Appendix B

Team Science Background

TEAM SCIENCE AND CROSS-DISCIPLINARY COLLABORATIONS: DEFINITION AND EVOLUTION

The scholarly study of science has a long tradition with a set of foundational fields going back decades. In this section, the committee briefly describes how science has been studied as a scholarly area of inquiry. The committee then transitions to one of the newer fields of study science, the science of team science. In this context, the committee provides important definitions to help scaffold our discussion and briefly describe the differing forms of cross-disciplinary collaborations that can occur in team science.

Studying Science and Scientists

One of the earliest fields to study science is “the history and philosophy of science” (Pinnick & Gale, 2000). This field has a long tradition of scholarly work examining science and medicine through a historical lens. Taking a broad perspective, it examines how the understanding of the natural world has changed over the centuries and how scientific innovation affects society culturally, economically, and politically. Similar, but more narrowly focused, is the field of “social studies of science” (e.g., Nola, 2013; Woolgar, 1991) and the closely aligned field, “science and technology studies” (Hackett et al., 2008). Both examine how science affects society with an emphasis on the social dimensions of science and the role and ethical implications of science and technology.

Taking a more quantitative approach, the field of “scientometrics” was born out of a need to better measure and analyze science, technology, and innovation. From its origins, it relied heavily on bibliometrics and citation analyses to understand scientific impact and map scientific fields (de Solla Price, 1981; Garfield, 2009; Lane, 2009; Leydesdorff et al., 2018). Out of this came a more practice-oriented study of science, called “science of science policy” (Fealing, 2011). Through a blend of quantitative data and qualitative information, the science of science policy seeks to develop a more quantitatively informed basis for science policy and works to develop models that can help guide investments in science. These have evolved into a related area of study known as the “science of science.” This field is a blend of scientometrics, network science, and big data analytics. The goal is both to improve the understanding of how knowledge is produced and disseminated and to make recommendations for improving the scientific ecosystem (Fortunato et al., 2018).

The aforementioned areas of study all examine different concepts, processes, and outcomes associated with science. Some fields study science to add to our understanding while others also seek out ways to improve the scientific ecosystem. To varying degrees, each field has also sometimes studied collaboration in science but rarely make it a focal issue of inquiry. Because of this, the science of team science (Hall et al., 2008) was specifically developed as a scholarly examination of teamwork in science. The goal of the science of team science is to improve the understanding of how scientists interact as members of a team, and how their collaboration helps build and integrate knowledge across disciplinary, professional, and institutional boundaries (Stokols et al., 2008). From this improved understanding, the science of team science aims to help science teams make full use of their intellectual capacity (Salazar et al., 2012). The science of team science fundamentally reframes science collaboration as a process of teamwork to be mastered (Fiore, 2008). In contrast to the other studies of science, teams are the focal area of study in the science of team science to improve our fundamental understanding of the collaborative production of knowledge and to develop new methods and models to improve science teamwork (National Academy of Sciences, 2005).

Some recent studies of collaboration in team science focus on large-scale projects across multiple teams and multiple universities and countries. One of these is “big team science” (Baumgartner et al., 2023; Coles et al., 2023), which is a recent community of researchers conducting complex collaborations where teams of scientists representing dozens of labs around the world are collaborating on related projects. These initiatives were undertaken to increase the robustness of research in what has traditionally been small sample studies, and big team science has made important progress in bringing teams together to study a variety of scientific issues. To accomplish

this, big team science recruits dozens of laboratories from around the world, asking each to run identical studies to increase samples to an order of magnitude larger than is typically found (e.g., social science experiments might have several dozen participants, but big team science studies can have several thousand; Coles et al., 2022). However, in doing so, they face both longstanding and novel challenges when it comes to coordinating collaboration (see Coles et al., 2023). Primarily out of Australia, the scholarly study of a particular form of translational science has emerged, referred to as integration and implementation sciences at Integration and Implementation Insights (i2Insights).¹ i2Insights, or I2S, is both a community of practice as well as a clearinghouse for material developed to improve collaboration in complex scientific areas. Focusing on methods, frameworks, and concepts for addressing complex societal and environmental issues, i2Insights seeks to publish and share a variety of research developments in areas such as climate change while attending to varied interdisciplinary approaches (e.g., systems thinking, action research, sustainability science). i2S is a form of convergence research that brings together differing approaches for studying and improving significant societal and environmental problems (NRC, 2014).

Developed primarily by the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences, the Network for Transdisciplinary Research (td-net^2,3) is a repository of resources that are designed to support collaborative problem solving when team members come from different fields.

Definitional Distinctions in Team Science

To discuss these complex forms of collaboration, the committee finds it necessary to define several key terms regarding teamwork in science. First, the committee defines team science as collaborative, interdependent research conducted by more than one individual. Most shared publications were published by science teams of approximately two to ten members (Wuchty et al., 2007). Second, the committee also recognizes that there are often larger groups of more than ten scientists collaborating on complex problems (e.g., astrophysics), and publications produced by hundreds to even thousands of co-authors are becoming more prevalent (Nogrady, 2023). Nonetheless, these larger groups often experience the same challenges when interacting. Last, when trying to address what counts as

___________________

¹ More information about Integration and Implementation Insights can be found at https://i2insights.org/about

² More information about the Network for Transdisciplinary Research is available at https://transdisciplinarity.ch/

³ The td-net toolbox is available at https://naturalsciences.ch/co-producing-knowledge-explained/methods/td-net_toolbox

success for these teams, the 2015 National Academies committee simply considered effectiveness to mean achieving team goals and objectives (National Research Council, 2015). However, the 2015 committee also acknowledged that there are multiple collaborative processes that can be assessed to understand what leads to effectiveness (National Research Council, 2015).

Team science is an increasingly critical area of inquiry given that modern science, more and more, embraces research ideas that cross disciplines. Therefore, team science varies in form, since disciplinary differences and integration can vary. Specifically, team science can vary in the degree in which members are integrating concepts, techniques, and theories from different fields. To provide additional definitional grounding, the committee chose to briefly describe how these collaborations can vary. While there are differing views in the literature and varying approaches internationally, our aim was to offer definitions that encompass the key elements found in the approaches that cross disciplines. For further exploration, refer to the works of Klein (2010), Wagner et al. (2011), Hall et al. (2012), National Academies (National Academy of Sciences et al., 2005), National Research Council (NRC; 2014, 2015), and Stokols et al. (2008).

The first type of cross-disciplinary research is multidisciplinarity. Multidisciplinarity involves collaboration among multiple disciplines toward a shared objective. These types of studies aim to facilitate a comprehensive analysis of the research issue. In multidisciplinary research, scientists may work on their own, in parallel, or sequentially. In doing so, they may convene periodically to exchange what they have accomplished and discovered. While each discipline’s contributions complement each other, their methods, concepts, and theories are typically not integrated. Additionally, individual scientists remain ensconced in their own forms of disciplinary perspectives.

The next form of cross-disciplinary research is interdisciplinarity. Unlike the mere complementarity found in multidisciplinary research, this approach requires scientists to blend or juxtapose concepts and methods from various disciplines. The main goal is the systematic integration of information, data, techniques, tools, perspectives, concepts, and/or theories from multiple disciplines or bodies of specialized knowledge (National Academy of Sciences et al., 2005). The objective of interdisciplinarity is to provide a more integrated and fundamental understanding of the subject matter by addressing problems that exceed the boundaries of any one discipline.

A more deeply integrated research approach is transdisciplinarity. What distinguishes this approach is its advancement of discipline-specific theories, concepts, and methods (Hall et al., 2008). Moreover, it often requires considering problems across various levels of analysis (e.g., individual, group, community). In doing so, transdisciplinarity often involves “translational” partners from diverse sectors of society (e.g., nongovernmental

organizations, community, industry) in the research process. These translational partners typically include individuals outside science, such as community members, to provide real-world insights while also improving the likelihood of translation. Overall, transdisciplinary research aims to cultivate a holistic understanding of the examined problem (Hadorn et al., 2010). Because of its deeply integrated nature, transdisciplinary research primarily concentrates on societal issues and the generation of actionable knowledge (Brandt et al., 2013). When defining their research process, transdisciplinary teams focus on problem identification, structuring, and analysis (Pohl & Hadorn, 2008). More specifically, transdisciplinary research becomes essential when there is uncertainty surrounding scientific knowledge about a significant problem domain, when the specific characteristics of problems are unclear or open to interpretation, and when there are significant stakes for those affected by these problems. In these types of situations, transdisciplinary research is able to address problem domains in a manner that enables better comprehension of the intricacies of the problem and deeper consideration of different perspectives on problems. Transdisciplinary teams are able to consider social and scientific perspectives while working to establish connections between theoretical and context-specific knowledge to build new knowledge and practices.

KEY TAKEAWAYS FROM THE REPORT:
ENHANCING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF TEAM SCIENCE

From 2013 to 2015, the National Academies’ Committee on the Science of Team Science worked on a report to offer research-based guidance aimed at enhancing the processes and outcomes of collaboration in science (NRC, 2015). This project was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and by Elsevier. The overarching objective was to improve the effectiveness of collaboration within science teams, research centers, and institutes. The audience for the report ranged from the NSF and other public and private sources of research funding to the broader scientific community, research centers, institutes, and universities.

This committee’s charge was to conduct a consensus study to recommend opportunities for enhancing the effectiveness of collaborative research and explore what factors impact team dynamics, effectiveness, and productivity. They were to investigate these factors at the team, center, or institute level to understand how they influence science team effectiveness. The committee was tasked with exploring different management approaches and leadership styles that influence effectiveness. They were also tasked to examine how tenure and promotion policies help or hinder academic researchers who participate in research teams. Finally, the committee was charged with considering the organizational factors (e.g., human resource

policies, cyberinfrastructure) that might influence the effectiveness of science teams along with organizational structures, policies, and practices aimed at promoting effective teams.

At the outset, the 2015 National Academies committee identified a set of key features that pose challenges for science teams (NRC, 2015). The committee found that a high variety of membership within a team occasionally led to varying perspectives and approaches that could complicate collaboration. Relatedly, the committee discovered that there was a need for deep knowledge integration arising from the goal of merging disparate expertise and disciplinary backgrounds. Large science teams often face difficulties due to their size, making coordination and communication more complex. Misalignment of goals within and across science teams can hinder collaboration and cohesion within the broader research environment. Some science teams experience permeable boundaries that can result in ambiguity regarding roles and responsibilities or obscure the extent to which individuals should be contributing to the differing projects. Geographic dispersion was found to add another layer of complexity, requiring effective virtual communication and coordination mechanisms. Furthermore, high task interdependence necessitates close coordination and cooperation among team members to achieve shared objectives.

To address these challenges, the 2015 National Academies committee considered the broad body of literature and consulted experts from the social sciences to understand findings on teams and organizations. They concluded that there was a robust body of research going back decades showing how team processes related to team effectiveness. Furthermore, the committee identified a set of interventions that support teamwork and offer the most promising route to enhance team effectiveness. These included team composition, development, and leadership.

Regarding team composition, the committee found that research conducted in nonscience contexts indicated that the makeup of a team significantly impacts its effectiveness (NRC, 2015). This relationship depended on several factors, including task complexity, level of interdependence among team members, and duration the team was together. Task-relevant variety was an important factor affecting team effectiveness as it influenced membership. The committee noted that leveraging analytic methods developed in nonscience contexts, along with researcher networking tools established within scientific domains, could enable practitioners to more systematically attend to team composition. The committee suggested that scientists could use these tools to optimize team compositions to enhance overall effectiveness, while also considering task complexities, interdependencies, and the value of diversity (NRC, 2015).

Out of the above conclusions, the report recommended the use of task analytic methods and tools. These methods and tools assist in identifying

requisite knowledge, skills, and attitudes, and they can help ensure that task-related differences align with team member experience and project requirements (NRC, 2015). Additionally, the committee suggested considering the application of tools like research networking systems, which were specifically designed to help with the assembly of science teams. Finally, they suggested future collaborations to help assess these methods to ensure their effectiveness and relevance in team science as well as provided guidance on how to improve them (NRC, 2015).

In the context of professional development for science teams, the committee noted that research outside of science has demonstrated that several types of interventions can improve team processes and outcomes. Recognizing this, the committee recommended that “team-training researchers, universities, and science team leaders should partner to translate, extend, and evaluate the promising training strategies shown to improve the effectiveness of teams in other contexts” (NRC, 2015, p. 8). Related, when considering educating scientists to work on teams, the committee found that “colleges and universities are developing cross-disciplinary programs designed to prepare students for team science” (NRC, 2015, p. 9). However, at that time, there had been scant empirical research on the extent to which students learn the targeted competencies and on whether their acquisition contributes to team science effectiveness.

Similarly, when considering leadership and team science, the committee found that decades of “research on team and organizational leadership in contexts other than science provide a robust foundation of evidence to guide professional development for leaders of science teams” (NRC, 2015, p. 9). From this, the committee recommended that “researchers, universities, and leaders of team science projects should partner to translate and extend the leadership literature to create and evaluate science leadership development opportunities” (NRC, 2015, p. 9).

Regarding research universities, the 2015 committee noted efforts to initiate and foster interdisciplinary team science, as seen by the establishment of research centers and institutes. However, the impact of these endeavors on the quantity and quality of team science remains largely unassessed. Relatedly, when considering reward structures within research universities, the committee concluded that promotion and tenure review policies typically lack “comprehensive, clearly articulated criteria for evaluating individual contributions to team-based research” (NRC, 2015, p. 11). Additionally, if criteria do exist, the recognition and rewards for team-based research vary significantly both within and across universities, potentially leading to disparities in incentives for participation (NRC, 2015). These inconsistencies may deter young faculty from pursuing team science in environments where such collaborations are undervalued. To address these issues, the committee recommended that universities and scholarly associations work to “develop

and evaluate broad principles and more specific criteria for allocating credit to team-based work” (NRC, 2015, p. 11), so that promotion and tenure committees more accurately assess candidates and foster an environment conducive to team science.

The 2015 committee also noted that public and private funding agencies can play a pivotal role in cultivating a culture within the scientific community that promotes and facilitates team science. In addition to providing financial support, these agencies have the capacity to influence practices through the development of reports espousing the value and importance of team science, as well as providing training workshops. To further advance this culture of collaboration, the committee recommended that funders collaborate with the scientific community on several fronts (NRC, 2015). First, they “should encourage the development and implementation of new collaborative models, such as research networks and consortia” to facilitate interdisciplinary research efforts (NRC, 2015, p. 11). Second, funders can incentivize team science by helping to develop promotion and tenure policies that recognize and reward collaborative contributions. Third, they can allocate resources to support team science initiatives, such as establishing information repositories and offering training modules to enhance collaboration competencies. By actively engaging with the scientific community and implementing these recommendations, funding agencies can effectively promote and support the growth of team science.

The 2015 committee also considered additional ways funders can support the science of team science. They concluded that funding agencies generally lack consistency in how they evaluate scientific merit with collaborative merit, particularly concerning how teams execute the work. Often, agency announcements seeking team science proposals lack clarity regarding the expected level of collaboration and knowledge integration. To address these issues, the committee recommended funders mandate proposals for team-based research to include detailed collaboration plans (NRC, 2015). Additionally, funders can provide guidance to scientists on incorporating these plans into their proposals, along with criteria for reviewers to evaluate them effectively. Furthermore, authors of proposals for interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary research projects can be required to articulate how they will integrate differing disciplinary perspectives, concepts, theories, and methods. By implementing these approaches, the committee noted that funding agencies can help steward the development and evaluation of team science (NRC, 2015).

The 2015 committee concluded that for progress to be made in the science of team science, more efforts are necessary to assess and enhance the tools, interventions, and policies proposed in the report (NRC, 2015). However, there is a notable absence of funding programs dedicated to investigating the effectiveness of science teams. Considering this, the committee

concluded that there needs to be support for fundamental research on team science to inform continuous enhancements in its effectiveness (NRC, 2015). Furthermore, the committee pointed to a set of inter-related challenges that complicate research on science teams. These include the multifaceted and sometimes competing goals of team science projects and the multilevel perspective required to study science teams and processes at individual, team, and organizational levels. To address these challenges and promote advancements in team science, the committee recommended that public and private organizations allocate funding to support research on team science effectiveness. Additionally, the committee called for support for ongoing evaluation and refinement of their recommended interventions and policies. The committee recommended future research be conducted not just on science teams but also on the role of scientific organizations, such as research centers, networks, and consortia in bolstering science teams and larger groups (NRC, 2015). Finally, the committee noted that collaboration with universities and the scientific community is crucial to facilitate researchers’ access to team science personnel.

REFERENCES

This page intentionally left blank.