2

Review of Current Science of Team Science

Key findings from a previous National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (National Academies) consensus report, Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science, aimed to deepen understanding of science teamwork (National Research Council, 2015). This chapter reviews those findings and addresses changes in the team science landscape emerging since the previous report’s release, drawing on materials from the committee’s information-gathering sessions. The chapter also considers how key recommendations from the 2015 report have been implemented.

KEY TAKEAWAYS FROM
ENHANCING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF TEAM SCIENCE

The committee for the 2015 report was charged with conducting a consensus study to recommend strategies for enhancing the effectiveness of team science and exploring factors that affect science team dynamics, effectiveness, and productivity (National Research Council, 2015). Through a literature review and expert presentations, the committee examined factors at the team, center, and institute levels to understand their influence on science team effectiveness. In addition, the consensus study explored various management approaches and leadership styles that affect science team effectiveness. The committee also reviewed how tenure and promotion policies help or hinder academic researchers who participate in research teams. Finally, the committee considered organizational factors, such as human resources policies and cyberinfrastructure, as well as organizational structures, policies, and practices, that might impact the effectiveness of science teams.

At the outset, the National Academies committee identified a set of key features that pose challenges for science teams (National Research Council, 2015). These features include a highly varied membership, which can lead to differing perspectives and approaches that can sometimes complicate collaboration. Science teams often need deep knowledge integration arising from the goal of merging disparate expertise and disciplinary backgrounds (National Research Council, 2015).

Some science teams experience permeable boundaries, where membership may change and adapt depending on phases of the project. This can result in ambiguity regarding roles and responsibilities and in the amount each team member is expected to contribute to a given project phase. High task interdependence often requires close coordination and cooperation among team members to achieve shared objectives.

Furthermore, large science teams often face difficulties with complex coordination and communication (National Research Council, 2015). As the 2015 report noted, large science teams often better reflect structures known as multiteam systems in the field of organizational science (Zaccaro et al., 2011). Multiteam systems are interdependent sets of two or more component teams pursuing shared superordinate goals; they offer multiple benefits, including resource capacity, flexibility, and component team specialization (Mathieu et al., 2002; Shuffler & Carter, 2018). However, multiteam system coordination can be extremely challenging given the large size, complexity, and dynamism of these systems. Moreover, multiteam systems often experience goal misalignments within or across teams, which can hinder collaboration and cohesion across the research environment. Geographic dispersion adds another layer of complexity, requiring effective virtual communication and coordination mechanisms.

To address these types of challenges, the 2015 committee considered the broad body of literature in, and experts from, the social sciences to understand findings on teams and organizations (National Research Council, 2015). It highlighted the robust body of research on teamwork going back decades that shows how team processes relate to team effectiveness. The committee identified interventions, focused on team composition, development, and leadership, that support teamwork and provide a route to enhancing team effectiveness.

Other interventions can further enhance team science outcomes, such as improving virtual collaboration practices and technologies, revising promotion and tenure criteria to recognize team-based contributions, and increasing support from funding agencies to study the science of team science (National Research Council, 2015). By implementing the 2015 report recommendations, the broader scientific ecosystem can foster an environment more conducive to collaborative research and maximize the impact of team science.

The 2015 report provided nine recommendations covering the areas of team composition, team professional development, leadership for team science, supporting virtual collaboration, organizational supports for team science, funding for team science, and finally advancing research on the effectiveness of team science (National Research Council, 2015). Box 2-1 lists the recommended actions from the 2015 report, and Appendix B includes additional details about the key takeaways from the 2015 report.

IMPLEMENTING THE 2015 RECOMMENDATIONS: SUCCESSES AND CHALLENGES

The 2015 report applied research on team dynamics from various other disciplines, including organizational behavior and industrial-organizational psychology to the context of science teams (National Research Council, 2015). It thus laid the foundation for both scholars and practitioners to leverage this knowledge to enhance the effectiveness of science teams. Over the subsequent decade, the report has been downloaded over 31,000 times as of the summer of 2024 and by people in countries around the world, including from China, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia, demonstrating the international appeal of team science.¹ The report’s broad reach

___________________

¹ Outreach data provided by National Academies Press, as of October 16, 2024 (National Research Council, 2015).

can also be seen in the actions of team science advocates, such as scholars, practitioners, funders, and administrators, operating at various levels in the science ecosystem.

Although the report spurred many changes, the committee for the present study identified factors that have shaped and influenced various aspects of team science over the past decade. As Chapter 1 noted, these include societal changes arising from the COVID-19 pandemic as well as increased use and sophistication of technologies such as virtual collaboration tools and generative artificial intelligence (AI). As such, the current report considers these additional factors.

Indicators of Success

One of the primary purposes of the 2015 report was to increase the recognition of team science in scientific collaborations (National Research Council, 2015). This has been one of the clearest indicators of that report’s success, with influence on disciplines including biology (Full et al., 2015), health and medicine (Czajkowski et al., 2016; Hall et al., 2020; Little et al., 2017; Sargent et al., 2022), earth and environmental sciences (Gilligan, 2021; Lanier et al., 2018; Maxwell et al., 2019; Pennington et al., 2016; Wallen et al., 2019), organizational science (Burt et al., 2022; Fiore et al., 2018; Guise et al., 2017), psychology (Haynes et al., 2019; Tebes, 2018; Tebes & Thai, 2018), nursing (Conn et al., 2019), engineering (Roscoe et al., 2019), sustainability (Killion et al., 2018; von Wehrden et al., 2019), human factors (Gupta & Woolley, 2021), clinical and translational science (Pelfrey et al., 2021; Rolland et al., 2021; Vogel et al., 2021), and physics (Halford et al., 2023)—all have promoted team science principles as a mechanism for advancing their fields. This broad acceptance signifies a shift in perspective, where those conducting science acknowledge the value of cross-pollinating research. Although specialization remains crucial, scholars in many fields now recognize that significant scientific progress can be achieved through cross-disciplinary collaboration and by applying team science principles. Publications in multiple disciplines have emphasized the benefits of team science, which has helped to change the culture and approach to scientific research by promoting the integration of varied expertise and perspectives (Fiore et al., 2019; Lotrecchiano et al., 2023).

Another clear indicator of success is the growing recognition that tenure and promotion materials need to account for how the success metrics of effective collaboration differ from traditional guidelines (Brody et al., 2019; Cline et al., 2020; McHale et al., 2019; Meurer et al., 2023; Rohrbach & Genco, 2022). The engagement of junior scholars in cross-disciplinary team science can depend heavily on the incentive structures the university system provides. Without language that acknowledges participation in team

science—such as recognition for publishing in journals outside one’s primary discipline, differences in authorship practices across disciplines, and participation as a co-investigator on large extramural funding efforts—junior scholars may be less inclined to engage in meaningful cross-disciplinary collaborations. Although there is still a long way to go in these efforts, recognizing that the reward structure for tenure and promotion needs to evolve is an important step forward.

The 2015 committee also noted that many research institutions had initiated efforts to promote applying team science principles (National Research Council, 2015). In the last decade, more institutions have created internal funding opportunities that promote and require translational research or research from cross-disciplinary teams.² In addition, several academic institutions have made significant investments in programs to improve collaboration within science teams. These prominent programs in clinical and translational science focus on equipping researchers with essential skills such as communication, conflict resolution, and leadership, often using the recommendations from the 2015 report in their training and guidance.³ In addition, dedicated laboratories, such as the University of California, Irvine’s Team Scholarship Acceleration Lab,⁴ focus on promoting and applying team science principles. Such programs help science teams develop by providing talks and lunch-and-learn sessions, creating collaboration plans, offering team science training toolkits, and consulting on grant proposals. These efforts have enhanced collaboration within institutions and fostered a culture that values interdisciplinary research and teamwork.

The 2015 report was also successful in informing funding agencies, which have bolstered their support for team science initiatives (National Research Council, 2015). Whether directly or indirectly, team science is being promoted by those seeking to support complex collaborations. For example, center-level research at the National Science Foundation (NSF), including its Science and Technology Centers,⁵ Engineering Research Centers,⁶ Synthesis Centers,⁷ and Convergence Accelerators programs, has

___________________

² For examples, see the Signature Research Initiative Program at American University (https://www.american.edu/research/sri.cfm), Global Grand Challenges at Cornell University (https://global.cornell.edu/global-grand-challenge/about), and funding initiatives at Virginia Commonwealth University (https://onevcuresearch.vcu.edu/funding/).

³ See, for example, the Center for Clinical & Translational Science & Training (https://www.cctst.org/team-science-training) and TeamMAPPS (https://teammapps.utmb.edu/).

⁴ More information about the Team Scholarship Acceleration Lab is available at https://tsal.uci.edu

⁵ See, for example, the Center for Chemical Currencies of a Microbial Planet (https://ccomp-stc.org/).

⁶ See, for example, the Center for Smart Streetscape (https://cs3-erc.org/).

⁷ See, for example, the National Synthesis Center for Emergence in the Molecular and Cellular Sciences (https://ncems.psu.edu/).

incorporated tenets of the science of team science. Many calls for proposals at NSF describe the requirements for a team-based approach to conducting center-level research, with an expectation that grant applications articulate roles clearly and describe the interdependencies of the research initiatives. Also relevant is NSF’s Research Traineeship (NRT) program,⁸ which, for the past decade, has worked to improve education for graduate students. More recently, it has moved beyond only addressing the requisite knowledge, skills, and attitudes for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) careers. Now it also emphasizes training graduate students so that they can collaborate across disciplines. The 2024 NRT call for proposals specifically refers to the 2015 National Academies report on team science effectiveness.⁹ As such, it encourages STEM workforce development that enables students to acquire competencies in collaboration as well as in their respective fields of study. This acknowledgment of team science emphasizes its practice more than its study.

Other programs, such as NSF’s GERMINATION¹⁰ and EAGER (Early-Concept Grants for Exploratory Research)¹¹ programs have also provided funding to those who study science teams at a more foundational level. NSF’s Innovations in Graduate Education Program¹² has supported several initiatives aimed at improving collaboration and cross-disciplinarity in student learning. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also been practicing tenets of the science of team science. For example, to improve translational science, FDA’s Center for Clinical Trial Innovation¹³ promotes team science to improve collaborative effectiveness. Similarly, the Department of Energy (DoE) has formally acknowledged the importance of teamwork in research activities. More recently, NSF and DoE have partnered in their Correctness for Scientific Computing Systems program.¹⁴ This program recognizes that such research requires close collaboration between researchers and, in service of cross-disciplinarity, notes that submitters develop teams comprising experts from different disciplines.

___________________

⁸ More information about the Research Traineeship Program is available at https://new.nsf.gov/funding/initiatives/nrt

⁹ More information about the August 16, 2024, call for proposals is available at https://new.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/us-national-science-foundation-research-traineeship-program/nsf24-597/solicitation

¹⁰ See https://www.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/germination-germination-research-questions-addressing

¹¹ See https://new.nsf.gov/funding/early-career-researchers#early-concept-grants-for-exploratory-research-eager-c8f

¹² See https://new.nsf.gov/funding/initiatives/ige

¹³ See https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/center-drug-evaluation-and-research-cder/cder-center-clinical-trial-innovation-c3ti

¹⁴ See https://new.nsf.gov/funding/opportunities/cs2-correctness-scientific-computing-systems

A recent report on developing better scientific software notes the importance of cross-disciplinary teamwork in successful outcomes, specifically calling out a need to improve understanding on the variety of teams and individuals collaborating to develop scientific software (Heroux et al., 2023). In a section on cross-cutting themes, Heroux et al. (2023) note that social science research on teamwork can help “inform a variety of important challenges and opportunities in team-based scientific software development and use […] Improving communication and interactions within and across teams can account for specific challenges in scientific software environments” (p. 17). The report goes on to discuss the importance of team interaction and managing conflict and communication across teams and multiteam systems (Heroux et al., 2023).

Ongoing Challenges and the Evolution of the Scientific Landscape

The aforementioned progress is not universal, and several long-standing and emerging challenges continue to hinder the success of science teams. One of the more difficult challenges, funding for the scientific study of science teams, has not been addressed. While sponsors fund science teams to conduct research and fund research on the science of teams more generally—understanding team dynamics in organizations and the military, for example—there is a significant lack of funding for the science of team science research (i.e., the scholarly examination of teamwork in science teams). This is problematic in that it contributes to the growing gap between theory, evidence, and practice in team science. Conducting research on teams is inherently challenging for several reasons, including the complexity of capturing dynamic, multilevel interactions; the need for longitudinal data to understand team evolution; and the difficulty of isolating variables in a team setting (Delice et al., 2019; Kozlowski, 2015; Shuffler & Cronin, 2019). Logistical challenges also arise, such as finding times when all team members are available and recruiting the entire team to participate in a study. Furthermore, scientists are often reluctant to participate, with possible reasons including their busy schedules, their multiple team memberships, and their involvement in both research activities and other activities relevant to their jobs. In addition, they might be skeptical of social science methodologies, such as qualitative methods and survey research, questioning their relevance or validity (Ledford, 2015). Because of these challenges and the lack of funding to address them, there is an unfortunate scarcity of mid- to large-scale research on science teams. Hence, as will be apparent throughout the present report, much of the research on team science comes from studies that do not focus exclusively on science teams and/or that are qualitative in nature.

An additional remaining challenge is the lack of systematic training of team science competencies. Team science members receive training in

their discipline during the time they complete their terminal degrees. Often, however, they do not receive formal training on how to collaborate or share leadership roles with others on a team. As such, while scientists have acquired competencies relevant to their scientific tasks, too often they can fall short on competencies needed to work as a team on those tasks. This can lead to problematic collaborations that hinder the effectiveness of science teams.

While work to develop and execute programs for training in team science competencies has been considerable since the 2015 report, these programs exhibit considerable differences in both the specific competencies they aim to cultivate and the formats they use. Training programs can range from brief 1-hour sessions to comprehensive semester-long courses, and from interactive workshops to informal lunch-time lectures. Furthermore, the evaluation methods for these programs’ effectiveness are equally varied, relying on metrics such as connecting the attendance to training with the number of new grant applications funded or publications accepted by attendees; in other cases, no evaluation metrics are used at all. This lack of standardization results in inconclusive training outcomes, underscoring the need for a more cohesive and universally adopted approach to team science education.

COVID-19

The emergence of COVID-19 caused many changes in society, including lockdowns, social distancing, and working from home, all of which affected the way teams worked. The National Academies has released multiple reports on COVID-19 and its effects on education, transportation, community engagement, and other aspects of dealing with this major upheaval in society.¹⁵

From a team science perspective, arguably the largest impact during and following the pandemic has been in remote and hybrid workplace policies and the concomitant reliance on virtual communication tools to complete work (Karl et al., 2022; Woodruff et al., 2021; see also Rubinger et al., 2020, for a discussion regarding the changes to scientific research meetings and conferences). During the pandemic, work-from-home mandates brought to light associated work–life balance and accessibility gains that many employees now come to expect as part of evolving workplace benefits (Choudhury et al., 2022; Lake & Maidment, 2023). As the pandemic concluded, employers needed to balance the justification for bringing personnel back into the office with a heightened awareness of the benefits of working from home.

___________________

¹⁵ See https://nap.nationalacademies.org/search/?rpp=20&pp=4&ft=1&term=covid

As a compromise, employers established flexible hybrid work policies, but at the time of the present report, employers have been increasingly requiring employees to be present in the office—in some cases for the full work week—arguing that this arrangement is better for team cohesion, productivity, organizational culture, and innovation, among other things (Agovino, 2023; The White House, 2025). Employers may have internal data to draw upon to shape their evolving policies and practices, but there is limited scientific literature examining how work from the office, work from home, and hybrid work affect team performance and desired outcomes.

One study from 2024 analyzed the innovation activity of over 48,000 information technology professionals at an India-based firm, nearly all of whom had a minimum of a college degree in engineering (Gibbs et al., 2024). The study tracked a quantifiable internal innovation metric pre-pandemic (work from office), mid-pandemic (work from home), and post-pandemic (hybrid work). They found that while the quantity of submitted ideas did not change in transitioning from working at the office to at home, the average quality of submitted ideas declined (Gibbs et al., 2024).

In a related study, the authors found that productivity per hour decreased as well because of difficulties performing some work tasks in a virtual environment (Gibbs et al., 2023). As hybrid work in the post-pandemic era began, the quantity of submitted ideas decreased¹⁶ (Gibbs et al., 2024). The authors posit that these declines are, at least partially, a result of less spontaneous interactions that naturally occur in the office, contrasted against work from home and hybrid work, which require some level of coordination, thus limiting the ability to have “productive accidents” (Gibbs et al., 2023). This study suggests that innovation suffers when engineers, in this case, are not in the office at the same time. However, the authors make clear that the reduced innovation output needs to be balanced against employee productivity, satisfaction, and environmental implications (Gibbs et al., 2023). In addition, when properly supported, flexible and remote work options tend to better align with ergonomics and wellness needs (Beckel & Fisher, 2022), key considerations for promoting effective team science.

A McKinsey Global Survey of executives describes how COVID-19 had changed the digital landscape of companies:

___________________

¹⁶ This decrease in idea quantity was greater for females than for males, revealing a gender asymmetry with potential consequences for performance biases and career advancement.

The acceptance of digital tools included using video conferencing for work, virtual national conferences, and social interaction with family and friends. During the pandemic, lockdown and continued social isolation also affected the way teams pursued science and how teams and research groups interacted. After lockdowns ended, a new work style was ushered in with “hybrid” rising in prevalence (Handke et al., 2024). In fact, since the COVID-19 pandemic, the adoption and integration of hybrid and virtual collaboration software have increased significantly across science teams (Kilcullen et al., 2021; Lematta et al., 2021; Miller, 2020; Paunov & Planes-Satorra, 2021). These tools offer various functions that enhance team communication, such as global video conferencing, text-to-speech capabilities, and large language models for summarizing meeting notes.

Technology

Generative AI tools, in particular, which were not widely available until after the 2015 report, could help advance scientific collaboration by assisting in some of the tasks that may be precursors to scientific progress, such as drafting reports and generating basic data analysis code to assist individuals and teams. In this sense, generative AI applications or agents may be viewed eventually as valuable tools or teammates in team science (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2021). However, the use of these tools raises several concerns, including potential biases or confabulations in AI-generated content that still require human oversight (Bryson et al., 2017) and ethical implications of AI-authored or AI-assisted publications (Schlagwein & Willcocks, 2023).

The 2015 report recommended using collaboration software (National Research Council, 2015). Although studies address technology use in virtual and hybrid teams, including hypothesized factors such as knowledge, skills, and attitudes that affect virtual teams and their technology use (Gibson et al., 2022; Kilcullen et al., 2021; Ofosu-Ampong & Acheampong, 2022;

Schulze & Krumm, 2017), it remains unclear how—or whether—the collaborative functions of these tools truly facilitate effectiveness in science teams. An additional research issue is whether these new capabilities are being implemented more broadly to improve aspects such as adherence to universal design principles in science teams, and, if so, whether they have produced the desired result.

In addition to possible beneficial outcomes of technology use, many collaboration challenges can result. To mitigate or reverse any potential negative effects of a team working virtually, key factors such as team trust and conflict management require thoughtful leadership and communication that will likely be mediated by technology design and use in virtual and hybrid teams (Schulze & Krumm, 2017).

Geopolitical Tensions

Each of these areas underscores the significance of collaboration across geographic regions. However, with global collaborations, it is imperative to consider ever-changing geopolitical dynamics. Scientific progress and collaboration do not exist in a vacuum; they operate in the context of geopolitical forces that can both facilitate and potentially hinder collaboration among nations (Wagner & Cai, 2022). Considering the role of geopolitics in scientific progress and collaboration is not new. Ongoing research in Antarctica enabled by the Antarctic Treaty, for example, and in space as illustrated by the Outer Space Treaty and International Space Station, are examples of geopolitical challenges overcome for the advancement of science (Secretariat of the Antarctic Treaty, n.d.; United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, n.d.).

Nevertheless, many challenges persist. For instance, scientific collaborations between China and the United States began to decline in 2019, when political tensions around science, technology, and innovation arose, with the United States claiming that China was violating intellectual property norms (Wagner & Cai, 2022). Fostering sustained and productive international scientific collaborations will require continually addressing and navigating geopolitical complexities.

An increasingly important aspect of this geopolitical landscape is research security, which refers to protecting the integrity, confidentiality, and security of research activities, particularly those including human subjects, in a world where intellectual property theft, cyber threats, and the misuse of scientific knowledge are growing concerns (Office of the Director of National Intelligence, n.d.). As geopolitical tensions rise, particularly between major global powers, and as global scientific collaboration becomes more complex, safeguarding research from these threats is paramount (e.g., Gibney, 2024). National Security Presidential Memorandum-33 highlights

the importance of safeguarding federally funded research and development for ensuring U.S. national security and outlines specific research security requirements that all institutions receiving more than $50 million in federal research and development funding are required to implement (The White House, 2021). This can include implementing robust cybersecurity measures; providing research security training; and ensuring compliance with international regulations related to export control and foreign research travel, as well as managing the risks associated with cross-border collaborations, especially in high-stakes research areas.

Geopolitical tensions can lead to restrictive policies on traveling to conferences, establishing collaborations, recruiting graduate students, buying and sharing technology, and data privacy and security. For example, the Florida “Countries of Concern” law for higher education, signed in 2023, imposes restrictions on Florida’s public universities’ interactions with China, Cuba, Venezuela, Russia, Iran, Syria, and North Korea (Florida Senate, 2022). The law prohibits Florida colleges from receiving grants, forming partnerships, or conducting research collaborations with institutions based in or controlled by these countries (State University System of Florida Board of Governors, 2023). Although the legislation was aimed to prevent potential risks related to national security, including intellectual property theft and influence by foreign governments, it also led Florida public institutions to close international programs in China and to end partnerships and reduce graduate student recruitment efforts with these nations (e.g., Knox, 2024; see also Rivero, 2024; Voice of America News, 2024). As a consequence of this law, faculty, researchers, staff, and student assistants at these institutions have to go through additional approval processes to travel to conferences and research events held in these countries.

In conclusion, significant growth and attention in the field of team science has led to numerous successes in the application of team science principles and recommendations from the previous report (National Research Council, 2015). Nonetheless, there is still room for improvement as the applications of some of the recommendations have not been fully realized and new challenges have arisen over the last decade.

REFERENCES