Intersections: A newsletter of the Institute of Gender and Health - Spring/Summer 2013, Vol. 4, Issue 1 - Long Descriptions
Figure 1 – Collaborative relationships between groups by dimension prior to the creation of the Team
Figure 1 includes three scatter plot diagrams that show the network structure of collaborative relationships between members in three dimensions prior to joining the Team:
- research domains
- disciplinary fields
- languages
Each dot represents a team member and the lines between dots indicate whether the members reported that they collaborate together. Collaboration is defined as having co-published, having a research project together, or having organised a course or a conference together.
Diagram A – Research domains
Diagram A includes 47 dots, each representing a team member from one of three health research domains:
- occupational - 22 blue dots
- environmental - 21 green dots
- occupational and environmental – 4 black dots
All occupational and environmental health dots are in the centre of the diagram. These dots and are connected by lines to 12 occupational health dots on one side, and 17 environmental dots on the other side.
An additional 2 environmental dots are connected only to each other.
10 more occupational health and 2 more environmental health dots do not have lines to other dots, indicating that a dyadic collaboration was not declared by these team members.
The majority of the lines in the diagram are between dots of the same colour, showing how most relationships existed between people working in the same health research domain.
Diagram B – Disciplinary fields
Diagram B includes 47 dots, each representing a team member from one of three disciplinary fields:
- social sciences and humanities – 19 red dots
- health and natural sciences – 25 blue dots
- not applicable – 3 black dots
17 health and natural sciences dots run through the center diagram. 6 of them connect to 7 of social sciences and humanities dots. In 3 instances, 2 of the health and natural sciences dots connect to the same social sciences and humanities dots.
An additional 2 health and natural sciences dots are connected only to each other.
6 more social sciences and humanities and 6 more health and natural sciences dots do not have lines to other dots, indicating that a dyadic collaboration was not declared by these team members.
The majority of the lines in the diagram are between dots of the same colour, showing how relationships mostly existed between people working in the same discipline.
Diagram C – Languages
Diagram C includes 47 dots, each representing a team member from one of two language categories:
- French – 27 purple dots
- English – 20 yellow dots
23 French dots and 10 English dots are scattered through the center of the diagram. 9 French dots are connected to 6 English dots. In 3 instances, 2 French dots connect to the same English dot.
An additional 2 French dots are connected with only each other.
At the side of the diagram, 10 more English dots and 2 more French dots do not have lines to other dots, indicating that a dyadic collaboration was not declared by these team members.
The majority of the lines in the diagram are between dots of the same colour, showing how relationships mostly existed between people who work in the same language.
The PreVAiL Research Team
| Name | Area of focus |
|---|---|
| Co-principal investigator | |
| MacMillan | Child psychiatry & Pediatrics |
| Coben | Emergency medicine |
| Stewart | Women's health |
| Herrman | Psychiatry |
| Wathen | Information science |
| Research Network | |
| Gagnon | Nursing |
| Kelleher | Pediatrics |
| Boyle | Epidemiology |
| Varcoe | Nursing |
| Schmidt | Psychology |
| Georgiades | Psychology |
| Chartier | Public health |
| Waddell | Child psychiatry |
| Afifi | Community health sciences |
| Tonmyr | Health Canada |
| Coben | Emergency medicine |
| Hegadoren | Nursing |
| DeBellis | Child psychiatry |
| Edieson | Social work |
| Chamberland | Social work |
| Gonzalez | Psychology |
| Diaz-Granados | Health research methodology |
| Trocmé | Social work |
| Barlow | Public health |
| McKee | Psychology |
| Collin-Vezina | Sociology |
| Olds | Pediatrics |
| Resilience | |
| Thombs | Psychology |
| Hegarty | Family medicine |
| Erickson | Sociology |
| Barata | Psychology |
| Ahmad | Women's health |
| Herrman | Psychiatry |
| Boving-Larsen | Psychology |
| Sareen | Psychiatry |
| Oliffe | Nursing |
| Friborg | Psychology |
| DesMueles | Epidemiology |
| Helweg-Larsen | Public health |
| Chandra | Psychiatry |
| Gartland | Psychology |
| Hjemdal | Psychology |
| Policy Advisors | |
| Jenkins | Epidemiology |
| Waddell | Child psychiatry |
| Tonmyr | Health Canada |
| Dudding | Child Welfare League |
| Jackson | Sociology |
| DesMeules | Epidemiology |
| Knowledge Translation and Exchange | |
| Donelle | Nursing |
| Jack | Nursing |
| Sibbald | Health Policy Research |
| Feder | Family medicine |
| Wekerle | Psychology |
| Dudding | Child Welfare League |
| Ford-Gilboe | Nursing |
| Kothari | Health Policy Research |
| Trainees | |
| Pitre | Not indicated |
| Gonzalez | Not indicated |
| Burnett | Not indicated |
| Davidov | Not indicated |
| Spiwak | Not indicated |
| Crann | Not indicated |
| Tanaka | Not indicated |
| Garland | Not indicated |
| Shephard | Not indicated |
| Roos | Not indicated |
| Morris | Not indicated |
| Kimber | Not indicated |
| Diaz-Granados | Not indicated |
| Kolar | Not indicated |
| Goldstein | Not indicated |
| Ponic | Not indicated |
| Sibbald | Not indicated |
| Neal | Not indicated |
| Macgregor | Not indicated |
Back to “The PreVAiL Research Team”
Figure 2 – Collaborative relationships without the five most central nodes
Figure 2 includes two scatter plot diagrams that show collaborative relationships without the five most central nodes. Each dot represents a team member and the lines between dots indicate whether the two members reported that they collaborate together. Collaboration is defined as having co-published, having a research project together, or having organised a course or a conference together.
Diagram A
The first diagram illustrates what would have happened if the five most central members were taken out at the Team's onset. This diagram includes 42 blue dots, each representing a team member. 14 dots do not have lines to other dots, indicating that a dyadic collaboration was not declared for these team members. 28 dots are found in the centre of the diagram, which are divided into 4 groups of connected dots:
- 2 dots
- 3 dots
- 9 dots
- 14 dots
This pattern illustrates how small groupings of members exist at the team's onset when the five most central group members are removed.
Diagram B
The second diagram illustrates what would have happened if the five most central members were taken out of the team a year and a half after the team's establishment. This diagram includes 45 blue dots, each representing a team member. 18 dots do not have lines to other dots, indicating that a dyadic collaboration was not declared for these team members. A total of 27 dots are found in the centre of the diagram, which are divided into two groupings of connected dots:
- 25 dots that are connected to each other at multiple points
- 2 dots that are only connected to each other
This illustrates how a network is still present among the Team when its five most central members are removed a year and a half after the team's onset - indicating that the team is moving towards the creation of a resilient network.
Supplemental content (right column)
- Modified: