Advertisement

Broadening our Understanding of Scientific Work for the Era of Team Science: Implications for Recognition and Rewards

  • Amanda L. VogelEmail author
  • Kara L. Hall
  • Holly J. Falk-Krzesinski
  • Julie Thompson Klein
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter addresses rewards and recognition in the scientific enterprises related to facilitating or hindering research done in teams. It makes the case for revising promotion and tenure policies, highlighting limitations of the current system to adequately reflect and recognize team science. It then highlights a range of related changes in the culture of the scientific enterprise that may serve to influence and promote changes in promotion and tenure policies. The chapter summarizes key points from white papers and reports that make the case for revising promotion and tenure policies and provides examples of specific recommendations and guidelines. The chapter then proposes a wide-ranging set of key scientific activities in team science that can be used to undergird revisions to promotion and tenure policies to comprehensively account for and assess the quality of one’s scientific contributions in team science. Such a framework shifts the focus of promotion and tenure review from scientific roles to scientific activities. This lens helps to dispel the sharp distinction drawn between investigators and specialized professional roles for team science, with implications for how scientists working in both types of roles are recognized and rewarded. It also has broad-reaching implications for how scientific activities specific to team science are reflected in budgets, academic structures, funding, and more.

Keywords

Science of Team Science Team science Cross-disciplinary Interdisciplinary Multidisciplinary Transdisciplinary Collaboration Recognition and reward Hiring Appointment Promotion and tenure Academic culture Academic policies Science policy Interdisciplinary Executive Scientist Research Development Professional 

References

  1. Academy of Medical Sciences. Improving recognition of team science contributions in biomedical research careers. 2015. https://acmedsci.ac.uk/file-download/38721-56defebabba91.pdf. Accessed 30 Dec 2018.
  2. Academy of Medical Sciences. From innovation to implementation: team science two years on. 2019. https://acmedsci.ac.uk/file-download/29694340. Accessed 15 Feb 2019.
  3. American Psychological Association Board of Scientific Affairs. Appointment, tenure, promotion, and merit review considerations for psychologists with joint faculty appointments and involvement in interdisciplinary/multidisciplinary research and scholarship: a resource document. 2014. https://www.apa.org/science/leadership/bsa/interdisciplinary-joint-appointments.pdf. Accessed 30 Dec 2018.
  4. Bennett M, Gadlin H. Conflict prevention and management in science teams. In: Hall KL, Vogel AL, Croyle RT, editors. Strategies for team science success: handbook of evidence-based principles for cross-disciplinary science and practical lessons learned from health researchers. New York, NY: Springer; 2019. p. 774.Google Scholar
  5. Bennett M, Nelan R, Steeves B, Thornhill J. The interrelationship of people, space, operations, institutional leadership, and training in fostering a team approach in health sciences research at the University of Saskatchewan. In: Hall KL, Vogel AL, Croyle RT, Strategies for team science success: handbook of evidence-based principles for cross-disciplinary science and practical lessons learned from health researchers. New York, NY: Springer. 2019Google Scholar
  6. Berger NA. How leadership can support attainment of cross-disciplinary scientific goals. In: Hall KL, Vogel AL, Croyle RT, Strategies for team science success: handbook of evidence-based principles for cross-disciplinary science and practical lessons learned from health researchers. New York, NY: Springer. 2019Google Scholar
  7. Canadian Academy of Health Sciences. Academic recognition of team science: how to optimize the Canadian academic system. Ottawa (ON): The Expert Panel on Academic Recognition of Team Science in Canada, CAHS. 2017. https://www.cahs-acss.ca/academic-recognition-of-team-science-how-to-optimize-the-canadian-academic-system/? Accessed 30 Dec 2018.
  8. Carter S, Carlson S, Crockett J, Falk-Krzesinski HJ, Lewis K, Endemano Walker B. The role of research development professionals in supporting team science. In: Hall KL, Vogel AL, Croyle RT, editors. Strategies for team science success: handbook of evidence-based principles for cross-disciplinary science and practical lessons learned from health researchers. New York, NY: Springer; 2019.Google Scholar
  9. CASRAI. CRediT. n.d.. https://casrai.org/credit. Accessed 18 Dec 2018.
  10. Christen SP, Levine AJ. Facilitating cross-disciplinary interactions to stimulate innovation: stand up to cancer’s matchmaking convergence ideas lab. In: Hall KL, Vogel AL, Croyle RT, editors. Strategies for team science success: handbook of evidence-based principles for cross-disciplinary science and practical lessons learned from health researchers. New York, NY: Springer; 2019.Google Scholar
  11. Crow MM, Dabars WB. Restructuring research universities to advance interdisciplinary collaboration. In: Hall KL, Vogel AL, Croyle RT, editors. Strategies for team science success: handbook of evidence-based principles for cross-disciplinary science and practical lessons learned from health researchers. New York, NY: Springer; 2019.Google Scholar
  12. Falk-Krzesinski HJ. Team science rewards: a collaborative study on promotion & tenure policy. In: Keynote Presentation at the 2013 Annual International Science of Team Science Conference. Chicago, IL, USA. 2013.Google Scholar
  13. Fiore SM, Gabelica C, Wiltshire T, Stokols D. Training to be a (team) scientist. In: Hall KL, Vogel AL, Croyle RT, editors. Strategies for team science success: handbook of evidence-based principles for cross-disciplinary science and practical lessons learned from health researchers. New York, NY: Springer; 2019.Google Scholar
  14. Gehlert S. Developing a shared mental model in the context of center initiative. In: Hall KL, Vogel AL, Croyle RT, editors. Strategies for team science success: handbook of evidence-based principles for cross-disciplinary science and practical lessons learned from health researchers. New York, NY: Springer; 2019.Google Scholar
  15. Hall KL. Science of team science: informing strategic institutional support. In: Virtual presentation to the California state university system annual science deans meeting, Los Angeles, CA. 2018.Google Scholar
  16. Hall KL, Vogel AL, Crowston K. Comprehensive collaboration plans: practical considerations spanning across individual collaborators to institutional supports. In: Hall KL, Vogel AL, Croyle RT, editors. Strategies for team science success: handbook of evidence-based principles for cross-disciplinary science and practical lessons learned from health researchers. New York, NY: Springer; 2019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hall KL, Vogel AL, Stipelman B, Stokols D, Morgan G, Gehlert S. A four-phase model of transdisciplinary team-based research: goals, team processes, and strategies. Transl Behav Med. 2012;2:415–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hall KL, Vogel AL, Huang GC, Serrano KJ, Rice EL, Tsakraklides SP, Fiore SM. The science of team science: a review of the empirical evidence and research gaps on collaboration in science. Am Psychol. 2018;73(4):532–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hendren CO. “Inreach” and the Interdisciplinary Executive Scientist: The missing puzzle pieces for effective interdisciplinary research. Blog post on the Team Science Toolkit. 2014. https://teamsciencetoolkit.cancer.gov/Public/ExpertBlog.aspx?tid=4&rid=1838. Accessed 30 Dec 2018.
  20. Hendren CO, Ku S. The interdisciplinary executive scientist: connecting scientific ideas, resources and people. In: Hall KL, Vogel AL, Croyle RT, editors. Strategies for team science success: handbook of evidence-based principles for cross-disciplinary science and practical lessons learned from health researchers. New York, NY: Springer; 2019.Google Scholar
  21. Hesse BW. Can principles of effective team science promote more robust and reproducible research? 2014. https://teamsciencetoolkit.cancer.gov/Public/ExpertBlog.aspx?tid=4#callout. Accessed 18 Dec 2018.
  22. Hormia-Poutanen K, Kristiansen E, Lawrence R, Leonelli S, Manola N, Méndez E, Rossel C, Vignoli M, Agostinho MD. Recommendations of the OSPP on next-generation metrics. A report of the altmetrics working group of the open science policy platform. 2017.Google Scholar
  23. Ilik V, Conlon M, Triggs G, White M, Javed M. Open VIVO: transparency in scholarship. Frontiers in Research Metrics Analysis. 2018;1:1–11.Google Scholar
  24. Institute of Medicine. Facilitating interdisciplinary research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2005.  https://doi.org/10.17226/11153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jain P, Klein D. Precollaboration framework: academic/industry partnerships: mobile and wearable technologies for behavioral science. In: Hall KL, Vogel AL, Croyle RT, editors. Strategies for team science success: handbook of evidence-based principles for cross-disciplinary science and practical lessons learned from health researchers. New York, NY: Springer; 2019.Google Scholar
  26. Jones BF, Wuchty S, Uzzi B. Multi-university research teams: shifting impact, geography, and stratification in science. Science. 2008;322(590S):1259–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jordan C (Editor). Community-engaged scholarship review, promotion & tenure package. In: Peer Review Workgroup, Community-Engaged Scholarship for Health Collaborative, Community-Campus Partnerships for Health. 2007. https://www.ccphealth.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/CES_RPT_Package.pdf. Accessed 18 Dec 2018.
  28. Klein JT, Falk-Krzesinski HJ. Interdisciplinarity and collaborative work: framing promotion and tenure practices and policies. Res Policy. 2017;46:1055–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kozlowski SWJ, Bell BS. Evidence-based principles and strategies for optimizing team functioning and performance in science teams. In: Hall KL, Vogel AL, Croyle RT, editors. Strategies for team science success: handbook of evidence-based principles for cross-disciplinary science and practical lessons learned from health researchers. New York, NY: Springer; 2019.Google Scholar
  30. McEvoy J III. Multi-and interdisciplinary research- problems of initiation, control, integration and reward. Policy Sci. 1972;3(2):201–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Moher D, Naudet F, Cristea IA, Miedema F, Ioannidis JPA, Goodman SN. Assessing scientists for hiring, promotion, and tenure. PLoS Biol. 2018;16(3):e2004089.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. NASEM (National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine). Facilitating interdisciplinary research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2005. https://doi.org/10.17226/11153.Google Scholar
  33. National Institutes of Health. Multiple principal investigators. n.d.. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/multi_pi/. Accessed 18 Dec 2018.
  34. National Research Council. Convergence: facilitating transdisciplinary integration of life sciences, physical sciences, engineering, and beyond. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 2014. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18722/convergence-facilitating-transdisciplinary-integration-of-life-sciences-physical-sciences-engineering. Accessed 18 Dec 2018.
  35. National Research Council. Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 2015. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/19007/enhancing-the-effectiveness-of-team-science. Accessed 30 Dec 2018.
  36. National Science Foundation. Profiles in team science. n.d.. http://depts.washington.edu/teamsci/welcome.html. Accessed 30 Dec 2018.
  37. Nurius PS, Kemp SP. Individual level competencies for team collaboration with cross-disciplinary researchers and stakeholders. In: Hall KL, Vogel AL, Croyle RT, editors. Strategies for team science success: handbook of evidence-based principles for cross-disciplinary science and practical lessons learned from health researchers. New York, NY: Springer; 2019.Google Scholar
  38. O’Carroll C, Rentier B, Valdes CC, Esposito F, Kaunismaa E, Maas K, Metcalfe J, McAllister D, Vandevelde K. Evaluation of research careers fully acknowledging open science practices: rewards, incentives and/or recognition for researchers practicing open science. In: Report of the European commission directorate-general for research and innovation working group on rewards under open science. 2017.Google Scholar
  39. O’Rourke M, Crowley S, Laursen B, Robinson B, Vasko SE. Disciplinary diversity in teams: integrative approaches from unidisciplinarity to transdisciplinarity. In: Hall KL, Vogel AL, Croyle RT, editors. Strategies for team science success: handbook of evidence-based principles for cross-disciplinary science and practical lessons learned from health researchers. New York, NY: Springer; 2019.Google Scholar
  40. Owen-Smith J. Workplace design, collaboration, and discovery. In: Paper commissioned by the National Research Council Committee on the Science of Team Science. 2013. https://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse_085437.pdf. Accessed 30 Dec 2018.
  41. Pfirman S (Eds). Interdisciplinary hiring, tenure and promotion: guidance for individuals and institutions. In: The Council of Environmental Deans and Directors of the National Council for Science and the Environment. 2011. https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/37064690/Intedisciplinary_Hiring_Report_FINAL.pdf? Accessed 30 Dec 2018.
  42. Pohl C, Wuelser G. Methods for co-production of knowledge among diverse disciplines and stakeholders. In: Hall KL, Vogel AL, Croyle RT, editors. Strategies for team science success: handbook of evidence-based principles for cross-disciplinary science and practical lessons learned from health researchers. New York, NY: Springer; 2019.Google Scholar
  43. Pollack M. Best practices in promotion and tenure of interdisciplinary faculty. Computing Research Association Memo. 2008. https://www.teamsciencetoolkit.cancer.gov/Public/TSResourceBiblio.aspx?tid=3&rid=2201. Accessed 30 Dec 2018.
  44. Rolland B. Data sharing and reuse: expanding our concept of collaboration. 2016. https://teamsciencetoolkit.cancer.gov/Public/ExpertBlog.aspx?tid=4#callout. Accessed 18 Dec 2018.
  45. Salazar M, Widmer K, Doiron K, Lant TK. Leader integrative capabilities: a catalyst for effective interdisciplinary teams. In: Hall KL, Vogel AL, Croyle RT, editors. Strategies for team science success: handbook of evidence-based principles for cross-disciplinary science and practical lessons learned from health researchers. New York, NY: Springer; 2019.Google Scholar
  46. Schmitz KH, Gehlert S, Patterson RE, Colditz GA, Chavarro JE, Hu FB, Neuhouser ML, Sturgeon KM, Thornquist M, Tobias D, Nebeling LC. TREC to WHERE? Transdisciplinary research on energetics and cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 2016;22(7):1565–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Spring B, Pfammatter A, Conroy DE. Continuing professional development for team science. In: Hall KL, Vogel AL, Croyle RT, editors. Strategies for team science success: handbook of evidence-based principles for cross-disciplinary science and practical lessons learned from health researchers. New York, NY: Springer; 2019.Google Scholar
  48. Stone AR. The interdisciplinary research team. J Appl Behav Sci. 1969;5(3):351–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Twyman M, Contractor N. Team assembly. In: Hall KL, Vogel AL, Croyle RT, editors. Strategies for team science success: handbook of evidence-based principles for cross-disciplinary science and practical lessons learned from health researchers. New York, NY: Springer; 2019.Google Scholar
  50. Vogel AL, Hall KL, Fiore SM, Klein JT, Bennett LM, Gadlin H, Stokols D, Nebeling L, Wuchty S, Patrick K, Spotts EL, Pohl C, Riley WT, Falk-Krzesinski HJ. The team science toolkit: enhancing research collaboration through online knowledge sharing. Am J Prev Med. 2013;45(6):787–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vogel AL, Stipelman BA, Hall KL, Stokols D, Nebeling L, Spruijt-Metz D. Pioneering the transdisciplinary team science approach: lessons learned from national cancer institute grantees. The Journal of Translational Medicine and Epidemiology. 2014;2(2):1027.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Warnecke RB, Oh A, Breen N, Gehlert S, Paskett E, Tucker KL, Lurie N, Rebbeck T, Goodwin J, Flack J, Srinivasan S, Kerner J, Heurtin-Roberts S, Abeles R, Tyson FL, Patmios G, Hiatt RA. Approaching health disparities from a population perspective: the national institutes of health centers for population health and health disparities. Am J Public Health. 2008;98(9):1608–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wuchty S, Jones BF, Uzzi B. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science. 2007;316:1036–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amanda L. Vogel
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kara L. Hall
    • 2
  • Holly J. Falk-Krzesinski
    • 3
    • 4
  • Julie Thompson Klein
    • 5
    • 6
  1. 1.Clinical Monitoring Research Program DirectorateFrederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research Sponsored by the National Cancer InstituteFrederickUSA
  2. 2.Division of Cancer Control and Population SciencesNational Cancer InstituteBethesdaUSA
  3. 3.Global Strategic NetworksElsevier Inc.New YorkUSA
  4. 4.Philanthropy and Nonprofit Fundraising Program, School of Professional StudiesNorthwestern UniversityChicagoUSA
  5. 5.Department of EnglishWayne State UniversityDetroitUSA
  6. 6.Transdisciplinarity LabETH-ZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations