National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Front Matter
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2015. Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/19007.
×

Summary

Over the past six decades, as scientific and social challenges have become more complex and scientific knowledge and methods have advanced, scientists have increasingly joined with colleagues in collaborative research referred to as team science (see Box S-1). Today 90 percent of all science and engineering publications are authored by two or more individuals. The size of authoring teams has expanded as individual scientists, funders, and universities have sought to investigate multifaceted problems by engaging more individuals. Most articles are now written by 6 to 10 individuals from more than one institution.

Team science has led to scientific breakthroughs that would not otherwise have been possible, such as the discovery of the transistor effect, the development of antiretroviral medications to control AIDS, and confirmation of the existence of dark matter. At the same time, conducting research collaboratively can introduce challenges; for example, while the increasing size of team-based research projects brings greater scientific expertise and more advanced instrumentation to a research question, it also increases the time required for communication and coordination of work. If these challenges are not recognized and addressed, then projects may fail to achieve their scientific goals. To provide guidance in addressing these challenges, the National Science Foundation (NSF) requested that the National Research Council (NRC) appoint a committee of experts to conduct a consensus study that would “recommend opportunities to enhance the effectiveness of collaborative research in science teams, research centers, and institutes.” Elsevier also provided funding for the study. The full charge to the Committee on the Science of Team Science is shown in Box S-2.

Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2015. Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/19007.
×

BOX S-1
Definitions

  • Team science – Scientific collaboration, i.e., research conducted by more than one individual in an interdependent fashion, including research conducted by small teams and larger groups.
  • Science teams – Most team science is conducted by 2 to 10 individuals, and we refer to entities of this size as science teams.
  • Larger groups – We refer to more than 10 individuals who conduct team science as larger groups.* These larger groups are often composed of many smaller science teams, and a few of them include hundreds or even thousands of scientists. Such very large groups typically possess a differentiated division of labor and an integrated structure to coordinate the smaller science teams; entities of this type are referred to as organizations in the social sciences.
  • Team effectiveness (also referred to as team performance) – A team’s capacity to achieve its goals and objectives. This capacity to achieve goals and objectives leads to improved outcomes for the team members (e.g., team member satisfaction and willingness to remain together), as well as outcomes produced or influenced by the team. In a science team or larger group, the outcomes include new research findings or methods and may also include translational applications of the research.

____________

*Larger groups of scientists sometimes refer to themselves as “science teams.”

To create a framework for this study, the committee first defined the activity of team science and the groups that carry it out. The committee’s definitions reflect prior research that has defined a “team” as two or more individuals with different roles and responsibilities, who interact socially and interdependently within an organizational system to perform tasks and accomplish common goals. Because this prior research has focused on small teams typically including 10 or fewer members, similar in size to most science teams, we refer to a group of 10 or fewer scientists as a “science team.” Recognizing that what is important for successful collaboration changes dramatically as the number of participants grows, we refer to groups of more than 10 scientists as “larger groups of scientists” or simply “larger groups.”

Although team science is growing rapidly, individual scientists continue to make critical contributions and important discoveries, as exemplified by Stephen Hawking’s stream of new insights into the nature of the universe. Public and private funders with finite budgets must make decisions about whether to develop individual investigator or team approaches, and, if a

Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2015. Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/19007.
×

team approach is selected, the scale and scope of the project. Similarly, individual scientists must make decisions about whether to invest time and energy in collaborative projects or to focus on individual investigations. It is important for scientists and other stakeholders to strategically consider the particular research question, subject matter, and intended scientific and/ or policy goals when determining whether a team science approach is appropriate, and if so, the suitable size, duration, and structure of the project or projects.

BOX S-2
Charge to the Committee on the Science of Team Science

An ad hoc committee will conduct a consensus study on the science of team science to recommend opportunities to enhance the effectiveness of collaborative research in science teams, research centers, and institutes. The Science of Team Science is a new interdisciplinary field that empirically examines the processes by which large and small scientific teams, research centers, and institutes organize, communicate, and conduct research. It is concerned with understanding and managing circumstances that facilitate or hinder the effectiveness of collaborative research, including translational research. This includes understanding how teams connect and collaborate to achieve scientific breakthroughs that would not be attainable by either individual or simply additive efforts.

The committee will consider factors such as team dynamics, team management, and institutional structures and policies that affect large and small science teams. Among the questions the committee will explore are

  1. How do individual factors (e.g., openness to divergent ideas) influence team dynamics (e.g., cohesion), and how, in turn, do both individual factors and team dynamics influence the effectiveness and productivity of science teams?
  2. What factors at the team, center, or institute level (e.g., team size, team membership, geographic dispersion) influence the effectiveness of science teams?
  3. How do different management approaches and leadership styles influence the effectiveness of science teams?
  4. How do current tenure and promotion policies acknowledge and provide incentives to academic researchers who engage in team science?
  5. What factors influence the productivity and effectiveness of research organizations that conduct and support team and collaborative science, such as research centers and institutes? How do such organizational factors as human resource policies and practices and cyber infrastructure affect team and collaborative science?
  6. What types of organizational structures, policies, practices, and resources are needed to promote effective team science in academic institutions, research centers, industry, and other settings?
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2015. Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/19007.
×

In order to address these questions, the committee identified, assembled, and reviewed many sources of relevant scientific research. When examining how individual- and team-level factors are related to effectiveness, the committee drew for the most part on two scientific fields that have contributed diverse methodological and conceptual approaches. Together, these fields provide cumulative empirical knowledge to assist scientists, administrators, funding agencies, and policy makers in improving the effectiveness of team science. The first is what has become known as “the science of team science,” an emerging, interdisciplinary field focusing specifically on team science. The second is the large and robust body of social science research on groups and teams in contexts outside of science, such as military teams, industrial research and development teams, production and sales teams, and professional sports teams.

In reviewing the research on teams outside of science, the committee found that teams in these other contexts increasingly incorporate key features that create challenges for team science, as discussed below. This research has identified approaches to enhance team effectiveness that have been translated and extended across contexts (e.g., from aviation teams to health care teams). Therefore, based on the similarities in challenges and processes between teams in science and in other contexts and the history of generalization of team research across contexts, the committee assumes that research on teams in other contexts provides a rich foundation of knowledge that can inform strategies for improving the effectiveness of team science. The research on teams in other contexts has frequently focused on small teams, typically including 10 or fewer individuals, making it more applicable to science teams than to larger groups. However, larger groups of scientists (e.g., participants in a research center) typically are composed of multiple teams, and the research on teams in other contexts is also applicable to these teams.

When examining how organizational- and institutional-level factors are related to team effectiveness, the committee reviewed case studies of geographically distributed teams and larger groups of scientists and other professionals; the business management and leadership literatures; sociology; economics; university case studies; and science policy studies. The committee also drew on the emerging evidence from the science of team science, which focuses on not only the team level, but also the organizational, institutional, and policy levels.

Funding agencies, policy makers, scientists, and leaders of teams and larger groups all need information on how to effectively manage these projects. The first step toward increased effectiveness is to gain understanding of the factors that facilitate or hinder team science and how these factors can be leveraged to improve the management, administration, and funding of team science. Although research is emerging from the science of team sci-

Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2015. Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/19007.
×

ence, from the research on teams, and from many other fields, this research is fragmented. Team science practitioners may have difficulty assembling, understanding, and applying the insights scattered across different research fields. This report integrates and translates the relevant research to support 13 conclusions and 9 recommendations and to identify areas requiring further research, as discussed below. Table S-1, at the end of this Summary, repeats the recommendations, specifying the individuals or organizations (e.g., team science leaders, universities) who should take action, the actions, and the desired outcomes.

KEY FEATURES THAT CREATE CHALLENGES FOR TEAM SCIENCE

Based on its review of the research evidence, information from team science practitioners, and its own expert judgment, the committee identified seven features that can create challenges for team science. Each feature represents one end of a continuous dimension. For example, large size is one end of the team or group size dimension. Science teams and larger groups often need to incorporate one or more of these features to address their particular research goals, but the features also pose challenges that are important to carefully manage. The committee returns to these seven features throughout this report in interpreting the implications of the research.

  • High diversity of membership. Addressing complex scientific problems can require contributions from different disciplines, communities, or professions. Science teams or larger groups sometimes include community or industry stakeholders to facilitate translation of the research into practical applications (e.g., doctors or product development specialists). In addition, reflecting the changing demographics of the U.S. population and the globalization of the scientific workforce, team or group members may be diverse in age, gender, culture, religion, or ethnicity. Diverse team members may lack a common vocabulary, posing a challenge to effectively communicating about the research goals and deciding how to work together to accomplish scientific tasks.
  • Deep knowledge integration. All science teams and larger groups integrate information to some extent as the members apply their unique knowledge and skills to the shared research problem. This challenge increases in interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary teams. Interdisciplinary research integrates the data, tools, perspectives, and theories of two or more disciplines to advance understanding or solve problems. Transdisciplinary research aims to deeply integrate and also transcend disciplinary approaches to generate
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2015. Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/19007.
×
  • fundamentally new conceptual frameworks, theories, models, and applications. It can be difficult for the members of such teams or larger groups to share and build on each other’s knowledge across the boundaries of their respective disciplines.

  • Large size. Science and engineering teams and larger groups, as reflected in publications, have consistently expanded in size over the past 60 years. Larger size can enhance productivity by distributing the work across more individuals, but it also magnifies the burden of communicating and coordinating tasks among a larger number of individuals. Scientists participating in larger groups have fewer opportunities than those working in smaller teams to meet and work with other group members face-to-face in ways that build trust and shared understanding of project goals and the roles of other group members.
  • Goal misalignment with other teams. Large groups of scientists, such as research centers and institutes, typically include multiple science teams engaged in research projects relevant to the higher-level research or translational goals of the center or institute. Each individual team brings valuable insights, methods, and perspectives and may have its own distinct goals. If the goals of these teams are not aligned, then this can generate conflict, requiring careful management
  • Permeable boundaries. The boundaries of science teams and larger groups are often permeable, reflecting changes in the project goals over time. The membership of a group or team may change as the project moves from one phase, requiring a certain type of expertise, to another that may require different expertise. Although these changes have the benefit of matching expertise to scientific or translational problems as they arise, they can also create challenges for effective team or group interaction.
  • Geographic dispersion. Most science teams and larger groups are geographically dispersed, with members located across multiple universities or research institutions. Although crossing institutional boundaries can bring needed expertise, scientific instrumentation, datasets, or other valuable resources to a science team or larger group, it also requires greater reliance on electronic modes of communication, with attendant challenges. In addition, the team or larger group may find it difficult to coordinate work across institutions with varying work styles, time zones, and cultural expectations about scientific work.
  • High task interdependence. One of the defining features of a team is that the members are dependent on each other to accomplish a
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2015. Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/19007.
×

shared task. All team science projects aim to tap the benefits of interdependent, collaborative research, yet designing and conducting interdependent tasks that draw on and integrate the unique talents of the individual team or larger group members to accomplish shared goals can be challenging. Greater task interdependence among team or group members can lead to more opportunities for conflict, and when geographically dispersed members must perform highly interdependent tasks, greater coordination and communication efforts may be required.

Each science team or larger group is unique in the extent to which it is characterized by one or more of these features. As a given team or group incorporates more of these key features—for instance, high diversity of membership and geographic dispersion—so do the accompanying challenges and the attendant need to understand and carefully manage them. As noted above, it is important to strategically consider the particular research question, subject matter, and intended goals when determining the approach, suitable size, and other features of a research project.

IMPROVING TEAM AND GROUP EFFECTIVENESS

Research on teams in non-science contexts has identified strategies for improving effectiveness that can be translated and applied to help science teams and larger groups navigate the challenges involved in team science.

CONCLUSION. A strong body of research conducted over several decades has demonstrated that team processes (e.g., shared understanding of team goals and member roles, conflict) are related to team effectiveness. Actions and interventions that foster positive team processes offer the most promising route to enhance team effectiveness; they target three aspects of a team: team composition (assembling the right individuals), team professional development, and team leadership.

Team Composition

Assembling and composing the team provides the raw building material for an effective team and therefore is a critical step requiring careful management, but it is only the first step.

CONCLUSION. Research to date in non-science contexts has found that team composition influences team effectiveness, and this relationship

Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2015. Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/19007.
×

depends on the complexity of the task, the degree of interdependence among team members, and how long the team is together. Task-relevant diversity is critical and has a positive influence on team effectiveness.

CONCLUSION. Task analytic methods developed in non-science contexts and research networking tools developed in science contexts allow practitioners to consider team composition systematically.

RECOMMENDATION 1: Team science leaders and others involved in assembling science teams and larger groups should consider making use of task analytic methods (e.g., task analysis, cognitive modeling, job analysis, cognitive work analysis) and tools that help identify the knowledge, skills, and attitudes required for effective performance of the project so that task-related diversity among team or group members can best match project needs. They should also consider applying tools such as research networking systems designed to facilitate assembly of science teams and partner with researchers to evaluate and refine these tools and task analytic methods.

Team Professional Development

Once a science team or larger group has been assembled, it faces the challenge of integrating the members’ knowledge to achieve its scientific goals. Knowledge integration, along with shared understanding of research goals and member roles, can be facilitated by formal professional development programs (referred to in the research literature as training programs).

CONCLUSION. Research in contexts outside of science has demonstrated that several types of team professional development interventions (e.g., knowledge development training to increase sharing of individual knowledge and improve problem solving) improve team processes and outcomes.

RECOMMENDATION 2: 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, to create professional development opportunities for science teams.

Although research has demonstrated that training for current team members can increase team effectiveness, educational programs designed to prepare students for future team science have only recently emerged and have not yet been systematically evaluated.

Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2015. Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/19007.
×

CONCLUSION. Colleges and universities are developing cross-disciplinary programs designed to prepare students for team science, but little empirical research is available on the extent to which participants in such programs develop the competencies they target. Research to date has not shown whether the acquisition of the targeted competencies contributes to team science effectiveness.

Leadership for Team Science

Currently, most leaders of science teams and larger groups are appointed to their positions based solely on scientific expertise and lack formal leadership training. At the same time, an extensive body of research on organizational and team leadership has illuminated leadership styles and behaviors that foster positive interpersonal processes, thereby enhancing effectiveness in teams and larger groups. These effective leadership styles and behaviors can be acquired.

CONCLUSION. Fifty years 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 and larger groups.

RECOMMENDATION 3: Leadership 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 for team science leaders and funding agency program officers.

Supporting Virtual Collaboration

As science attempts to answer bigger and bigger questions, it is increasingly likely that the people participating in research projects reside in different locations, institutions, and even countries. This geographic dispersion can lead to challenges, particularly with communication and coordination. Addressing the special challenges such groups and teams encounter requires effective leadership and technology.

CONCLUSION. Research on geographically dispersed teams and larger groups of scientists and other professionals has found that communicating progress, obstacles, and open issues and developing trust are more challenging relative to face-to-face teams and larger groups. These

Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2015. Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/19007.
×

limitations of virtual collaboration may not be obvious to members and leaders of the team or group.

RECOMMENDATION 4: Leaders of geographically dispersed science teams and larger groups should provide activities shown by research to help all participants develop shared knowledge (e.g., a common vocabulary and work style). These activities should include team professional development opportunities that promote knowledge sharing (see Recommendation #2 above). Leaders should also consider the feasibility of assigning some tasks to semi-independent units at each location to reduce the burden of constant electronic communication.

CONCLUSION. Technology for virtual collaboration often is designed without a true understanding of users’ needs and limitations and even when a suite of appropriate technologies is available, users often do not recognize and use its full capabilities. These related problems may thus impede such collaboration.

RECOMMENDATION 5: When selecting technologies to support virtual science teams or larger groups, leaders should carefully evaluate the needs of the project, and the ability of the individual participants to embrace new technologies. Organizations should promote human-centered collaboration technologies, provide technical staff, and encourage use of the technologies by providing ongoing training and technology support.

Organizational Supports for Team Science

Science teams and larger groups are often housed within universities. In these complex organizations, faculty members’ decisions about whether and when to participate in team science are influenced by various contexts and cultures including the department, the college, the institution as a whole, and external groups, such as disciplinary societies. Formal rewards and incentive structures, reflecting these various cultures, currently tend to focus on individual research contributions. Some universities have recently sought to promote interdisciplinary team science by, for example, merging disciplinary departments to create interdisciplinary research centers or schools, providing seed grants, and forging partnerships with industry. However, little is known about the impact of these efforts, while the lack of recognition and rewards for team science can deter faculty members from joining science teams or larger groups.

Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2015. Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/19007.
×

CONCLUSION. Various research universities have undertaken new efforts to promote interdisciplinary team science, such as merging disciplinary departments to create interdisciplinary research centers or schools. However, the impact of these initiatives on the amount and quality of team science research remains to be systematically evaluated.

CONCLUSION. University policies for promotion and tenure review typically do not provide comprehensive, clearly articulated criteria for evaluating individual contributions to team-based research. The extent to which researchers are rewarded for team-based research varies widely across and within universities. Where team-based research is not rewarded, young faculty may be discouraged from joining those projects.

In a few isolated cases, universities have developed new policies for assessing individual contributions to team science. At the same time, research has begun to characterize the various types of individual contributions and develop software systems that would identify each individual’s role during the process of submitting and publishing an article. This work can inform new efforts by universities and disciplinary associations.

RECOMMENDATION 6: Universities and disciplinary associations should proactively develop and evaluate broad principles and more specific criteria for allocating credit for team-based work to assist promotion and tenure committees in reviewing candidates.

Funding for Team Science

CONCLUSION. Public and private funders are in the position to foster a culture within the scientific community that supports those who want to undertake team science, not only through funding, but also through white papers, training workshops, and other approaches.

RECOMMENDATION 7: Funders should work with the scientific community to encourage the development and implementation of new collaborative models, such as research networks and consortia; new team science incentives, such as academic rewards for team-based research (see Recommendation #6); and resources (e.g., online repositories of information on improving the effectiveness of team science and training modules).

CONCLUSION. Funding agencies are inconsistent in balancing their focus on scientific merit with their consideration of how teams and larger groups are going to execute the work (collaborative merit). The

Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2015. Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/19007.
×

Funding Opportunity Announcements they use to solicit team science proposals often include vague language about the type of collaboration and the level of knowledge integration they seek in proposed research.

Currently, proposals for team science research grants do not address how the participating scientists will collaborate. Research has shown that engaging team members in explicit discussions of how to coordinate and integrate their work enhances effectiveness, as does the development of team charters that outline team directions, roles, and processes. In addition, research has found that large, multi-institutional groups of scientists often benefit from establishing formal contracts outlining roles and assignments. Collaboration plans build on both team charter and contract concepts, promising to enhance the effectiveness of team science.

RECOMMENDATION 8: Funders should require proposals for team-based research to present collaboration plans and provide guidance to scientists for the inclusion of these plans in their proposals, as well as guidance and criteria for reviewers’ evaluation of these plans. Funders should also require authors of proposals for interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary research projects to specify how they will integrate disciplinary perspectives and methods throughout the life of the research project.

ADVANCING RESEARCH ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF TEAM SCIENCE

The committee’s review of the research related to the study charge identified several areas in which further research is needed to enhance understanding of team science and improve its effectiveness.

Continued research and evaluation will be needed to refine and enhance the actions, interventions, and policies recommended in this report. At the same time, research is needed to enhance basic understanding of team science processes as the foundation for developing new interventions. Funders of scientific research, policy makers, and the scientific community need appropriate criteria for evaluating the potential (ex-ante) and achieved (ex-post) outcomes of team science. In addition, funders and policy makers would benefit from more rigorous evaluations incorporating experimental or quasi-experimental methods to generate stronger evidence that team-based research approaches increase research productivity beyond what would have been accomplished by the individual scientists working alone or as members of a different team or group. An essential first step toward meeting these goals is to increase researchers’ access to practicing scientists to study their interactions and innovations. In sum, advancing the research

Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2015. Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/19007.
×

on the effectiveness of science teams and larger groups will require funding, as well as the dedication of research organizations, team science leaders, and the scientific community as a whole.

CONCLUSION. Targeted research is needed to evaluate and refine the tools, interventions, and policies recommended above, along with more basic research, to guide continued improvement in the effectiveness of team science. However, few if any funding programs support research on the effectiveness of science teams and larger groups.

RECOMMENDATION 9: Public and private funders should support research on team science effectiveness through funding. As critical first steps, they should support ongoing evaluation and refinement of the interventions and policies recommended above and research on the role of scientific organizations (e.g., research centers, networks) in supporting science teams and larger groups. They should also collaborate with universities and the scientific community to facilitate researchers’ access to key team science personnel and datasets.

Promising new research methods and approaches can be applied to implement this recommendation. Complex adaptive systems theory offers a route to understand how behaviors, actions, and reactions at one level of a team science system (e.g., the individual level) affect actions at other system levels (e.g., the team level) and the emergent behavior of the system as a whole. To study team and group dynamics, members can be equipped with small electronic sensor badges that record data on their interactions. Similarly, electronic communication data, such as emails and texts, can be recorded and analyzed. These new forms of data can be creatively combined with publication data to examine the relationship between team or group processes and outcomes. Such approaches will facilitate further research to deepen understanding of team science and enhance its effectiveness.

Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2015. Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/19007.
×

TABLE S-1 Recommended Actions and Desired Outcomes

Actor Recommended Action Desired Outcome
Leaders of Science Teams and Groups
  • Recommendation 1: Consider applying analytic methods and tools to guide team composition and assembly.
  • Match mix of participants to project needs to enhance scientific/translational effectiveness.
 
  • Recommendation 2: Partner with team-training researchers and universities to create and evaluate professional development opportunities for science teams.
  • Foster positive team processes and thereby enhance effectiveness.
 
  • Recommendation 3: Partner with leadership researchers and universities to create and evaluate science leadership development opportunities.
  • Increase capacity of team and group leaders and funding agency staff to facilitate positive team processes and thereby enhance effectiveness.
Leaders of Geographically Dispersed Science Teams and Larger Groups
  • Recommendation 4: Provide activities to develop shared knowledge among all participants, including team professional development opportunities.
    • Consider the feasibility of dividing up some of the work.
  • Recommendation 5: Select collaboration technologies based on careful evaluation of their readiness, project needs, and team members’ ability to use them. Access technology training and support.
  • Develop shared vocabularies and work routines across locations to enhance effectiveness. Foster knowledge sharing and knowledge integration.
  • Reduce burden of constant electronic communication to allow participant to focus on scientific tasks.
  • Optimize use of the most appropriate collaboration technologies to enhance effectiveness.
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2015. Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/19007.
×
Actor Recommended Action Desired Outcome
Universities and Other Scientific Organizations
  • Recommendation 2: Partner with team-training researchers and universities to create and evaluate professional development opportunities for science teams.
  • Foster positive team processes and thereby enhance effectiveness.
 
  • Recommendation 3: Partner with leadership researchers and team science leaders to create and evaluate leadership development opportunities.
  • Increase capacity of team and group leaders and funding agency program officers to facilitate positive team processes and thereby enhance effectiveness.
 
  • Recommendation 6: Collaborate with disciplinary associations to develop broad principles and more specific criteria for allocating credit for team-based work; collaborate with researchers to evaluate the role of such principles.
  • Remove a barrier that discourages young faculty from participating in team science.
Public and Private Funders
  • Recommendation 7: Work with the scientific community to encourage new collaborative models, remove disincentives to participate in team science, and provide informational resources.
  • Foster culture change in the scientific community to reduce barriers to team science.
 
  • Recommendation 8: Require authors of proposals for team-based research to include collaboration plans and, for interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary projects, specify how they will foster deep knowledge integration over the life of the research project.
  • Encourage project leaders to plan not only for the scientific/ technical aspects of the research but also for the collaborative/ interpersonal aspects.
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2015. Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/19007.
×
Actor Recommended Action Desired Outcome
  • Recommendation 9: Support further research on team science effectiveness and facilitate researchers’ access to key personnel and data.
  • Facilitate evaluation and improvement of the tools, actions, and interventions recommended above as well as more “basic” research to enhance team science effectiveness and speed scientific discovery.
Researchers
  • Recommendation 1: Partner with team science leaders to evaluate and improve analytic methods and tools for team assembly.
  • Improve methods and tools to match mix of participants with project needs to enhance scientific/translational effectiveness.
 
  • Recommendation 2: Partner with science team leaders and universities to create and evaluate professional development opportunities for science teams.
  • Foster positive team processes and thereby enhance effectiveness.
 
  • Recommendation 3: Partner with team science leaders and universities to create and evaluate team science leadership development opportunities.
  • Increase capacity of team and group leaders and funding agency staff to facilitate positive team processes and thereby enhance effectiveness.
 
  • Recommendation 6: Collaborate with universities and disciplinary associations to evaluate the role of new principles and criteria for allocating credit for team science in reducing barriers to participation in team science.
  • Remove a barrier that discourages young faculty who are interested in team science from joining teams or larger groups.
Scientific Community
  • Recommendation 6: Collaborate with universities to develop and evaluate broad principles and more specific criteria for allocating credit for team-based work.
  • Remove a barrier that discourages young faculty who are interested in team science from joining teams or larger groups.
 
  • Recommendation 7: Work with public and private funders to encourage new collaborative models, remove disincentives to team science, and access resources.
  • Foster culture change in the scientific community to reduce barriers to team science.
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2015. Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/19007.
×
Page 1
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2015. Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/19007.
×
Page 2
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2015. Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/19007.
×
Page 3
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2015. Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/19007.
×
Page 4
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2015. Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/19007.
×
Page 5
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2015. Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/19007.
×
Page 6
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2015. Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/19007.
×
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2015. Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/19007.
×
Page 8
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2015. Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/19007.
×
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2015. Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/19007.
×
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2015. Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/19007.
×
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2015. Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/19007.
×
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2015. Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/19007.
×
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2015. Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/19007.
×
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2015. Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/19007.
×
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Research Council. 2015. Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/19007.
×
Page 16
Next: Part I: Setting the Stage »
Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $59.00 Buy Ebook | $47.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The past half-century has witnessed a dramatic increase in the scale and complexity of scientific research. The growing scale of science has been accompanied by a shift toward collaborative research, referred to as "team science." Scientific research is increasingly conducted by small teams and larger groups rather than individual investigators, but the challenges of collaboration can slow these teams' progress in achieving their scientific goals. How does a team-based approach work, and how can universities and research institutions support teams?

Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science synthesizes and integrates the available research to provide guidance on assembling the science team; leadership, education and professional development for science teams and groups. It also examines institutional and organizational structures and policies to support science teams and identifies areas where further research is needed to help science teams and groups achieve their scientific and translational goals. This report offers major public policy recommendations for science research agencies and policymakers, as well as recommendations for individual scientists, disciplinary associations, and research universities. Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science will be of interest to university research administrators, team science leaders, science faculty, and graduate and postdoctoral students.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!