The Science and Practice of Team Science (2025)
Chapter: 1 Introduction
1
Introduction
Scientific research has gravitated increasingly toward collaborative research, as contemporary scientific problems often require solutions that draw from multiple areas of expertise. Team science, defined as collaborative, interdependent research conducted by more than one individual, is becoming the norm as it often involves integrating scientific approaches to solve problems that are multifaceted, multidimensional, interdependent, and do not have a single answer. Critically, team science includes project teams and more complicated collections of researchers, such as multiteam systems that operate within research centers, initiatives, and networks. Team science also considers the engagement of input beyond researchers, such as community members and leaders, policymakers and other decision-makers, caregivers, health care providers, and research administrative professionals. To prepare a workforce that can participate effectively in team science, it is critical to equip researchers and their administrative team members with training on evidence-based tools and strategies for engaging in team science. The nascent field of the science of team science aims to generate and build on the empirical evidence base (e.g., National Research Council, 2015) and translate that knowledge to enhance the effectiveness of team science in practice.
Evidence suggests that team science approaches often lead to results with greater impact and innovation relative to single-investigator approaches (Lee et al., 2015; Wuchty et al., 2007). Boundary-spanning teams that cross disciplines, organization structures, or geographic distances are particularly effective, often yielding better outcomes, increased productivity, and greater scientific impact (Hall et al., 2018). Although there are many
benefits of collaborative research efforts that leverage the strengths and varied perspectives of scientists, team science approaches can also lead to significant challenges as researchers try to integrate effectively across fields that may have different approaches, methodologies, and concerns. Moreover, science teams are frequently spread across different locations, and team members may have different disciplinary or demographic backgrounds. Consequently, the science of team science has emerged as a research area in which scholars from various disciplines, such as psychology, organizational sciences, sociology, communication, and philosophy, contribute conceptually and empirically to understanding how science teams are organized and work together, how to best measure their effectiveness, and the implications of individual differences in team science.
Understanding how to best develop and facilitate the work of science teams is part of a broader motivation to understand science, scientists, and the context in which scientists practice. Many areas of scholarship share this motivation, ranging from the history and philosophy of science; science and technology studies; and, more recently, the science of science. These areas all examine different science concepts, processes, and outcomes. Some study science to add to the understanding of science, while others also seek out ways to improve the science ecosystem. To varying degrees, each has also studied collaboration in science, but rarely as a focal issue of inquiry. Because of this, the science of team science was developed specifically to pursue a scholarly examination of teamwork in science (Hall et al., 2008).
The goal of the science of team science is to improve the understanding of how scientists interact as members of a science 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 integrative capacity—“the social and cognitive processes, along with emergent states, that shape a team’s ability to combine diverse knowledge” (Salazar et al., 2012, p. 527). Fundamental to this goal is reframing science collaboration as a process of teamwork to be mastered (Fiore, 2008). In contrast to related fields, science teams are the focal area of study in the science of team science to improve fundamental understanding of the collaborative production of knowledge and develop new methods and models to improve teamwork on science teams.
To better conceptualize the collaborative component of team science, it is useful to follow a distinction developed in the organizational sciences that distinguishes between team and task competencies (Fiore et al., 2019). Taskwork refers to the activities associated with achieving a team’s goals. Examples of taskwork in science include experimental design, data collection, and statistical analysis. Teamwork, on the other hand, involves the interactions among team members that are essential for effective
collaboration. In science, this includes communicating clearly about complex ideas, managing coordination needs, and understanding and using teammate expertise. For science teams to succeed, they need to develop competencies relevant to both taskwork and teamwork. As such, a wide range of competencies encompassing the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that facilitate team science is necessary for success in scientific collaborations (Fiore et al., 2019).
STUDY BACKGROUND AND CHARGE TO THE COMMITTEE
In 2015, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (National Academies) released the report Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science (National Research Council, 2015). That consensus report synthesized findings from research on teams and factors that bear on the success of team science endeavors, offering recommendations for improving team science effectiveness and identifying several areas for further research. In the decade since, new developments have reshaped the landscape of team science. For example, the COVID-19 pandemic fostered new dimensions of virtual collaboration, given the need to shelter in place, which changed working conditions and arrangements across the globe. Emerging technologies and recent innovations in the realm of artificial intelligence (AI) also add a new dimension to team science. These tools can change the nature of collaboration processes and the dynamics of collaboration when collaborators are not limited to human team members (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2022). Variations in human–machine teaming structures raise additional dimensions of team science to consider. Finally, the number of authors contributing on scientific journal articles has continued to increase in the years following the 2015 report, reflecting an increase in science team sizes (e.g., An et al., 2020; Paul et al., 2024).
Consequently, 17 institutes and centers at the National Institutes of Health1 and the W. M. Keck Foundation requested a consensus study to explore the state of the science of team science in light of its growing relevance and the changing landscape in contemporary scientific endeavors. This
___________________
1 These include the Sexual & Gender Minority Research Office, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) BRAIN Initiative, NINDS, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, Environmental Influences on Child Health Outcomes Program, National Institute of Mental Health, National Cancer Institute, Chief Officer for Scientific Workforce Diversity, National Institute on Aging, Fogarty International Center, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institute of Nursing Research, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Office of Disease Prevention, and Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research.
consensus study (a) explores team science, including best practices, barriers, effects, and the role of virtual and hybrid environments; (b) develops a contemporary understanding of best practices in team science; (c) evaluates the growing role of virtual and hybrid teams; (d) identifies gaps in resources and training for team science; and (e) explores how to best measure the effectiveness of teams. The full statement of task for the committee can be found in Box 1-1.
BOX 1-1
Statement of Task
The National Academies will convene an ad hoc, diverse committee of approximately 12–15 scholars, practitioners, and other experts to evaluate the current state of the science of team science and multidisciplinary collaborations across different scales and environments. The committee will meet, conduct public workshops, review the literature, deliberate, and then publish a consensus report of its findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Included will be forward-looking research recommendations (research gaps and infrastructure needs) and suggested applications and/or best practices for a variety of settings and scales. Following publication, dissemination activities, such as a public-facing webinar should take place to promote the report.
The committee will consider reviewing and synthesizing information related to the following topics:
- The effectiveness, benefits, and potential pitfalls of virtual and hybrid approaches for team science. Are there models of collaboration outside of science that might inform best practices? What collaborative technologies are best suited for virtual and hybrid collaboration and how might these vary depending on the dimensions of team science, including the scale of the team, types of collaborators, degree of disciplinary integration, proximity of team members, permeability of team boundaries, disciplinary and form of research, and domains of research involved? What are best practices for working in the hybrid, virtual, and in-person work environment(s) and how might these vary depending on the dimensions of team science?
- Evidence-based approaches and training that have been designed to enhance the effectiveness of team science and identify any gaps in resources and guidance. What methods have been employed and who was the target audience? What types of outcomes, methods, and measures are appropriate for evaluating team science training? What are best practices for training and/or optimizing teams that include various types of non-scientist team members?
- Evidence of best practices in team science and how to enhance those efforts. What are the current team science best practices? What research is needed to further evaluate and enhance these practices?
To address this charge, the National Academies appointed an ad hoc committee with a broad range of expertise, including individuals with backgrounds in the science of team science, behavioral and social science, virtual platforms and collaborative tools, AI and emerging technologies, science policy and scientific research, individual differences, ethics and/or risk management, communication, business and management, industrial and organizational psychology, and related fields. Appendix A provides biographies of the 13 committee members.
COMMITTEE APPROACH
The committee’s approach to its charge consisted of a review of the evidence in the scientific literature and several other information-gathering activities. In reviewing the literature and formulating its conclusions and recommendations, the committee considered information from public presentations, targeted literature searches, and committee expertise. The committee drew from the team science literature when available, supplemented by team research in other organizational contexts including business and health care. The committee heard from multiple presenters on various topics related to the statement of task. These public information-gathering sessions included speakers from academic communities, research organizations, and funding agencies. The presentations covered topics such as participation and user-friendliness; ethics in team science; evaluation of team science approaches; and practical reflections from researchers, administrators, and funders in the team science ecosystem. To augment this report, the committee commissioned two papers, one on the topic of AI in team science and the other on the topic of disability and accessibility in team science.2 To address the charge, the committee sought to understand developments in the study and practice of team science over the last decade, including increased awareness of team science practices in multiple fields and examining new programs for supporting team science. The committee chose to define a science team member broadly as including any person in a science team working toward a shared goal. This can include, but is not limited to, technicians, support staff, engineers, students, and participating members of the community. The committee also aimed to examine the role of individual differences in team science—identifying both enabling and inhibiting factors in the integration of individuals in teams. In addition, it sought to review team science best practices and their supporting evidence, how such practices are currently supported and could be strengthened, and the means of evaluating team science outcomes and impact.
___________________
2 Commissioned papers and more information are available at https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/research-and-application-in-team-science
Identifying Interested Parties
Identifying interested parties in team science is important for providing clarity and focus to team science initiatives, understanding how best to allocate resources, and building accountability and trust around the work conducted by team scientists, as well as for ethical considerations. Interested parties include individuals (e.g., researchers, scientists, administrators, policymakers, community members, patients and patient advocates) and institutions (e.g., funding agencies, academic institutions, national laboratories, nonprofit and industry partners; see Box 1-2). These interested parties form an interconnected ecosystem conducting and supporting science, and each may require different skills and competencies. Those conducting team science are focused on addressing pressing societal issues, advancing knowledge, and finding innovative solutions to problems that are too broad for individual researchers to tackle alone.
BOX 1-2
Interested Parties Relevant to Team Science
- Researcher: The term researcher describes any member of a science team conducting and disseminating scientific research. This could be a faculty member running their own laboratory, a scientist in a private-sector research and development section, someone working at a national laboratory (e.g., Sandia National Labs), or a community member. It could also include researchers in training, such as graduate students or postdocs.
- Science Team Leader: A science team leader could be a director of an academic laboratory or research institute, or anyone in a leadership position in the public or private sectors who oversees research projects. The setting of the research varies, ranging from wet labs to communities.
- Facilitator: A facilitator is a blanket term used to describe those who support various aspects of the science process. These individuals may provide episodic guidance on a specific project phase, such as ideation or proposal development, or they may engage with the science team continuously throughout the research process.
- Evaluator: The term evaluator encompasses those who have an interest in, or are responsible for, assessing the effectiveness of team science processes, outcomes, and contextual influences. Evaluators are often external to the team to give unbiased perspectives.
- Community Member: This report uses the term community member generally to describe those individuals on a team who may or may not be professionally trained scientists but participate in research—both in defining the problems to be solved and in developing solutions—requiring input and guidance from those directly affected, such as patients, family members, local business owners, and politicians.
- Science Administrator: Science administrators might have some overlap in responsibilities with a science leader, but this report uses the term to differentiate those whose responsibilities do not necessarily involve direct oversight of research projects, such as institute directors and grant administrators.
- Institution: Institution refers to a variety of organizations, such as academic institutions, national laboratories, and industry research and development offices.
- Funding Agency: Funding agency refers to a public funding agency or a private philanthropic organization supporting science.
- Policymaker: Policymakers are individuals or groups responsible for creating, shaping, and implementing laws, regulations, and public policies that govern societies.
- Science of Team Science Scholar: Science of team science scholars use various research methods to study teamwork within, external to the science team context, or both; this contains, but is not limited to, social scientists conducting research to examine fundamental questions about science team processes, humanities scholars studying how different epistemological worldviews alter the questions cross-disciplinary teams develop, and those studying how educational programs or professional development interventions improve science team member competencies for collaboration.
- Research Translator: Research translators are those who bridge the gap between scientific innovation and its application to policy or practice. These professionals often work in the innovation offices of a research institute or enterprise entity, serving as the conduit through which research findings are transformed into patents, products, and other actionable solutions.
The science ecosystem comprises researchers, science team leaders, facilitators, evaluators, and science administrators who collaborate to address scientific questions. These professionals develop crucial team science competencies both during training and while leading collaborative initiatives.
Community members represent another vital component of the science ecosystem. These individuals and groups bring valuable lived experiences that inform research solutions and the problems to be solved, including both research questions and constraints (Corburn, 2007; Wandersman, 2003). Their contributions extend beyond simply providing data and context, as they actively participate in the research process and are affected directly by the outcomes of team science endeavors, whether those effects are positive or negative.
In this context, institution refers to a variety of organizations, including academic institutions, national laboratories, and industry research and
development offices. Institutional members can support team science initiatives by providing the resources, infrastructure, and administrative support necessary to conduct team science.
Another group of interested parties includes research translators who bridge the gap between scientific innovation and its application to policy and practice. These professionals often work in innovation offices, serving as the conduit through which research findings are transformed into patents, products, services, and other practical solutions or policy recommendations. Research translators possess a unique blend of scientific knowledge, business acumen, and communication skills, enabling them to facilitate communication between science teams and the intended recipients of the scientific discovery. They work closely with scientists, often as members of the research team, to comprehend the nuances of the research and to distill complex findings into accessible language that interested parties can readily understand. In some cases, this role involves guiding the research process to align with industry needs and navigating the patent landscape to secure intellectual property rights. In other situations, research translators may outline how the innovation can be used to evolve policy recommendations.
Funding agencies (e.g., government agencies, nonprofit foundations, private-sector entities) may provide financial support for science teams to conduct research, seek out innovative breakthroughs, advance science, and help society. It is important for funding agencies to understand what it takes to conduct team science so that they are aware of how best to structure funding mechanisms.
Policymakers use the findings produced by science teams to develop their reports and arguments for making changes to policy. With the research produced, they make informed, justifiable, and strategic decisions while also providing a foundation for accountability and evaluation. The research produced helps frame issues, assess risks and impacts, and build strong arguments by offering proof of existing problems or the success of interventions. Comparative studies guide policymakers in learning from other regions, while research also justifies budget allocations by showing where resources can be used most effectively.
Finally, science of team science scholars use various research methods to study teamwork within and external to the science team context.
Terminology
Terminology in the science of team science is used inconsistently, often leading to confusion. For example, the term team science is often applied ambiguously, sometimes referring narrowly to the study of science teams and at other times, to the broader science of teams across disciplines. This
lack of precision can lead to misunderstandings among researchers, practitioners, and funders who engage with the team science literature. Scholars in the field frequently report that this lack of clarity in terminology not only hampers communication but also potentially impedes interdisciplinary collaboration by creating differing expectations and interpretations of shared research goals.
Adding to this challenge is the inconsistent use of such terms as cross-disciplinary, interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, and transdisciplinary. Although these terms each describe specific types of collaborative approaches in team science, they are often conflated or used interchangeably across disciplines. Within the science of team science, these terms have been defined to delineate distinct levels of integration, interdependence, communication, and coordination among team members from different disciplines. For example, multidisciplinary teams typically draw from various fields without integrating knowledge deeply, while transdisciplinary teams aim for seamless integration of disciplinary perspectives. However, in other scientific fields, these terms are not always used with such precision, leading to potential misalignment when teams from multiple disciplines collaborate. See Box 1-3 for these definitions and Appendix B for further discussion.
Inconsistent terminology can affect funding decisions, grant evaluation processes, and team formation strategies, potentially reducing the effectiveness of funded initiatives. By striving for consistency in the use of terms, team science scholars and funders can promote clearer communication and set uniform expectations for research crossing disciplines. Clear, standardized terminology will improve understanding within the field and contribute to more productive partnerships and innovative approaches in research that spans multiple scientific domains.
BOX 1-3
Definitions of Collaborative Approaches
- Cross-disciplinary: Cross-disciplinary research refers to collaboration among multiple disciplines toward a shared objective.
- Interdisciplinary: In interdisciplinary research, concepts are blended or juxtaposed from different disciplines.
- Multidisciplinary: In multidisciplinary research, each discipline makes separate contributions in an additive way.
- Transdisciplinary: Transdisciplinary research involves the advancement and integration of discipline-specific theories, concepts, and methods.
ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT
This report provides a comprehensive overview of team science and cross-disciplinary collaborations.
Chapter 2 delves into a review of the current state of the science of team science, beginning with a discussion of its definition and evolution. It highlights key findings from previous reports and assesses progress made since their publication. It also examines emerging changes in the team science landscape and practices, as well as unanticipated developments.
Chapter 3 considers best practices for team science and their effectiveness and supporting evidence base. The chapter begins by discussing education, training, and professional development. The second part of the chapter discusses best practices for supporting science teams, looking closely at the key areas of development, conceptualization, implementation, and translation.
Chapter 4 considers best practices for external support for team science. The chapter discusses exploring institutional policies related to tenure, promotion, and credit for team science contributions, alongside considerations for material and data sharing, ethical approvals, compliance, and staffing needs. The chapter also delves into infrastructure requirements, funding considerations, and incentives and reward structures within the broader community.
Chapter 5 focuses on appropriate ways to evaluate the processes and outcomes of team science and its effect on interested parties. The chapter delineates proximal and distal outcomes for individuals, teams, institutions, science, and society, emphasizing factors such as affective, behavioral, and cognitive processes, as well as broader societal impacts such as community engagement and solutions to pressing global challenges.
Chapter 6 focuses on identifying research gaps, synthesizing what the committee has learned and presenting its overarching conclusions and recommendations.
Finally, five appendices correspond to the content of the report: Appendix A includes committee member biosketches, Appendix B gives background on the science of team science, Appendix C gives an overview of the factors and characteristics of effective teams, Appendix D provides a sampling of survey-based assessments in the literature on teams, and Appendix E contains a glossary.
REFERENCES
An, J. Y., Marchalik, R. J., Sherrer, R. L., Baiocco, J. A., & Rais-Bahrami, S. (2020). Authorship growth in contemporary medical literature. SAGE Open Medicine, 8, https://doi.org/2050312120915399
Corburn, J. (2007). Community knowledge in environmental health science: Co-producing policy expertise. Environmental Science & Policy, 10(2), 150–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2006.09.004
Fiore, S. M. (2008). Interdisciplinarity as teamwork: How the science of teams can inform team science. Small Group Research, 39(3), 251–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496408317797
Fiore, S. M., Gabelica, C., Wiltshire, T. J., & Stokols, D. (2019). Training to be a (team) scientist. In K. L. Hall, A. L. Vogel, & R. T. Croyle (Eds.), Strategies for team science success: Handbook of evidence-based principles for cross-disciplinary science and practical lessons learned from health researchers (pp. 421–444). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20992-6_33
Hall, K. L., Feng, A. X., Moser, R. P., Stokols, D., & Taylor, B. K. (2008). Moving the science of team science forward: Collaboration and creativity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2), S243–S249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.007
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000319
Lee, Y.-N., Walsh, J. P., & Wang, J. (2015). Creativity in scientific teams: Unpacking novelty and impact. Research Policy, 44(3), 684–697. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.10.007
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2022). Human-AI teaming: State-of-the-art and research needs. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26355
National Research Council. (2015). Enhancing the effectiveness of team science. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/19007
Paul, A., Segreti, M., Pani, P., Brunamonti, E., & Genovesio, A. (2024). The increasing authorship trend in neuroscience: A scientometric analysis across 11 countries. IBRO Neuroscience Reports 17, 52–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibneur.2024.05.012
Salazar, M. R., Lant, T. K., Fiore, S. M., & Salas, E. (2012). Facilitating innovation in diverse science teams through integrative capacity. Small Group Research, 43(5), 527–558. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496412453622
Stokols, D., Hall, K. L., Taylor, B. K., & Moser, R. P. (2008). The science of team science: Overview of the field and introduction to the supplement. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2), S77–S89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.002
Wandersman, A. (2003). Community science: Bridging the gap between science and practice with community-centered models. American Journal of Community Psychology, 31(3-4), 227–242. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1023954503247
Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316(5827), 1036–1039.
