Social categories, such as race, gender, or socioeconomic status, are core driving forces of social tie formation. They shape our identities, determining our social behavior and our connection preferences. Homophily, the preference for connecting with members of the same social group, is one of the most common and widely studied interaction patterns; however, the dynamics driving multidimensional connection preferences (homophilic and otherwise) remain largely unexplored. Furthermore, while homophily in social networks leads to smoother coordination, better communication, and enhanced trust between individuals, it also reduces diversity in knowledge, exacerbates segregation, and breeds inequality. As complex social beings, we belong to multiple groups at the same time, so individuals can experience marginalization in several dimensions simultaneously. These disadvantages accumulate in a nonlinear way, causing intersectional inequalities that further harm people at the intersection of several minority groups. In this work, we develop a network model of homo / heterophilic interactions with multidimensional attribute vectors. We use the model to tackle two crucial questions: how do we integrate information from our multidimensional identities to form connections with each other, and how do multidimensional connection preferences impact intersectional inequalities of social capital?
Finding the right audience for your research can feel like navigating a maze—especially in complex systems, where your work might not fit neatly into any single discipline. Do you aim for a technical journal where methods shine, or a domain journal where only the application really matters? Should you send your manuscript to a high-impact multidisciplinary journal with tough entry barriers, or to smaller, more specialized ones that are easier to publish in but have lower bibliometric indicators? These choices don’t just affect visibility—they can shape how your work is evaluated down the line, depending on whether your future evaluations adhere to DORA principles or rely on more traditional metrics. Of course, journals aren’t the only place your research can live: conferences are often more accessible and a great way to build bridges across fields. We’ll open the floor to talk strategies, trade-offs, and lessons learned. We might also touch on things like preprints, social media, and how to build a coherent research “narrative” across publications—even when you’re publishing in very different venues.
In this seminar, we had the pleasure of hosting Samuel Martin-Gutierrez (Complexity Science Hub) to discuss how social categories like race or socioeconomic status shape the way we form connections, and the challenges of publishing and presenting interdisciplinary research.
Using a network model based on multidimensional attribute vectors, he explored how intersecting identities drive patterns of inequality in social capital—revealing that attribute consolidation and biased preferences can produce unexpected forms of inequality that one-dimensional analyses fail to capture.
In our discussion, we discussed the challenges of working in interdisciplinary research, specifically the trade-offs between publishing and presenting in interdisciplinary versus field-specific venues, and how those decisions impact your career. If you’re interested in these insights, check out the full talk recording.
