IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jchals/v10y2019i1p25-d217050.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Collaborative Research Exploration of Pollutant Mixtures and Adverse Birth Outcomes by Using Innovative Spatial Data Mining Methods: The DoMiNO Project

Author

Listed:
  • Osnat Wine

    (Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 1C9, Canada
    On behalf of the DoMiNO Project Team, Data Mining and Neonatal Outcomes (DoMiNO), University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 1C9, Canada.)

  • Osmar R. Zaiane

    (Department of Computing Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2E8, Canada
    On behalf of the DoMiNO Project Team, Data Mining and Neonatal Outcomes (DoMiNO), University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 1C9, Canada.)

  • Alvaro R. Osornio Vargas

    (Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 1C9, Canada
    On behalf of the DoMiNO Project Team, Data Mining and Neonatal Outcomes (DoMiNO), University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 1C9, Canada.)

Abstract

Environmental health research is gaining interest due to the global concern of environmental factors impacting health. This research is often multifaceted and becomes complex when trying to understand the participation of multiple environmental variables. It requires the combination of innovative research methods, as well as the collaboration of diverse disciplines in the research process. The application of collaborative approaches is often challenging for interdisciplinary teams, and much can be learned from in-depth observation of such processes. We share here a case report describing initial observations and reflections on the collaborative research process of the Data Mining and Neonatal Outcomes (DoMiNO) project (2013–2018), which aimed to explore associations between mixtures of air pollutants and other environmental variables with adverse birth outcomes by using an innovative data mining approach. The project was built on interdisciplinary and user knowledge participation with embedded evaluation framework of its collaborative process. We describe the collaborative process, the benefits and challenges encountered, and provide insights from our experience. We identified that interdisciplinary research requires time and investment in building relationships, continuous learning, and engagement to build bridges between disciplines towards co-production, discovery, and knowledge translation. Learning from interdisciplinary collaborative research experiences can facilitate future research in the challenging field of environmental health.

Suggested Citation

  • Osnat Wine & Osmar R. Zaiane & Alvaro R. Osornio Vargas, 2019. "A Collaborative Research Exploration of Pollutant Mixtures and Adverse Birth Outcomes by Using Innovative Spatial Data Mining Methods: The DoMiNO Project," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-14, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jchals:v:10:y:2019:i:1:p:25-:d:217050
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2078-1547/10/1/25/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2078-1547/10/1/25/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Liz O'Brien & Mariella Marzano & Rehema M. White, 2013. "'Participatory interdisciplinarity': Towards the integration of disciplinary diversity with stakeholder engagement for new models of knowledge production," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 40(1), pages 51-61, January.
    2. Josephine V. Rekers & Teis Hansen, 2015. "Interdisciplinary research and geography: Overcoming barriers through proximity," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 42(2), pages 242-254.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kevin Daudin & Christiane Weber & François Colin & Flavie Cernesson & Pierre Maurel & Valérie Derolez, 2021. "The Collaborative Process in Environmental Projects, a Place-Based Coevolution Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-23, July.
    2. Rune Dahl Fitjar & Andrés Rodríguez-Pose, 2017. "Nothing is in the Air," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(1), pages 22-39, March.
    3. Borst, Robert A.J. & Kok, Maarten Olivier & O’Shea, Alison J. & Pokhrel, Subhash & Jones, Teresa H. & Boaz, Annette, 2019. "Envisioning and shaping translation of knowledge into action: A comparative case-study of stakeholder engagement in the development of a European tobacco control tool," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(10), pages 917-923.
    4. José Miguel Aguilera & Felipe Larraín, 2021. "Natural laboratories in emerging countries and comparative advantages in science: Evidence from Chile," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 38(6), pages 732-753, November.
    5. R. A. Mumford & R. Macarthur & N. Boonham, 2016. "The role and challenges of new diagnostic technology in plant biosecurity," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 8(1), pages 103-109, February.
    6. José Miguel Giner-Pérez & María Jesús Santa-María, 2021. "Spatial Agglomerations in the Spanish Food Industry: Does Sectorial Disaggregation Matter?," International Regional Science Review, , vol. 44(5), pages 515-559, September.
    7. Grillitsch, Markus & Hansen, Teis & Coenen, Lars & Miörner, Johan & Moodysson, Jerker, 2019. "Innovation policy for system-wide transformation: The case of strategic innovation programmes (SIPs) in Sweden," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 1048-1061.
    8. Khara Grieger & Christopher L. Cummings, 2022. "Informing environmental health and risk priorities through local outreach and extension," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 388-401, September.
    9. Coenen, Lars & Grillitsch, Markus & Hansen, Teis & Moodysson, Jerker, 2017. "An innovation system framework for system innovation policy: the case of Strategic Innovation Programs (SIPs) in Sweden," Papers in Innovation Studies 2017/8, Lund University, CIRCLE - Centre for Innovation Research.
    10. R. Mumford & R. Macarthur & N. Boonham, 2016. "The role and challenges of new diagnostic technology in plant biosecurity," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 8(1), pages 103-109, February.
    11. Z. Sarvašová & Z. Dobšinská, 2016. "Provision of ecosystem services in mountain forests - case study of experts' and stakeholders' perceptions from Slovakia," Journal of Forest Science, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 62(8), pages 380-387.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jchals:v:10:y:2019:i:1:p:25-:d:217050. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.