Team science studies aim to improve collaborative processes in translational teams, yet recruiting biomedical researchers, faculty, and staff to participate in team science research themselves presents unique challenges. We share insights from recruiting teams for our NLM-funded Information Management Prototype for Clinical and Translational Research (IMPACT-CTR) study at the Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research. This is a virtual study which examines the information management practices of clinical and translational research teams (CTRTs). The study requires a moderate time commitment from participants: about an hour and a half, including surveys and individual interviews. After the interviews, the team receives a 90-minute facilitated Collaboration Planning session, an evidence-based intervention developed by Dr.Rolland to assist teams think more deeply about their collaborative processes. While existing studies have explored team dynamics within single institutions, few have recruited translational teams nationwide.

Hall and colleagues (2018) emphasized the need to study the complexities of different teams to advance team science, including their size, composition, and structure. We embraced this complexity by keeping our definition of CTRTs broad, and welcoming teams at any stage of the translational process (whether engaged in basic, clinical, population sciences, or community-based research), and at any stage of collaboration (newly formed to long-established teams). To recruit a diverse sample, we also reached out to teams across institutions and focused on those that include multiple roles (e.g., project manager, data manager, student assistant). From October 2024 to January 2025, we contacted 950 scientists and administrators (primarily by email) to promote the study. Our outreach included admin and CTSA awardees across the 66 Hubs, authors who have recently published in the Journal of Clinical and Translational Science, LinkedIn connections, active funded PIs listed on NIH RePORTER, internal recruitment at our university, and personal networks. So far, 14 scientists have completed the sign-up form on behalf of their teams, and 10 have agreed to participate, indicating a 1.5% sign-up conversion rate (target n = 15 teams). Of these sign-ups, four came through personal contacts with the highest rate of return, at 20%. Contact with the CTSA hubs also resulted in four sign-ups, but at a return rate of just .78%. Thus, despite our broad reach, recruitment has required multiple outreach strategies to meet the current response rate.

Recruitment in general is time-intensive and challenging, as we know from literature on recruiting participants for clinical research. Moreover, we recognize the time demand in asking scientists who already face logistical hurdles within their own teams (coordinating across departments, institutions, and conflicting schedules) to volunteer their time for our study. However, team science studies like ours are designed to address these collaboration challenges that CTRTs (and all research teams) face. The Science of Team Science community must seek to understand how scientists perceive participation in research. Without the participation of these teams, the growth of our knowledge base is stymied. This raises a broader question for the field—how can team science advance without the very teams it seeks to support?