Science of team science

Last updated

Science of Team Science (SciTS) is a methodological field that examines and enhances cross-disciplinary collaboration in research. It encompasses conceptual and methodological strategies to understand how scientific research teams can be optimally organized for maximum effectiveness. [1] SciTS initiatives systematically investigate and manage factors influencing collaborative science while evaluating its outcomes. [2] [3] [4]

Contents

History

Since the 1990s, interest and large-scale funding for team-based research initiatives have increased substantially, driven by efforts to address complex problems through cross-disciplinary collaboration. [2] [5] [6] [7] This trend reflects growing recognition that multifaceted challenges—such as climate change and public health crises—benefit substantially from partnerships among scientists and practitioners from diverse fields. [5] [6] [8] One SciTS literature review identified team science as essential to interprofessional collaborative research. [9] The report advocated for its integration into health professions education and clinical practice at the University of Minnesota's National Center for Interprofessional Practice and Education.

The interdisciplinary nature of SciTS emerged from concerns raised by funding agencies seeking to assess team science performance, understand its added value, evaluate returns on investment in large research initiatives, and inform science policy. [2] The term "science of team science" was first introduced in October 2006 at a conference titled The Science of Team Science: Assessing the Value of Transdisciplinary Research, hosted by the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Maryland. [10] The field was further developed in a supplement to the American Journal of Preventive Medicine published in July 2008. The First Annual International Science of Team Science (SciTS) Conference was held on April 22–24, 2010, in Chicago, Illinois, organized by the Northwestern University Clinical and Translational Sciences (NUCATS) Institute.

In 2013, the National Academy of Sciences established a National Research Council Committee on the Science of Team Science to evaluate the current state of knowledge and practice in SciTS. [11] A committee report was published in 2015. [12]

A 2023 review by Forscher et al. identified benefits of big team science, noting that innovations facilitate collection of larger samples and support efforts toward reproducibility and generalizability. [13] [14] However, concerns persist that team science could increasingly influence funding priorities, potentially shifting emphasis from applied science to more theoretical research areas and leading to unsuccessful large-scale projects. [15] Forscher recommended creating advisory boards and structured by-laws, formalizing contributor feedback mechanisms, engaging in mentoring, and separating idea generation from project implementation. [14]

Methods

Definitions of team success may vary among stakeholders. [2] SciTS employs both qualitative and quantitative methods to evaluate antecedent conditions, collaborative processes, and outcomes associated with team science, while also considering organizational, social, and political contexts that influence scientific collaboration. [2]

A 2018 literature review of SciTS publications between 2006 and 2016 identified 109 articles, reporting that 75% utilized pre-existing data (e.g., archival data), 62% employed bibliometrics, over 40% used surveys, and more than 10% incorporated interview and observational data. [16]

See also

References

  1. "About INSciTS". INSciTS. Archived from the original on May 17, 2022. Retrieved June 1, 2022.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 Stokols, Daniel; Hall, Kara L.; Taylor, Brandie K.; Moser, Richard P. (2008). "The Science of Team Science" (PDF). American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 35 (2): S77 –S89. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.002. ISSN   0749-3797. PMID   18619407. S2CID   17612279. Archived from the original (PDF) on April 30, 2020. Retrieved November 28, 2013.
  3. Stokols, Daniel; Misra, Shalini; Moser, Richard P.; Hall, Kara L.; Taylor, Brandie K. (2008). "The Ecology of Team Science" (PDF). American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 35 (2): S96 –S115. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.003. ISSN   0749-3797. PMID   18619410. S2CID   7814454. Archived from the original (PDF) on April 30, 2020. Retrieved November 28, 2013.
  4. "System". Archived from the original on August 14, 2022. Retrieved January 22, 2023.
  5. 1 2 Wuchty, S.; Jones, B.F.; Uzzi, B. (2007). "The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge". Science. 316 (5827): 1036–1039. Bibcode:2007Sci...316.1036W. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.118.2434 . doi:10.1126/science.1136099. PMID   17431139. S2CID   3208041.
  6. 1 2 Jones, B.F.; Wuchty, S.; Uzzi, B. (2008). "Multi-university research teams: shifting impact, geography, and stratification in science". Science. 322 (5905): 1259–1262. Bibcode:2008Sci...322.1259J. doi: 10.1126/science.1158357 . PMID   18845711. S2CID   18809307.
  7. Alessandroni, Nicolás; Altschul, Drew; Bazhydai, Marina; Byers-Heinlein, Krista; Elsherif, Mahmoud; Gjoneska, Biljana; Huber, Ludwig; Mazza, Valeria; Miller, Rachael; Nawroth, Christian; Pronizius, Ekaterina; Qadri, Muhammad A. J.; Šlipogor, Vedrana; Soderstrom, Melanie; Stevens, Jeffrey R. (2024). "Comparative Cognition Needs Big Team Science: How Large-Scale Collaborations Will Unlock the Future of the Field". Comparative Cognition & Behavior Reviews. 19: 67–72. doi: 10.3819/CCBR.2024.190001 .
  8. Vlasceanu, Madalina; Doell, Kimberly C.; Bak-Coleman, Joseph B.; Todorova, Boryana; Berkebile-Weinberg, Michael M.; Grayson, Samantha J.; Patel, Yash; Goldwert, Danielle; Pei, Yifei; Chakroff, Alek; Pronizius, Ekaterina; van den Broek, Karlijn L.; Vlasceanu, Denisa; Constantino, Sara; Morais, Michael J. (February 9, 2024). "Addressing climate change with behavioral science: A global intervention tournament in 63 countries". Science Advances. 10 (6) eadj5778. Bibcode:2024SciA...10J5778V. doi:10.1126/sciadv.adj5778. ISSN   2375-2548. PMC   10849597 . PMID   38324680.
  9. Little, Meg M.; St Hill, Catherine A.; Ware, Kenric B.; Swanoski, Michael T.; Chapman, Scott A.; Lutfiyya, M. Nawal; Cerra, Frank B. (2017). "Team science as interprofessional collaborative research practice: A systematic review of the science of team science literature". Journal of Investigative Medicine. 65 (1): 15–22. doi:10.1136/jim-2016-000216. ISSN   1081-5589. PMC   5284346 .
  10. "Science of Team Science". Archived from the original on May 27, 2010.
  11. "The Science of Team Science". National Academy of Sciences. January 11, 2013. Archived from the original on September 10, 2019. Retrieved May 9, 2018.
  12. Committee on the Science of Team Science; et al. (July 15, 2015). Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/19007. ISBN   978-0-309-31682-8. PMID   26247083.
  13. Köhler, Tine; Cortina, Jose M. (February 2021). "Play It Again, Sam! An Analysis of Constructive Replication in the Organizational Sciences". Journal of Management. 47 (2): 488–518. doi:10.1177/0149206319843985. hdl: 11343/227060 . ISSN   0149-2063.
  14. 1 2 Forscher, Patrick S.; Wagenmakers, Eric-Jan; Coles, Nicholas A.; Silan, Miguel Alejandro; Dutra, Natália; Basnight-Brown, Dana; IJzerman, Hans (May 2023). "The Benefits, Barriers, and Risks of Big-Team Science". Perspectives on Psychological Science. 18 (3): 607–623. doi:10.1177/17456916221082970. ISSN   1745-6916. PMID   36190899.
  15. Kreamer, Liana M.; Cobb, Haley R.; Castille, Christopher; Cogswell, Joshua (February 1, 2024). "Big team science initiatives: A catalyst for trustworthy advancements in IO psychology". Acta Psychologica. 242 104101. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2023.104101 . ISSN   0001-6918. PMID   38064907.
  16. Love, Hannah B.; Fosdick, Bailey K.; Cross, Jennifer E.; Suter, Meghan; Egan, Dinaida; Tofany, Elizabeth; Fisher, Ellen R. (October 14, 2022). "Towards understanding the characteristics of successful and unsuccessful collaborations: a case-based team science study". Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 9 (1): 1–11. doi: 10.1057/s41599-022-01388-x . ISSN   2662-9992.

Further reading