Fluctuating Team Science: Perceiving Science as Collaborative Improves Science Motivation.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Allen J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6284825 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Fluctuating Team Science: Perceiving Science as Collaborative Improves Science Motivation.
Allen Jill J Smith Jessi L JL Thoman Dustin B DB Walters Ryan W RW
Motivation science 20180312 4
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionDespite the critical role that quantitative scientists play in biomedical research, graduate programs in quantitative fields often focus on technical and methodological skills, not on collaborative and leadership skills. In this study, we evaluate the importance of team science skills among collaborative biostatisticians for the purpose of identifying training opportunities to build a skilled workforce of quantitative team scientists.MethodsOur workgroup described 16 essential skills for collaborative biostatisticians. Collaborative biostatisticians were surveyed to assess the relative importance of these skills in their current work. The importance of each skill is summarized overall and compared across career stages, highest degrees earned, and job sectors.ResultsSurvey respondents were 343 collaborative biostatisticians spanning career stages (early: 24.2%, mid: 33.8%, late: 42.0%) and job sectors (academia: 69.4%, industry: 22.2%, government: 4.4%, self-employed: 4.1%). All 16 skills were rated as at least somewhat important by > 89.0% of respondents. Significant heterogeneity in importance by career stage and by highest degree earned was identified for several skills. Two skills ("regulatory requirements" and "databases, data sources, and data collection tools") were more likely to be rated as absolutely essential by those working in industry (36.5%, 65.8%, respectively) than by those in academia (19.6%, 51.3%, respectively). Three additional skills were identified as important by survey respondents, for a total of 19 collaborative skills.ConclusionsWe identified 19 team science skills that are important to the work of collaborative biostatisticians, laying the groundwork for enhancing graduate programs and establishing effective on-the-job training initiatives to meet workforce needs.
| S-EPMC10685263 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeOver the past decade, a number of consortia have formed to further investigate genetic associations, pathogenesis, and epidemiologic risk and prognostic factors for ovarian cancer. Here, we review the benefits that ovarian cancer consortia provide as well as challenges that have arisen. Methods for managing key challenges are also discussed.MethodsWe review the structural organization and some of the milestone epidemiologic publications of five consortia dedicated to the study of ovarian cancer, including the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium (OCAC), the Ovarian Tumor Tissue Analysis (OTTA) Consortium, the Ovarian Cancer Cohort Consortium (OC3), the Collaborative Group on Epidemiological Studies of Ovarian Cancer (The Oxford Collaborative Group), and the Ovarian Cancer in Women of African Ancestry (OCWAA) consortium.ResultsAs ovarian cancer is a rare and heterogeneous disease, consortia have made important contributions in the study of risk factors by improving statistical power beyond what any single study, or even a few studies, would provide. Thus, a major accomplishment of consortial research is enhanced characterization of histotype-specific risk factor associations. In addition, consortia have facilitated impressive synergy between researchers across many institutions, spawning new collaborative research. Importantly, through these efforts, many challenges have been met, including difficulties with data harmonization and analysis, laying a road map for future collaborations.ConclusionsWhile ovarian cancer consortia have made valuable contributions to the ovarian cancer epidemiological literature over the past decade, additional efforts comprising of new, well-designed case-control studies are needed to further elucidate novel, histotype-specific risk, and prognostic factors which are not consistently available in existing studies.
| S-EPMC5616164 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Natural scientists from Climate Central and social scientists from Carnegie Mellon University collaborated to develop science communications aimed at presenting personalized coastal flood risk information to the public. We encountered four main challenges: agreeing on goals; balancing complexity and simplicity; relying on data, not intuition; and negotiating external pressures. Each challenge demanded its own approach. We navigated agreement on goals through intensive internal communication early on in the project. We balanced complexity and simplicity through evaluation of communication materials for user understanding and scientific content. Early user test results that overturned some of our intuitions strengthened our commitment to testing communication elements whenever possible. Finally, we did our best to negotiate external pressures through regular internal communication and willingness to compromise.
| S-EPMC4183174 | biostudies-other
Project description:Data-intensive research continues to expand with the goal of improving healthcare delivery, clinical decision-making, and patient outcomes. Quantitative scientists, such as biostatisticians, epidemiologists, and informaticists, are tasked with turning data into health knowledge. In academic health centres, quantitative scientists are critical to the missions of biomedical discovery and improvement of health. Many academic health centres have developed centralized Quantitative Science Units which foster dual goals of professional development of quantitative scientists and producing high quality, reproducible domain research. Such units then develop teams of quantitative scientists who can collaborate with researchers. However, existing literature does not provide guidance on how such teams are formed or how to manage and sustain them. Leaders of Quantitative Science Units across six institutions formed a working group to examine common practices and tools that can serve as best practices for Quantitative Science Units that wish to achieve these dual goals through building long-term partnerships with researchers. The results of this working group are presented to provide tools and guidance for Quantitative Science Units challenged with developing, managing, and evaluating Quantitative Science Teams. This guidance aims to help Quantitative Science Units effectively participate in and enhance the research that is conducted throughout the academic health centre-shaping their resources to fit evolving research needs.
| S-EPMC11340681 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundClinical and Translational Research (CTR) requires a team-based approach, with successful teams engaging in skilled management and use of information. Yet we know little about the ways that Translational Teams (TTs) engage with information across the lifecycle of CTR projects. This qualitative study explored the challenges that information management imposes on the conduct of team-based CTR.MethodsWe conducted interviews with ten members of TTs at University of Wisconsin. Interviews were transcribed and thematic analysis was conducted.ResultsTTs' piecemeal and reactive approaches to information management created conflict within the team and slowed scientific progress. The lack of cohesive information management strategies made it more difficult for teams to develop strong team processes like communication, scientific coordination, and project management. While TTs' research was hindered by the institutional challenges of interdisciplinary team information sharing, TTs who had developed shared approaches to information management that foregrounded transparency, accountability, and trust, described substantial benefits to their teamwork.ConclusionWe propose a new model for the Science of Team Science field - a Translational Team Science Hierarchy of Needs - that suggests interventions should be targeted at the appropriate stage of team development in order to maximize a team's scientific potential.
| S-EPMC10603362 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6066441 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeMentoring is critical for academic success. As science transitions to a team science model, team mentoring may have advantages. The goal of this study was to understand the process, benefits, and challenges of team mentoring relating to career development and research.MethodA national survey was conducted of Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women's Health (BIRCWH) program directors-current and former scholars from 27 active National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded BIRCWH NIH K12 programs-to characterize and understand the value and challenges of the team approach to mentoring. Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively, and qualitative data were analyzed thematically.ResultsResponses were received from 25/27 (93%) program directors, 78/108 (72%) current scholars, and 91/162 (56%) former scholars. Scholars reported that team mentoring was beneficial to their career development (152/169; 90%) and research (148/169; 88%). Reported advantages included a diversity of opinions, expanded networking, development of stronger study designs, and modeling of different career paths. Challenges included scheduling and managing conflicting opinions. Advice by directors offered to junior faculty entering team mentoring included the following: not to be intimidated by senior mentors, be willing to navigate conflicting advice, be proactive about scheduling and guiding discussions, have an open mind to different approaches, be explicit about expectations and mentors' roles (including importance of having a primary mentor to help navigate discussions), and meet in person as a team.ConclusionsThese findings suggest that interdisciplinary/interprofessional team mentoring has many important advantages, but that skills are required to optimally utilize multiple perspectives.
| S-EPMC5263095 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Reconstructive allografts using Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation (VCA) are providing individuals living with upper limb loss and facial disfigurement with new opportunities for a sensate, esthetically acceptable, and functional alternative to current treatment strategies. Important research attention is being paid to how best to assess and screen candidates for VCA, measure optimal patient outcomes, and support patient adherence to lifelong behaviors and medical regimens. Far less attention, however, has been dedicated to the team science required for these complex VCA teams to form, prepare, and provide the highest quality clinical and psychosocial care to those receiving VCA. VCA teams are unique in that they require specialized team members whose scope of practice may not otherwise overlap. The team also needs to constantly negotiate balancing patient safety with multiple risks throughout the transplant process. This study aimed to elucidate the team science needed for this highly innovative and complex area of medicine. Using in-depth qualitative interviews with 14 VCA team members and observations at team meetings, we found that careful consideration of team composition, team structure, and organizational commitment (e.g., local culture and team values; investment of resources) influences team performance and patient outcomes, but that to be efficient and truly effective, teams need to commit to developing processes that foster collaboration. These processes are action-oriented (e.g., communication, leadership), strategic (e.g., planning, training) and interpersonal (e.g., conflict management, trust building). Dedication and commitment to team science allows teams to manage conflict under stress and exercise ways to leverage strengths to provide optimal performance or patient psychosocial and clinical outcomes. This study can provide insight into quality improvement efforts for VCA teams and guidance for other transplant programs that wish to consider expansion into VCA.
| S-EPMC9486538 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionClinical/translational science (CTS) is team-based, requiring effective collaboration and communication across many disciplines involving a variety of stakeholders. We implemented a pre-doctoral team-based training model with didactic and experiential curricular interventions to support the development of CTS research skills in a cross-disciplinary team environment. We assessed the potential impact of this new training model as a team science intervention that can catalyze new cross-disciplinary collaborations across the institution.MethodsBetween 2016 and 2020, 32 pre-doctoral students and 26 co-mentors participated in the assessment of the CTS Team program over a two-year period of TL1 training grant support. Data collection and analyses followed a program logic model and used a variety of metrics for clinical and translational scientist career success.ResultsCTS training in the context of CTS Teams supported improved self-efficacy for clinical research skills and resulted in a significant increase in the frequency of participation in cross-disciplinary collaborative activities by both trainees and mentors. Most CTS Team co-mentor pairs had not previously collaborated. Two-thirds of the co-mentors plan to continue collaborating, and most (85%) currently use or plan to use collaboration tools, for example, written collaboration plans, authorship agreements.ConclusionsThe CTS Team training model provides a unique clinical and translational science team training experience that embeds authentic cross-disciplinary research collaboration into PhD research projects. It establishes trainee cohorts that are diverse in terms of scientific disciplines and translational research phases, and creates a new cross-disciplinary community of practice across faculty members and research groups in multiple colleges.
| S-EPMC8596063 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe Great CTSA Team Science Contest (GTSC) was developed to discover how Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs promote and support team science [1]. The purpose of this study was a secondary qualitative analysis of the GTSC submissions to better understand the diversity of team science initiatives across the CTSA consortium.MethodsSecondary qualitative analysis of the GTSC data addressed the following research questions, which defined the top-level coding: (1) What CTSA component sponsored it? (2) Who was the team doing the work? (3) Who were the intended beneficiaries? (4) What was the intended outcome? (5) What strategies did they use? (6) What translational science (TS) stage was addressed? (7) How do they align with the NCATS team science strategic goals? (8) How do the CTSA's team science efforts align with the National Academies Research Council (NRC) recommendations for enhancing the effectiveness of team science?ResultsThe GTSC received 170 submissions from 45 unique CTSA hubs. Qualitative analysis revealed a great variety of team science strategies for virtually all team science stakeholders. In addition to strategies to promote team science, results show successful examples that focus on outcomes and illustrate ways of measuring success.ConclusionsThe GTSC shows that the CTSA consortium is involved in an extremely diverse array of team science activities, which align well with both the NRC recommendations for enhancing the effectiveness of team science and the NCATS strategic goals for team science. Future research should evaluate the efficacy of team science strategies.
| S-EPMC8411266 | biostudies-literature