Summary

Modern scientific research frequently involves collaborative efforts, with teams tackling intricate problems that require integrating theories and methodologies from multiple scientific perspectives. Often, these science teams also reflect a wide range of demographic and geographic perspectives. 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.

A decade ago, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (National Academies) published Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science. That report substantially increased understanding of the importance of team science and highlighted the value of research on how team science is conducted and supported. However, shifts in the scientific and social landscape over the last decade—including technological developments, geopolitical tensions, and a global pandemic—have introduced new challenges for conducting team science.

Given those shifts and the growing importance of collaboration in modern scientific research, the National Academies Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences and the Board on Human-Systems Integration, with support from the Keck Foundation and the National Institutes of Health, convened an expert committee to review and synthesize topics

related to team science. The committee’s statement of task covered five major topics:

1. Current team science practices, including in-person, virtual, and hybrid environments.
2. Evidence of best practices in team science and how to enhance those efforts.
3. What is known about the best practices, effectiveness, benefits, and potential pitfalls of virtual and hybrid approaches for team science.
4. What evidence-based approaches and training have been designed to enhance the effectiveness of team science.
5. What types of outcomes, methods, and measures would be appropriate for evaluating team science training and performance.

It is important to note the term “team science” is often applied ambiguously. It sometimes refers to the narrow study of science teams, at other times refers to the broader study of teams across disciplines and contexts, and can also refer to the conduct of science by teams. While the committee drew on findings from the general study of teams, this report focuses on science team practices and the study of those practices, using the terms team science and the science of team science to refer to those.

To address its statement of task, the committee sought to understand developments in the practice and study of team science in the decade since the 2015 National Academies report. It also aimed to identify evidence-based best practices for assembling and managing science teams. The committee reviewed the scholarly literature on teams generally and research on teams in the context of science. The committee members gathered expert insight through public forums and drew on their own expertise and experiences in analyzing what they learned from these sources. The committee found empirical investigations of a range of teams; however, the body of literature focused specifically on science teams is limited. 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.

CURRENT STATE OF RESEARCH ON TEAM SCIENCE

The committee found that though recognition of its importance has increased over the last decade, the science of team science is not yet well developed. Moreover, while some institutions and funding agencies have increased their investment in research and initiatives on team science, the field remains underfunded. As a result, there is a disconnect between theory, empirical evidence, and accepted best practices for implementing team science initiatives and in the training programs that prepare team members. In addition, new technologies, including virtual and hybrid collaboration technologies and artificial intelligence tools, have emerged over the last decade and enable new forms of collaboration. Further investigation is required to understand how these technologies can affect team science dynamics, performance, and individuals, as well as best practices for how to effectively integrate new technologies into team science.

Research in the field is also hampered by differences in the use of terms when discussing team science. This includes terms such as cross-disciplinary, interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, and transdisciplinary, which have unique meanings in relation to the study of team science but may be used interchangeably in other disciplines. With the broad array of parties involved in team science, including scholars of team science, researchers, and funders, this inconsistency can interfere with understanding key concepts in the field, confuse communication, and potentially reduce the effectiveness of team science initiatives.

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. Research is needed to better understand these potential differences.

BEST PRACTICES FOR CONDUCTING TEAM SCIENCE

Research on teams in general and on science teams specifically makes it clear that effective teams do not emerge naturally. Instead, the research points to several best practices or strategies that help science teams collaborate effectively to achieve their goals. These include practices that teams and their leaders can adopt, as well as strategies their supporting institutions can use to support strong science teams.

The committee identified best practices for science teams with two caveats. First, not all recommended practices will be suitable for every team. Science teams range from small groups that include members from

one or two disciplines studying a relatively narrow question to large, cross-disciplinary teams tackling broad, complex issues. Teams differ in their goals and the complexity of the tools and methods they share. Thus, deciding on which practices will be appropriate will require careful analysis of the team’s characteristics and objectives. Second, research on best practices for team science is in an early stage. 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. Research has demonstrated that coordination, information-sharing, and conflict management are key processes for effective teams. In addition, three psychological states—cohesion, shared mental models, and transactive memory systems—are linked closely to achieving team objectives.

Education, training, and professional development—through workshops, formal and informal courses, and mentoring—are necessary to build these competencies. The committee relied on an existing framework to temporally organize its thinking about the practices for which there is reasonable evidence of effectiveness (from the general literature on teams as well as case studies) that will likely translate to the science team context. This four-part framework includes development, conceptualization, implementation, and translation. The following conclusion highlights some best practices the committee identified, but it is not exhaustive.

Conclusion 3-1: The following strategies offer the potential to improve science team performance and outcomes, if adapted to specific contexts and circumstances.

• Development stage: careful team assembly that reflects a task analysis, consideration of the team composition, attention to the orientation of new members, and development of a shared language.
• Conceptualization stage: development of a team charter, deliberative team planning and project design, and attention to a shared mental model of the team’s work.
• Implementation stage: systematic project management, regular team debriefs to identify what went well and what went poorly at each stage and to determine the best ways for the next project stage.
• Translation stage: working with community members and attention to external as well as internal validity, that is, understanding of the generalizability of the research findings.

Recommendation 3-1: Research funders, including the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the many other agencies and foundations that support research, should provide resources enabling the study of team development, conceptualization, implementation, and translation.

BEST PRACTICES FOR EXTERNAL SUPPORT OF TEAM SCIENCE

Effective science teams require supports of many kinds. In addition to those the teams can adopt, there are many best practices that parties external to the team, including universities and other research institutions and funders, can implement to help facilitate both the study and practice of team science.

Published analyses and the views of the experts who presented to the committee suggest that current policies in most academic institutions, including those surrounding tenure and promotion, authorship, cost-sharing, allowable costs, and resource-sharing, do not incentivize participating in team science or research on team science. Similarly, many research funders do not support the activities or research needed for team science. Science journals, too, follow guidelines and practices that do not support team science or research on team science.

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. Institutional processes can also reinforce disparities in team science by failing to properly recognize work in team science, including community-engaged research and mentorship.

Recommendation 4-1: Academic departments should adapt their promotion and tenure processes to acknowledge and reward the contributions of researchers who take on the additional professional responsibilities associated with participating in and studying team science by:

1. recognizing and incorporating in tenure evaluations the valuable contributions made through different authorship roles, publications in interdisciplinary or nontraditional journals, and process-oriented outcomes.
2. ensuring that the demographic and disciplinary composition of promotion and tenure committees is both reflective and independent of

2. the candidates they are reviewing to the extent possible to facilitate increased representation in science team leadership.
3. revising criteria for selection to ensure fair consideration of candidates who research and team with underrepresented communities and/or do community-engaged research.
4. considering candidates’ involvement in committees, initiatives, and other activities, including engagement outside the scientific community, that offer value to science teams and encourage participation.
5. reviewing the promotion and tenure process periodically, for instance every several years, to ensure continuous improvement and minimize inefficiencies.

Recommendation 4-2: Science journal editors should establish comprehensive systems and policies to build team science into the publishing mainstream, including:

1. conducting a systematic assessment to identify barriers that may limit the incorporation of team science literature in their journal. These findings should be used to develop actionable strategies to address identified barriers.
2. adopting clear policies and guidelines for authorship, allocation of credit, and contribution level, particularly when there are many contributing authors and when authors are contributing from different disciplines with different authorship practices. Policies can include strategies for addressing authorship disputes.
3. allocating appropriate space to publish research on the science of team science.

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:

1. including team science needs, such as team-building, travel and meetings, professional development and training, and resource-sharing in allowable costs.
2. allowing for the inclusion of nonscientist team members and leaders in the project budget to allow for the compensation of their time.

Institutions that host team science initiatives can implement many measures to support their scientific collaborators directly.

Recommendation 4-4: Institutions seeking to advance team science effectiveness should allocate resources to support science teams. Resource allocation may cover, but is not limited to the following:

1. resources that mitigate the operational burden on science teams by investing in the support of administrative staff.
2. training and mentorship for research administrative staff working on team science projects.
3. resources to expand access to and the use of technologies that optimize team participation for geographically dispersed members.
4. funding to address gaps in the physical, digital, and procedural environment. This could include applying universal design principles that accommodate the needs of all individuals.

RESEARCH AND EVALUATION NEEDS

Despite the importance of team science, many questions about how it is best done and supported cannot yet be answered with full confidence. 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 existing 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.

Systematic evaluation of science teams can foster improvements in team science initiatives and best practices for science teams, although the evolving nature of science teams makes a one-size-fits-all approach to evaluation inadequate. However, data collection and evaluation of key elements will be important both for strengthening individual teams and for strengthening research on science team functioning.

Conclusion 5-1: Data collection and evaluation, supported by both institutions and science team leaders, are critical for answering questions about key features of science teams:

• How social processes on the team are unfolding (e.g., team members’ perception of experiences of participation on the team, team member satisfaction, psychological safety, trust).
• What the team is producing (e.g., successfully completed team objectives, publications, patents and invention reports, research grant applications and awards, educational outcomes).
• What impact the team is having on individual members (e.g., well-being, skill and knowledge advancement, growth of professional networks, career success).

Recommendation 5-1: Funding agencies, including the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the many other agencies and foundations that support research, should require that the science teams they support develop an evaluation plan to assess their effectiveness and impact. The plans should incorporate team dynamics (e.g., social processes), team performance (e.g., bibliometric metrics), and impact on members (e.g., learning and development outcomes). Regular review periods should be established with the team to monitor and track progress and team effectiveness.

Researchers studying the science of team science continue to make progress in theoretical developments and are applying those theories to specific case studies. For the field to move forward, additional work is needed to develop a robust, empirical evidence base for identifying best practices and institutional supports. Many principles and concepts from the study of teams in general (e.g., from researchers in social and organizational psychology, organizational behavior, cognitive science) are likely to be useful in the context of team science, but the empirical basis for applying these insights to science teams is still limited. Addressing this gap is crucial, as science teams have unique features, raising concerns about the generalizability of these findings.

Conclusion 6-1: The research translating findings on the functioning of teams general to the functioning of science teams is incomplete for reasons that include insufficient funding and a lack of professional recognition and reward for the study of science teams. Specifically needed are:

• Studies focused on the science team context that explore the application of existing theories to the unique processes and dynamics that distinguish science teams from traditional organizational 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.
• Data-driven research, including longitudinal studies, to better understand team science outcomes.
• Research to identify and investigate institutional policies and practices that reinforce or serve as barriers to team science, such as the support structures universities can provide (e.g., research development professionals, team facilitators), how these affect team science processes and outcomes, and other incentives that influence the conduct of team science.

• Research into the effectiveness of virtual collaboration tools and how these relate to the specific configuration of hybrid and virtual teams, including factors such as geographic distribution, temporal dynamics, and communication needs.

Recommendation 6-1: Funders interested in supporting the conduct of science should prioritize research on, and provide sufficient funding for, the application of findings from the broader study of teams to the science context. 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.

This page intentionally left blank.