Dynamic academic networking concept and its links with English language skills and research productivity–non-Anglophone context

Although the Science of Team Science or SciTS has already provided substantial evidence for research collaboration positive links to scientific productivity, much less is known about such links with broadly defined academic networking, especially with regard to the dilemma about forms of academic networking that may help individual scholars in handling risks and dynamics inherent in academic connections. This study uses cross-disciplinary theoretical insights to conceptualize “dynamic academic networking” as a distinct collaboration-related phenomenon that is theoretically linked with research productivity on the one hand, and with English language skills on the other, especially in the context of non-Anglophone academic systems. The study combines survey-based data and Scopus-based data to test two main hypothesized connections while controlling for the potential effects of other factors, e.g. home faculty research connections and faculty-industry professional connections. The research results provide support for the structural model which is also interpreted in terms of dynamic networking being valid concept in relation to further development of SciTS.

Cultural diversity drives innovation: empowering teams for success

Purpose Though there is broad agreement on the beneficial impact of diversity in management and leadership roles, much of the innovative capacity of an organization is realized at the unit level in working teams. Recent research points to cultural diversity having an especially significant impact on innovation team performance. The reports also highlight the need for the optimal team operating principles to derive maximum benefit. To prepare such innovation teams for success, it is valuable to understand the dynamics of team diversity at the project level and the underlying barriers and opportunities presented. Design/methodology/approach This paper reviews the literature and case studies on cultural inputs to ideation and innovation, assessing team diversity through readily available instruments and the deployment of the science of team science (SciTS) principles in innovation teams. Findings The key learnings include the importance of establishing communication standards, SciTS principles, team assessment of thinking styles and the utility of cultural awareness instruments. Practical implications Diversity provides a creative advantage for innovation teams. However, team dynamics play an important role in maximizing these advantages, and cross-cultural competence of team members is required. Deployment of appropriate assessment tools and team methodologies enhances the likelihood of successful outcomes including in remote team settings. Originality/value Literature from diverse functional areas is summarized including the science of team science, organizational management, diversity and inclusion methodologies and ethnocultural dynamics. It provides pointers for the optimal formation and operating principles with highly culturally diverse teams.

Collaborative Research: Techniques for Conducting Collaborative Research From the Science of Team Science (SciTS)

The Problem The field of human resource development (HRD) is a multidisciplinary field of research and practice requiring collaboration. Unfortunately, the literature on how to conduct collaborative research is incomplete within HRD and other disciplines. Any breakdown in the communication, exchange of ideas, agreed-upon methodologies, or shared credit for dissemination has the potential of preventing research from moving forward. Promotion and tenure policies also hamper collaborative efforts in that these policies often reward individual initiative as opposed to collaborative outcomes. These behavioral patterns provide constraints to the improvement and betterment of efforts to changing of the guard. The Solution This article highlights new and improved methods for working in collaborative environments. During an academic’s transition and professional development, these methods will help emerging scholars, new to collaborative research, when facing the team science revolution. The Stakeholders Scholars and scholar-practitioners engaged in collaborative research. Emerging scholars who are beginning their journey into collaborative research. Graduate students preparing for a career in academia.

Communication in international collaborative research teams. A review of the state of the art and open research questions

In Communication Science, international scholarly communication and collaboration practice still remain unknown territory. Therefore, a systematic review of the state of the art on scholarly communication practice in international research collaborations (IRCs) was carried out that included a broad spectrum of disciplines and research fields such as Communication Science, Business and Management Studies, Sociology, science studies, and the science of team science. A sample of 168 contributions focusing on IRCs were identified. The paper outlines focus and methodological designs of those contributions, provides insights into the composition of the observed IRCs, summarizes the perspectives of the disciplines and research fields, presents the insights into communication structures and processes in IRCs, and discusses the aspect of team diversity, which some studies indicate as relevant for communication practice in IRCs. Overall, research largely focuses on the structural dimension of communication, while empirical analyses on the actual communication processes among scientists in IRCs are still rare. Secondly, research is missing on how team complexity is dealt with in IRCs and what impact it has on collaboration processes and success. A third and fourth research gap are identified regarding the use of a joint collaboration language and the communication processes in Social Sciences and Humanities. Future research should broaden its analytical focus to fill those gaps. This would provide important insights from an epistemological and a practical perspective, by offering the foundation for the development of guidelines and toolkits for future IRCs, thus contributing to the success of such forms of research and knowledge creation.

Measuring quality and outcomes of research collaborations: An integrative review

Introduction:Although the science of team science is no longer a new field, the measurement of team science and its standardization remain in relatively early stages of development. To describe the current state of team science assessment, we conducted an integrative review of measures of research collaboration quality and outcomes.Methods:Collaboration measures were identified using both a literature review based on specific keywords and an environmental scan. Raters abstracted details about the measures using a standard tool. Measures related to collaborations with clinical care, education, and program delivery were excluded from this review.Results:We identified 44 measures of research collaboration quality, which included 35 measures with reliability and some form of statistical validity reported. Most scales focused on group dynamics. We identified 89 measures of research collaboration outcomes; 16 had reliability and 15 had a validity statistic. Outcome measures often only included simple counts of products; publications rarely defined how counts were delimited, obtained, or assessed for reliability. Most measures were tested in only one venue.Conclusions:Although models of collaboration have been developed, in general, strong, reliable, and valid measurements of such collaborations have not been conducted or accepted into practice. This limitation makes it difficult to compare the characteristics and impacts of research teams across studies or to identify the most important areas for intervention. To advance the science of team science, we provide recommendations regarding the development and psychometric testing of measures of collaboration quality and outcomes that can be replicated and broadly applied across studies.

Understanding Cross-Disciplinary Team-Based Research

Cross-disciplinary team-based research is conducted by collaborators from more than one area of expertise. The quality of the scholarship they produce can be influenced strongly by the quality of their collaborative interactions. A new field of study has emerged, called the science of team science (SciTS), that aims to develop an evidence base for the multilevel factors that hinder or facilitate effective research collaboration, such as team characteristics and processes and institutional, funding, and other conditions. This chapter begins with an overview of team science, including a discussion of the major dimensions and processes that shape science teams and unique considerations for cross-disciplinary teams. The chapter then introduces key concepts and milestones in the SciTS field, and reviews conceptual models that explicate the processes and contextual factors that influence research collaboration. The chapter concludes with a discussion of future directions, including additional evidence needed to promote effective cross-disciplinary teamwork.

Team science as interprofessional collaborative research practice: a systematic review of the science of team science literature

The National Institute of Health's concept of team science is a means of addressing complex clinical problems by applying conceptual and methodological approaches from multiple disciplines and health professions. The ultimate goal is the improved quality of care of patients with an emphasis on better population health outcomes. Collaborative research practice occurs when researchers from >1 health-related profession engage in scientific inquiry to jointly create and disseminate new knowledge to clinical and research health professionals in order to provide the highest quality of patient care to improve population health outcomes. Training of clinicians and researchers is necessary to produce clinically relevant evidence upon which to base patient care for disease management and empirically guided team-based patient care. In this study, we hypothesized that team science is an example of effective and impactful interprofessional collaborative research practice. To assess this hypothesis, we examined the contemporary literature on the science of team science (SciTS) produced in the past 10 years (2005–2015) and related the SciTS to the overall field of interprofessional collaborative practice, of which collaborative research practice is a subset. A modified preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) approach was employed to analyze the SciTS literature in light of the general question: Is team science an example of interprofessional collaborative research practice? After completing a systematic review of the SciTS literature, the posed hypothesis was accepted, concluding that team science is a dimension of interprofessional collaborative practice.