Scholars and professionals have argued understanding various influences would be helpful to plan and implement successful international collaborative research; however, there are furthermore unexpected challenges and unintended consequences in international research collaborations. The objective of this study is to develop a better understanding of the factors that influence stakeholders in international research collaborations and explore how to refine research planning and research implementation procedures at the individual, institutional, national, and international levels across nations.

The purpose of this study is to compare perspectives of the key stakeholders in international research collaborations between Sweden and Japan. The research question driving the analysis in this study is as follows: In what ways could we refine roles and responsibilities of the stakeholders to be more supportive to international collaborative research?

This study utilizes a qualitative research method with the conceptual framework (three influencing factors and the responsibilities of stakeholders) related to international research collaborations. In this study, the three influencing factors refer to “research infrastructure,” “research policies,” and “research operation & management.” The responsibilities of stakeholders will be analyzed and outlined by utilizing the construction process of grounded theory, based on the interview data collected in this study. With the approval of the Sophia University Ethics Committee for Research on Human Subjects, the primary investigator of this study conduct interviews toward the stakeholders.

This study focuses on analyzing experiences, knowledge, and wisdom of the key stakeholders who have established and developed international initiatives, international programs, international collaborative research, and other related international events between Sweden and Japan. The principal investigator of this study examines responsibilities of the stakeholders and the three influencing factors and their influences in maintaining and advancing international collaborative research.

There were thirteen individuals who participated in the interviews in this study: five of them were affiliated with Japanese institutions, and eight of them were affiliated with Swedish institutions. All of the interview participants have established and advanced international research communities between Sweden and Japan. By applying a qualitative research methodology, this study examines the key stakeholders’ experiences, knowledge, and wisdom collected through the interviews, at the individual level.

The study results indicate two suggestions to refine the international collaborative research between Sweden and Japan. First, stakeholders need to understand who would be the upcoming driving forces leading international research collaborations in a specified discipline research or transdisciplinary research. Second, research administrators and international officers could be collaboration hubs at each institution to establish and develop trusted relationships among stakeholders in international research collaborations.

The results of this study analysis indicate that international collaborations need to be promoted through research collaborations, educational exchanges, and leadership engagement through various academic and professional communication channels. The study results will be beneficial to all individuals who are responsible for refining research support structures, advancing international communities, and promoting international collaborative research across nations.

Convergence – Background & Conceptual Framework: Convergence science is an intrepid form of interdisciplinarity defined by the US National Research Council as ‘the coming together of insights and approaches from originally distinct fields’ to strategically address grand challenges (NRC, 2014). Given its increasing relevance to science policy and institutional design, here we showcase a practical framework for measuring convergence – one that operationalizes measure of disciplinary distance based upon disciplinary boundaries delineated by hierarchical ontologies. We apply this approach using two widely used ontologies— the Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP) and the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) — which are each comprised of thousands of entities that facilitate classifying two distinct research dimensions – namely, social & conceptual. The social dimension codifies the disciplinary pedigree of individual scholars, connoting core expertise associated with traditional modes of mono-disciplinary graduate education. The conceptual dimension codifies the knowledge, methods, and equipment fundamental to a given target problem, which together may exceed the researchers’ core expertise.

Methodological Framework & Descriptive Analysis – historical convergence trends in the conceptual dimension: To achieve a high-resolution representation of the conceptual space, we leverage the knowledge network representation of the Medical Subject Heading (MeSH) ontology implemented in PubMed to infer conceptual distances between roughly 30,000 distinct MeSH keywords each being prescribed to particular knowledge domains in order to quantify the origins of cross-domain biomedical convergence. Analysis of MeSH co-occurrences at the publication-level shows how distinct conceptual domains integrated from the 1990s onward via technological and informatic capabilities captured by MeSH belonging to the “Technology, Industry, and Agriculture" (branch J) and “Information Science" (branch L) domains, which together represent highly controllable, scalable and permutable research processes and invaluable imaging techniques for illuminating fundamental yet transformative structure–function–behavior questions. Our results show that 8.2% of biomedical research from 2000 to 2018 include MeSH terms from both the J and L MeSH branches, representing a 291% increase from 1980s levels. Article-level MeSH analysis further identifies the increasing prominence of cross-domain integration, and confirms a positive relationship between team size and topical diversity.

Econometric results quantifying the citation premium associated with social-conceptual alignment: And finally, considered in tandem, this social-conceptual decomposition facilitates measuring social-conceptual alignment and optimizing team assembly around domain-spanning problems—a key aspect that eludes other approaches. To this end, econometric analysis of 655,386 publications derived from 9,121 distinct HBS scholars reveals a 11.4% article-level citation premium attributable to research featuring full topical convergence, and an additional 2.7% citation premium if the social (disciplinary) configuration of scholars is maximally aligned with the conceptual (topical) configuration of the research.

The integration of diverse disciplinary and practitioner knowledge is essential for addressing complex and interconnected sustainability challenges we face today. This study explores the theoretical underpinnings that support collaboration in transdisciplinary teams, focusing on team evaluation, reflexivity and psychological safety, and how these factors enhance knowledge integration to drive impactful research outcomes.

Transdisciplinary teams often encounter significant challenges. Individuals within these teams bring their unique cultural, political and social contexts to their work. The intentional blending of disciplines and professional experiences not only influences the design, conduct and delivery of key outputs, but also complicates the negotiation of a common research agenda, trust building and the balancing of different perspectives. Teams are often required to sit in contested spaces and iterate towards possible solutions. This can be an uncomfortable process for research teams. Within this context, psychological safety becomes critical, empowering team members to test ideas, highlight concerns and challenge norms without fear of repercussions. Fostering a team culture that values diverse perspectives, prioritises cultural safety and supports inclusive decision making can enhance the integration of varied knowledge streams.

This 18-month case study of a transdisciplinary sustainability science team incorporating social scientists, human geographers, economists, ecologists and government policy experts, illustrates how a practical team-based evaluation process, that emphasises co-production within a team, can contribute to bringing together different perspectives to inform sustainability actions. This process, with cycles of reflection, learning and action, draws on shared reflections on team dynamics, task distribution and well-being, to improve collaboration and guide collective efforts. Sentiment analysis of these reflections highlights the fluctuations in morale that transdisciplinary teams experience, with phases of uncertainty and change connected to more negative sentiments while positive sentiments are tied to periods of greater connection and delivery of outputs. Tracking and openly discussing these reflections provides multiple benefits. From a research perspective, this process provides insights on new capability that might be needed and highlights where individuals could benefit from additional support. It is also important for predicting potential disruption and implementing timely support measures. The inclusion of external government collaborators in this process also provides invaluable insights into the applicability and usability of research outputs in real-world settings. This study advocates for investment in and prioritisation of regular feedback and reflection mechanisms in transdisciplinary teams. Monitoring team sentiments can provide useful indicators of team health and overall progress towards expected outcomes. The team-based reflection process itself can also contribute to an environment where team members articulate concerns and collaboratively navigate changes, thus strengthening the foundations for innovative and effective transdisciplinary research in sustainability science.

Background
Co-production is a collaborative approach to research that engages individuals who bring perspectives and skills from outside of the institutional/academic research enterprise to the research team. When patient partners (i.e., people with lived and living experience of a condition or disease) are engaged in co-production in health research it is referred to as patient engagement (PE) or patient and public involvement (PPI). This approach is intended to reduce research waste and generate more relevant and impactful results.

In health research co-production, patient partners are typically invited into existing research teams, where the academics on the team retain power and resources. This power imbalance may lead to tensions, tokenism, and a suboptimal experience for everyone on the team. If patient partners are used to validate knowledge they have played only a marginal role in producing, it may also reproduce and reinforce established biases. The PxP project demonstrates co-production where patient partners ‘held the power,’ and insitutionally-affiliated members of the team played a supportive role to ensure the project was successfully executed according to patient partners’ vision and decisions.

Methods
The Canadian Institutes of Health Research Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis (CIHR-IMHA) has engaged patient partners for many years. CIHR-IMHA performs a research facilitation and leadership role and engages patient partners as members of its Patient Engagement Research Ambassadors initiative, supporting the group to set and realise its own priorities. In 2022,the Patient Engagement Research Ambassadors discussed hosting a conference, for and by patient partners, about patient engagement in research called PxP.

In early 2023, a PxP Steering Committee of international patient partners was formed. CIHR-IMHA provided organizational scaffolding to support all of the Steering Committee’s planning and decision making for the PxP conference, including personnel, financial, and operational resources.

Results and Discussion
The co-produced PxP Conference that patient partners led was a resounding success. We will share our experiences, successes, and challenges, and address concerns research teams may have when giving patient partners power and control over an initiative. The PxP Conference sessions, themes, and content were unique, tackling thorny and difficult topics. There was robust engagement on the virtual platform and overwhelmingly positive post-conference survey results. We will share adaptable aspects of the patient-centric conference design and explain how we are continuing momentum for the next PxP, building a like-minded community in the process. We will explore how the tradition of participatory design in Scandinavia offers a model for effective institutional allyship with marginalized communities. This model emphasizes the role of professional experts as amplifiers of lived, embodied and community expertise through providing sociomaterial infrastructure for community-led innovation.

Conclusion
The co-production in research space has few examples where patient partners are provided opportunities to lead initiatives. The PxP Conference showed that patient partners were able to completely design, execute, and continue to build on a successful initiative when given full control and resourced appropriately.

The Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Program supports a national network of medical research institutions working to expedite the development of treatments and interventions for patients who need them. High-performing translational teams (TTs) are critical for advancing evidence-based approaches that improve human health, but they often face unique challenges. As “…a hybrid of an academic knowledge-generating team and an industry-like product development team,” the work done by TTs is complex and evolving as the work progresses through the translational pipeline (Brasier et al. 2023). The management of such teams can be challenging, and poor project management may be more to blame for the difficulties that arise in health-related research projects than flaws in research methodology (Payne et al. 2011). Thus, effective project management tailored for TTs may help them overcome the unique challenges they face.

There is a huge amount of variability in how project management is handled for TTs across CTSAs. While there are CTSAs that provide dedicated project management resources for the translational research teams they serve, some provide what some refer to as project management “lite”, and finally, others provide few to no resources. For those TTs that have no dedicated resources, it is usually up to the Principal Investigator of the team to ensure these duties are covered. It is difficult to conduct innovative research when saddled with the cognitive burden of managing the administrative tasks of the team (Kelly et al. 2023). Engaging a dedicated project manager is one way to alleviate this burden. Despite the obvious benefits of effective project management, not all TTs welcome the role of the dedicated project manager. Some teams see the new personnel as an interloper, there to oversee and micromanage. Even the personas developed by Gonzales et al. (2019, 2023) do not include the role of a dedicated project manager.

To learn more about the role of project managers on TTs, we conducted qualitative interviews of 14 dedicated project managers from six different CTSAs. Participants were asked about the challenges they faced in meeting the needs of the translational teams they worked with, and to report on the support and resources their CTSAs provided. They were then asked to describe examples of notable successes and the factors that contributed to those successes. Finally, participants described the ideal project management set up based on their experience. All interviews were transcribed verbatim, and participants given pseudonyms to protect confidentiality. Data analysis involved coding transcripts for emerging themes. Information derived from the thematic analysis will be used to identify barriers to effective project management, establish a project management resource at our CTSA and develop training materials for those who serve in this important role on their team. This presentation will summarize the study results and suggest future steps to champion the role of the dedicated project manager on TTs ultimately advancing more innovative health solutions.

According to the NSF (5), “Today's grand challenges will not be solved by one discipline alone. But the integration of knowledge, methods and expertise from across science and engineering is not simple or automatic”. This is not news. What is new, is an increasing emphasis on addressing grand challenges with non-academic partners, such as industry or community organizations. We argue that such partnerships can put significant stress on core scientific commitments regarding the kind of knowledge making (KM) that is most valuable. That stress is better managed if the commitments of the competing KM standards are made explicit so that they can be negotiated.

While the exact nature of science’s core commitments regarding KM is subject to debate (6) we can draw on the work of Karl Popper (2) for a simple model that captures a set of commitments that are widespread in the sciences. For Popper, scientific knowledge consists of testable generalizations arrived at by a process of bold conjectures and refutations. That is, scientific KM involves practitioners generating unlikely hypotheses which are tested as stringently as possible in order to generate claims that apply widely (e.g. to many different times and places) and which significantly advance our understanding of the world.

It is convenient to think of KM with non-academic partners as falling into two main categories; partnering with industry and partnering with communities. Either possibility can give rise to tensions with the commitments of the Popperian model of KM.

An important component of KM with industry partners is ‘de-risking’ (3,4). That is, roughly, good industrial KM can require pursuing conservative strategies that raise the likelihood of successful commercialization at the cost of missing out on the most innovative possible solutions. This is in tension with the Popperian norm of ‘bold conjectures’.

Working with community partners can often involve addressing ‘wicked problems’ (1), such as how to route an interstate through an urban area. Such problems involve contested framings of the issues, incompatible stakeholder values, and high sensitivity to local context among other features. As a result any ‘solution’ to such problems will be extremely specific and untestable. Again this sort of work is in tension with Popperian norms, in this case the norm of creating general testable knowledge.

If these tensions in norms of KM are not addressed, collaborations between scientific and non-academic partners can become incoherent with the parties striving for incompatible forms of knowledge.

We conclude our presentation with a discussion of mechanisms for uncovering these sorts of tensions (e.g. the Toolbox Dialogue Initiative) and suggestions about how to manage them. For example, scientists cannot propose ‘solutions’ to the wicked problems communities face, rather, they must negotiate how they contribute resources (e.g. models, data sets, etc.) and use trained judgment (7) in co-identifying ‘solutions’.. This allows both groups to operate in ways that are mutually beneficial but also consistent with their differing norms.

Multi-disciplinary science teams face conceptual and practical challenges conducting their research. Creating cross-project understanding, i.e. distributed or shared cognition, manifests in ways such as common understanding of project goals, cross-disciplinary communication, and co-creating new knowledge, the ‘task work’. Practical challenges include administrative activities like scheduling meetings, tracking progress, generating reports, and on/off-boarding team members, the ‘team work’. Teams that are able to create, implement and use information infrastructure to address these challenges may be better positioned to achieve their objectives. The question remains, though, what information infrastructure, how to deploy and how to use. This paper will describe the development and implementation of information infrastructure, called the Knowledge Framework (KF), in the CHEER (Coastal Hazards, Equity, Economic Prosperity & Resilience Hub) project led by the University of Delaware. This paper will apply the concept of sociotechnical assemblage to analyze a collection of information technologies, boundary objects, roles, and processes being integrated as part of the CHEER KF.

Funded as part of NSF’s Coastlines and People (CoPe) program, the five-year CHEER project brings together approximately 50 members distributed across scientific, technical, professional domains, and geography. With a goal to understand and quantify the relationships and tradeoffs between equity, economic prosperity, and natural hazard resilience among households under different policy alternatives, the research is organized around six research thrusts working together developing a computational framework to model these interconnected effects. The research thrusts include, Hazards, Buildings, Economy, Households, and Government with a cross-cutting integration activity as the sixth thrust. In addition to providing cross-project knowledge management, the CHEER KF is envisaged as a complement to the CHEER computational framework.

Team science work argues that technology may be recognized as an additional member of the science team for the ways in which it supports both team work and task work. Sociotechnical assemblages, as used in the literature of sociotechnical studies, broadens this idea to recognize that the technology used in these contexts is more than hardware and software, but are networks of individuals, technologies, and artifacts that become mutually substantiated in the context of an activity or actor network. The assemblages include formal and informal roles for individuals and technologies, as well as processes and configuration work.

This paper will describe the existing CHEER knowledge framework and its development outlining progress, challenges encountered, and future directions. The authors are members of the CHEER team and are responsible for developing the CHEER Knowledge Framework and are, therefore, well-placed to describe the process and outcomes to date. Approaching the role of technology in teams as a sociotechnical assemblage may improve practical understanding and in a reciprocal manner enrich the theoretical understanding in team science and sociotechnical studies.

The discovery of new knowledge can shed light on how our universe works, uncover cures for complex and rare diseases, provide insights for using available knowledge resources better, and identify new products to enhance the productivity and safety of society. The generation of the latest knowledge, whether in scientific research or new product development firms, often occurs in teams due to the combined expertise that emerges when specialized experts share and exchange knowledge (Teodoridis, 2018). Scholars create new knowledge in the form of a jointly published paper, and contributors create intellectual output that they could not have done without their collaborators' diverse yet complementary inputs.

Such scholarly collaboration has even been called a ‘‘springboard for economic prosperity and sustainable development’’ (US Office of Science & Technology Policy 2000). nderstanding how these collaborations commence and evolve remains critical. Typically, interactions between contributors occur within a shared social context and emerge from and are perpetuated through social networks. These social networks can span disciplinary, departmental, or national boundaries. However, particular configurations of the networks in which collaborators are embedded can affect how much they can utilize one another’s expertise (Vestal & Danneels, 2023).

The social networks of collaborators can be shaped by various forces, which Leak and Chalkley (1997) argue can be attributed to endogenous or exogenous network factors. For example, investigators can change across time regarding their interests or skills, and the characteristics of who they want to work with can follow developmental curves associated with these shifts. On the other hand, external changes can come from macro forces like institutional changes, including deliberate efforts to draw scholars across fields, shaping network change.

The research design was partially planned and opportunistic. Leadership within this organization sought to promote opportunities for innovation by reducing the structural and social boundaries that often hindered interaction between disciplines and decided to encourage the establishment of internal, interdisciplinary teams. Following the official announcement of the intervention in October 2007, which encouraged faculty and staff to organize into problem or disease-focused teams, 64 interdisciplinary research (IDR) teams self-organized, producing proposals in the hopes of securing funding for their work. Teams drew together individuals from across departments and specializations, thus destabilizing organizational silos.

Our empirical research focuses on the networks of participants who participated in an organizational effort to foster new problem-focused teams. Joining one of these teams had the potential to disrupt an employee’s traditional networks because it shifted the location of collaborative activity from the department to the cross-disciplinary team.

To examine the evolution of collaborative relationships over time, we utilize a network approach and study newly formed scientific teams over fifteen years. We conceive of ties as joint scholarly publications produced within fifteen years. We propose that the initial pattern of intrateam networks will influence the co-production of knowledge and the evolution of collaborative networks for years to come. We focus most on patterns of interaction that we believe will affect members’ knowledge integration and creation, including (a) shared department, (b) shared team, and c) shared triangles; we will elaborate on how each of these patterns shape collaboration across time.

Our study of a bounded network within one organization focuses on the co-authorship ties that formed simultaneously due to an organizational initiative to draw people from across disciplines and fields into problem-focused teams. From this single point in time, we explore whether being on the same team results in greater strength of co-authorship ties compared to those outside of teams; we define a tie as co-authoring a published scholarly work, and tie strength is defined as the count of these co-authored works within a given period. We also investigate other factors influencing co-authorship tie strength, including prior collaboration, the number of mutual contacts, and being a member of the same primary department.

Analyzing data spanning 15 years, three years before intervention, and 12 years following the onset of these problem-focused teams, our findings shed light on how the social network of collaborators influences co-author productivity, giving us a better understanding of how particular exogenous shocks influence network dynamics in knowledge organizations.

Originally developed at the National Cancer Institute and National Science Foundation by synthesizing decades of interdisciplinary research on teams (Hall et al. 2019), Collaboration Planning (CP) is an evidence-based approach that helps teams develop strong team processes from their inception. By surfacing how team members will work together, this 90-minute facilitated workshop helps teams to proactively plan for the future by discussing potentially contentious issues before they erupt in conflict, such as authorship, communications, and project management. Over the past five years, CP has been operationalized, implemented, and evaluated in over 50 translational science teams by the Team Science Core at UW’s Institute for Clinical and Translational Research (ICTR) (Rolland et. al, 2020). Our multi-year evaluation results from over 250 participants are positive and encouraging: 97% would recommend Collaboration Planning to a colleague and 99% found the CP facilitators to be effective.

The success from these initial sessions has inspired us to experiment and adopt an even more expansive approach to cultivating a culture of Collaboration Planning at ICTR and across UW more broadly. In this oral presentation, Drs. Patrick Kelly and Whitney Sweeney from the UW-ICTR Team Science Core will share a few of the innovations their team has developed in the delivery and evaluation of CP. This includes increased touch points with teams following their initial session in the form of CP “tune-ups,” an enriched evaluation model that assesses changes in a team’s collaborative processes both immediately after a CP intervention and in subsequent years as part of a longitudinal study, and a new multi-team model for introducing CP to groups of teams and larger collaborative projects (e.g., multi-site projects and P grants). In particular, the multi-team model allowed us to share the principles of CP to ten teams in a two-hour period, which offers a promising avenue for how CTSAs might implement a more expansive culture of Collaboration Planning at their local institutions. We will also discuss how this new focus on cultivating a culture of Collaboration Planning will help us develop more tailored “just-in-time” interventions and trainings that address the specific needs of translational science teams, at the right moment in their particular stage of team development.

Collaboration is the backbone of scientific discovery. However, the nature and context of scientific collaboration vary across disciplines. The demographic makeup of a group, number of allocated resources, and organizational objectives may all influence collaboration. The key to a successful collaboration among scientists lies in the socio-technical infrastructure of a group, especially those who facilitate research through primarily virtual means. The Joint Lab for Extreme Scale Computing (JLESC), is an International Virtual Research Organizations (IVRO) home to seven different super and petascale computing research institutions. The purpose of JLESC is to enhance research and promote collaboration high performance computing research. Within JLESC’s research groups, various levels stakeholders including Ph.D. students, postdoctoral researchers, permanent computer scientists, and temporary researchers collaborate within an organizational structure. The socio-technical elements of collaborations such as the structure of meetings and conferences are likely important influences on student and postdoctoral development. This project attempts to develop an integrated model of collaboration by examining 51 project teams located within JLESC’s research network. This study collected data through multiple methods. Engagement was examined through participation in research groups. Collaboration objective, success, and satisfaction were identified from surveys and focus groups. Organizational structure and functioning were identified through annual reports and other organizational documents. Based on the Input-Process-Output model, this research developed a model of team-based collaboration that can be applied to various collaborative contexts.

Through a series of workshops run by The University of Manchester’s team research training and development programme (“Teams Build Dream”) in 2023, the community told us that more opportunities to network and build connections would be useful in advancing teaming and collaboration in the university’s research activities.

The UoM Teams Build Dreams programme therefore explored ways to enable such activities and settled on designing a seedcorn style ‘micro-catalyst’ call to enable small innovative hard-to-fund community-led ideas for networking, collaboration and relationship building.

This approach aligns with existing architectural design practices, and social research on interdisciplinarity and finding ways for people to make connections and promote serendipitous meetings.

The scheme currently has £10-15k GBP funds to support multiple projects over 2024-2025.

The inaugural call was opened in Q1 2024 with 6 studies from across all faculties within the university, successfully funded and now in progress.

Submissions in scope for the call included networking events, e.g. ‘huddles’; lunch and learns; knowledge exchanges, conference attendance, equipment purchase etc. All proposals must support team work; interdisciplinarity; capacity building; pedagogical approaches; networking and/or collaboration in research for the University of Manchester community. Reflecting the inclusivity of a team research (or team science) model, we accept submissions from ALL University of Manchester staff: academic, researcher, professional services, technical. We also strongly encouraged applications to recognise equality, diversity and inclusion, and stipulated that proposals must either create new, or develop existing relationships or networks.

18 submissions were received, and six were funded to a total of £5.5k GBP.

All projects will be completed by 31 July 2024 and will report on the innovation, outcomes, feedback and lessons learned through a written report and presenting at a showcase event. This will inform the next funding call planned for 24/25.

This poster will describe the process of designing a new funding scheme without blueprint, including call scope, application template, selection criteria, panel review composition. It will also discuss and reflect on lessons learned and future developments.

In this presentation, we will discuss the development and ongoing implementation of PCORI’s Science of Engagement funding portfolio and highlight early learnings about engagement best practices, spanning the spectrum from input to true co-leadership on research teams.

Research teams and funders are increasingly recognizing the impact of including members of directly impacted communities in health research. When community members, patients, caregivers, and others with unique perspectives are truly integrated into interdisciplinary research teams, there is increased potential for meaningful, effective, relevant, and scalable discoveries. In 2022, PCORI initiated the first of nine cycles of funding for the Science of Engagement (SoE) funding opportunity in order to grow the scientific evidence about effective ways to engage non-researcher partners, integrate them into research teams, and measure the experience and impact of engagement and integration. The goal of the SoE funding is to build an evidence base on engagement in research, including measures to capture structure, process, and outcomes of engagement in research; approaches that lead to effective engagement in research; and how engagement approaches should be modified for different contexts, settings, and communities to ensure equity. PCORI requires all research awardees to engage with patients and other partners in impacted communities, and expectations for patient engagement are increasingly common across funding sources. However, there are significant gaps in evidence supporting specific engagement methods and demonstrating the impact of engagement, especially when patients and other stakeholders are incorporated as full members of the scientific team.

To date, PCORI has funded 3 cycles of research projects focused on developing the science of engagement in research, including 6 awards that aim to develop and validate measures that can be used across engaged research studies and 7 awards that test best strategies for conducting engaged research. Science of Engagement awardees are also involved in a Learning Network, which provides field-building opportunities for research teams to share best practices and lessons learned about conducting high-quality health research with patients, caregivers, and other community members as true research partners and co-leaders of research teams.

In this presentation, we will summarize and discuss the structures, members, and functioning of these 13 interdisciplinary and patient-engaged research teams. We will highlight lessons learned in their project execution so far about keys to success in building a strong research team to accomplish research focused on patient and stakeholder engagement. We will also review early learnings from the funded research studies, with a specific focus on new evidence related to the impact of integrated research teams. We will describe how the SoE portfolio constitutes a promising step forward in moving patient-oriented health care research towards truly integrated, interdisciplinary, and multi-perspective team science.

Our study centers on research in hard-to-reach environments, where certain types of methodologies might be difficult or impossible. We use the context of slums and informal settlements as a “hard-to-reach” site for outsiders and researchers where five epistemologically and methodologically diverse teams will as the same question in the same place at the same time. Rarely do we have the opportunity for direct comparisons between different research approaches. In this project, teams conduct research in each field site (Year 1: Cape Town, South Africa; Year 2: Barranquilla, Colombia) using their preferred scientific approaches. Teams represent institutional ethnographers, visual sociologists, computer scientists doing completely remote web-scraping, survey research, and citizen science. After collecting their data from the first field site, they will gather together to negotiate what is “truth” from their various perspectives. From this, we will learn about what would be missing if a research methodology wasn’t available for studying a hard-to-reach site. The process will be repeated for the second site, with the intention that research teams will innovate on their methodological approaches after learning what parts of “truth” other teams were able to uncover. Meanwhile, another team is studying the five teams to learn about how they frame their research, instruct their research assistants, and engage with other teams during “ground truth” sessions. Another modeling team is constructing a platform and methodological approach to reconcile disparate data, analysis, theories, and assumptions from the team into structures that help facilitate cross-disciplinary discussions. This presentation will discuss the scope and design of the project, and share some preliminary findings and lessons learned from cross-disciplinary discussions towards a common understanding of “truth” about the first field site.

In 2020, the Center for Scientific Collaboration and Community Engagement (CSCCE) launched an 8-week online training course for individuals who support collaborations and communities of practice in STEM (a group we collectively refer to as community managers). It was designed to offer actionable strategies, core frameworks, and a shared vocabulary to professionals in a range of institutional settings. 

The course, Scientific Community Engagement Fundamentals (CEF), involves two 90-minute live sessions per week, with some independent study in between. CEF was created to meet the needs of individuals working in an emerging profession for which they had little prior training and in which they might experience isolation as the only person in their organization in a similar role. 

Our goals, therefore, were to equip learners with tools they could immediately apply to their day-to-day work, offer clarity on the importance of their roles as less visible leaders, and hold space for them to form new professional connections with others in their cohort (each intake of the course is limited to 20-25). 

At the end of 2023, after training almost 300 individuals from more than 150 organizations, we conducted a medium-term evaluation of the impact of the course to see if we were meeting these goals. Thanks to funding from the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, we designed a survey that asked about the impact of CEF at three levels: the individual learner, their organization or community, and the STEM ecosystem as a whole. 

In brief, we found that: 

• 95% of respondents have applied multiple CEF concepts, frameworks, and activities in their roles to improve overall community strategy (68.6%), improve existing content and/or programming (67.4%), develop new content and/or programming (64%), and build alignment with team members (55.8%) – among other things.
• On an individual level, the vast majority of respondents reported positive socioemotional outcomes such as increased confidence (87%) and connection to peers (90%).
• On a community / organizational level, 74% of respondents reported at least one improvement in member participation within their communities, and 51% reported multiple improvements – as described by deeper engagement across the modes of CSCCE’s Community Participation Model. An even greater percentage (79.1%) selected multiple additional improvements beyond member engagement, such as such as the development of scaffolding and community engagement strategy.
• On an ecosystem-level, 38% of respondents reported multiple improvements in their organizations’ and communities’ relationship to the broader STEM ecosystem, such as improved communication with external stakeholders or communities, greater clarity about their community’s place within the broader STEM ecosystem, and new collaborations with external organizations or communities.

In this presentation, we will expand on these findings, with a particular focus on how training individuals supports increased engagement in STEM communities and collaboration across a range of settings (academia, professional associations, and more). We will also touch on some of the ways in which the course is impacting the broader ecosystem, and how we anticipate this to continue for years to come.

Investments in interdisciplinary collaborations in STEM fields have increased [1]. However, there is still a lack of integration between STEM fields and social sciences [2]. Developing convergent and translational research should challenge STEM investigators to pay attention to non-technical components of collaboration, and engage with investigators from the social sciences [3]. Unfortunately, a focus on the technical aspects of collaboration might encourage complacency about the potential contributions of social sciences and importance of social impact [4]. Diverse research teams outperform homogeneous ones on a wide variety of measures, including innovation [5]. Diverse science, medicine, and engineering teams are also more likely to achieve societal gains, including the well-being of individuals and workforce competitiveness.

Our research and practice focuses on developing and studying inclusive team science in cooperative research centers focused on STEM domains. We have noted that there is still limited inclusion of underrepresented demographic groups, but also lack of inclusion of social scientists in Engineering Research Centers (ERC) and Science and Technology Centers (STC).  Recent studies find that there is higher representation of women, BIPOC, and disabled persons in social sciences than in physical sciences, mathematics, computer science and engineering [6].

Our research examines the following questions. 1. Would the inclusion of social scientists in STEM research teams enhance creativity and the likelihood of transformational innovation? 2. Would inclusion of social scientists in STEM collaborations facilitate participation of demographic groups that are more highly represented in social sciences than STEM? 3. Are additional mechanisms needed to move these boundary spanners into leadership roles? In our current data collection we build on our prior findings to explore whether more central involvement of social scientists in science, medicine, and engineering teams influences team outcomes. We will use data from CVs of leaders in cooperative research centers (ERC, STC) and from these centers to examine the potential impact of demographic characteristics, education, and experience of team leaders on innovation and societal impact of their teams.

Over the last 15 years, the field of Team Science has developed significantly, providing crucial insights into collaborative teamwork and its effectiveness in addressing complex challenges. While community engagement has been recognized as pivotal, inviting citizens to participate as scientists, numerous barriers have hindered their active involvement. As a result, historically marginalized communities often face exclusion from academic research, leading to a power dynamic that limits equitable partnerships and challenges in building trust between communities and academic partners for effective Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR).

In response, a diverse team of Community and Academic partners in Chicago developed the Team Science Community Toolkit. This online resource leverages the principles of Team Science to bridge the gap and engage more citizen scientists in research. The Toolkit includes tools such as an interactive decision calculator to assess the feasibility and equity of research collaborations, and problem-solving scenarios to navigate challenges arising from differing missions and values.

Preliminary data from the evaluation of the Toolkit suggest that its Team Science approach stimulates effective communication between community and academic partners. ~30 adults, comprising community workers or researchers, utilized the Toolkit over a 4-week period, offering weekly feedback. Subsequently, in-depth interviews were conducted, followed by a follow-up survey sent after a period to assess long-term impact and retention. Initial results show that respondents reported over 80% increased knowledge and confidence in partnering on CBPR projects after using the Toolkit.

Participants in focus groups expressed high satisfaction that “the Toolkit is near perfect!” It was praised for its accessible language and content, “I really liked the level of the language… anybody can understand” and “… [Templates] were really well done and the scenarios were good I learned a lot…” Team Science was centered throughout the content and a participant remarked, “I think it really included a lot of issues that sometimes are difficult to talk about… because we're coming at it at different angles… the researcher versus the community person, and sometimes it's hard to bring up issues…”

The Toolkit's ability to address the varied understanding and concerns of community-based organization (CBO) partners with different levels of research experience is a key takeaway. It demonstrates that bringing the principles of Team Science to Community-Academic partnerships has the potential to make CBPR collaboration more accessible, serving as a bridge to bring more citizen scientists to research.

Moving forward, it is recommended to conduct a qualitative analysis of the initial dialogue between community and academic partners about the Toolkit. This analysis will help understand the communication processes that either support or hinder the progression to CBPR collaboration and the role that Team Science could play in these partnerships.

The Team Science Community Toolkit represents a significant advancement in engaging citizen scientists in research and addressing expressed barriers like jargon and lack of transparency. By promoting effective communication and facilitating equitable partnerships, the Toolkit is contributing to the evolving field of Team Science and paving the way for a more inclusive and collaborative approach to research.

Objective
Tackling “grand challenges” demands broad representation across multiple disciplines, but teams must also build substantial integration to best use diverse expertise. One way interdisciplinary teams may overcome communication challenges caused by distinct disciplinary languages is to include an interdisciplinary translator role. An interdisciplinary translator is knowledgeable about the background, values, and context of two or more disciplines to help team members understand the language and jargon of other disciplines (Knoedler, 2019). To bridge the gap between team members’ expertise, interdisciplinary translators facilitate understanding and communication by converting specialized jargon, technical language, and cultural references from one discipline into language that is comprehensible and meaningful to team members from other disciplines (Ashby, 2022). Specifically, a translator “absorbs and adapts the original idea, the context in which it was presented, the tone of the meeting and reactions to the behavioral idea, different perspectives discussed around the idea, and additional behavioral cues from the participants and integrates all of this information and observations into a new perspective on the idea and how best it may be delivered for the remainder of the meeting” (Knoedler, 2019). In this way, interdisciplinary translators extend beyond facilitator and knowledge broker roles (Knoedler, 2019).

Although this promising idea has been explored conceptually (Ashby, 2022; Knoedler, 2019), empirical research is lacking. Therefore, this research utilized qualitative and quantitative methods to examine the effects of interdisciplinary translation on individual differences, teamwork, and team productivity.

Interview Method & Results
Given the scarcity of theory on interdisciplinary translation (Edmondson & McManus, 2007), we began with an inductive methodology. We first conducted 23 semi-structured, 30-minute to one-hour interviews with PIs/co-PIs funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), who reflected on whether their team included the role of an interdisciplinary translator (defined as someone who could speak the language of multiple disciplines and help members of the team understand the perspective of the other discipline). Approximately two-thirds of interviewees reported having one or two interdisciplinary translators on their team. All respondents said that having an interdisciplinary translator was beneficial for their collaboration, and several highlighted the difficulty of filling this role because it is rare to find people who can speak the language of multiple disciplines.

Survey Method & Results
Based on the coding of the interviews (using NVivo), we developed a three-item interdisciplinary translation scale, which was completed as part of a larger survey by 138 cross-disciplinary researchers. As predicted, higher interdisciplinary translation was associated with higher transdisciplinary orientation and transdisciplinary behaviors (e.g., reading publications and attending conferences outside of primary discipline). Teams reporting having more interdisciplinary translation were also positively correlated with team trust, satisfaction, and a willingness to work with the same members again. Moreover, higher interdisciplinary translation was associated with greater self-reported innovation and conference posters (submitted and accepted).

Given these promising results, the use of interdisciplinary translators should be encouraged and valued in interdisciplinary teams.

Inclusive practice is a set of guidelines based on an egalitarian ethos that provides a framework for working well with people from diverse backgrounds and cultures. On an individual level, these guidelines include self-awareness of bias, care around use of language, and advocacy. Within a research team, these guidelines have a strong bearing on things like building trust, productivity across the team, and how team members engage with leadership and with the wider organization and broader community within which the research is taking place.

In the equity, diversity and inclusion training that our team has provided over the past several years, we weave in three basic features:

1. Pronunciation of names;
2. agreeing a common vocabulary of inclusion terms; and
3. aligning on an inclusive practice policy.

We start with names because they often form that first impression of how the rest of the conversation might go. At the very start of introductions, a certain tone is set if one or more of the team have to compromise on how their name is pronounced. They may say they don’t mind, and maybe they don’t, or maybe they just don’t want to rock the boat. Our names are part of our identity, and for some, their name is a symbol of their heritage and beliefs.

Next, we agree on definitions for commonly used vocabulary in the equity, diversity and inclusion arena. We recognize that many words, terms, and phrases have evolved in their definitions and usages. Often a new buzzword enters our vocabulary almost unnoticed, such as the word pivot during the recent pandemic. We now recommend replacing the word stakeholder with the term relevant people, because while the word stakeholder may have its origin in betting, it is also a term that is used in a colonial context. Even words like diversity and inclusion in recent times have evolved in the breadth of their usage.

Finally, we facilitate the group to co-produce a policy for inclusive practice, emphasizing that this is in addition to, or a section of, an existing collaboration agreement. There is a strong move in research culture towards more active listening, increased emotional intelligence, and creating a safe space where conversations might involve or invoke some discomfort or even conflict. It is imperative that teams co-create this document in a space of psychological safety, and that it can include anything they feel is important for them to thrive in their research environment. The policy will need to include how bias and microaggression will be handled, and it may for example include a schedule of events to learn more about each other and about the diverse cultures of team members, alongside practical points like when to hold regular lab meetings.

Inclusive practice in team science is about putting systems in place that allow every voice in the room to be present and to be heard. This presentation will provide some guidance on where to start with designing and implementing such a system in a given research collaboration.

Situated within a research library, this presentation highlights unique access to a diverse array of research teams and interdisciplinary groups from across a university.

A series of interviews and observations have enabled an in-depth exploration of team dynamics, operational challenges, and collaborative strategies. The focal points of this investigation include knowledge management, documentation, collaborative note-taking, literature reviews, productivity enhancements, and mechanisms for exploring new research questions and tracking impact metrics.

This presentation will outline key findings regarding the common challenges and needs of research teams across several disciplines. It will introduce an emerging library service model designed to further explore and apply these findings by enhancing support for interdisciplinary research collaboration. This model seeks to empower researchers through tailored support services that address the specific needs identified in the study, thus fostering more effective and innovative team science.

Transdisciplinary research is an approach that forms its foundations on addressing wicked problems and is increasingly adopted by large teams. However, when teams do not lay strong foundations for a transdisciplinary approach, projects risk reducing transdisciplinary research to merely implementing methods for increased stakeholder engagement. In understanding how to implement a transdisciplinary approach, it is important that transdisciplinarity is not boiled down to a set of methods or toolboxes anyone can simply apply to a research project. Although such transdisciplinary toolboxes are useful, Breda and Swilling (2019) make a relevant argument that merging concepts of methods and methodology reduces the discourses on how to do transdisciplinarity to a set of methods rather than understanding the principles necessary for designing and executing transformative transdisciplinary processes (van Breda and Swilling 2019). Such capacity for transdisciplinary approaches in diverse teams could tackle the complex problems a project is set to address at a more systemic level.

The lack of easy to grasp guidelines to execute such knowledge co-production hinders meeting mounting commitments to transdisciplinary approaches (Norström et al. 2020) backed by large funding institutions wanting more impactful research (Lawrence et al. 2022). Furthermore, developing an understanding of transdisciplinary knowhow can require effort for researchers interested but inexperienced in transdisciplinary approaches who don’t have the time or capacity to read extensive transdisciplinary literature (Lawrence et al. 2022). As Lawrence et al. (2022) rightfully point out, more guidance documents are needed on such transdisciplinary “process knowledge” for researchers to adopt transdisciplinary approaches effectively. Process knowledge is about knowing when and how to apply context-specific tools needed to carry out transdisciplinary research, rather than knowing the methods themselves, which is only one component (ibid). Efforts have been made to collect, synthesize and translate principles and processes common to transdisciplinary projects for non-experts in the field (Bammer et al. 2023) (Norström et al. 2020) (Lawrence et al. 2022).

In reviewing three papers that synthesize a set of transdisciplinary principles, coupled with three more foundational transdisciplinary papers, this poster presentation presents twelve principles of transdisciplinary research that would be useful for teams to understand. The principles are broken down into three criteria: Project principles, process principles and outcome principles. Project principles are prerequisites for requiring a project to be transdisciplinary. Process principles are principles that are generally followed throughout the course of a project. Outcome principles are what we hope to reach by following a transdisciplinary process. These principles presented form part of a paper on translating and contextualising key transdisciplinary processes and principles in the context of integrated assessment modelling.

Contemporary research is collaborative with contributors at a wide geographic spread and often includes multi disciplinary teams. Science Gateways have become a potent method for research communities to come together and share tools, data and other artifacts in a common collaborative environment. We present a new science gateway platform - OneSciencePlace®, a content centric and composable online platform to transform delivery of Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable content and computing in a single and easy to use environment. The platform includes a host of features:

1. An app registry with a set of software applications that are readily usable on various computation resources. Both interactive (such as Jupyter, Matlab) and command line Apps can be supported.
2. Curated data such as input configurations and output results for Apps.
3. Online, web-based, workspaces for collaboration, training, and teaching. Apps, data and other content can be restricted to projects or shared with everyone.
4. Publishing capability that enables users to publish ancillary information such as reports, data and other content with a persistent identifier such as Digital Object Identifier.
5. Users can easily use available apps, data, and publications or contribute new ones via a web browser. For instance a new app can be contributed by uploading Docker or Singularity containers with necessary configurations and pairing them with the appropriate available computational resources.
6. A website that provides the above capabilities to all registered users via single sign-on from various institutions.

These capabilities allow an instance of OneSciencePlace to be highly customized for different use cases such as Science Gateway, a High performance computing cluster portal, a data repository, a knowledge base and others. OneSciencePlace speeds up cyberinfrastructure delivery, accelerates community building and aids in impact measurement. OneSciencePlace provides a team science platform that brings computing, data and people together in a common web based environment.

Theories and practices of team science offer an important corrective to traditional group science endeavors that often operate in a top-down, hierarchical manner. Drawing together diverse bodies of knowledge, the Science of Team Science (SciTS) has offered tools and mechanisms to teams looking for alternative ways of functioning. I gained firsthand experience with such approaches as a Team Scientist at Colorado State University (CSU) from 2021-2023. Additionally, my research explores how immigrants, refugees, and others in the United States find and create spaces for democratic engagement in American society. This work is grounded in theories and practices of participatory democracy. Reflecting on my practice as a team scientist and insights I have gained through my research on participatory democracy, I see potential to synthesize the two sets of theories and practices together in productive ways. In this paper, I argue that sustained engagement with participatory democracy, particularly as it is practiced in democratically organized cooperatives, can enrich the practice of team science. There are conceptual insights team science can gain from democracy and practical tools and approaches to facilitate meaningful interactions within and across teams. Connections between team science and democracy appear in some of the literature; however, there is significant room to enhance those connections. I elaborate how this engagement might look across several areas: group norms, power, leadership, structures, and mechanisms. First, developing and inculcating group norms is an area where there is a strong overlap between team science and democracy. Both are predicated on equality and equity and seek to build reciprocity and dialogue among members. Flattening hierarchy through democracy has intrinsic value and in practice can lead to better outcomes. Second, democratic approaches provide additional orientations toward power. Mediating power imbalances to facilitate less hierarchical decision making is a central goal of democracy. Democratic approaches offer insights into how to identify power dynamics as well as tools to implement formal structures to mitigate them. Such structures can mediate autocratic tendencies of individuals while simultaneously distributing power to the wider group for collective decision making. Democracy recognizes individual agency, collective action, and limiting and enabling structures. Third, participatory democracy of this type also provides an alternative way of thinking about leadership. Pace approaches emphasizing the individual characteristics of those in (in)formal leadership roles, democratic approaches assume an equal standing and capacity for all members to make decisions. For democratic groups, leaders are accountable to the members who select them, exercise authority only contextually, and, importantly, are recallable when there is a need for change. Fourth, participatory democracy as practiced in cooperatives throughout the world offers many structures and mechanisms for ensuring success. We might for example think of a scientific team as a democratic polity bound by a constitution composed of components such as mission statements, ethical ground rules, authorship guidelines, etc. Decisions in such groups can be made through consensus, one person, one vote or other mechanisms such as five-finger voting. Moreover, many democratic organizations make use of strategies such as rotating tasks and cross training to ensure that all members have deep knowledge of the work throughout the organization and have opportunities to grow their skills. Finally, considering this, this paper is an invitation to team science practitioners and science teams to consider how integrating formalized democratic processes and structures might benefit them. Particularly as we consider flatter, more egalitarian teams, participatory democracy can be a critical tool in realizing such aims.

Solving today's most challenging societal problems requires innovative breakthroughs that transcend individual disciplines and deeper knowledge integration. However, achieving this through teamwork is challenging due to the lack of adequate training. To address this, methods from allied disciplines need to be adapted for training transdisciplinary researchers. This presentation discusses team science training focused on coastal resilience. It brings together a multidisciplinary team of scholars focused on improving problem solving and teamwork in science.

First, a team of faculty coaches was recruited to guide a class of diverse graduate students from varied disciplines related to the problem of coastal resilience. Second, a series of workshops was developed to train students on the fundamentals of team science as well as transdisciplinary knowledge building. Third, to foster individual and team learning, an intervention focusing on reflection in teamwork processes was used to ensure students monitor both the task of transdisciplinary problem solving, as well as the teamwork processes engaged while collaborating.

Graduate students were introduced to the principles of team science, collaborative problem solving, and effective self-reflective tools and strategies. Additionally, students gained experience working with coastal community partners (e.g., municipalities, NGOs). As such, this community-based climate-resilience project enabled students to practice team science research and use reflective practices to improve their competencies with various stakeholders. Assessment of team processes, along with reflections on teamwork and taskwork, were used to highlight areas of collaboration needing improvement. For this presentation we describe our analyses of the team reflections across the workshops. These reflections were based on prompts designed to helps students consider their experience in teamwork and in taskwork and what they found challenging. Additionally, they reflected on what they learned about interdisciplinarity teamwork and taskwork.

We conducted complementary quantitative and qualitiative computational analyses in order to understand how reflections on team science varied across time and teams. For the quantitative analyses we conducted topic modeling of the text from the reflections. Topic modeling is a computational approach for natural language processing. It compares texts to detect related words and phrases and clusters them to help interpret the document contents. For the qualitative analyses we analyzed the social, cognitive, and emotional content of the reflections. Reflections from the students were aggregated based upon the workshop (first or last), and the team on which they participated. These texts were then analyzed to identify patterns and themes capable of discerning the nature of the reflections and how they varied depending on the context. We first discuss differences in quantity of reflections and how this varied by the start and end of the team training and depending on the focus of the reflections. We then describe changes in structure of themes based upon topic modeling and how this varied by time and team. We next discuss the socio-emotional content of the reflections depending on time in training and team. We conclude with a discussion of these and related findings and how the project evolved to better address the team science training needs of the graduate students.

Interdisciplinary teams conducting science may experience disruptive events. These disruptive events may be internal or external to the team and have attributes of criticality, urgency, and duration (Morgeson & DeRue, 2006) and temporal considerations (Morgeson et al., 2015) that can affect team effectiveness and team science outcomes. In this context, team disruption can be described as a misalignment of team member coordination relative to task demands due to shifts in coordination, task demands, or both (Strizver & Ployhart, 2024).

This paper examines the demands of research funders as particular types of external disruptive events within an organizational context and examines their impact on team dynamics and effectiveness. Research funders who are responsible for resource allocation have begun to take on facilitative roles related to the implementation of research (Brantnell et al., 2015), and funder-initiated changes, often related to these new roles, may challenge research team activities and resemble threats experienced with other types of organizational disruptions. The ability to adapt to funder demands involves significant analysis and adjustment by the team that may affect their effectiveness over time. Event System Theory (EST), which posits that events become salient when they are novel, disruptive, and critical (Morgeson et al., 2015), provides a way to examine disruptive funder events. Using an EST framework to examine organizational change in scientific teams allows researchers to qualify the type of event and shift the focus of study from static to dynamic events that shape team behaviors and processes over time.

We applied an EST lens to a case study of a large, interdisciplinary, government-funded, multi-system team to examine several funder-initiated events that challenged and ultimately changed the organizational structure and work of the team while influencing team dynamics, collaboration, transactive memory, and psychological safety. The study combined qualitative (semi-structured interviews and document analysis) and quantitative (survey) methods, enabling a picture to emerge of the impact of the disruptors and how the team developed resiliency to bounce back, deliver project milestones, and meet project goals amidst changing funder expectations, resources, and deadlines. Funder demands necessitated significant changes within the scientific team in strategy, structure, and operations, requiring shifts in resource allocation and priorities and influencing fundamental team goals, organization, and ways of working. The paper will provide insights for teams and funders alike on mitigating disruption and how to learn and grow during and following disruptive events.

Shared leadership transfers leadership influence from one to many. Shared leadership can support organizations in evolving macro- and microenvironments. Further, shared leadership should not discount how multiple organizations and multiple generations can affect its practice. The study for discussion reviewed the case of a national hospital network who partners with a local hospital, local hospital's nonprofit, and local university to raise awareness and funds for children's health. This qualitative case study illustrated that cross-disciplinary work can effectively occur over decades. Findings indicated that the internal environment of shared purpose, social support, and voice were key to shared leadership development and practice. Understanding and reflecting upon a historic relationship in relation to macro-and micro-influences can allow present-day leaders to build a structure for leading together.

Complex, knowledge-intensive projects often present challenges in terms of defining the work and determining roles. In such situations, external leadership can provide the necessary direction and shape. By doing so, the external mentor facilitator clarifies the ambiguous nature of the work, giving it a clear focus that guides the team's efforts. Research has acknowledged the increasing trend of interdisciplinary teams being assembled to tackle pressing issues (Hung, 2013), and has explored the processes of collective creativity and interaction flow (Van Oortmerssen, Van Woerkum, & Aarts, 2014), as well as team dynamics and social interactions (Walter and Bruch 2008; Lehmann-Willenbrock et al. 2017).

With hackathons and rapid product prototyping more feasible than it ever has been, collaborations that fast-track innovation by drawing together unfamiliar experts are more common than ever. Drawing on the process perspective on creative action (Cronin & Lowenstein, 2018; Harvey, 2014; Perry-Smith & Mannucci, 2017) we seek to understand the generation of new ideas and solutions when teams are working within an extremely brief time frame of one week. The influence of mentor facilitators on these interactions has, however, received limited attention.

In this study, we aimed to elucidate various mentor facilitator behaviors through a typology of recognized leader behaviors and to evaluate the corresponding outcomes. The mentor facilitators in this study were all assigned to teams for the duration of the project, and their power, both formal and informal, was ambiguous. Given the prevalence of this type of team and the teams' need for guidance, we studied fifteen case teams who participated in the boot camp, five per year in the years 2017, 2018, and 2019. Each year, the newly formed interdisciplinary teams of seven members were created and tasked with coming up with a collective NIH-style health-focused proposal that incorporated their expertise. Over the course of four business days, the teams drafted proposals and prepared presentations that were given to a panel of experts at the end of the week (on the fifth day). Our team analyzed recordings of interactions during these four days. Teams were also assigned scores by independent evaluators for their presentations and accompanying written materials.

To reduce mission ambiguity, some external facilitators overlaid their problem definitions and frameworks from their prior work experience to define and shape the team’s aims. Some of the external mentors provided problem scaffolding at the onset, while a subset of mentor facilitators continued to provide such a high structure to the team’s developmental process over the remainder of the week. On the other hand, other project mentors abstained from providing structure to address the problem ambiguity, letting the individual members shape their common understanding of the problem collectively over time. Thus, these projects differed in the extent to which some structure was placed around the mission and planning process. This difference turned out to be very important as some guidances from external mentors was helpful, but helpfulness was less positively related to team outcomes when it persisted later in the team process.

This paper draws on three domains of research on cross-disciplinary and cross-sectoral collaboration and a systematic literature review approach (Burgers et al., 2019; Xiao & Watson, 2019) to develop a typology of knowledge integration. The domains of research we reviewed include (1) studies of inter and transdisciplinarity (O’Rourke et al., 2016; Klein, 1990, 2021, 2023); (2) studies focusing on knowledge co-production in sustainability research (Hoffmann et al., 2017; Pohl et al., 2021); and (3) studies focusing directly on factors influencing knowledge integration in the Science of Team Science (SciTS) (Stokols et al., 2008; Lotrecchiano & Misra, 2018; Gajary et al., 2023). We advance the literature on knowledge integration in team science by addressing the following question: How can teams prepare for and facilitate successful knowledge integration in cross-disciplinary and/or cross-sectoral team environments?

The typology of knowledge integration that we build inductively from the literature addresses the following specific theoretical and pragmatic questions: (1) How do scholars in various fields of study conceptualize, operationalize, and measure knowledge integration? (2) What challenges and barriers do cross-disciplinary teams encounter in integrating knowledge? How do these challenges and barriers vary across different stages of a collaboration? (3) How do the challenges and barriers impact individual and team learning? (4) What key processes, strategies, and tools can be applied to mitigate these challenges and enhance knowledge integration?

Our typology identifies key individual, interpersonal, team, organizational, and institutional antecedents, processes, and outcomes of knowledge integration. It distinguishes between the stages of knowledge integration, from newly formed teams to more mature collaborations, and identifies key challenges and barriers particularly salient in each stage. Finally, it proposes strategies, processes, and tools for facilitating knowledge integration that align with the team’s stage and contextual conditions. Our conceptualization of knowledge integration antecedents, processes, and outcomes and strategies for effective knowledge integration can inform the conduct of team science by providing a framework for preparing for and facilitating knowledge integration for both academic and non-academic stakeholders and practitioners. It also advances team science and science policy scholarship by setting the stage for an evaluation framework for knowledge integration.

Background
There are limited descriptions of implementation team processes supporting the success of evidence-based change efforts. Much of the literature focus is on practice, knowledge, and education delivery when implementing a new program. Information on team processes that contribute to advancing an idea or vision to a sustainable running program is lacking. The collaborative framework developed by Wine et. al describe dynamic processes and enabling conditions as the essential components that can hinder or progress productivity, performance, and knowledge translation. In this presentation, we explore this framework applicability to inform deeper understanding of the elements that contribute to successful implementation in the context of health care.

Methods
We are working across eight acute care sites in Western Canada to implement a rooming-in approach for parents and babies at risk of Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome. This approach is considered a safe and effective model of care. We are exploring the change processes within the unique contexts of acute care sites implementing this evidence-based model of care. Lessons learned from sites with an existing program inform implementation at other sites. Through a qualitative case study, we explored the conditions that supported the successful implementation of one mature program. We used the collaborative framework to inform data collection through focus groups, interviews, and surveys, and analysis procedures. We conducted both inductive and deductive processes using thematic analysis.

Findings
The underlying concepts of the collaborative framework helped shed light on the crucial role of team processes in the establishment and sustainability of the program. The dynamic processes and enabling conditions were contextually driven. At the heart of implementation was a dedicated, committed, and passionate core team with strong relationships across stakeholders. Growth of the program involved dynamic processes such as the building of relationships across sectors and extending the team involved in change. Processes focused on advancing individual and joint capacity building, through engagement in co-learning with staff and administration, expanding individual knowledge and shifts in attitudes to reduce bias and stigma to provide hopeful and evidence-informed care. It was pivotal for implementation to establish trust between families and staff, expand partnerships with parents and community supports, and develop joint responsibility with those involved and those most impacted by the program. Observing success was crucial for establishing buy-in and progression in this context. Additionally, the core team led change through constantly supporting staff and families, being attentive to stakeholders’ needs and engaging in inclusive reflective practices.

Conclusions
The collaborative framework was a useful tool providing a team science lens that contributes to deep understanding of team processes and effective collaborations in the context of implementation science. The framework facilitated highlighting team dynamics aspects, that often do not get attention, and provided focal areas to guide implementation efforts in the health care context.

Collaboration across disciplines presents challenges, as technical language and approaches to knowledge generation vary among fields of study. The challenge of collaborative work compounds when occurring across diverse institutional contexts. Varying pressures and support for research encourage largely single-PI studies, and virtual engagement necessitated by geographical dispersion can impede team member motivation and progress.

With funding from the National Science Foundation, a group of Research Development (RD) professionals in Florida sought to overcome these collaborative challenges by providing faculty research teams with dedicated support through “Team Science Coaches.” Coaches received professional development and guidance from team science experts.

As part of the program, one RD staff member was assigned as a coach to each newly-formed, interdisciplinary team of faculty researchers from across the state and guided them through various ideation and teaming activities. These facilitated activities have now been tested across two cohorts of faculty teams and with two cohorts of coaches. Faculty reactions to and coach feedback on these activities have been captured. Additionally, evaluation by external experts in team science and those who study teams more generally was solicited to further improve these activities.

This presentation will share about a selection of these team science-informed activities, termed “learning objects.” Input from various engaged audiences–faculty, coaches, and external experts–on how these activities can be used and adapted will also be shared. Takeaways from this presentation for attendees will be access to the featured activities and others from the program, as well as ideas for how to adapt and use these and similar activities for facilitating interdisciplinary and virtual teaming in their own research environments.

The science of team science is an evolving field as scholars continue to study how different types of interactions, processes, and organizational structures influence and moderate team successes. Methods for evaluating those successes also have to evolve to understand better the complex synergies within and across teams that underly successes at the organizational level—success that equals more than the sum of its individual parts or teams. In the proposed presentation, we will describe methods used to design and implement a utilization-focused, developmental evaluation of C-CoMP (Patton, 2008), including (a) use of logic models to facilitate co-development of center-level outcomes and indicators, (b) strategic use of mixed-methods approaches, and (c) ongoing collaboration with the C-CoMP leadership team through bi-monthly meetings to facilitate timely sharing of evaluation findings for adaptive management and to enhance evaluation usability as the Center evolves and matures.

Hall et al. (2018) found that the success of team science was mainly measured by pre-existing data (e.g., archival data) and bibliometrics and evaluations often relied on single methods that limited understanding of the developmental characteristics of science teams and hampered timely assessment of team success. Scholars recommend the use of more sophisticated and varied evaluation methods to assess complex science teams (Börner et al., 2010), and while some suggest frameworks and indicators for evaluating teams (e.g., Hall et al., 2012; Marchand & Hilpert, 2019), evidence remains scarce on how best to evaluate team science outcomes specifically at the organizational level and to provide science-center leadership data to optimize decision-making. Team science provides a foundation for large, collaborative science centers like C-CoMP to pursue their research goals, but a comprehensive evaluation also has to assess progress and achievement of other overarching goals, including goals around knowledge transfer, data sharing/open science, education and career development, and increased inclusivity and equity.

To foster evaluation usability, the C-CoMP evaluation design, guided by the principles of utilization-focused and developmental evaluation, includes both outcome and process evaluations and quantitative and qualitative methods. Progress towards and achievement of outcomes are measured primarily through C-CoMP member annual activity report data (e.g., publications/presentations, internal and external collaborations, data shared through open-science platforms, and education and career advancement). Process, formative data are obtained through annual focus groups with members at different career stages (principal investigators (PIs)/faculty, post-docs and graduate students, and technical staff), evaluator observation at monthly All-Center and PI meetings, and an annual climate survey to assess C-CoMP members’ perceptions of its culture and promotion of team science principles, inclusivity, innovation, and productivity. The timing of data collection activities and reporting are aligned with critical decision-making and development points—before the Center’s annual NSF site visit, meeting of the Advisory Committee, and the C-CoMP members’ meeting.

Challenges will be discussed related to evaluating team science and its effect on the overall achievement of C-CoMP’s goals, understanding the evolution of teams as the Center matures, and maximizing the benefits of evaluation within budget constraints.

This research project explores the phenomenon of "blurred boundaries" in organizational work teams. "Blurred boundaries" occurs when members of a collective are unclear or disagree about their membership (i.e., it is unclear who is part of their team or group). Consider this scenario when asking University faculty members in a Management department who is in their department. Some respondents included only full-time tenure-track faculty members while others also included part-time adjunct faculty who regularly attend department meetings. Some respondents included management-major core faculty while others included faculty teaching in the management-major, business ethics, and information technology areas. Finally, one member included staff members and student workers while others did not.

A lack of clarity about where a team or group “begins and ends” is increasingly common in today’s business organizations. Confusion may arise when team members are members of multiple work teams simultaneously or when team memberships change frequently in response to unexpected environmental conditions. "Blurred boundaries" presents a significant practical challenge for work teams, making it difficult to achieve the desired levels of clarity, coordination, and communication within the team or between the team and other parties in its environment (Friedlander, 1987; Hackman, 2002). As anecdotal evidence of the prevalence of this phenomenon, during my prior data collection efforts examining other team-level phenomena, I (the first author) was repeatedly surprised by how frequently team members were confused about who was on their team(s) and/or disagreed with other team members on their team’s size and composition. Spending time and effort defining team boundaries and clarifying team membership became a necessary starting point for progressing the research studies.

Scholarly discussions about unclear team boundaries are present in classic writings about the ecology of work teams (e.g., Friedlander, 1987) and more recently include a recognition of the reality and challenges associated with “blurred boundaries” in today’s fluid and dynamic organizations (e.g., Marrone, 2010; Mortensen & Haas, 2018; Tannenbaum et al, 2012; Wageman et al., 2008). However, the state of the research on “blurred boundaries” remains largely conceptual and preliminary in nature. Measuring "blurred boundaries" is complicated, and the phenomenon is elusive. As such, scholars are calling for additional research to focus on assessing "blurred boundaries" directly and understanding the phenomenon more fully (e.g., Mortensen & Haas, 2018; Tannenbaum et al., 2012).

In the current research, we have responded to these calls by collecting quantitative data to directly assess the level of "blurred boundaries” in teams. Team leaders and members of 81 organizational work teams across different organizations and industries were asked to report on their team size and to list the names of the team members in their respective teams. Measurement of “team boundedness agreement” and relationships among “team boundedness agreement” and other factors, such as team type, use of team rosters, disruptive events in the organization, access to resources, boundary spanning, emotional identification, team leadership, team performance and viability, will be presented.