https://doi.org/10.4081/qrmh.2021.9724

Assessing collaboration among team scientists within a triadic research center partnership

Vol. 5 No. 2 (2021)
Submitted: 3 March 2021
Accepted: 23 July 2021
Published: 5 October 2021
Interdisciplinary research teams, collaboration, team development, cancer health disparities training and research, evaluation, MSI-PWI partnerships, team science, inductive analysis
Abstract Views: 986
PDF: 233
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Authors

Linda S. Behar-Horenstein
Lsbhoren@ufl.edu
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3046-598X
School of Human Development and Organizational Studies in Education, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States.
Joyce R. Richey
Department of Clinical Physiology and Neuroscience, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, United States.
Ukamaka Diké Smith
Department of Pharmacy Practice, Florida Agricultural and Mining University, Tallahassee, Florida, United States.

Few studies have utilized qualitative methods to assess the perceived effectiveness of collaboration among research center interdisciplinary team scientists. Stages of team development served as the theoretical framework to characterize minority serving institution (MSI) and predominantly White institutions (PWI) participants’ challenges and successes during a National Institutes of Health (NIH) sponsored cancer health disparities training and research program. We present the finding of an inductive analysis of four open-ended survey questions across two years. Fostering an awareness of the inherently taxing, yet centrality of group (team) development may advance an understanding of team dynamics and lead to increased team cohesion and productivity. In conclusion, we provide recommendations to assist multiple principal investigators who embark on team development.

Dimensions

Altmetric

PlumX Metrics

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Citations

Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC
Wuchty S, Jones BF, Uzzi B. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 2007;316:1036–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1136099
Jones BF, Wuchty S, Uzzi B. Multi-university research teams: Shifting impact, geography, and stratification in science. Science 2008;322:1259 –62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1158357
Farrell M, Schmitt M, Heinemann G. Informal roles and the stages of interdisciplinary team development. J Interprof Care 2001;15:281-95. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820120068980
Fiore SM, Carter DR, Asencio R. Conflict, trust, and cohesion: Examining affective and attitudinal factors in science teams. In Salas E, Vessey WB, Estrada AX (Eds.). Team cohesion: Advances in psychological theory, methods and practice. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley; 2015:271–301. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/S1534-085620150000017011
Tuckman BW. Developmental sequence in small groups. Psych Bull 1965;63:384–99. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022100
Tuckman BW, Jensen MA. Stages of small group development revisited. Group and Organ Studies 1977;2:419–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/105960117700200404
Johns G. Social behaviour and organizational processes. In Johns G. (ed). Organizational behaviour: understanding and managing life at work. Harper Collins College Publishers, 1996.
Warren RC, Behar-Horenstein LS, Heard TV. Individual Perspectives of majority/minority partnerships: who really benefits and how? J Healthcare Poor Underserved 2019;30:102-15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.2019.0010
Davis AA, Warren RC, Behar-Horenstein LS. Review of HBCU and PWI partnership studies (1998-2018). J Negro Ed. (in press).
Hall K, Vogel AL, Huang GC, et al. The science of team science: A review of the empirical evidence and research gaps on collaboration in science. Am Psych 2018;73:532–48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000319
Masse LC, Moser RP, Stokols D, et al. Measuring collaboration and transdisciplinary integration in team science. Am J Preventive Med 2008;35:S151-60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.020
Hall KL, Stokols D, Moser RP, et al. The collaboration readiness of transdisciplinary research teams and centers: findings from the National Cancer Institute's TREC year-one evaluation study. Am J Prev Med 2008;35:S161-72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.03.035
Bell BS, Tannenbaum SI, Ford JK, et al. 100 years of training and development research: what we know and where we should go. J Appl Psych 2017;102:305–23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000142
Guzzo RA, Dickson MW. Teams in organizations: recent research on performance and effectiveness. Ann Rev Psych 1996;47:307–38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.47.1.307
Ilgen DR, Hollenbeck JR, Johnson M, Jundt D. Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annu Rev Psych 2005;56:517–43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070250
Klein KJ, Kozlowski SW. Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2000.
Kozlowski SW, Ilgen DR. Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psych Sci Public Interest 2006;7:77–124. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00030.x
Mathieu JE, Hollenbeck JR, van Knippenberg D, Ilgen DR. A century of work teams in the Journal of Applied Psychology. J Appl Psych 2017;102:452– 67. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000128
Strauss AL. Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1987: 3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511557842
Saldaña J. The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.) Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2021.
Creswell JW, Guetterman TC. Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (6th ed.). MA: Pearson; 2018.
Cummings JN, Kiesler S. Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Soc Studies Sci 2005:35:703–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312705055535
Vasileiadou E, Vliegenthart R. Research productivity in the era of the internet revisited. Res Pol 2009;38:1260–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.06.005
Abbasi A, Jaafari A. Research impact and scholars’ geographical diversity. J Informetrics 2013;7:683– 92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2013.04.004
Bales ME, Dine DC, Merrill JA, et al. Associating co-authorship patterns with publications in high-impact journals. J Biomed Inform 2014:52;311–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2014.07.015
Birnholtz J, Guha S, Yuan YC, et al C. Cross-campus collaboration: A scientometric and network case study of publication activity across two campuses of a single institution. J Assoc Infor Sci Tech 2013:64:162–72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22807
Jeong S, Choi JY. Collaborative research for academic knowledge creation: How team characteristics, motivation, and processes influence research impact. Sci Pub Pol 2015;42:460–73. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scu067
Mayrose I, Freilich S. The interplay between scientific overlap and cooperation and the resulting gain in co-authorship interactions. PLoS ONE 2015;10:e0137856. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0137856
Dahlander L, McFarland DA. Ties that last: Tie formation and persistence in research collaborations over time. Admin Sci Qtrly 2013;58:69–110. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839212474272
Freeman RB, Huang W. Collaborating with people like me: Ethnic coauthorship within the United States. J Labor Econ 2015;33:S289 –318. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/678973
Xia L, Ya S. Study on knowledge sharing behavior engineering. Systems Engineering Procedia 2012;4:468–76. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sepro.2012.01.012
Cummings JN, Kiesler, S. Coordination costs and project outcomes in multi-university collaborations. Res Pol 2007;36:1620–34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.09.001
Binz-Scharf MC, Kalish Y, Paik L. Making science: New generations of collaborative knowledge production. Am Behav Sci 2015;59:531–47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764214556805
Freeman RB, Ganguli I, Murciano-Goroff R. Why and wherefore of increased scientific collaboration. NBER Working Paper 2014; No. 19819. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Available from: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w19819/w19819.pdf DOI: https://doi.org/10.3386/w19819
Hall KL, Stokols D, Stipelman BA, et al. Assessing the value of team science: A study comparing center- and investigator-initiated grants. Am J Pre Med 2012;42:157–63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2011.10.011

How to Cite

Behar-Horenstein, Linda S., Joyce R. Richey, and Ukamaka Diké Smith. 2021. “Assessing Collaboration Among Team Scientists Within a Triadic Research Center Partnership”. Qualitative Research in Medicine and Healthcare 5 (2). https://doi.org/10.4081/qrmh.2021.9724.

PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.