. Boundary work provides a means of analysing how actors construct\, defend\, challenge\, and reconfigure the meanings attached to these concepts. Together\, they offer an analytical bridge between network -level patterns and qualitative accounts of negotiation. Rather than treat ing quantitative and qualitative findings as separate streams of evidence\ , the framework uses boundary theory to explain how apparent conceptual co nvergence can coexist with substantive differences in interpretation and p ractice.\nThis paper contributes to methodological discussions on mixed-me thods approaches in three ways. First\, it demonstrates how semantic netwo rk analysis can be used to identify potential boundary objects and guide q ualitative inquiry. Second\, it shows how cartography of controversies can reveal the processes through which shared concepts acquire different mean ings across actor groups. Third\, it illustrates how boundary work and bou ndary object can function as integrative devices for synthesising network patterns and interpretive forms of analysis. By linking networks to negoti ations\, the proposed framework offers a transferable approach for researc hers seeking to combine network analysis and qualitative methods in the st udy of collaboration\, governance\, and socio-technical change. DTSTAMP:20261013T070135Z LOCATION:Cullen Room SUMMARY:From networks to negotiations: Integrating semantic network analysi s and cartography of controversies through boundary theory - Xiaolan Cai URL:https://conferences.acspri.org.au/2026/talk/PPABDF/ END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR