Chapter Skim View of:

Currently Skimming:

Pages 123-168

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 123... ... . Research development grew out of research administration, coinciding with more competitive funding environments and additionally the rise of higher-dollar, longer-term team science opportunities from major funders that placed new demands on research ecosystem personnel to actively and intentionally support budding science teams (Levin, 2011; Mason & Learned, 2006; Mulfinger et al., 2016) Read the entire page →
From page 124... ... . Research Administrators While research development professionals support the formation, ideation, resource acquisition, and proposal development of science teams, research administrators support team science from a distinct yet equally important lens of compliance, monitoring, reporting, and financial support services (National Council of University Research Administrators, n.d.) Read the entire page →
From page 125... ... . As an extension of the principal investigator, CTSI project leaders pair their scientific understanding with team science best practices and tools, including team charters and project development plans, to achieve collaborative goals (Sutton et al., 2019) Read the entire page →
From page 126... ... Since many science teams begin as unfunded collaborations or use institutional seed funding, support for these roles may not be available. Furthermore, even when personnel with expertise relevant to team science are engaged, they are more likely to be misunderstood, overlooked, and undervalued be cause of their boundary-spanning position (Bammer et al., 2020; Hendren & Ku, 2019; Hoffmann et al., 2022; Lyall, 2019) Read the entire page →
From page 127... ... Much about this process remains understudied, however. As discussed, if the members of a science team are broadened to include research development professionals who are involved in the conception, development, implementation, and dissemination of team science inputs, processes, and outcomes, institutions may be able to better develop metrics to help assess the efficacy of these roles in contributing to team science. Read the entire page →
From page 128... ... This section will consider the impact of institutional policies and cultural features on scientific collaboration and suggest strategies for creating institutional environments that are conducive for team science. Material Transfers, Data Sharing, and Intellectual Property Policies and Procedures Policies related to materials and data sharing are often cited as significant barriers to team science (Borgman, 2012; Kowalczyk & Shankar, 2011) Read the entire page →
From page 129... ... . Barriers to Collaboration A primary challenge for team science related to material transfer and data use agreements is the intricate legal and administrative processes they often entail (Mello et al., 2020) Read the entire page →
From page 130... ... . Impact on Collaboration In combination, complex legal and administrative processes, a lack of standardization, and stringent limitations on the sharing of intellectual property can be a significant deterrent to team science collaboration (Mello et al., 2020) Read the entire page →
From page 131... ... . In conclusion, although policies related to materials and data sharing are essential for protecting intellectual property and ensuring ethical research practices, they can become significant barriers to team science if not managed effectively. Read the entire page →
From page 132... ... . Indeed, the focus on individual achievements can create a competitive environment where researchers are less likely to engage in team science (National Academies, 2020) Read the entire page →
From page 133... ... For example, job descriptions could explicitly state the importance of interdisciplinary research and collaborative skills, ensuring that candidates understand the institution's commitment to team science. Hiring committees can be composed of members from various disciplines to evaluate applicants' potential for cross-disciplinary work effectively. Read the entire page →
From page 134... ... The basis of this act was to enhance U.S. economic and technological leadership by investing in "inno vation through research and development, and to improve the competi tiveness of the United States" (America COMPETES Act, 2007) Read the entire page →
From page 135... ... Additionally, recognizing leader ship roles within collaborative projects, such as coordinating research teams or managing interdisciplinary initiatives, can highlight the importance of teamwork in achieving significant scientific advancements. By incorporating these elements into tenure and promotion criteria, universities can incentiv ize researchers to engage in team science, ultimately enhancing the institu tion's research capabilities and addressing complex, multifaceted problems through a collaborative approach. Read the entire page →
From page 136... ... . To value and support team science, tenure and promotion policies and procedures may need to be expanded to include collaborative leadership, interdisciplinary contributions, and the effective management of research teams. Read the entire page →
From page 137... ... . In 2017, NSF amplified its support of team science by prioritiz ing foundation-wide investments in cross-disciplinary collaboration and creative cross-sectoral partnerships, establishing "Growing Convergence Research" as one of its 10 Big Ideas.7 Also important to consider is whether funding agencies' signaled interests in and support for team science efforts align with other aspects of the research funding landscape, such as proposal solicitations and review and project funding. Read the entire page →
From page 138... ... Although some aspects of the proposal development process have changed in recent years in response to the rise of team science, the committee discussed that the proposal review process has largely stayed the 8 More information about the program solicitation is available at https://new.nsf.gov/funding/ opportunities/science-technology-centers-integrative-partnerships/nsf24-594/solicitation 9 For more information about NIH's option for multiple principal investigators, see https:// grants.nih.gov/grants-process/plan-to-apply/consider-your-idea-resources-and-collaborators/ multiple-principal-investigators 10 See https://ncats.nih.gov/research/alliances/forms-and-model-agreements 11 See https://www.nsf.gov/funding/initiatives/i-corps/about-teams Read the entire page →
From page 139... ... Research associated with science teams can often be viewed in a supporting or evaluative role rather than as a necessary research field in and of itself. As has been made clear throughout this report, however, there is a lack of strong evidence linking team science interventions or best practices to positive team science outcomes. Read the entire page →
From page 140... ... SCIENTIFIC INCENTIVES As discussed throughout this chapter, researchers are highly responsive to scientific incentives as imposed by institutions, funders, and their broader field. To the extent that these incentives reward team science, researchers will feel empowered to participate in team science; in cases where incentives are unfavorable, they may not be able to participate. Read the entire page →
From page 141... ... Notions of authorship are even more challenging in team science (Coles et al., 2023) Read the entire page →
From page 142... ... Scholarly societies provide another venue for recognition of scientific contributions, which can potentially facilitate team science. Many societies control important journals in their field and set their authorship policies. Read the entire page →
From page 143... ... . As this case study shows, open-science practices require support for science teams -- through education and compliance tracking -- but they can help to alleviate some of the disincentives for team science. Read the entire page →
From page 144... ... Recommendation 4-2: Science journal editors should establish compre hensive systems and policies to build team science into the publishing mainstream, including: a. conducting a systematic assessment to identify barriers that may limit the incorporation of team science literature in their journal. Read the entire page →
From page 145... ... Recommendation 4-4: Institutions seeking to advance team science effective ness should allocate resources to support science teams. Resource allocation may cover, but is not limited to the following: a. Read the entire page →
From page 146... ... . How to build up big team science: A practical guide for large-scale collaborations. Read the entire page →
From page 147... ... . The role of research development professionals in supporting team science. Read the entire page →
From page 148... ... . The critical role of grants facilitation for supporting individual and team science. Read the entire page →
From page 149... ... . The benefits, barriers, and risks of big-team science. Read the entire page →
From page 150... ... . The role of a research development professional in team science. Read the entire page →
From page 151... ... . Team science approaches to unravel monogenic Parkinson's disease on a global scale. Read the entire page →
From page 152... ... . Team science criteria and processes for promotion and tenure of health science university faculty. Read the entire page →
From page 153... ... . Research infrastructure for collaborative team science: Challenges in technology-supported workflows in and across laboratories, institutions, and geographies. Read the entire page →
From page 154... ... . A guide to successful management of collaborative partnerships in quantitative research: An illustration of the science of team science. Read the entire page →
From page 155... ... , Broadly engaged team science in clinical and translational research (pp. Read the entire page →
From page 156... ... . A systems approach to enable effective team science from the internal research program of the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. Read the entire page →
From page 157... ... . Bridging the team coaching competency gap: A review of the literature. Read the entire page →
From page 159... ... Team science evaluation can help reveal the dynamics within a science team; assess the effectiveness of the team's collaboration processes; and determine how the team's work contributes to advancing scientific knowledge, achieving institutional objectives, and generating societal benefits. Team science evaluation can refer to both traditional evaluation efforts, dictated by funders, and the measurement of team processes and outcomes as part of research investigating scientific collaboration. Read the entire page →
From page 160... ... This, in turn, can inform future resource allocation and funding decisions, ensuring the effective use of resources and justifying future investments. Moreover, evaluating teamwork processes, psychological states, and practices can help identify and refine best practices and successful strategies that could be shared and replicated across other team science initiatives (Klein, 2008; Stokols et al., 2008) Read the entire page →
From page 161... ... CHALLENGES OF TEAM SCIENCE EVALUATION Evaluating team science effectively is complex because of the need to address impacts on many types of groups, team dynamics, research types, research and organizational contexts, project time frames, and more. The effectiveness of team science can impact different groups at multiple levels (e.g., individual, team, institutional, scientific, societal) Read the entire page →
From page 162... ... Consequently, many industry organizations invest heavily in training employees in nontechnical areas, such as project management, conflict resolution, positive leadership, and effective communication (Carucci, 2018; Day et al., 2021) , all of which enhance collaboration and team science effectiveness (Delise et al., 2010) Read the entire page →
From page 163... ... . In summary, the multifaceted nature of scientific ecosystems, the varied goals and strategies pursued by different science teams, the complexities of team dynamics over time, and the need to account for organizational practices and industry norms make it challenging to establish universal metrics or approaches for team science evaluation. Read the entire page →
From page 164... ... Traditionally, teams in national labs have been assessed based on project outcomes, not on the quality of their collaboration. Adopting a more rigorous approach to evaluating teamwork from a team science perspective would be valuable. Read the entire page →
From page 165... ... But research on teamwork specific to the science team context rarely assesses team emergent states and processes, focusing instead on performance outcomes captured via archival measures such as publications, patents, or grants. However, teams that excel do not focus on task completion alone -- they also invest in sustaining these critical processes and psychological states over time (Salas et al., 2008) Read the entire page →
From page 166... ... Because most of the scales in Appendix D were developed in the broader team literature, adaptations in wording may be needed to fit science teams.1 Although scale adaptations (e.g., changing the item context or referent, shortening scales, adding new items) are widespread in the team literature because of varying types of teams and tasks, adaptations may introduce threats to validity and psychometric properties (e.g., Heggestad et al., 2019) Read the entire page →
From page 167... ... There are different approaches to using publication output as a performance metric for science teams. Beyond simply counting the number of publications produced by a science team, researchers studying scientific collaboration have also assessed the quality of publications by considering their citation counts (Uzzi et al., 2013) Read the entire page →
From page 168... ... . However, there are also multiple drawbacks to relying solely on citation counts and impact factors to evaluate science team performance. Read the entire page →

From page 123...

... . Research development grew out of research administration, coinciding with more competitive funding environments and additionally the rise of higher-dollar, longer-term team science opportunities from major funders that placed new demands on research ecosystem personnel to actively and intentionally support budding science teams (Levin, 2011; Mason & Learned, 2006; Mulfinger et al., 2016)