IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v9y2022i1d10.1057_s41599-022-01388-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Towards understanding the characteristics of successful and unsuccessful collaborations: a case-based team science study

Author

Listed:
  • Hannah B. Love

    (Divergent Science LLC
    Colorado State University)

  • Bailey K. Fosdick

    (Colorado State University)

  • Jennifer E. Cross

    (Colorado State University)

  • Meghan Suter

    (Colorado State University)

  • Dinaida Egan

    (Colorado State University)

  • Elizabeth Tofany

    (Colorado State University)

  • Ellen R. Fisher

    (University of New Mexico
    Colorado State University)

Abstract

Scientific breakthroughs for complex, large-scale problems require a combination of contributory expertize, disciplinary expertize, and interactional expertize, or socialized knowledge. There is, however, little formal recognition of what expertize is important for team success, and how to evaluate different types of contributions. This is problematic for the field of the Science of Team Sciences (SciTS). Funding is increasing for team science globally, but how do we know if teams are collaborating in meaningful ways to meet their goals? Many studies use bibliometric and citation data to understand team development and success; nevertheless, this type of data does not provide timely metrics about collaboration. This study asks: Can we determine if a team is collaborating and working together in meaningful ways in a process evaluation to achieve their goals and be successful in an outcome evaluation, and if so, how? This exploratory longitudinal, mixed-methods, case-based study, reports on eight interdisciplinary scientific teams that were studied from 2015–2017. The study used six different methods of data collection: a social network analysis at three-time points, participant observation, interviews, focus groups, turn-taking data during team meetings, and outcome metrics (publications, award dollars, etc.). After collecting and analyzing the data, a Kendall Rank Correlation was used to examine which development and process metrics correlated with traditional outcome metrics: publications, proposals submitted, and awards received. Five major implications, practical applications, and outputs arise from this case-based study: (1) Practicing even turn-taking is essential to team success. (2) The proportion of women on the team impacts the outcomes of the team. (3) Further evidence that successful team science is not about picking the right people, but on how to build the right team for success. (4) This article presents process metrics to increase understanding of successful and unsuccessful teams. (5) Teams need to engage in practices that build relationships for knowledge integration. This case-based study represents an early step to more effectively communicate how teams form and produce successful outcomes and increase their capacity for knowledge integration. The results contribute to the knowledge bank of integration and implementation by providing additional evidence about evaluation for scientific teams, including the know-how related to everyday interactions that lead to goal attainment. This study provides further evidence that to create new knowledge, scientific teams need both contributory and interactional expertize.

Suggested Citation

  • Hannah B. Love & Bailey K. Fosdick & Jennifer E. Cross & Meghan Suter & Dinaida Egan & Elizabeth Tofany & Ellen R. Fisher, 2022. "Towards understanding the characteristics of successful and unsuccessful collaborations: a case-based team science study," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:9:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-022-01388-x
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-022-01388-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-022-01388-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-022-01388-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Klein, Julie Thompson & Falk-Krzesinski, Holly J., 2017. "Interdisciplinary and collaborative work: Framing promotion and tenure practices and policies," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(6), pages 1055-1061.
    2. Joya Misra & Laurel Smith-Doerr & Nilanjana Dasgupta & Gabriela Weaver & Jennifer Normanly, 2017. "Collaboration and Gender Equity among Academic Scientists," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-22, March.
    3. Xiao Han T Zeng & Jordi Duch & Marta Sales-Pardo & João A G Moreira & Filippo Radicchi & Haroldo V Ribeiro & Teresa K Woodruff & Luís A Nunes Amaral, 2016. "Differences in Collaboration Patterns across Discipline, Career Stage, and Gender," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-19, November.
    4. Corey C. Phelps & Ralph Heidl & Anu Wadhwa, 2012. "Networks, knowledge, and knowledge networks: A critical review and research agenda," Post-Print hal-00715591, HAL.
    5. Hannah B. Love & Jennifer E. Cross & Bailey Fosdick & Kevin R. Crooks & Susan VandeWoude & Ellen R. Fisher, 2021. "Interpersonal relationships drive successful team science: an exemplary case-based study," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-10, December.
    6. Gabriele Bammer & Michael O’Rourke & Deborah O’Connell & Linda Neuhauser & Gerald Midgley & Julie Thompson Klein & Nicola J. Grigg & Howard Gadlin & Ian R. Elsum & Marcel Bursztyn & Elizabeth A. Fulto, 2020. "Expertise in research integration and implementation for tackling complex problems: when is it needed, where can it be found and how can it be strengthened?," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 6(1), pages 1-16, December.
    7. Dam Lam, Rodolfo & Gasparatos, Alexandros & Chakraborty, Shamik & Rivera, Horacio & Stanley, Taira, 2019. "Multiple values and knowledge integration in indigenous coastal and marine social-ecological systems research: A systematic review," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 1-1.
    8. Jordi Duch & Xiao Han T Zeng & Marta Sales-Pardo & Filippo Radicchi & Shayna Otis & Teresa K Woodruff & Luís A Nunes Amaral, 2012. "The Possible Role of Resource Requirements and Academic Career-Choice Risk on Gender Differences in Publication Rate and Impact," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(12), pages 1-11, December.
    9. Amanda E. Cravens & Megan S. Jones & Courtney Ngai & Jill Zarestky & Hannah B. Love, 2022. "Science facilitation: navigating the intersection of intellectual and interpersonal expertise in scientific collaboration," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-13, December.
    10. Daniel Z. Levin & Rob Cross, 2004. "The Strength of Weak Ties You Can Trust: The Mediating Role of Trust in Effective Knowledge Transfer," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(11), pages 1477-1490, November.
    11. Brian Uzzi & Ryon Lancaster, 2003. "Relational Embeddedness and Learning: The Case of Bank Loan Managers and Their Clients," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(4), pages 383-399, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yin-Che Chen & Ching-Ching Chai, 2023. "Development of a two-way mentorship scale focusing on next-generation core competencies," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-13, December.
    2. Vincent Caby, 2023. "Techniques for overcoming difficult interdisciplinary dialogue in expert panels: lessons for interactional expertise," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-12, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hannah B. Love & Alyssa Stephens & Bailey K. Fosdick & Elizabeth Tofany & Ellen R. Fisher, 2022. "The impact of gender diversity on scientific research teams: a need to broaden and accelerate future research," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-12, December.
    2. Fliaster, Alexander & Golly, Tanja, 2014. "Innovation in small and medium-sized companies: Knowledge integration mechanisms and the role of top managers’ networks," management revue - Socio-Economic Studies, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 25(2), pages 125-147.
    3. M. Max Evans & Ilja Frissen & Anthony K. P. Wensley, 2018. "Organisational Information and Knowledge Sharing: Uncovering Mediating Effects of Perceived Trustworthiness Using the PROCESS Approach," Journal of Information & Knowledge Management (JIKM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(01), pages 1-29, March.
    4. Josh Yamamoto & Eitan Frachtenberg, 2022. "Gender Differences in Collaboration Patterns in Computer Science," Publications, MDPI, vol. 10(1), pages 1-21, February.
    5. Llopis, Oscar & D'Este, Pablo & McKelvey, Maureen & Yegros, Alfredo, 2022. "Navigating multiple logics: Legitimacy and the quest for societal impact in science," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    6. Díez-Vial, Isabel & Montoro-Sánchez, Ángeles, 2016. "How knowledge links with universities may foster innovation: The case of a science park," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 50, pages 41-52.
    7. Linda Argote & Sunkee Lee & Jisoo Park, 2021. "Organizational Learning Processes and Outcomes: Major Findings and Future Research Directions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5399-5429, September.
    8. Shi, Jing & Wang, Jiajie & Kang, Lele & Sun, Jianjun, 2023. "How to poach the talents? Role of social capital and contextual knowledge base," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    9. de Vaan, Mathijs, 2014. "Interfirm networks in periods of technological turbulence and stability," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 43(10), pages 1666-1680.
    10. Ellen Enkel & Annika Groemminger & Sebastian Heil, 2018. "Managing technological distance in internal and external collaborations: absorptive capacity routines and social integration for innovation," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 43(5), pages 1257-1290, October.
    11. Montoro-Sanchez, Angeles & Diez-Vial, Isabel & Belso-Martinez, Jose Antonio, 2018. "The evolution of the domestic network configuration as a driver of international relationships in SMEs," International Business Review, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 727-736.
    12. Ioannidis, Evangelos & Varsakelis, Nikos & Antoniou, Ioannis, 2017. "False Beliefs in Unreliable Knowledge Networks," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 470(C), pages 275-295.
    13. Yindan Ye & Thomas Crispeels, 2022. "The role of former collaborations in strengthening interorganizational links: evidence from the evolution of the Chinese innovation network," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 47(5), pages 1343-1372, October.
    14. Mohsen Jadidi & Fariba Karimi & Haiko Lietz & Claudia Wagner, 2018. "Gender Disparities In Science? Dropout, Productivity, Collaborations And Success Of Male And Female Computer Scientists," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(03n04), pages 1-23, May.
    15. Christos Kolympiris & Sebastian Hoenen & Peter G. Klein, 2019. "Learning by Seconding: Evidence from National Science Foundation Rotators," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(3), pages 528-551, May.
    16. Aytul Ayse OZDEMIR & Ahmet Emre DEMIRCI, 2012. "Impact of Social Capital on Radical Innovation Efforts of the Organizations: A Case in the Aviation Industry," Ege Academic Review, Ege University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, vol. 12(1), pages 55-68.
    17. Eduardo B Araújo & Nuno A M Araújo & André A Moreira & Hans J Herrmann & José S Andrade Jr., 2017. "Gender differences in scientific collaborations: Women are more egalitarian than men," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(5), pages 1-10, May.
    18. Liu, Libo & Cheung, Christy M.K. & Lee, Matthew K.O., 2016. "An empirical investigation of information sharing behavior on social commerce sites," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 686-699.
    19. Hajibabaei, Anahita & Schiffauerova, Andrea & Ebadi, Ashkan, 2022. "Gender-specific patterns in the artificial intelligence scientific ecosystem," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    20. Antonio De Nicola & Gregorio D’Agostino, 2021. "Assessment of gender divide in scientific communities," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 3807-3840, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:9:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-022-01388-x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.