The Science and Practice of Team Science (2025) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Summary
Summary
Pages 1-10
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 1... ...
Moreover, the challenges of managing large and complex teams, as well as growing interest in translating research findings for nonscientists, often means the teams include individuals who may not identify as scientists, such as administrators, funders, and community partners. Groundbreaking research, including the Human Genome Project, the discovery of the Higgs boson, and the invention of the internet, has been performed by science teams that vary in size, geographic distribution, and often disciplinary expertise.
|
From page 2... ...
Furthermore, the committee notes that science teams range from a pair of individuals with a relatively narrow scope of inquiry to massive, multiparty collections of collaborators addressing the world's most intractable problems. Thus, the committee provides the conclusions and recommendations in this report with the clear acknowledgment that team size, complexity, degree of disciplinary integration, proximity of team members, permeability of team boundaries, and other characteristics are critical aspects to consider when assessing whether and how to implement a particular best practice.
|
From page 3... ...
Much of the research informing team science practices derives from findings in organizational psychology and other social sciences -- that is, from the general study of teams, not from studies that specifically focus on science teams. Although some of the findings from that body of research may apply, science teams have unique characteristics and needs that may limit the generalizability of those findings from the broader team literature.
|
From page 4... ...
Much of the available relevant research has been conducted on teams in general, rather than on science teams specifically, so careful attention is needed as to the applicability of the research findings. Despite these caveats, the committee identified best practices for developing the competencies science teams require.
|
From page 5... ...
Conclusion 4-1: Institutions wishing to foster the study of team science would benefit from reviewing the incentive structures that influence individuals' decisions about engaging in such research. Specifically, many policies and practices that are currently in place surrounding tenure and promotion, authorship, cost-sharing, allowable costs, and resource-sharing appear to discourage engagement in the study of team science and participation in collaborative science teams.
|
From page 6... ...
The funders of scientific research can play a key role in fostering both conduct of team science and the study of its operation and outcomes. Recommendation 4-3: Funders of team science, including the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the many other agencies and foundations that support research, should integrate team science needs into funding programs and policies and should remove barriers to team science efficacy by: a.
|
From page 7... ...
More robust collection of data on science teams and their work are needed, as well as evaluation of their operation. The committee found that the exist ing body of evaluation and research on team science tends to emphasize objective and archival measures of team performance output, especially the publications science teams produce, and tends to underemphasize evaluation of ongoing team functioning, the effect of team science on individual members, and other forms of team performance output.
|
From page 8... ...
Specifically needed are: • Studies focused on the science team context that explore the applica tion of existing theories to the unique processes and dynamics that distinguish science teams from traditional organi zational teams. • Studies of team science competencies and interventions that allow for robust statistical analyses or pre- and post-testing to build the empirical evidence base for team science learning, training, and professional development in real time.
|
From page 9... ...
Areas of prioritization may include but are not limited to studies that incorporate both qualitative and quantitative data to build empirical evidence about the science context and research evaluating institutional policies and supports for science teams.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.