Team Science Affinity Group
(an initiative of CTSA Strategic Goal
Committee #3)
Allan R. Brasier, MD
Chair Elect, CTSA SGC3
Director of the Institute for
Translational Sciences
University of Texas Medical Branch
at Galveston
Kevin C. Wooten, PhD
Chair of Administrative Sciences
University of Houston Clear Lake
Co-Director of Tracking and Evaluation
University of Texas Medical Branch
CTSA
1
Agenda
• Introduction of the Steering Committee
Members
• Statement of the problem
• Discussion
• Next steps
2
Affinity Group Steering Committee
L. Michelle Bennett, Ph.D.,
Deputy scientific director of the Division of
Intramural Research (DIR), NHLBI
Doris M Rubio, PhD
Co-Director, Institute for Clinical Research
Education Univ. Pittsburgh
Kara Hall , PhD
Program Director
Science of Research and Technology Branch
(SRTB), NCI
Eduardo Salas, PhD
Institute for Simulation and Training
University of Central Florida
Daniel Ilgen, PhD
Distinguished Professor of Psych & Mgmt
MichiganState University
Joann Keyton, PhD
Editor Small Group Research
NCSU
Holly J. Falk-Krzesinski, PhD
Vice President of Global Academic &
Research Relations Elsevier
William Trochim, PhD
Policy Analysis and Management
Cornell University
Bonnie Spring, Ph.D., ABPP
Director, Center for Behavior and Health
Northwestern University
Elaine Collier, MD
Acting Director, CTSA
CTSA SGC#3 Representative
Allan Brasier, MD
3
Background
 Team-based research is required for translational research enterprise
that can truly span T1-T4.
 Translational teams differ in fundamental ways from better-studied
Sci & Tech Teams and Industry Teams.
 There are a number of uncoordinated efforts across the consortium
that would benefit significantly from greater cohesion, perspective and
sharing of approaches
 Providing leadership in translational team building, its evaluation and
use in education will require cross-CTSA collaboration with efforts in
collaboration (SGC#3), Education (SGC#2), and Tracking and
Evaluation Key Function Committee.
4
Background
We propose a three-step process to “Move to Action” that
might expedite the practice of team-based translational
science. This involves:
1) Create a CTSA Team Science Practice Affinity
Group to lead the effort
2) Affinity work groups in education, team
development, and evaluation create definitions and
taxonomies for initial implementation
3) Establishment of a “Big Picture” model to drive
integration of translational team approaches across
educational, developmental and evaluative domains
Current Status & Issues
Many reviews of the literature* indicate a variety of issues,
including:
1) Lack of definition of key terms
2) Few theoretical models, taxonomies, and
frameworks
3) Insufficient training in Team Science
4) Underutilization from other disciplines
5) Requires multilevel evaluation approaches
using mixed methods
*(Börner et al., 2010; Cummings & Kiesler, 2005; Fiore, 2008; Stokols, Hall,
Taylor, & Moser, 2008; Spring, Moller, Falk-Krzesinski, & Hall, 2012)
Recommendations from Team Science Scholars
Recommendations by Team Science Scholars* clearly
articulate the need for improved methods and models,
inclusive of:
1) A more precise and integrated taxonomy of the
disciplinarily and contextual factors
2) Identification, operationalization, and
acceleration of readiness for collaboration
3) Investment in teams prior to collaboration and
use prior experience
4) Models and curriculum to train scientists
*Hall, et al. (2008), and Stokols, Misra, Moser, Hall, & Taylor (2008)
Where to Begin?
• For short term, assemble “CTSA Team Science Practice Affinity
Group”
1) Focus on the basics – a start
2) Cogeneration by Team Science scholars and
CTSA practitioners
3) Use current CTSA Strategic Goal Number 3
(Committee on Collaboration) initiative
• Purpose of the “Affinity Group” would be to “To create a
community of learning (Cox, 2005; Wenger, 1998) among the
CTSA institutions that promotes, studies, and facilitates team
science, resulting in resource sharing and dissemination of
effective methodologies”
Team Science Practice Affinity Group: Organizing
the SG3 Effort
Identify Idea Champions
Identify Key CTSA Practitioners in Education,
Development, and Evaluation
Establish Steering Committee and Work Groups in
Education, Development, and Evaluation
Team Science Practice Affinity Group: Tasks
Define Key Areas and Create Initial Taxonomies
Create and Operationalize Initial “Big Picture”
Model
Identify and Help Implement Best Practices in
Education, Development, and Evaluation
The Primary Components of Team Science
Practice
Team
Education
Team
Science
Practice
Team
Assessme
nt &
Evaluation
Team
Developm
ent
The Known “Known's”: Primary Factors and
Programmatic Activities
• We have now useful knowledge to apply to assist the
CTSA in education, development, and the evaluation
of translational tams
• Affinity work groups in education, development, and
evaluation should consider “knowledge mining’ as a
starting point in the efforts to generate relevant
taxonomies and practice frameworks
Team Science Education: Primary Factors
• Competency Models: CTSA Core Competencies for Clinical
and Translational Research CTSA (2011); Gebbie, et al. (2008);
Cannon-Bower, Tannenbaum, Salas, & Volpe, (1995)
• Team Effectiveness & Adaptation Models: Ilgen, Hollenbeck,
Johnson, & Jundt (2007); Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp & Gilson
(2001); Kozlowiski & Ilgen (2006); Burke, Stagal, Salas, Pierce,
& Kendall (2006); Hall, Vogel, Brooke, Stipelman, Stokols,
Morgan & Gehlert (2012); Morgan, Salas, & Glickman (1994)
• Basic Interpersonal & Team Skills: Loughry, Ohland, & Moore
(2007); Moregenson, Reider, & Carrigan (2005); Rousseau,
Aubé, & Savoie (2006)
Team Science Education:
Programmatic Activities
• Graduate & Post Doctoral Courses: Rubio, et al. ( 2012);
Borrego & Newswander (2010); Miltrany & Stokols (2005); Nash
(2008)
• Seminars & Workshops: Begg et al. (2013);Weaver, Rosen,
Salas, Baum, & King (2012); Reeves (2009)
• Mentoring: Fleming, Burnham, & Huskins (2012); Meagher,
Taylor, Probsfield, & Fleming (2011); Anderson, Silet, & Fleming
(2012)
Team Science Development:
Primary Factors
• Team Assembly & Structure: Calhoun, Wooten, Bhavanni,
Anderson, Freeman, & Brasier (2013); Guimera, Uzzi, Spiro, &
Nunes Amaral (2005); Henttonen (2001)
• Team Processes: LePine, Piccolo, Jackson, Mathieu, & Saul,
(2008); Marks, Mathieu, & Zaccaro, (2001); Hall, Vogel,
Stipelman, Stokols, Morgan, & Gehlert, (2012)
• Team Leadership & Followership: Bennett, Gadlin, & LevineFinley (2012); Zaccarro, Rittman, & Marks (2001); Kozlowski,
Gully, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers (1996)
Team Science Development:
Programmatic Activities
• Team Training & Coaching: Fiore (2008); Bedwell, Ramsay, &
Salas (2012); Hirshfeld, Jordon, Field, Giles, & Armenakis
(2006)
• Team Building: Klein, et al. (2009), Salas, Rozell, Mullen, &
Driskell, (1999); Gilley, Morris, Waite, Coates, & Veliquette,
(2010)
• Process & Innovation Interventions: Bedwell, Ramsay, &
Salas (2012); Salazar, Lant, Fiore, & Salas (2012)
Team Assessment and Evaluation:
Primary Factors
• Outcome Evaluation: Trochim, Marcus, Masse, Moser,& Weld
(2008); Hoggarth & Comfort (2010); Stokols et al. (2003)
• Process Evaluation: Patton (2010); Gray (2008); Stokols,
(2006)
• Developmental Evaluation: Masse et. al. (2008); Wooten,
Rose, Ostir, Calhoun, Ameredes, & Brasier (2013); Saunders,
Evans, & Joshi (2005)
Team Assessment & Evaluation: Programmatic
Activities
• Quantitative Methods: Stokols et al. (2003), Masse et al.
(2008)
• Qualitative Methods: Kotarba, Wooten, Freeman & Brasier
(2013); Aboelela, Merrill, Carley, & Larson, (2007)
• Mixed Methods: Trochim, Marcus, Masse, Moser & Weld
(2008); Wooten, Rose, Ostir, Calhoun, Ameredes, & Brasier
(2013)
Steps of Integrating the Practice of Team Science
Components
Education, Development, and Evaluation Affinity Work
Groups Define and Create Taxonomies for Use
Creation Of “Big Picture” Model
Implement Model and Refine
“The Big Picture” for Team Science Practice
Team Evaluation
Team Competencies
Team Education
Team Effectiveness
Team Processes
Team Development
Why a “ Big Picture”
• To create a legitimate thread between education,
development, and evaluation
• To provide for a quicker generation of best
practices and comparative effectiveness efforts
21
Deliverables to the Consortium and Community
• Make a repository of resources for translational team science available
to CTSA institutions, integrated with other team science initiatives (NCI
Toolkit, SciTS).
• Establish a research agenda involving team science pedagogy,
developmental interventions, team processes, and team effectiveness,
that stimulates evidence-based publications and facilitates
partnerships with social, behavioral, and management scholars.
• To collaborate and build a comprehensive model of team science such
that educative, developmental, and evaluative processes become
integrated to maximize resources and stimulate the development of
team science.
22
Expectations of Advisory Committee
• Provide high level advice on how to source and
utilize Known “Known’s” for each work group
• Provide advice and expertise in creation of “Big
Picture”
• Provide expertise to specific workgroups
• Provide insights and assistance to dissemination
of products coming from the effort
23
Discussion/Process Questions
• How best to organize and facilitate the three work
groups?
• Are we missing important areas of emphasis?
• How do we ensure coordination between the three
working groups?
• What should be the relationship between the
advisory committee and the three work groups?
• What should be our next steps as a committee and
generally? Action steps and timetable?
24
References
Aboelela, S. W., Merrill, J. A., Carley, K. M., & Larson, E. (2007). Social network
analysis to evaluate an interdisciplinary research center. Journal of Research
Administration, 38, 61-78.
Anderson, L., Silet, K., & Fleming, M. (2012). Evaluating and giving feedback to
mentors: New Evidence based approaches. Clinical Translational Science, 5,
71-77.
Bedwell, W.L., Ramsay, S., & Salas, E. (2012). Helping fluid teams work: A
research agenda for effective team adaptation in healthcare. Translational
Behavioral Medicine, 2, 504-509.
Begg, M.D., Crumley, C.G., Fair, A.M., Martina, C.A., McCormack, W.T., Merchant,
C., Patino-Sutton, C.M., Umans J.G. (2013). Approaches to preparing young
scholars for careers in interdisciplinary science. Manuscript submitted for
publication.
Bennett, L.M., Gadlin, H., & Levine-Finley, S. (2010). Collaboration & team science:
A field guide. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health. Retrieval from NIH
website:
https://ccrod.cancer.gov/confluence/download/attachments/47284665/TeamSci
ence_FieldGuide.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1271730182423
References
Börner, K., Contractor, N., Falk-Krzesinski, H. J., Fiore, S. M., Keyton, J., Spring, B.,
Stokols, D., Trochim, W., & Uzzi, B. (2010). A multi-level systems perspective
for the science of team science. Science Translational Medicine, 15, 49cm24.
Borrego, M. & Newswander, L.K. (2012). Definition of interdisciplinary research:
Toward graduate level interdisciplinary learning outcomes. Review of Higher
Education, 34, 65-70.
Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Salas, E., Pierce, L., & Kendall, D. (2006). Understanding
team adaptation: A conceptual analysis and model. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91, 1189-1207.
Calhoun, W. J., Wooten, K., Bhavnani, S., Anderson, K. E., Freeman, J., & Brasier,
A. R. (2013). The CTSA as an exemplar framework for developing
multidisciplinary translational teams. Clinical and Translational Science, 6, 6071.
Cannon-Bowers, J.A., Tannenbaum, S.I., Salas, E., & Volpe, C.E. (1995).
Developing competencies and establishing team training requirements. In R.
Guzzo & E. Salas (Eds.), Team effectiveness and decision making in
organizations (pp. 333-380). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
References
Clinical and Translational Sciences Award. (2011). Core competencies in clinical
and translational sciences. Retrieved from CTSA website:
http://www.ctsaweb.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.showCoreComp.
Cox, A. (2005). What are communities of practice? A comparative review of four
seminal works. Journal of Informational Science, 31, 527-540.
Cummings, J.N., & Kiesler, S. (2005). Collaborative research across disciplinary and
organizational boundaries. Social Studies of Science, 35, 703-722.
Falk-Krzesinski, H.J., Börner, K., Contractor, N., Fiore, S.M., Hall, K.L., Keyton, J.,
Spring, B., Stokols, D., Trochim, W., & Uzzi, B. (2010). Advancing the science
of team science. Clinical and Translation Science Journal, 23, 263-266.
Falk-Krzesinski, H.J., Contractor, N., Fiore, S.M., Hall, K. L., Kane, C., Keyton, J.,
Thompson-Klein, J., Spring, B., Stokols, D., & Trochim, D. (2011). Mapping a
research agenda for the science of team science. Research Evaluation,
20,145-158.
Fiore, S.M. (2008). Interdisciplinarity as teamwork: How the science of teams can
inform team science. Small Group Research, 39,217-277.
References
Fiore, S.M. (2013). Overview of the science of team science. Planning meeting of
Interdisciplinary Science Teams, Board of Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory
Sciences Division of Behavioral and Social Science and Education, National
Research Council, Washington, DC.
Fleming, M., Burnham, E.L., & Huskins, W.G. (2012). Mentoring translational
science investigators. Journal of the American Medical Association, 19, 19811982.
Gebbie, K.M., Meir, B.M., Bakken, S., Carrasquillo, O., Formicola, A., Aboela, S.W.,
Glied, S. (2008.) Journal of Allied Health, 37, 65-79.
Gilley, J.W., Morris, M.L., Waite, A.M., Coates, T., & Veliquette, A. (2010).
Integrated theoretical model for building effective teams. Advances in
Developing Human Resources, 12, 7-28.
Gray, D. O. (2008). Making team science better: Applying improvement-oriented
evaluation principles to evaluation of cooperative research centers. New
Directions of Evaluation, 8,118, 73-87.
Guimera, R., Uzzi, B., Spiro, J., & Nunes Amaral, L. A. (2005). Team assembly
mechanisms determine collaboration network structure and team performance.
Science, 308, 697-702.
References
Hall, K. L., Feng, A. X., Moser, R. P., Stokols, D., & Taylor, B. K. (2008). Moving the
science of team science forward: Collaboration and creativity. American
Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35, 243-249.
Hall, K.L., & Vogel, A.L., Stipelman, B.A., Stokols, D., Morgan, G., Gehlert, S.
(2012). A four phase model of translational team-based research: Goals, team
processes, and strategies. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 2, 415-43
Henttonen, K. (2010). Exploring social networks on the team level: A review of the
empirical literature. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 27,
74-109.
Hirschfeld, R.R., Jordan, M.H., Feild, H.S., Giles, W.F., & Armenakis, A.A. (2006).
Becoming a team player: Team members’ mastery of teamwork knowledge as
a predictor of team task proficiency and observed teamwork effectiveness.
Journal of Applied Psychology , 91, 467-474.
Hoggarth, L., & Comfort, H. (2010). A practical guide to outcome evaluation. London
and Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Ilgen, D.R., Hollenbeck, J.R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in
organizations: From input-process-output model to IMOI models. Annual
Review of Psychology, 56, 517-540.
References
Jones, B. F., Wuchty, S., & Uzzi, B. (2008). Multi-university research teams: Shifting
impact, geography, and stratification in science. Science, 322, 1259-1262.
Klein, C., DiazGranados, D., Salas, E., Le, H., Burke, C.S., Lyons, R., & Goodwin,
G.F. (2009). Does team building work? Small Group Research, 40, 181-222.
Kotarba, J. A., Wooten, K.C., Freeman, J., & Brasier, A.R. (2013). The culture of
translational science research: A qualitative analysis. International Review of
Qualitative Research, 6, 127-142.
Kozlowski, S.J., Gully, S.M., Salas, E., Cannon-Bowers, J.A. (1996). Team
Leadership and development: Theory, principals, and guidelines for training
leaders and teams. In M.M. Beyerlein, D.A. Johnson, and S.T. Beyerlein
(Eds).) Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams. Vol 3. (pp. 253291). Amsterdam: Eleseveir/JAI Press.
Kozlowski, S.W.J., & Ilgen, D.R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups
and teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7, 77-124.
References
Morganson, F.P., Reider, M.H., & Campion, M.A., (2005). Selecting individuals in
team settings: The importance of social skills, personality characteristics, and
teamwork knowledge. Personnel Psychology, 58, 583-611.
Masse, L.C., Moser, R.P., Stokols, D., Taylor, B.K., Marcus, S.E., Morgan, L.D.,
Hall, K.L., Croyle, R. T., & Trochim, W. (2008). Measuring collaboration and
transdisciplinary integration in team science [Supplement]. American Journal of
Preventive Medicine, 35, 151-160.
Mathieu, J. E., Maynard, M. T., Rapp, T. L. & Gilson, L. L. (2008). Team
effectiveness 1997-2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into
the future. Journal of Management, 34, 410-476.
Meagher, E., Taylor, L, Probsfield, J, & Fleming, M. (2011). Evaluating research
mentors working in the area of clinical translational since: A review of the
literature. Evaluating and giving feedback to mentors: New evidence-based
approaches. Clinical Translational Science, 5, 353-358.
Miltrany, M. & Stokols, D. (2005). Gauging the transdisciplinary qualities and
outcomes of doctoral education. Journal of Planning Education and Research,
24, 437-449.
References
Morganson, F.P., Reider, M.H., & Campion, M.A., (2005). Selecting individuals in
team settings: The importance of social skills, personality characteristics, and
teamwork knowledge. Personnel Psychology, 58, 583-611.
Nash, J.M. (2008). Transdisciplinary training: Key component and prerequisites for
success. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35, 133-140.
Patton, M.Q. (2010). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to
enhance innovation and use. New York: Guilford Press.
Pober, J.S., Neuhauser, C.S., & Pober, J.M. (2001). Obstacles facing translational
research in academic medical centers. The FASEB Journal, 15, 2303-2313.
Reeves, S. (2009). An overview of continuing interprofessional education. Journal
of Continuing Education n the Health Professions, 29, 142-146.
Rousseau, V., Aube, C., & Savoie, A. (2006). Teamwork behaviors: A Review and
integration of frameworks. Small Group Research, 37, 540-570.