Mapping a Research Agenda for the Science of Team Science
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Research Evaluation, 20(2), June 2011, pages 145–158 DOI: 10.3152/095820211X12941371876580; http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/beech/rev Mapping a research agenda for the science of team science Holly J Falk-Krzesinski, Noshir Contractor, Stephen M Fiore, Kara L Hall, Cathleen Kane, Joann Keyton, Julie Thompson Klein, Bonnie Spring, Daniel Stokols and William Trochim An increase in cross-disciplinary, collaborative team science initiatives over the last few decades has spurred interest by multiple stakeholder groups in empirical research on scientific teams, giving rise to an emergent field referred to as the science of team science (SciTS). This study employed a collaborative team science concept-mapping evaluation methodology to develop a comprehensive research agenda for the SciTS field. Its integrative mixed-methods approach combined group process with statistical analysis to derive a conceptual framework that identifies research areas of team science and their relative importance to the emerging SciTS field. The findings from this concept-mapping project constitute a lever for moving SciTS forward at theoretical, empirical, and translational levels. URING THE PAST DECADES, expanding way that their efforts are coordinated and integrated investments in team science have resulted in (Fiore, 2008; NAS, 2004). Although it is possible for Dgreater interest in research across scientific team science to be unidisciplinary, team science disciplines and knowledge domains to address com- most often connotes cross-disciplinarity (multi-, plex environmental, social, and health problems. inter-, and trans-disciplinarity), a composite term for These developments have been propelled by re- team science programs and projects that differ in the searchers’ increasing commitment and scientific degree to which they interact and integrate across capacity to address complex societal problems (Disis disciplinary, professional, and institutional bounda- and Slattery, 2010; Wuchty et al, 2007). Science ries (Crowley et al, 2010; Fiore, 2008; Klein, 2010; teams are formed to address: Rosenfield, 1992; Stokols et al, 2008a; Wagner et al, 2011). the inherent complexity of contemporary public Despite this growth in collaborative research, the health, environmental, political, and policy scientific community continually struggles with challenges … and the realization that an overcoming the challenges arising from this com- integration of multiple disciplinary perspectives plex form of teamwork (Cummings and Kiesler, is required to better understand and ameliorate 2005, 2007, 2008; Olson and Olson, 2000). As such, these problems. (Stokols et al, 2008b). science policy must be developed to help address the theoretical and practical challenges emerging from Working in teams increases the likelihood that scien- this form of collaborative endeavor. Further, scien- tists can integrate multiple and divergent perspec- tific, social scientific, philosophical, and humanistic tives and, as a result, develop new insights and research is needed to help understand the team pro- solutions (Hackman, 1990, 2011). The problems they cesses that drive knowledge production in such address require not just a mingling of disciplines, but teams; that is, help examine how new knowledge is a cross-disciplinary team able to collaborate in such a generated in collaborating teams of scientists. This need has given rise to an empirical area of inquiry referred to as the science of team science — SciTS, For authors’ affiliations and acknowledgements see page 155. pronounced ‘sights’ (Annual International Science Research Evaluation June 2011 0958-2029/11/02145-14 US$12.00 © Beech Tree Publishing 2011 145 The science of team science of Team Science Conference Homepage, 2010; ideas on any topic of interest (Trochim, 1989) and Börner et al, 2010; Falk-Krzesinski et al, 2010a,b; represent those ideas visually in the form of a map. Stokols et al, 2008a). This field promotes under- For example, concept-mapping has been effectively standing of cross-disciplinary research conducted by applied in medicine and public health (Trochim et scientific teams by examining the processes through al, 2006a; Trochim and Kane, 2005) in order to which teams organize, communicate, and conduct develop logic models for the evaluation of large research. SciTS also helps to understand how teams research projects (Anderson et al, 2006). collaborate to achieve scientific breakthroughs that The process typically requires participants to would not be attainable through either individual brainstorm a large set of statements relevant to the efforts or a sequence of additive contributions. topic of interest. Individual participants then sort SciTS is a topic of growing interest, as evidenced these statements into groups of similar ones, rate by a tremendous increase in publications about the each statement on one or more scales and, subse- topic since 2001 (Börner et al, 2010; Falk- quently, interpret the maps that result from data Krzesinski, 2010). The growing SciTS literature analyses. The analyses typically include a two- provides numerous case studies of team science pro- dimensional multidimensional scaling (MDS) of the grams and projects (Adler and Stewart, 2010; unstructured sorted data, a hierarchical cluster analy- Department of Energy, 2009; Huerta et al, 2005; sis of the MDS coordinates, and computation of av- Kahn, 1992; Miller, 2008; NIH, 2010; NSF, 2008). erage importance ratings for each statement and This literature also includes lessons about social and cluster of statements. The resulting maps display the cognitive influences, as well as strategies and guide- individual statements in two-dimensional (x,y) space lines for achieving effective collaboration (Bennett with more similar statements located nearer each et al, 2010; Fuqua et al, 2004; Hall et al, 2008a,b; other. The visualizations also depict how the state- Keyton et al, 2008; Stipelman et al, 2010; Stokols, ments are grouped into clusters that partition the 2006; Stokols et al, 2008b). In addition, researchers space on the map. Finally, participants are led have begun to examine the dynamics of knowledge through a structured interpretation session designed integration in collaborative research and problem- to help them understand the maps and label them in solving by teams (Derry et al, 2005; Hirsch Hadorn, a substantively meaningful way. 2008; Jordan, 2006; Paletz and Schunn, 2010). However, despite forward momentum, definitions of core terminology and typologies of practice and Methods theory related to SciTS too often remain impression- istic or parochial; areas of inquiry remain somewhat Concept-mapping the science of team science disconnected; and methodological approaches have been limited. So that the scientific community can A critical feature of this project was that a diverse more strategically understand and improve collabo- group of stakeholders utilized a collaborative meth- rative science, more research is needed to validate odology — concept-mapping — to elicit and map a claims for team science; though a systematic under- research agenda for the SciTS, in effect using a team standing of what SciTS research entails is also cru- science approach to map research issues germane to cial at this early point in the emergence of the field team science. Concept-mapping has been used in a (Börner et al, 2010; Falk-Krzesinski et al, 2010a; variety of biomedical (Leischow et al, 2008; Fiore, 2008). Robinson and Trochim, 2007; Stillman et al, 2008; We describe here an effort that was initiated to Trochim and Kane, 2005; Trochim et al, 2006b) and address this need. The goal was to produce a com- science management contexts (Kagan et al, 2010; prehensive, discipline-neutral taxonomy of team sci- Quinlan et al, 2008; Trochim et al, 2008). It is espe- ence issues. In so doing, we aimed to develop a cially appropriate for involving multiple participants SciTS research agenda and encourage more system- in conceptualizing a complex topic in order to de- atic, rigorous investigation of team science. We velop a theoretical framework or as a basis for sub- achieved this taxonomy by applying concept- sequent planning and evaluation. Concept-mapping mapping methodology, which elicits diverse, open thus offered significant benefits for collaborative contributions from multiple stakeholders, followed knowledge elicitation about SciTS, and the method- by quantitative and qualitative categorization of re- ology was especially appropriate for the need to sults. Here we describe the methodology and results create a taxonomy of issues. of the mapping of the SciTS field, and discuss im- plications for advancing research and practice in Concept-mapping: team science. 1. Uses web technology that enables low-cost, con- Concept-mapping: the methodology venient, asynchronous input from multiple, dis- persed stakeholders; Concept-mapping has long been used as a method for 2. Allows for the input of multiple stakeholders from knowledge elicitation and evaluation. The concept- numerous domains so as to fully map a problem mapping process enables a group to describe its space; 146 Research Evaluation June 2011 The science of team science team science. The steering committee worked with the facilitator group to finalize the proposed plans for Creating a taxonomy of issues related the project, including defining the project focus, de- to the science of team science entailed termining participants and how they would be con- eliciting and integrating the tacted,