Background
Engaged research collaborations that incorporate community members as equal partners in research projects have been recognized as an important means of advancing equity and justice in research, and also of improving the success of research translation, in part by increasing the likelihood of developing solutions with community use-value. In the 21st century, the science of team science and community-engaged research have emerged as scholarly disciplines, with attempts to define competencies, skills, functioning, and success. A growing body of literature in these fields documents team interventions and evaluations, and offers theoretical models for competencies, development, and training. However, to date, few researchers have considered the intersection of team science (TS) and community-engaged research (CEnR), referred to here as participatory team science, and the training needed to support this specific type of collaboration, particularly for the faculty and researchers doing the work.

Methods
This mixed methods grounded theory study included comparative case studies of environmental resilience centers, whose disciplines appear less often in the training literature. In Phase 1, literature on training in TS and CEnR was used to develop an initial meta-model; in Phase 2, a questionnaire surveyed resilience center personnel; in Phase 3, case study interviews were conducted with participants from two centers. The final meta model integrated data from all phases of the study.

Results
Survey data revealed that only a third of respondents had participated in TS or CEnR training at their current institution (36% and 30%, respectively). T-test results indicated a statistically significant relationship between either type of training and participant self-efficacy for CEnR competencies. Participants who had received either type of training had a higher mean score than those who had no training (p = .05, d = .81). Common themes across the two case studies included the types of recommended training (e.g. facilitation training, use of case studies); the need for a broad range of community partners; external challenges to the research (e.g. working with government, politically-charged topics); and the benefits of long-term collaborations. Case studies also pointed to the inclusion of science communication as an important competency, since it helped bridge gaps between team partners with varying levels of scientific expertise.

Conclusions
The resulting Launch and Support Model for Participatory Team Science produced the first identified set of competencies for participatory team science as part of a larger training model. It proposed that teams rather than individuals should be the audience for interventions; that long-term collaborations and community engagement contribute to team member satisfaction and project success; and that both training and institutions should be structured to encourage lasting, resilient collaborations, and help support equity and justice for both engaged communities and researchers. Case study data indicated that teams working on resilience issues may face different challenges than researchers in clinical translational settings. Additionally, this study provides a theoretical basis for further research on participatory team science training, and a starting point for institutions that are interested in providing training for their faculty.