Team Science: Building Solid Collaborations That Produce Results
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Team Science: Building Solid Collaborations that Produce Results Kara L. Hall, PhD D i r e c t o r , Science of Team Science (SciTS) D i r e c t o r , Theories Initiative Health Scientist Program Director Behavioral Research Program Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences National Cancer Institute Wash U July 25, 2018 Overview The role of Science of Team Science (SciTS) to help inform the development of effective collaboration practices and policies. Key findings from SciTS to highlight how collaborating across boundaries can result in positive outcomes while also introducing significant challenges, which can be mitigated by TS strategies. Characterize teams in science to illuminate how teams vary across a range of dimensions, which create unique profiles and highlight how one-size fits all solutions not work Core principles and key strategies can be used to guide collaborative success Variations in Team Science Dimensions of Team Science That Create Unique Profiles & Challenges DIMENSION RANGE Diversity Integration Size Proximity Goal alignment Boundaries Task interdependence National Research Council (2015). Enhancing the effectiveness of team science. Collaboration Is Complex Multi-level Contextual Factors Interpersonal Members' familiarity, informality, and social cohesiveness Diversity of members' perspectives and abilities Organizational Intrapersonal Ability of members to adapt flexibly to Presence of strong organizational incentives Members' attitudes toward collaboration changing task requirements and to support collaborative teamwork and their willingness to devote substantial environmental demands Non-hierarchical organizational structures to time and effort to TD activities Regular and effective communication among facilitate team autonomy and participatory goal Members' preparation for the members to develop common ground and setting complexities and tensions inherent in TD consensus about shared goals Breadth of disciplinary perspectives collaboration Establishment of an hospitable represented within the collaborative team or Participatory, inclusive, and empowering conversational space through mutual respect organization leadership styles among team members Organizational climate of sharing Frequent opportunities for face-to-face communication and informal information Collaborative Effectiveness of TD exchange Science Initiatives Physical Environmental Spatial proximity of team members' workspaces to encourage frequent contact Societal/Political and informal communication Cooperative international policies that Access to comfortable meeting areas for facilitate exchanges of scientific information group discussion and brainstorming and TD collaboration Availability of distraction-free work spaces Technological Environmental and public health crises that for individualized tasks requiring Technological infrastructure readiness prompt inter-sectoral and international TD concentration or confidentiality Members' technological readiness collaboration in scientific research and training Environmental resources to facilitate Provisions for high level data security, Enactment of policies and protocols to members' regulation of visual and auditory privacy, rapid access and retrieval support successful TD collaborations (e.g., privacy those ensuring ethical scientific conduct, management of intellectual property ownership and licensing) Stokols, D., Misra, S. Moser, R., Hall, K. L., & Taylor, B. (2008). The ecology of team science: Understanding contextual influences on transdisciplinary collaboration. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35, 2, S96-S115. The Science of Team Science is a cross-disciplinary field of study that aims to: (1) generate an evidence-base and (2) develop translational applications to help maximize the efficiency, effectiveness of team science. What is the added value of team science? Can it ask and answer new questions, produce more comprehensive knowledge, generate more effective applied solutions? What team processes (e.g., communication, coordination approaches) help maximize scientific innovation and productivity? What characteristics and skills of team leaders and team members facilitate successful team functioning? How can funding agencies and universities most effectively facilitate and support team science, in order to advance discovery? What policies are needed? NCI Conference Applying the Science of The Science of Team Science Teams to inform Policy & Building the SciTS Field Assessing the Value of Research on Team Mapping a Research Transdisciplinary Research Science Agenda for SciTS Annual SciTS Conference Forthcoming! Handbook: Strategies for Team 2006 2008 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Science Success: The Science of Team SciTS Journal Science: A Review of the Hall et al Supplement Team Approaches to Science, Collaboration Science & National Academies Empirical Evidence and Practice, & Policy in Health Translational Medicine Consensus Study Research Gaps on Collaboration in Science Developing Translational Applications A Few SciTS Highlights 2011 19 20 10 24 4 7 5 Teams produce more highly cited research & patents than individuals 11 16 1 6 14 21 Publications by teams of collaborators from different universities 17 3 12 13 8 9 23 produced higher impact work than comparable co-located teams or solo 18 22 2 ● Statistics & System scientists 15 ● Social/Behavioral Science ● Epidemiology 17: PI ● Medicine 21: Co−PI ● Nutrition/Metabolism With Multidisciplinary projects superior to unidiscplinary projects in ● Public Health Practice producing innovative new ideas and tools Gender diversity is associated with better outcomes. Team size, characteristics, and composition can influence team performance. The inclusion of different types of roles on team can impact team effectiveness and influence the kinds of outcomes produced (e.g., larger numbers of publications vs breakthrough publications). Hall, K. L., Vogel, A. L., Huang, G. C., Serrano, K. J., Rice, E. L., Tsakraklides, S. P., & Fiore, S. M. (2018). The science of team science: A review of the empirical evidence and research gaps on collaboration in science. American Psychologist, 73(4), 532-548. Disciplinary Diversity 500 Cross-disciplinary teams: 450 All - 400 Found to be more productive than 350 300 comparison teams, as indicated by publications 250 200 TTURC 150 Produce more innovative products than 100 R01_stacked unidisciplinary teams CumulativePublications 50 R01_long 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Tend to generate publications with greater Project Year scientific impact Greater cross-fertilization via publications with broader reach and decreased specialization Identify new previously unexplored areas at the intersection of fields/domains Hall, K. L., Vogel, A. L., Huang, G. C., Serrano, K. J., Rice, E. L., Tsakraklides, S. P., & Fiore, S. M. (2018). The science of team science: A review of the empirical evidence and research gaps on collaboration in science. American Psychologist, 73(4), 532-548. A Continuum of Disciplinary Integration Transdisciplinary Across Researchers from different Interdisciplinary disciplines work jointly to develop & use a shared conceptual framework Researchers from that synthesizes & extends different disciplines work discipline-specific theories, jointly to address a concepts, & methods to create new common problem. Some approaches to address a common integration of perspectives problem occurs, but contributions remain anchored in their own disciplines Multidisciplinary Researchers from different Disciplines Unidisciplinary disciplines work sequentially, each from their own discipline- Researchers from a specific perspective, with a goal single discipline work of eventually combining results together to address a to address a common problem common problem Within Adapted from: Rosenfeld, 1992; Hall et al., 2008; Falk-Krezsinski, 2012; Austin et al., 2008; Nissani, 1995 Productivity of TD Center Grants and R01 Investigator-Initiated Grants Annual Publications Cumulative Publications 500 90 450 80 All - 400 70 350 All - 60 300 50 250 40 200 TTURC Publications 30 150 R01_stacked 20 100 CumulativePublications R01_long 10 50 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Project Year Project Year TD center publications have longer Centers initial lag in number of start up period compared to R01s but publications is eliminated around become more productive over time Project Year 4. Method: Quasi-experimental design comparing number of publications of TTURC initiative with matched R01 projects from the tobacco field over 10-year period Hall, K.L., Stokols, D., Stipelman, B.A., Vogel, A.L., Feng, A., et al (2012). Assessing the Value of Team Science: A Study Comparing Center- and Investigator-Initiated Grants. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 42, 157-163. Multi-disciplinary & Multi-Institutional Predicted number of publications as a function Predicted number of publications as a function of research group size and heterogeneity as of research group size and group heterogeneity measured by number of disciplines of the as measured by number of institutions involved investigators in the research Key Findings: On average, as the number of investigators increase, greater numbers of disciplines and institutions, results in less productivity (important caveat!) Cummings, J. N., Kiesler, S., Zadeh, R., & Balakrishnan, A. (2013). Group heterogeneity increases the risks of large group size: A longitudinal study of productivity in research groups. Psychological Science,