Individual motivation and threat indicators of collaboration readiness in scientific knowledge producing teams: a scoping review and domain analysis

Lotrecchiano, Gaetano R.; Mallinson, Trudy; Leblanc-Beaudoin, Tommy; Schwartz, Lisa; Lazar, Danielle; Falk-Krzesinski, Holly J.

doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2016.e00105

Cited by 30 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 190 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Gaetano Lotrecchiano, assistant professor of Clinical Research, Leadership, and Pediatrics at George Washington University, presented facilitation tools to help accomplish the task of team building. He emphasized that personal interests and motivations are important to uphold and must not be lost in assessing the interests of the team . Collaborative leadership resources include the important welcome letters that orient team members to the project's components and frame the expectations of teamwork.…”

Section: Team Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…He emphasized that personal interests and motivations are important to uphold and must not be lost in assessing the interests of the team. 3,4 Collaborative leadership resources include the important welcome letters that orient team members to the project's components and frame the expectations of teamwork. Strategies for identifying potential team members were further explored by Griffin Weber, associate professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School.…”

Section: Team Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Team science and the physician–scientist in the age of grand health challenges

Steer

Jackson

Hornbeak

et al. 2017

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite remarkable advances in medical research, clinicians face daunting challenges from new diseases, variations in patient responses to interventions, and increasing numbers of people with chronic health problems. The gap between biomedical research and unmet clinical needs can be addressed by highly talented interdisciplinary investigators focused on translational bench-to-bedside medicine. The training of talented physician–scientists comfortable with forming and participating in multidisciplinary teams that address complex health problems is a top national priority. Challenges, methods, and experiences associated with physician–scientist training and team building were explored at a workshop held at the Second International Conference on One Medicine One Science (iCOMOS 2016), April 24–27, 2016, in Minneapolis, Minnesota. A broad range of scientists, regulatory authorities, and health care experts determined that critical investments in interdisciplinary training are essential for the future of medicine and healthcare delivery. Physician–scientists trained in a broad, non-linear, cross-disciplinary manner are and will be essential members of science teams in the new age of grand health challenges and the birth of precision medicine. Team science approaches have accomplished biomedical breakthroughs once considered impossible, and dedicated physician–scientists have been critical to these achievements. Together, they translate into the pillars of academic growth and success.

show abstract

Section: Team Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Team Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

Team science and the physician–scientist in the age of grand health challenges

Steer

Jackson

Hornbeak

et al. 2017

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Researchers developing measures of readiness have utilized many techniques to study multiple variables associated with this problem (Armstrong & JacksonSmith, 2013;Lotrecchiano et al, 2016;Misra, Stokols, & Cheng, 2015;National Research Council, 2015;Olson & Olson, 2000). An individual's readiness to collaborate or one's collaborative orientation is often attributed to competency and leadership training that is (or should be) part of one's overall scientific training (Hall, Feng, Moser, Stokols, & Taylor, 2008;Hoffman et al, 2013;C.…”

Section: Readiness To Share Openlymentioning

confidence: 99%

Shifting Paradigms in Information Flow: An Open Science Framework (OSF) for Knowledge Sharing Teams

Potterbusch

Lotrecchiano

2018

InformingSciJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim/Purpose: This paper explores the implications of machine-mediated communication on human interaction in cross-disciplinary teams. The authors explore the relationships between Open Science Theory, its contributions to team science, and the opportunities and challenges associated with adopting open science principles. Background: Open Science Theory impacts many aspects of human interaction throughout the scholarly life cycle and can be seen in action through various technologies, which each typically touch only one such aspect. By serving multiple aspects of Open Science Theory at once, the Open Science Framework (OSF) serves as an exemplar technology. As such it illustrates how Open Science Theory can inform and expand cognitive and behavioral dynamics in teams at multiple levels in a single tool. Methodology: This concept paper provides a theoretical rationale for recommendations for exploring the connections between an open science paradigm and the dynamics of team communication. As such theory and evidence have been culled to initiate a synthesis of the nascent literature, current practice and theory. Contribution: This paper aims to illuminate the shared goals between open science and the study of teams by focusing on science team activities (data management, methods, algorithms, and outputs) as focal objects for further combined study. Findings: Team dynamics and characteristics that will affect successful human/machine assisted interactions through mediators of workflow culture, attitudes about ownership of knowledge, readiness to share openly, shifts from group-driven to user-driven functionality, group-organizing to self-organizing structures, and the development of trust as teams regulate between traditional and open science dissemination. Recommendations for Practitioners: Participation in open science practices through machine-assisted technologies in team projects/scholarship should be encouraged. Recommendation for Researchers: The information provided highlights areas in need of further study in team science as well as new primary sources of material in the study of teams utilizing machine-assisted methods in their work. Impact on Society: As researchers take on more complex social problems, new technology and open science practices can complement the work of diverse stakeholders while also providing opportunities to broaden impact and intensify scholarly contributions. Future Research: Future investigation into the cognitive and behavioral research conducted with teams that employ machine-assisted technologies in their workflows would offer researchers the opportunity to understand better the relationships between intelligent machines and science teams’ impacts on their communities as well as the necessary paradigmatic shifts inherent when utilizing these technologies.

show abstract

“…To exemplify, scholars involved in collaboration with non-academic partners in their formative years seem more likely to pursue hybrid careers or careers outside universities (Hakala, 2008;Lam & Campos, 2015;Lee & Miozzo, 2015). Similarly, rewarding experiences of external engagement in the academic workplace increase the scientists' propensity to team up with the same stakeholders or start a business (Fritsch & Krabel, 2012;Lotrecchiano et al, 2016; Olmos-Peñuela, Benneworth, & Castro-Martínez, 2015), whereas the mode of those engagements appears to be correlated with the function performed (e.g., guest lectures in teaching vs. spin-off creation in research).…”

Section: Conceptual Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Academic ‘boundary work’ in a regionally engaged university

Kopelyan¹

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Widening discussion of the role of universities in regional development has shifted the strategic attention of European higher education institutions towards their regional impact and the production of knowledge in cooperation with regional partners, thereby 'stretching' core university missions and the boundaries of academic work. This stretch created tensions between the norms and practices of the academy and the surrounding community. The study explores how academics in a Swedish regionally engaged university process these tensions through 'boundary work' against the background of their professional trajectories and roles. Drawing on 26 narrative interviews, it identifies four scenarios: researchers with standard academic training combine scientific rigour with local relevance without significantly altering their core identities; researchers with a more diversified professional background pursue 'excellence with impact' prioritising collaborative knowledge production over career progression; academics with standard training invested in non-research tasks divide their time between the university and the region without subordinating relevance to excellence; and academics with mixed backgrounds and role portfolios fuse the boundaries, giving preference to the 'real world' over the campus and exhibiting a greater variety of identity choices.

show abstract

Individual motivation and threat indicators of collaboration readiness in scientific knowledge producing teams: a scoping review and domain analysis

Cited by 30 publications

References 190 publications

Team science and the physician–scientist in the age of grand health challenges

Team science and the physician–scientist in the age of grand health challenges

Shifting Paradigms in Information Flow: An Open Science Framework (OSF) for Knowledge Sharing Teams

Academic ‘boundary work’ in a regionally engaged university

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About