(Durkheim, 1964; Homans, 1950; Simon, 1965; Valente, 1995). In turn, policy makers may recognize the potential of bridging actors and tap them for policy advising (Berardo and Scholz, 2010). Our hypothesis implies a causal direction: that being a bridger in part contributes to policy-oriented behavior. Alternatively, it could be that a policy-oriented disposition causes an actor to both become a bridger and to become involved in policy. That is, one’s position in a network may be confounded with a policy-oriented disposition. Or perhaps there is a more nuanced dynamic in which participation in different kinds of policy arenas exposes actors to different organizations and environments from which they draw for support to engage in behavior (e.g., Davis et al., 2005; Diani and McAdam, 2003, Hirshman). We explore these concerns about causality using qualitative data and contribute to scientific discourse by quantifying how strong a causal mechanism (e.g., policy-oriented disposition) must be to invalidate our inferences. The Emergence of Policy-Oriented Behavior Two-Mode Networks of Co-authored …within Documents Our hypothesis links the role of bridging in a network to policy-oriented behavior. But the role of bridging must be defined relative to subgroups in a given network (Gould and Fernandez, 1989). In this study, we define subgroups in terms of clusters of scientists who wrote common policy-related documents related to climate change in the Great Lakes region. We focus on documents because they represent one of the fundamental activities through which actors such as scientists seek to influence public opinion and policy. Indeed, the role of science
(Durkheim, 1964; Homans, 1950; Simon, 1965; Valente, 1995). In turn, policy makers may recognize the potential of bridging actors and tap them for policy advising (Berardo and Scholz, 2010). Our hypothesis implies a causal direction: that being a bridger in part contributes to policy-oriented behavior. Alternatively, it could be that a policy-oriented disposition causes an actor to both become a bridger and to become involved in policy. That is, one’s position in a network may be confounded with a policy-oriented disposition. Or perhaps there is a more nuanced dynamic in which participation in different kinds of policy arenas exposes actors to different organizations and environments from which they draw for support to engage in behavior (e.g., Davis et al., 2005; Diani and McAdam, 2003, Hirshman). We explore these concerns about causality using qualitative data and contribute to scientific discourse by quantifying how strong a causal mechanism (e.g., policy-oriented disposition) must be to invalidate our inferences. The Emergence of Policy-Oriented Behavior …within Two-Mode Networks of Co-authored Documents Our hypothesis links the role of bridging in a network to policy-oriented behavior. But the role of bridging must be defined relative to subgroups in a given network (Gould and Fernandez, 1989). In this study, we define subgroups in terms of clusters of scientists who common policy-related documents related to climate change in the Great Lakes region. We focus on documents because they represent one of the fundamental activities through which actors such as scientists seek to influence public opinion and policy. Indeed, the role of science wrote