Presented by: Osnat Wine, University of Alberta
Authored by: Matt Hicks, University of Alberta
Osnat Wine, University of Alberta

Background
Using a team science lens to study implementation science could provide unique insights on effective collaborations within and across sectors, especially, in a clinical context with complex societal issues, such as substances use. NASCENT is an implementation project supporting change in care practices for mothers with substance use in pregnancy and their infants. Implementation in this context is complex and challenging, requiring a shift in established practices and culture. Care providers and stakeholders must be effectively brought together to collaborate, while considering their unique contexts. It includes building leadership competencies to foster patient involvement and sensitive, equitable, and inclusive collaborations (e.g., with indigenous partners; marginalized women); promoting capacity building to jointly address challenges, find solutions, support joint decision-making processes; mentor and facilitate learning and individual development, and building a constructive environment for improved care. Here we describe preliminary findings and identified challenges.

Objectives
Using the unique lens of team science, we aim to uncover the conditions and elements that facilitate or hinder effective and sustainable collaboration and engagement, team processes, and support mechanisms for implementation teams, within and across sectors and hospitals. This will inform the design of tailored site-specific strategies and team-based interventions to support the implementation process and uptake.

Methodology
A qualitative case study explores the perceptions of parents, care providers, and stakeholders involved in care for substance use by mothers and their babies. The study includes a formative evaluation using questionnaires, documents, observations, focus groups, and interviews. Informed by collaborative research principles and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research we aim to define the nature of care teams in this context- who needs to be involved, how, and when; and guide the design of tailored interventions/strategies to support collaborations, capacity building, and facilitate implementation.

Results
Identifying the nature and membership boundaries of implementation teams in the context of healthcare is challenging. Preliminary findings identified that efficient implementation was reliant on a dedicated, committed, passionate small core team, and management support. However, the implementation team is defined by the care pathways patients receive and thus, extends to a broad variety of practitioners within acute settings, as well as the pivotal buy-in and support of administration. There is also increasing understanding that patients, their families, and peer support are instrumental parts of the care team. Additionally, while this project focus is on intervention within hospitals, strong relationships and engagement with community organizations and services are crucial for the continuum of care and implementation success. Thus, a team may include researchers, various practitioners, care providers, administrators as well as community members. However, significant engagement in team processes in healthcare is challenging.

Discussion:
Considering that the definition of an implementation team in this context is elusive, some questions arise that require further exploration. Is team science applicable for implementation teams in health care settings? Can the principles and strategies used to support the engagement and efficient collaborative processes of scientific teams be utilized in the stressful over-burdened environment of health care?"

Presented by: Tyler Reimschisel, Case Western Reserve University
Authored by: Zoe Breen Wood, Case Western Reserve University
Fangfei Chen, Case Western Reserve University
Marianne Hanna, Case Western Reserve University
Nuanqiu Hou, Case Western Reserve University
Karen Ishler, Case Western Reserve University
Tracey Messer, Case Western Reserve University
Rita Obeid, Case Western Reserve University
Jose-Andres Portillo, Case Western Reserve University
Tyler Reimschisel, Case Western Reserve University
Kristin Riley-Freeborn, Cleveland State University

Background
Collaborative Practice I (CPI) at Case Western Reserve University is a required, two-semester, service learning interprofessional education (IPE) course for early learners in the health and social service professions. Student teams meet weekly to learn teamwork concepts and skills and work on community-based projects. To evaluate CPI, we developed a measure of student self-assessed team skills and attitudes towards teamwork. This study: (1) describes instrument development and validation; and (2) reports data from two student cohorts (AY20-21 and AY21-22).

Methods
Design: We used a non-experimental pre- and posttest design.
Participants: Students came from 9 graduate or advanced undergraduate degree programs (dental medicine, genetic counseling, medicine, nursing, nutrition, physician assistant, psychology, social work, and speech-language pathology). Teams consisted of 5-7 students from at least 3 professions. In Year 1, 435 students in 72 teams completed projects with 40 community agencies. In Year 2, 532 students in 93 teams completed projects with 70 community agencies.
Measures: We compiled 250 items from measures such as the ICCAS and T-TAQ. Items were mapped to IPEC competencies and ranked. The final measure contained 50 items that assessed teamwork skills and attitudes, each on a 5-point scale. Pretests were completed prior to CPI; posttests were completed at year end.
Data Analysis: Analyses are based on 316 students from Year 1 (73%) and 470 students from Year 2 (88.4%) who completed both assessments and granted use of their data for research. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed on Year 1 pretest data. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were performed on Year 2 pre- and posttest data. Paired sample t tests were used to examine pre-post change on the factor-derived scales. Change scores were compared by profession using ANOVA.

Results
Scale Psychometrics: All items demonstrated adequate variability with no serious violations of normality. The EFA results suggested 3 correlated factors that explained 27.4%, 9.1%, and 4.3% of the variance, respectively. CFAs supported this 3-factor structure. Problematic items were removed and the remaining 40 items were used to created 3 factor-derived scales: Team skills, Attitudes toward teamwork, and Interpersonal skills. Internal consistency estimates were good to excellent (alphas = .83 to .96).
Pre-Post Change: On average, Year 1 students evidenced no significant change in Team skills, but a significant worsening in Attitudes toward teamwork (d = .52) and Interpersonal skills (d = .16). Year 2 students showed significant improvements in all 3 areas: Team skills (d = .66), Attitudes toward teamwork (d = .88), and Interpersonal skills (d = .44). We found few differences by profession. However, Year 1 medical students showed a greater decline in Attitudes towards teamwork compared to most other professions (d > .55).

Discussion
Differences in pre-post change between Years 1 and 2 are likely attributable to moving from Zoom to in-person classes and iterative improvements made to CPI. Differences by profession could suggest the need to emphasize the value and relevance of IPE to medical students. Our findings have broad implications for the design, delivery, and evaluation of IPE programs.

Presented by: Harmony Jankowski, Indiana University
Authored by: Harmony Jankowski, Indiana University
Kerk Kee, Texas Tech University
Richard Knepper, Cornell University
Winona Snapp-Childs, Indiana University

The Extreme Science and Engineering Discovery Environment (XSEDE) represents a successful 11-year large-scale team collaboration between more than a dozen different organizations, providing advanced cyberinfrastructure systems and services to a broad range of constituents. XSEDE was a unique organization in the history of National Science Foundation funding, and ceased operations on August 31, 2022. This ongoing study, which began in December 2021, benefited from the willingness of XSEDE collaborators to discuss their experiences during the project’s waning months. Their frank reflections offer a roadmap for current and future large-scale advanced cyberinfrastructure teams. Our study posits XSEDE as a practical enactment of Actor-Network Theory (ANT), a critical-theoretical approach to social science that views sociological structures as intricate webs existing only through the networks of relationships by which they are formed.

Our team interviewed participants from across the XSEDE project, identifying elements of their work, ways of working, techniques for collaboration, and productive tensions that support effective formation and maintenance of large-scale virtual organizations in support of research. We proposed to investigate the following overarching questions:
What motivated people to participate in XSEDE?
How did XSEDE encourage interaction across divisions towards effective collaboration as a single coherent organization?

We approached these questions through the lens of ANT, taking a primarily investigative and descriptive approach to query how individuals acting together create functioning structures, like XSEDE. ANT has been used widely in studies of various types of cyberinfrastructure and cyberinfrastructure delivery organizations, as it offers a theoretical basis for the complex interrelationship of humans and technological entities. Studying XSEDE through the lens of ANT allows us to preserve information about its formal organizational structure and the intra-organizational and interpersonal webs that helped it thrive.

In the last few decades, several studies addressing the relationship between cyberinfrastructure and human networks have employed ANT as a way to make sense of the intricate web of connections, contacts, and collaborations between humans and computers, while maintaining the agency of each “actant.” Via Bruno Latour and ANT more broadly, Kee and Browning recognize the “agency” of both human and technological actants to influence structures and outcomes, and argue for a consideration of cyberinfrastructure as an interface between humans and organizations (including funding bodies). Randall, Diamant, and Lee draw on ANT to consider how Global Environment for Network Innovations (GENI) used existing relationships to create new ties that stabilize networks (social and otherwise) within the cyberinfrastructure. Paine and Lee look at various coordinating entities, considering the "overlapping and evolving arrangements scientists use to facilitate data intensive research” through “scientific sociality" in order to render this type of implicit coordination explicit.

We posit these connections as a key facet of XSEDE’s success, drawing together a talented staff from across the United States to facilitate a thriving research environment and agenda through large-scale distributed teams. Our paper describes the study's methodology, preliminary results, and goals for future research. It also offers provisional conclusions that, we hope, will push collaborative cyberinfrastructure organizations, and the research it exists to serve, forward.

Presented by: Angela Mendell, University of Cincinnati
Authored by: Jason T Blackard, University of Cincinnati
Elizabeth J Kopras, University of Cincinnati
John R Kues, University of Cincinnati
Laura Hildreth, University of Cincinnati
Angela Mendell, University of Cincinnati
Jennifer Molano, University of Cincinnati
Stephanie Schuckman, University of Cincinnati

Clinical and translational science teams are often comprised of members from diverse disciplines that fill distinct yet complementary roles. Team science education and training is typically directed toward investigators and trainees on these teams. However, all team members would benefit from robust team science training. Expanding team science training to the entire team, including staff, could create a more cohesive team as well as a more inclusive environment. 

Our team has created team science and communication training specifically tailored to clinical research professionals (CRP), who are an integral part of clinical research teams. Until recently, the importance of well-trained CRPs to clinical research has been overlooked. However, very high turnover rates and recruitment and retention challenges have highlighted the value of better training, career development opportunities and greater levels of job satisfaction among individuals in these roles. Core competencies for CRPs have been recognized for a decade (Sonstein et al, 2014). Communication and teamwork are a couple of the more critical areas of training that are essential for the roles that CRPs play in the clinical trials enterprise, but it is often given less attention than the many technical skills they must master. Team science training created with CRPs in mind can help CRPs better understand other team members, to work better in teams, and even to improve interactions with participants. This, in turn, may promote a feeling of inclusion and could encourage retention and help to mitigate turnover. 

In this poster, we outline our approach to team science education and training for staff members, specifically CRPs. We share examples and vignettes to illustrate team science concepts tailored to clinical research professionals’ various roles. Practical training is increasingly requested by CRP groups, continues to be well-received, and is effective. We share preliminary evaluation data gleaned from seven workshops conducted from 2021 to the present at two different institutions. We also provide qualitative data collected from open-ended evaluation questions and comments from workshop attendees.

Presented by: Leslie Thompson, National Institutes of Health
Authored by: Matthew Gillman, National Institutes of Health
Erin Luetkemeier, National Institutes of Health
Christina Park, National Institutes of Health
Leslie Thompson, National Institutes of Health

Research organizations like NIH fund large consortia to address complex public health challenges. One such consortium working to enhance the health of children is the Environmental influences on Child Health Outcomes (ECHO) Cohort Consortium, which integrates data from 69 ongoing maternal-child observational studies. The literature claims that a major part of the value of research consortia is the innovation that results from enhanced collaboration. One measure of success is papers published by multiple investigators that the consortia bring together. However, new consortia face challenges in establishing collaborations, in part because investigators face competing priorities, lack of team science resources, and delayed benefits. To address these challenges, ECHO implemented a vision that establishes consortium-wide collaboration as a priority; infrastructure designed to facilitate such collaboration including forums that encourage consortium investigators to network and exchange scientific ideas; and regular bibliometric analysis of the potential scientific impact of consortium-wide publications. Using a coauthor network analysis, we examined the extent to which the establishment of the ECHO Cohort Consortium was related to coauthor network attributes. We employed a before and after design, with measurement of coauthorship pre-award during 2011-2015 and post-award during 2018-2022 among the 72 principal investigators who lead the individual studies. The preliminary results for the 72-node network, i.e., one node per investigator, show that during 2018-2022 the network included 1,025 edges and an average node degree of 28 all grouped into one large component, compared to 69 edges and an average node degree of 2 distributed among 28 distinct components during 2011-2015. These preliminary results demonstrate that ECHO investigators developed many new collaborations within the consortium since its inception. We plan to include a more in-depth analysis at the time of presentation.

Presented by: Jaime Garcia Vila, Michigan State University
Authored by: Jaime Garcia Vila, Michigan State University
Marisa Rinkus, Michigan State University

Cross-disciplinary collaboration requires understanding of and respect for the diverse perspectives among collaborators. Although collaborative groups or teams often engage in discussion for the purposes of planning, task allocation, and other decision-making, dialogue may be less common. Dialogue is an immersive form of communication that requires “deep listening, meaning co-construction, mutual engagement, and constructive argumentation” (O’Rourke et al., 2020, p. 96). In this presentation, we argue that dialogue plays a crucial role in enabling teams to identify opportunities and challenges with the goal of establishing common ground during the early stages of team development. We utilize the five dimensions for differentiating discussion from dialogue (communication, self-orientation, other-orientation, emotions, and end-state) proposed by Kardia and Sevig (1997) to identify the factors that facilitated or hindered teams in engaging in dialogue.

Since 2019 the Toolbox Dialogue Initiative Center (TDIC) has been conducting dialogue-based workshops with teams funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) Accelerating Research through International Network to Network Collaboration (AccelNet) program. AccelNet aims to foster strategic linkages between U.S. and international institutions to address global challenges that require coordinated efforts. These dialogue-based workshops are designed to uncover differences, identify commonalities, and explore unknowns across three key topics: network of networks collaboration, communication and coordination, and success conditions. We analyze transcripts from 19 team dialogues using a coding and rating system to assess whether teams are engaging in discussion or dialogue, and topics around which discussion vs. dialogue occurred. Responses from a 7-item constructive controversy scale (Alper, Tjosvold & Law, 1998) administered immediately after the dialogue and a post-workshop evaluation are also analyzed to provide an individual and team-based assessment of the dialogue. Constructive controversy is the open-minded and productive discussion of opposing viewpoints which supports cooperative interdependence and team confidence (Alper et al., 1998). The item responses serve as an assessment of team behaviors in the dialogue related to disagreement, elaboration of views, questioning, and sharing of alternative perspectives.

This study presents empirical evidence demonstrating that teams engaging in dialogue at an early stage were able to identify potential barriers, leverage strengths, and recognize key opportunities for the development of their network of networks (NoN). By embracing dialogue, teams gain valuable insights that contribute to their collaborative efforts, facilitate productive communication, and create a foundation for collaborative success.

Presented by: Tara Burke, University of Maryland, College Park
Authored by: Tara Burke, University of Maryland, College Park

Broadband infrastructure in urban parks may serve crucial functions including an amenity to boost overall park use and a bridge to propagate WiFi access into contiguous neighborhoods. This project: SCC:PG Park WiFi as a BRIDGE to Community Resilience has developed a new model —Build Resilience through the Internet and Digital Greenspace Exposure, leveraging off-the-shelf WiFi technology, novel algorithms, community assets, and local partnerships to lower greenspace WiFi costs.

This interdisciplinary work leverages: computer science, information studies, landscape architecture, and public health. Collaboration methodologies and relational definitions across disciplines are still nascent —especially when paired with civic-engaged, applied research.

Student researchers (UG/Grad) are excellent partners in bridging disciplinary barriers and constraints. Their capacity to assimilate multiple frameworks has produced refinements to the project’s theoretical lenses and suggested novel socio-technical methodology improvements. Further, they are excellent ambassadors to community partners and stakeholders.

In BRIDGE, we tested two mechanisms to augment student research participation. In both, we leveraged a classic, curriculum-based model named the Partnership for Action Learning in Sustainability program (PALS). This campus-wide, community-engaged initiative pairs faculty and students with community partners. PALS curates economic, environmental, and social sustainability challenges and scopes projects to customize appropriate coursework that addresses identified challenges. Outcomes include: literature searches, wireframes, and design plans that target solutions to civic problems. Constraints include the short semester timeframe and curriculum-learning-outcome constraints.

(1) On BRIDGE, Dr. Kweon executed a semester-based Landscape Architecture PALS 400-level-studio. 18 undergraduates conducted in-class and in-field work to assess community needs and proposed design solutions for future park-wide WiFi. Research topics included: community-park history, neighborhood demographics, case-study analysis, and land-cover characteristics. The students conducted an in-Park, community engagement session —via interactive posterboard surveys, to gain input on what park amenities might be redesigned or added to promote WiFi use. The students then produced seven re-design plans; one included a café/garden, with an eco-corridor that integrated technology with nature.

(2) From the classic, curriculum-based PALS model we created a summer-intensive for our five research assistants, to stimulate interdisciplinary collaboration in their research tasks and co-analysis of project data products: experimental technical WiFi-setup, community survey results, and stakeholder needs-assessments. Students met weekly with each other and team leadership, exchanged journal articles, and attended joint research events. This model shows promise for integrating students more formally into an interdisciplinary research project. An end-of-intensive focus group highlighted, from the students’ perspective, the pro/cons of this model.

Results: In contrasting the two mechanisms, our results include: Model 1 is tried-and-trued and produces standardized, reliable products. However, as work is group based, student independence is limited —to explore topics/themes of interest. Civic groups are typically thrilled with the diversity of action plans produced. Model 2 provides greater independence in student-learning outcomes, fosters interdisciplinary, “dictionary-building” that can be used by the full team, deepens methodological approaches, and allows for student stipend payments. Lessons learned: intensive time frame needed more research team support and ideally should be extended, when possible, over the full project-span. UMD-IRB#1785365-4; NSF-award: 2125526

Presented by: Aras Eftekari, Bixal
Authored by: Aras Eftekari, Bixal

I presented "Building Trust in a Distributed Federal Team: Outperforming the Classical Teaming Norms" at SciTS 2016 and "Revisiting 'Building Trust in a Distributed Federal Team' After Covid-19" at SciTS 2022. Both research studies explored how trust is built in physically distributed, virtual teams. The first, at a time when the idea of a lockdown pandemic wasn't on anyone's mind, and then the second, at a time when lockdowns had been lifted, but a new hybrid model was taking shape for many in the professional workforce. As we are now in a post-Covid world, there is a new acronym that has entered our everyday lexicon- RTO. which is Return to Office. Those hybrid models are now moving back to the setting where teams are back together physically, as many groups, organizations, and agencies are calling workers back. Why RTO? Has the trust eroded? Is trust the only factor or are there other factors at play in wanting people back in offices, laboratories, classrooms, and other work environments?

I have built several years of knowledge on this subject, but further research was necessary to better understand where we are now as research teams, professionals, workers, etc. and where we are headed for the future. My research has a focus on federal, interdisciplinary teams, and as this year's conference is taking place in the home of the federal government, the research is more relevant than ever.

Methodology: Data was generated, collected, and analyzed using experiences in various teaming environments over the past 7 years, combined with literature review from academia, private sector, and public domains to best understand how trust works in teams with different compositions. The original research study was built around teams of contractors and federal employees separated physically but working together as a distributed virtual team, with some of the team in the office together. Research was conducted with data from several years of this teaming experience combined with surveying team members in a biomedical research environment. The team was composed of bioinformaticians, data scientists, computer scientists, and management consultants. The results of that research built the baseline of how trust was established and solidified within the teams, with the conclusion that our distributed virtual team outperformed classical teaming norms at the time. Built upon that research was the effects of the pandemic and what it meant for all teams, regardless of federal or not, to be virtual with no physical environment, eventually moving to a hybrid virtual/physical team environment. The data here was built out from 2 additional interdisciplinary federal/contractor teams- one completely virtual in the biomedical informatics domain and the other in the information technology domain in a hybrid environment. Additionally, as many in the public sector and business world were moving to the hybrid model, extensive research has and is still being conducted, with respect to effective and efficient teaming putting trust at the crux. I used that research to build evidence for testing the original results of my previous SciTS poster studies.

With the push to get people back together physically, what effect is this having on productivity? Is this call back to the workplace because team trust eroded in hybrid teams? Did productivity drop? Are there other factors at play? I researched these questions to add to the body of knowledge of Team Science. These are important topics for exploration, as the discoveries in this space will help us better understand teaming dynamics of the future. My overall conclusion is that a teaming arrangement where team members are free to choose their manner of participation is vital for promoting trust in teams. This was the original finding in 2016 and it is upheld after the pandemic, when nearly everyone in the professional workforce had a chance to "test out" virtual teaming. Trust is established through comfort of all parties, and it is bolstered and supported with proper tools, technologies, policies, and frameworks. Forced RTO is not recommended, and trust will suffer in teams in that environment, leading to loss of productivity, attrition, and other inefficient teams.

Presented by: Stephen Fiore, University of Central Florida
Authored by: Melanie Bauer, Nova Southeastern University
Stephen Fiore, University of Central Florida
Joshua Roney, University of Central Florida

Project Overview
An important subarea of research in team science centers on helping interdisciplinary teams translate internalized knowledge into shared and integrated knowledge. This sometimes requires a form of cognitive and collaborative coaching or facilitation whereby one takes on a role of helping teams design, manage, and implement inter- and trans-disciplinary research. As one example, the INSciTS community is working to create an emerging profession, called “integration experts”, that fosters collaborative processes, to coordinate, and to integrate knowledge for complex problem solving. This presentation will discuss an NSF funded project designed to help develop team science coaching and team science training for scientists collaborating across disciplines with the purposes of creating more sophisticated scientific questions.

Practical Context
In many disciplines, faculty have a limited understanding of team science and lack the necessary resources to implement team science principles. This is particularly the case when it comes to collaborations involving multiple institutions. These constraints pose obstacles to addressing significant societal issues that demand interdisciplinary approaches and bring together researchers from different universities. There is thus a need for approaches that can facilitate the formation of inter-institutional teams focused on crucial societal needs and influenced by relevant community stakeholders. Teams can then be supported in knowledge building and the development of transformative research questions.

Research Context
This project brings together researchers around a compelling scientific and societal issue, providing them with activities that foster knowledge integration, engagement with external stakeholders, and dedicated project management assistance. We focus on how the addition of the role of a team science coach can help integrate the diverse perspectives and needs of team members while helping to coordinate knowledge building and team dynamics.

To assess the effectiveness of our program, we developed a measurement suite designed to assess how attitudes, behaviors, and cognition within these teams evolved over the course of the training. From the cognitive standpoint, this included assessment of knowledge integration (e.g., sharing expertise), and measures assessing whether members take into account the knowledge of teammates (e.g., opposing perspectives). From the behavioral standpoint, it includes communication and coordination (e.g., addressing interdependencies in the work), conflict management (e.g., healthy debate and idea exchange), as well as motivation and confidence towards the scientific work. From the attitudinal standpoint, we study how comfort with errors and risk, as well as help seeking, may evolve. Responses to these were used to guide the coaches and make recommendations for monitoring and managing their science team’s activities.

Conclusion
In this presentation we summarize our research, describing an integrated set of team science training sessions, measurement approaches, and tailored feedback, designed to promote collaboration in interdisciplinary projects. We conclude with a discussion of how our program can cultivate both social and cognitive competencies for transcending boundaries of knowledge domains as well as fits within the movement developing techniques for team science facilitation, coaching, or integration expertise.

Presented by: Kristine Lund, CNRS
Authored by: Stephen Crowley, Boise State University
Bethany Laursen, Michigan State University
Kristine Lund, CNRS
Michael O'Rourke, Michigan State University

Why examine how integration occurs in interdisciplinary teams? Rosé & Lund (2013) showed how facilitating analyses of shared data between researchers from different traditions makes them realize how brittle an analysis conducted from only one perspective can be, thus setting the stage for integrating analyses from other viewpoints. Integration can arise from engaging with divergent assumptions underlying our own theories and methods and those of others. This can lead to strategically reformulating our assumptions in order to find common ground for exchanging insights with our colleagues (Lund, et al., 2013).
The Input-Process-Output (IPO) model of integration has been applied to accounts of cross-disciplinary work (O'Rourke, Crowley & Gonnerman, 2016; Laursen 2018) and used to evaluate how effectively review teams integrate knowledge (Bugin, et al., 2021). But can the IPO model and its extensions be mobilized during interdisciplinary projects to help researchers make sense of their own activities?

We analyze visualizations of interdisciplinarity as well as interview data from 8 interdisciplinary projects within a 5-year 4,3M€ project on language complexity in France. Results show how integrative relations (O’Rourke and Crowley 2012) and topologies of integration (Laursen 2023), both based in the IPO model, help researchers make sense of intertwining contributions at project, research phase, and task levels. After using these models to facilitate embedded, intentional reflection, researchers imagined using them for organizing grant proposals, writing papers, and reporting to funders, each of which could benefit from more explicit description of cross-disciplinary integration. Integration topologies render research practices explicit and should be a tool for Integration Experts (Hoffmann, et al., 2022). We conclude with ways our empirical results can be used to refine frameworks and models of integration.

Bugin, K., Lotrecchiano, G.R., O’Rourke, M., & Butler J. Evaluating integration in collaborative cross-disciplinary FDA new drug reviews using an input-process-output model. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science 5: e199, 1–10. doi: 10.1017/cts.2021.861
Hoffmann, S., Deutsch, L., Klein, J.T. et al. (2022). Integrate the integrators! A call for establishing academic careers for integration experts. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 9, 147. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01138-z
Laursen, B. (2018) What is collaborative, interdisciplinary reasoning? The heart of interdisciplinary team science. Informing Science: The International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 21, 75–106. http://doi.org/10.28945/4010
Laursen, B. (2023) Topologies of integration: Using integrative pathways to teach, identify, facilitate, and evaluate knowledge integration. Lyman Briggs College Faculty Lightning Talk. April 21.
Lund, K., Rosé, C.P., Suthers, D. & Baker, M. (2013). Epistemological Encounters in Multivocal Settings. Suthers, D.D., Lund, K., Rosé, C.P., Teplovs, C., Law, N. Productive Multivocality in the Analysis of Group Interactions, Springer, pp.659-682, Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning Series, Vol. 15, 978-1-4614-8960-3.
O'Rourke M., Crowley S., & Gonnerman C. (2016). On the nature of cross-disciplinary integration: A philosophical framework. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences. Apr;56:62-70. doi: 10.1016/j.shpsc.2015.10.003. Epub 2015 Nov 19. PMID: 26601600.
O’Rourke, M., and Crowley, S., (2012). “What Might Integration Be? What Using Philosophical Interventions to Facilitate Disciplinary Integration Can Teach Us About the Notion of Common Ground,” Philosophy Of/As Interdisciplinary Network Conference, Tübingen, Germany. September.

Presented by: Karen Liston, University Libraries
Authored by: Karen Liston, University Libraries

Peter Senge introduced the concept of the Learning Organization in his best-selling book The Fifth Discipline over 30 years ago. Although it enjoyed popular success, its identity became muddied amid teamwork trends and within the scholarly learning, business, and human resources literature itself. Are there aspects of the Learning Organization's Personal Mastery, Mental Models, Shared Vision, Team Learning, and System Thinking that are relevant for Team Science today? Which ones? Why and how can they benefit Research Teams? This presentation serves as a practical review of the model, and highlighting the most useful resources in resurrecting it for Team Science applications.

Presented by: Maureen Brudzinski, University of Michigan
Authored by: Maureen Brudzinski, University of Michigan

At the Michigan Institute for Clinical & Health Research—the University of Michigan (U-M) Clinical & Translational Science Award hub—the Translational Innovation Program (TIP) uses Design Sprints to move a team rapidly from developing an idea to testing prototypes. Over the past two years, TIP has facilitated nine Design Sprints with four U-M research teams. The process uses human-centered design principles to allow a group to understand multiple perspectives on a given problem, create potential solutions, and evaluate a first prototype. The distinct phases of the Design Sprint - Understand, Define, Sketch, Decide, Prototype and Validate - are incredibly adaptable and effective at engaging diverse teams in problem solving. Recently, TIP collaborated with the U-M “Predicting Intensive Care Transfers and UnfoReseen Events” (PICTURE) research team to facilitate four Design Sprints. The PICTURE team had the goal of moving from service conception (a machine learning program developed to help identify pediatric patients at risk for deterioration) into implementation of a module in the electronic health record. The team comprised researchers of various specialities, including data scientists, pediatric critical care clinicians, a biopsychosocial scientist, and human-centered designers. In Design Sprint 1, we oriented the research team to the process while also eliciting their concept sketches for improving eventual adoption of the system. Design Sprint 2 engaged various clinical providers in brainstorming how best to incorporate PICTURE into clinical workflows. Design Sprints 3 and 4 built on the outputs of the first two sprints to create and test initial prototypes of the features of the PICTURE program for nurses, physician assistants, residents, and hospitalists. Currently, the team is planning future shorter, more focused Design Sprint iterations to determine the precise look and interface of the program. For the PICTURE team, the Design Sprints were ideal for engaging the various end users (eg, clinicians, nurses, residents) in each step of the design process so that the final deterioration module will bring ultimate value to those who are using it.

Presented by: Kimberly Bourne, Appalachian State University
Authored by: Kimberly Bourne, Appalachian State University

Integrating knowledge across diverse disciplines requires effective communication of specific and complex scientific concepts. Eliminating jargon and requiring researchers to simplify their language limits the breadth and depth of communication that can occur within these groups. A shared language can allow researchers to overcome communication barriers while leveraging the specificity with which researchers use language to create a shared framework. Identifying words and phrases that are defined differently based on discipline serves two purposes: 1) to prevent miscommunications where team members may assume an incorrect definition of a term used and 2) to highlight potential philosophical differences in the way team members approach a problem.

Despite a widely recognized need to establish these shared languages to achieve convergence, few tools exist to facilitate their creation. Language Integration Opportunity (LINGO) is an online application that will allow groups to identify, reflect, and discuss words and phrases with diverging meanings across disciplines. This application has been deployed in a large, National Science Foundation-funded science and technology center, Science and Technology for Phosphorus Sustainability (STEPS). The purpose of LINGO in the context of STEPS is to:

• Share meanings of language in cases where consensus is sought to align the group’s direction
• Explore divergence in the meanings of words or phrases from different perspectives or disciplines
• Observe the diversity of perspectives and meanings even on words we may share a definitional understanding of
• Practice epistemic humility that underpins convergence as a habit of mind
• Co-create a linguistic record of blending understanding across the team

To accomplish these goals, LINGO users submit words and phrases they come across in center writings and group interactions that are unknown to them or are being used differently across disciplines. Anyone can then add additional reflections associated with a specific word or phrase and how it is used. This data is stored in a central database providing a detailed record of convergence over time in the form of a shared language. To date, 31 words or phrases and 154 reflections from members of the center have been included in LINGO since it was launched in March 2023. It is still under active development based on continued feedback from users in the STEPs center. Our hope is for LINGO to become a universal tool any team can onboard to develop a shared language among interdisciplinary teams.
 

Presented by: Brandy L. Farlow, Renaissance Computing Institute (RENCI) and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Authored by: Brandy L. Farlow, Renaissance Computing Institute (RENCI) and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Asia Joanna O. Mieczkowska, Renaissance Computing Institute (RENCI) and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Amanda C. Miller, Renaissance Computing Institute (RENCI) and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Stephanie N. Suber, Renaissance Computing Institute (RENCI) and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Team science is increasingly important in research and innovation, bringing together experts from diverse disciplines to solve complex problems. Effective team processes around communication, people management, project management, and collaborative processes among team members with different skill sets, backgrounds, and perspectives are critical for successful team science. The Renaissance Computing Institute (RENCI) at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill has successfully built practical knowledge in this field for years. This poster submission showcases specific examples of RENCI’s successes and future intentions for continued involvement in team science projects. As an organization that highly values collaboration, we share this information to help establish a framework (alongside lessons from other organizations) for mutually beneficial team science practices.

During the Spring of 2023, RENCI created a staff survey to evaluate awareness and usage of team science principles. The survey did not use the term “team science.” Instead, it anonymously explored staff perspectives and lessons learned from RENCI’s history of coordinating “large, collaborative, multidisciplinary groups in science-related pursuits.” Using the survey results, this poster explores RENCI’s challenges and successes as a case study of team science in action.

RENCI develops and deploys data science cyberinfrastructure across multiple domains, helping researchers in academia, government, and business use data to drive discoveries, innovate, make informed decisions, and spur economic development. RENCI was launched in 2004 with a mission to work collaboratively in partnership with Duke and North Carolina State University, and that founding impetus has expanded to include many large-scale, collaborative projects that span the globe. The variety of projects the institute has engaged with - and their increasing size and complexity in the last five years - have provided many opportunities to explore team science best practices.

Data from the 2023 survey shows RENCI’s ability to shape and manage effective team processes using clear communication, defined roles and responsibilities, trust, and mutual respect help it succeed. These processes are essential for effective collaboration, facilitating knowledge, idea, and resource sharing and promoting a shared vision, sense of accountability, and supportive and positive team culture.

The survey data also showcases how effective team processes and dynamics can be challenging to achieve, particularly when teams are composed of individuals with different backgrounds, perspectives, locations, and expertise. Academia also struggles to foster cross-sector collaboration, which is reflected in some of RENCI’s challenges building large-scale collaborations.

Through this poster, we highlight specific examples of the successes, lessons learned, and future intentions for RENCI’s continued successful involvement in team science projects. By promoting these lessons in effective team processes and dynamics, we hope to engage with the team science research community to collaboratively tackle some of the most significant challenges facing society today.

Presented by: Sabrina Delgado Arias, Science Systems and Applications, Inc
Authored by: Lauren Childs-Gleason - NASA LARC
Sabrina Delgado Arias, Science Systems and Applications, Inc
Shobhana Gupta - NASA HQ/Agile Decision Sciences
Owen Hooks - NASA Wallops Flight Facility
Sydney Neugebauer - NASA LARC/Science Systems and Applications, Inc.
Nikki Tulley - NASA ARC/Bay Area Environmental Research Institute
Emma Yates - NASA ARC/Bay Area Environmental Research Institute

Communities around the world are facing environmental challenges, including poor air and water quality, sea level rise, extreme heat, and more. Marginalized communities, particularly in the poorest and most vulnerable areas, bear the burden of these challenges. In August 2022, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) kicked off a new program to advance equity and environmental justice co-development in uses of Earth and social science. The new Equity and Environmental Justice (EEJ) Program—hosted as part of NASA’s Earth Sciences Division (ESD) Applied Sciences Program—is a commitment by the agency to ensure that the investment the nation has made in NASA satellites and science benefits people across the U.S. and helps them make informed decisions about the very real challenges they face in their communities.

The EEJ program supports a total of 39 projects that aim to advance progress on EEJ domestically through better understanding of community needs and increased use of Earth science, geospatial, and socioeconomic information. These projects include landscape analyses, community-based feasibility studies and data integration projects that address environmental injustices related to a range of themes, including food insecurity, green infrastructure, urban flooding, fire management, and climate hazards. The EEJ Team includes a program manager, five associate program managers, 3-5 interns, 41 principal investigators and their project co-investigators, graduate students, administrators, and community partners. Together the EEJ Team is working to advance equity and environmental justice and those that work to promote it, enabling uses of Earth science information.

In this presentation, we discuss the EEJ program model and highlight engagement approaches implemented by the EEJ team to expand the community of practice who use Earth science to advance environmental justice. We will also highlight preliminary project findings to characterize environmental justice communities and the environmental issues they face. Finally, our presentation will also allow us to connect and start a conversation with the INSciTS members about effective ways in which co-produced knowledge can empower communities to advocate for change.

Presented by: Whitney Cheung, University of California, Davis
Authored by: Whitney Cheung, University of California, Davis

The expert advice, time, and resources to prepare proposals for extramural awards is critical to support growth of the institutional research enterprise. Preparing researchers and their programs to be responsive – sometimes prior to even considering a particular funding opportunity - is equally vital, particularly for early career investigators and those who are new to building and working with interdisciplinary teams. We approach programs and services as complementary building blocks which are anticipatory of and responsive to investigator needs. These resources are intended to be strategic, accessible, and provide the “activation energy” to launch new teams towards good-fit opportunities.

The beginning of our pipeline for converting ideas to awards comprises three broad categories:

1. Mobilizing and facilitating collaboration
2. Research program development services
3. Catalyzing new research

While each institution has a unique culture and structure, limited supply and increasing demand is a common thread. This poster will illustrate the stages of the research development pipeline, the resources supporting each stage, and provide examples of tools and initiatives which leverage limited staff time while maximizing impact.

Presented by: Mark Cantrell, University of Michigan
Authored by: Mark Cantrell, University of Michigan
Aalap Doshi, University of Michigan
Anna Kratz, University of Michigan
Elizabeth LaPensee, University of Michigan
Barbara Salem, University of Michigan
Sanja Schreiber, University of Alberta
Emily Somers, University of Michigan
Veronica Stanich, University of Michigan

Adolescent idiopathic scoliosis (AIS), a female-predominant musculoskeletal condition involving abnormal curvature and rotation of the spine, affects 0.5-5% of children, with peak incidence during ages 10-14 years. Despite its prevalence, there is a paucity of related federally-funded research, and non-surgical AIS management options are understudied and underutilized. To spur creation of an AIS research agenda, we coordinated a Research Jam – a tailored and facilitated brainstorming session created by the Michigan Institute for Clinical & Health Research – to elicit ideas and build community. We intentionally engaged 19 participants with diverse disciplinary expertise and perspectives, including University of Michigan faculty from the arts, architecture, music, rheumatology, clinical psychology, engineering, orthopedics, orthotics, and physical therapy, as well as parents of children with AIS and adults formerly treated for AIS during adolescence. A visiting professor and internationally-renowned specialist in scoliosis-specific physiotherapy, introduced attendees to physiotherapeutic approaches that are more commonly utilized in Europe, where mild/moderate scoliosis is managed in primary care and physical medicine and rehabilitation, more so than orthopedics. Given this diversity, coupled with scoliosis not being a field of study for many attendees, our Research Jam used strategies to foster foundational understanding as well as equity of voice throughout the session. To bring AIS “to life” for participants we created a journey map that visually depicted challenges experienced by children with AIS. We also heard stories from both a parent and a provider that were accompanied by tangible and impactful objects. This included a typical back brace prescribed for 16-23 hours of wear a day in skeletally-immature children with moderate scoliosis, that many children find awkward and uncomfortable (e.g., hot and sweaty during summer), which can impact adherence and psychosocial well-being. This set the stage to introduce a framing question – “How might we improve non-surgical and pre-surgical scoliosis management options and outcomes?” – that grounded participants’ focus for the remainder of the session. We interwove a series of activities designed to guide participants to generate as many ideas as possible to address the framing question (diverging) and activities to thematize, prioritize, and imagine how they, or others who were not present at the session, could work collaboratively to advance shared priorities. The various activities included opportunities for individual brainstorming and reflection, methods for building on each other’s ideas, and strategies to separate ideas from the person. The session culminated in more than 200 research ideas addressing the framing question, clustered into 25 overarching themes; a heat map of ideas prioritized against impact and feasibility. Ten participants volunteered to lead next steps. Participant feedback was positive, with 89% of participants agreeing that the session was helpful for surfacing shared ideas. Outcomes within one year included expanded non-surgical management options/access: (1) scoliosis-specific physiotherapy training/certification of ten physical therapists practicing in Michigan and Ohio, implemented as a new clinical intervention offered at 4+ regional health systems; (2) establishment of infrastructure and specialized training within the U-M orthotics department to introduce a modern brace-type as a new prescription option at U-M.

Presented by: Marilyn Garcia, University of California, Irvine
Authored by: Marilyn Garcia, University of California, Irvine
Victoria Lowerson-Bredrow, University of California, Irvine
Connie McGuire, University of California, Irvine
Brianna Ramirez, University of California, Irvine

This paper discusses the adoption of a Team Science (TS) approach integrated with Community-based Research (CbR) based on a case study about a partnership between a nonprofit community based organization (CBO) and the University of California, Irvine (UCI). The organization was established in 1987 as a grassroots, resident-driven, neighborhood association; it became a non-profit in 2009 and began working on environmental (in)justice issues in 2018. Collaborators include UCI faculty and students from 10 disciplines(Public Health, Anthropology, Environmental Health Sciences, Environmental & Occupational Health, Family Medicine, Law, Health Equity, Urban & Regional Planning, Pediatrics, Geology, Ecology & Evolutionary Biology) the Executive Director and two community organizers from the CBO, Research Justice Shop (RJS) research staff, and graduate student team science facilitators. At its core, this collaboration is drawing from a TS approach, where faculty from various disciplines collaborate across disciplines. It is less common for TS collaboration to integrate the CBO partners as fellow researchers. Specifically, we highlight how using a TS model, student facilitators support collaborators in identifying research needs and producing new knowledge about environmental justice issues the community is facing. We are expanding the TS approach by incorporating CbR methods to help bring together the lived-experience and knowledge of community members who are experiencing the problems that are being researched with the transdisciplinary knowledge from university partners to co-create research projects that increase relevance and accuracy of research. The paper highlights an air monitoring research project which aims to identify the new air pollutants being emitted by a recently permitted facility located next to the neighborhood school with the goal of raising awareness and advocating for this issue to be addressed in the city general plan. CBO staff members then brought the problem to their UCI collaborators for discussion and the collaborative research process began. The case study material was gathered through in-depth semi-structured interviews with community collaborators, university faculty and students, as well as archival research. As a public university, the University of California Irvine (UCI) should strive to conduct research that is responsive to the needs of the communities most impacted by our collective social and environmental problems, especially those communities located in the southern California region. Learning from this university/community research collaboration which integrates a CbR and TS approach, may serve as a model for how these two fields and differently positioned collaborators (university researchers and impacted communities) can work together using a TS/CbR model. The collaborative offers a model that prompts the research process to be conducted in a way that centers community knowledge, resources, and agency. In bringing together team science and community-based research methods, we are engaging in a process that not only draws from the knowledge and expertise of residents in the community but also actively engages them in innovative ways that address historical environmental justice inequities.

Presented by: Rebecca Weston, University of Texas at San Antonio
Authored by: Ambika Mathur, University of Texas at San Antonio
Rebecca Weston, University of Texas at San Antonio

Despite the increasing importance of interdisciplinary collaborations for discovery and innovation, conventional graduate education has largely become siloed. Current models of graduate training incentivize extremely technical training for students, especially in STEM programs. Students thus develop a set of discipline-specific skills through repetition and practice to achieve expertise. As a result, few opportunities exist for collaboration across disciplines. Studies of interdisciplinary teams underscore the inability of scientists, trained to prioritize specialization, to work with diverse perspectives and team members to synthesize across disciplines (Roy at el., 2013; Fazey et al., 2014).

Our goal in developing the Graduate School’s Transdisciplinary Team Grand Challenge was to offer students an environment that would foster innovation and development of marketable skills including collaboration. Students work in teams of 3 to 5 and with at least two of six colleges represented on each team. Teammates work together to define a problem related to a thematic topic and propose a conceptual project to address the problem. Now an annual event in the fall, topics have been: COVID-19 (Summer 2020), Social Justice (Fall 2020), Water (Fall 2021), and Conflict (Fall 2022). Across all events, 176 graduate students participated. Half (n=89, 51%) were female, 24% were Hispanic (n=43), and almost half were in doctoral programs (n=87, 49%). All academic colleges were represented: Business; Liberal and Fine Arts; Education and Human Development; Engineering and Integrated Design; Health, Community, and Policy; and Sciences.

Two studies evaluated the Grand Challenge. The first compared self-reported collaboration and communication skills in students who had (n=58) and had not (n=59) participated in any of the first three Grand Challenges. A second, two wave study was conducted by surveying all students who expressed interest in the fourth Grand Challenge before joining a team, with the follow-up survey conducted after proposals were submitted. Of participants completing both waves (n=26), half (n=13) had participated in the fourth annual Grand Challenge. Across both studies, comparisons by participation status showed small but nonsignificant differences; Grand Challenge participants tended to rate themselves more highly on ability to collaborate and communicate across disciplines.

In both studies, Grand Challenge participants (n=72 total) rated the effectiveness of the Grand Challenge from not at all (1) to extremely effective (5). Responses indicated the experience was effective in helping participants approach scientific problems in a new way (M=3.84), collaborating on teams (M=4.09), and working with others from different disciplines (M=4.07). Participants were also asked if they would recommend the Grand Challenge to other graduate students from definitely not (1) to definitely yes (4). Responses were extremely positive (M=3.78). Qualitative responses also suggested participants benefited from the experience, but students also had suggestions for improvements. For example, both participants and non-participants indicated they would have liked help in finding teammates from other colleges because they do not know students outside their area, reinforcing the notion that students do not have opportunities to collaborate across disciplines. We will discuss implications for supporting development of collaborative skills and planned improvements for this fall’s iteration of the Grand Challenge.

Presented by: Stephen Fiore, University of Central Florida
Authored by: Deborah DiazGranados, Virginia Commonwealth University
Stephen Fiore, University of Central Florida
Olivia Newton, University of Central Florida

In the study of team science, social psychology research provides a strong foundation for understanding group dynamics. Less examined is social cognition and how this relates to interpersonal dynamics. In this talk we redress this gap and present a developing theory that blends social cognitive processes and communication behaviors to examine how interdisciplinary teams can more productively build knowledge. We first discuss theory of mind as a core cognitive process for making mental state attributions during interdisciplinary team interaction. Broadly speaking, theory of mind requires one to take into account what another is thinking, feeling, or doing, during a social interaction (e.g., infer a confused mental state and adapt the discussion accordingly). We then relate this to the concept of cognitive tuning, discussing how that is crucial for effective information sharing in team learning and knowledge building when working across disciplines.

Information sharing and knowledge building are core processes for effective collaborative problem solving (Fiore et al., 2010; Salazar et al., 2012). Additionally, these form a crucial part of learning in teams. We focus on these processes but emphasize how the quality of shared information is influenced by the perception of the individuals involved in the transmission process. Social psychologists have identified a number of methods of transmitting information, but we focus on the concept of cognitive tuning (Zajonc, 1960) where person perceptions play a role. This requires a sender to consider the receiver's perspective and modify the message to enhance understanding. Drawing on Hardin and Higgins (1996) expansion of this concept, we discuss how tuning based on the characteristics of the sender-receiver relationship can affect knowledge coordination in interdisciplinary teams. Specifically, we integrate the social cognition concepts of theory of mind and cognitive tuning with team science interactions. First, we discuss how traditional views of knowledge integration in science teams (e.g., Salazar et al., 2012) can be strengthened by this approach. Second, we describe how perspective taking, as described in interdisciplinary research (O’Rourke et al., 2018), can be more useful when drawing from cognitive tuning as a communicative mechanism. We focus on the concept of "supertuning", a process in which the sender is highly motivated to customize the message for the receiver. In such cases, the sender's perception of the recipient's knowledge level plays a primary role in shaping the construction and delivery of the message. Supertuning in science teams, where team members communicate at a level that aligns with each other's understanding, depends on the awareness of each other's knowledge and experience. Furthermore, when there is a high level of trust in the team, extra effort is invested to ensure accurate information transmission.

These social and communicative processes can promote learning and knowledge building in science teams. We discuss how team development interventions can focus on improving theory of mind and cognitive tuning in science teams. We argue that recognition of, and training for, effective cognitive tuning, can ensure that information transmission is as precise as possible, thus facilitating more successful learning in teams, and improved knowledge integration.
 

Presented by: Tursynay Issabekova, University of Colorado
Authored by: Tursynay Issabekova, University of Colorado

Interdisciplinary teams of experts have been needed to rapidly identify treatments, care strategies, and biological mechanisms underlying COVID-19 as a new disease. It is critical that data provenance and informatics methods applied to observational healthcare data be made fully transparent and reproducible. Major manuscript retractions that have changed the course of ongoing clinical trials have made the need for reproducibility even more pressing. The National COVID Cohort Collaborative (N3C) is a broad partnership across US academic medical centers (>232) to harmonize electronic health record data. The N3C has implemented a uniquely open team science approach to navigate the societal, technical, regulatory, and clinical obstacles to sharing and analyzing sensitive data. Governance was established through shared decision making between the NIH and the community: formal policies for data transfer, data access, data use, code of conduct, guiding principles and publication and attribution have been collaboratively developed and ratified. To ensure transitive attribution, the N3C Data Enclave maintains full provenance for all data and analysis results. Because the Enclave contains data that is the result of an advanced ingestion and harmonization pipeline, statistical code captured as a by-product of the enclave functionality, and made available to researchers, can support reuse of analyses against different datasets in addition to supporting reproducibility of evidence. A publication committee and attribution policy has pivoted clinical informatics from competitive to collaborative, as it incentivizes building upon each other's work to expedite science. The first marker paper had 199 authors - an unprecedented scenario in a clinical informatics journal. Moreover, these members represent disciplines as diverse as clinical medicine and social science, statistics, librarianship, public health, and computer science all working together to address the complex socio-technical landscape of data access, preparation, and analyses. The N3C Enclave also contains a sophisticated graph model for tracking all actions by all users for security purposes as well as the robust attribution of all contributions to any given resource, workflow, or result. Enclave reports provide a full list of ORCIDs for all participants based on the provenance graph. Reports and other dataset descriptors and concept set definitions are also included in the Zenodo N3C community for community feedback and public availability. The N3C community outcomes have been tremendous, with >200 manuscripts/preprints (2043 authors, h-index 23 and ~2K citations in 2 yrs); changed Covid patient care guidelines (in multiple countries); White House & State requests for data; NPR and NIH Director Blog; and the grand prize for data sharing within the NIH & FASEB Dataworks! Competition.

Presented by: Raffael Himmelsbach, Ludwig Boltzmann Gesellschaft
Authored by: Raffael Himmelsbach, Ludwig Boltzmann Gesellschaft

This presentation reports on lessons learned from running a ‘meta-science’ journal club to foster collaboration capabilities in a multidisciplinary research group on wound healing. Many cross-disciplinary research collaborations are first time experiences for the participating scientists and take place in an ad hoc setting. As is well documented in the literature, willingness to collaborate is necessary but not sufficient for achieving boundary spanning and knowledge integration. It must be paired with measures to forge a shared goal, elaborate a common language and construct mutually recognizable mental models. Outside an institutionalized framework, many of these elements must be built from scratch.

The ‘meta’ theme encompasses big picture topics: how does the science system work, what are core assumptions in different research fields, how are health systems governed, what is expertise, etc. The journal club was originally inspired by the notion of reflexivity in the governance of emerging technologies, where it is understood as an organized reflection on the societal robustness of the assumptions underpinning one’s research. The format is thus quite different from journal clubs in medical education, where it serves to train evidence literacy. The journal club takes place monthly for 90 minutes and has been running for two years. The research group brings together scientists from several different disciplines in the STEM and social science fields. Their work is organized in a biology and health system workstream, respectively. The team is spread across different locations, with in person meetings approximately every other week. The group first read a book that it decided to abandon halfway, as it was deemed to foster disagreement. It then successfully worked itself through another book before deciding together on a bottom-up collection of articles to be read together. Each session is facilitated by two team members who autonomously decide on how to introduce the topic and what questions should be discussed.

Some of the lessons learned are:

• Team members are primarily motivated by spending time together. They are interested in learning about each other’s opinions more than learning about a new topic.
• The quality of discussion evolved along with team members getting to know each other better. Taking decisions together on what to read has had an empowering effect.
• Journal club time forms an island disconnected from the concerns of everyday scientific work. (While the implications of a given text for wound healing research are regularly discussed, it is not wound healing research that the group discusses.) The big picture focus attenuates epistemic hierarchies as discussions are about informed opinions and not a narrow set of facts.

These experiences indicate that the journal club is an effective format in building team rapport in a time effective way. This is especially interesting in a geographically distributed scenario where direct social interactions are sparse. Whether the journal club discussions lead to insights that carry over to daily scientific work remains to be evaluated. Finally, the experience raises the possibility that advocating a reflexive mindset might be counterproductive to forming a shared mental model.
 

Presented by: Angela Mendell, University of Cincinnati
Authored by: Jackie Knapke, University of Cincinnati
John R Kues, University of Cincinnati
Laura Hildreth, University of Cincinnati
Megan Johnstone, University of Cincinnati
Angela Mendell, University of Cincinnati
Jennifer Molano, University of Cincinnati
Stephanie Schuckman, University of Cincinnati

The University of Cincinnati Center for Clinical and Translational Science and Training offers a semester-long graduate course in collaboration and team science. For the past 6 years, junior faculty, fellows, post-docs, graduate students, and K scholars have enrolled in this course to further their development as translational researchers primarily in the College of Medicine. The course is limited to 12-15 students and balances team science theory with practical application. Content closely parallels the national discussion around team science competencies and has evolved as competency-based models for team science education have been published. The 14-week course covers topics critical to collaboration within interdisciplinary teams. Students complete personal and team assessments as pre-work for these topics.

Pre-work assessments are valuable educational tools that provide students with important insights into not only issues that are relevant to work teams, but also their own personal skills and preferences. We report the pre-work assessment scores (in aggregate) during class to personalize general concepts. These assessments raise the general level of engagement by students. Students report that this method provides them with insights into their own attitudes and behaviors as well as those of team members. Class exercises utilize the concepts at the foundation of these tools (and, sometimes, real data from the class) to demonstrate practical applications of the tools. These tools are usually available in the public domain and have been validated. Course evaluations underscore the value of the assessment tools in the students’ understanding and practical application of topics covered in the course.

This poster will provide an overview of the graduate course and the specific tools currently being used as pre-work. It will also illustrate the links between the course topics, assessment tools, and current competencies for team science training. Space permitting, the poster will contain some course evaluation data as well as details about at least one tool and its use within the related course session.

Presented by: Hiya Bandyopadhyay, North Carolina State University
Authored by: Hiya Bandyopadhyay, North Carolina State University

Wyoming Anticipating Climate Transitions – or WyACT– is a five-year National Science Foundation funded project, led by the University of Wyoming, with the goal to partner with Wyoming communities, practitioners, and decision-makers to understand, anticipate, and prepare for significant changes in climate and water in the headwaters regions of western Wyoming. The mountains in western Wyoming serve as headwater regions for major river basins in the United States and changes impact not only the immediate region, but densely populated downstream regions as well. The WyACT project consists of an interdisciplinary team of over 30 researchers with disciplines spanning biophysical and social sciences. In addition to the interdisciplinary nature of our research team, we seek to co-produce knowledge about changing climate and water resources with the operational experts, policymakers, sovereign tribes, and community members at the forefront of these changes. With the translational and transdisciplinary aspects of the WyACT project in mind, it is critical to adopt collaborative strategies that support team communication, coordination, and cohesion within and across disciplines and sectors.

The integrated and collaborative approach of WyACT to co-produce scientifically-sound, relevant, and actionable knowledge in the realm of changing climate and water resources is dynamic and iterative. In this work, we present a framework that supports individual and team-level skill development to support team science and knowledge co-production processes through the course of the WyACT project. We also explore the structures, mechanisms, and opportunities designed to establish and maintain a shared group vision and mental models, enhance team trust and psychological safety, and create effective and inclusive meeting and
communication modalities. Lastly, we present methods for iterative feedback and reflection.