Relationships between changing communication networks and changing perceptions of psychological safety in a team science setting: Analysis with actor-oriented social network models

Abstract

A growing evidence base suggests that complex healthcare problems are optimally tackled through cross-disciplinary collaboration that draws upon the expertise of diverse researchers. Yet, the influences and processes underlying effective teamwork among independent researchers are not well-understood, making it difficult to fully optimize the collaborative process. To address this gap in knowledge, we used the annual NIH mHealth Training Institutes as a testbed to develop stochastic actor-oriented models that explore the communicative interactions and psychological changes of its disciplinarily and geographically diverse participants. The models help investigate social influence and social selection effects to understand whether and how social network interactions influence perceptions of team psychological safety during the institute and how they may sway communications between participants. We found a degree of social selection effects: in particular years, scholars were likely to choose to communicate with those who had more dissimilar levels of psychological safety. We found evidence of social influence, in particular, from scholars with lower psychological safety levels and from scholars with reciprocated communications, although the sizes and directions of the social influences somewhat varied across years. The current study demonstrated the utility of stochastic actor-oriented models in understanding the team science process which can inform team science initiatives. The study results can contribute to theory-building about team science which acknowledges the importance of social influence and selection.

Barriers and facilitators of conducting research with team science approach: a systematic review

“…Ten out of fourteen articles reporting qualitative findings rated ‘yes’ for all seven related items [ 30 , 32 , 33 , 36 , 37 , 40 , 47 , 52 , 53 , 59 ]. Comparatively, eight out of twelve articles reporting quantitative descriptive findings received a ‘yes’ grade for all the relevant seven items [ 39 , 45 , 49 , 51 , 56 , 58 , 60 , 63 ]. From nine articles that reported mixed-method findings, no article rated ‘yes’ for any of the 17 related items.…”

“…Facilitators. Researcher’ personality traits such as “motivation”, “mental health” [ 49 , 59 ] and “interpersonal skills” [ 59 , 60 ] influence team science research teams. People having “positive attitudes and beliefs” [ 33 , 37 ] toward team science should be invited to the team, those who are “willing and eager to cooperate” [ 37 ], and observe “mutual respect” [ 50 ] must be invited to the team.…”

Beyond communication: an update on transforming healthcare teams

“…One of the most pivotal factors in ensuring communication quality is psychological safety—loosely defined as the ability to take intrapersonal risks [( 19 , 20 ); also see Keller at al. ( 12 ) and Luo et al ( 21 )]. In order to foster psychological safety and enable teams to speak up when necessary [a problem consistent in healthcare—where medical hierarchies persist, see Neuhaus et al ( 22 ) and Seaton et al ( 23 )], teams need to engage in a variety of behaviors—involving specific implicit and explicit actions from clarifying expectations to promoting inclusivity [for a complete list of behaviors, see Kolbe et al ( 24 )].…”