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. 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 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. 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 science, 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. (Author/publisher)
Abstract