In an era of increasing scientific complexity, collaboration has become essential in addressing pressing health and societal challenges. The field of team science has emerged to study and enhance the effectiveness of collaborative research efforts. Recent studies by Professor Gaetano Lotrecchiano at George Washington University School of Medicine and Health Science explore different facets of team science, offering valuable insights for researchers, team leaders, and institutions seeking to improve collaborative research outcomes.

The research he and his colleagues have conducted share several common themes. First, they recognize the critical importance of individual readiness and motivation in team science success. Second, they emphasise the need for team members to be reflective, and to understand how they interact and work with others. Third, they highlight the value of preparing researchers for collaborative work by focussing on competencies – the combination of knowledge, skills, and abilities that make an individual effective at a particular task or in a specific role – achieved over a lifetime of experiences. Together, these studies provide a comprehensive view of the individual, team, and organisational factors that contribute to effective scientific collaboration.

The first of these projects introduces a novel framework for developing team science expertise using a reflective-reflexive design method (or R2DM for short). This research addresses a significant gap in the literature by focusing on individual needs satisfaction when choosing to be part of a science team.

Lotrecchiano and his team argue that while team preparedness is essential for team effectiveness, little attention has been paid to the steps an individual must take to become good at this. To address this, they propose a design method that enables individuals to assess their collaboration readiness, surface their thoughts and values with their team, develop a shared understanding of team members’ motivators, and establish shared team values and behaviours.

The R2DM framework integrates three key models: the Motivation Assessment for Team Readiness, Integration, and Collaboration, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, and the Team Effectiveness Model for Science. This integration allows for a comprehensive approach to team science expertise development, starting with individual reflection and moving towards group reflexivity.

The researchers emphasise the importance of sensemaking activities in this process. Sensemaking is a process of making sense of new experiences and providing meaning. Trying new behaviours, seeing what works, and adjusting until you get it right. In team science, sensemaking is how researchers figure out how to work together in new situations. These activities guide individuals through a journey of self-discovery, exploring their motivations, needs, and values in relation to team science. This reflective process then informs the team’s development of shared mental models and collaborative norms.

One of the key insights from this study is the recognition that higher-level individual needs, such as esteem and self-actualization, are dependent on interaction and socialisation within the team. This underscores the importance of creating team environments that support both individual growth and collective success.

The second study focuses on identifying individual and team competencies in translational teams. A translational team is a diverse group of researchers and professionals who work together to bridge the gap between basic scientific discoveries and their practical applications. They interact, adapt, and evolve using established norms and defined roles to address a shared ‘translational objective’.

To reach an understanding of the competencies needed by translational teams, the researchers used a modified Delphi method, a structured communication technique used to reach consensus among a group of experts.

Through their research process, Lotrecchiano and colleagues identified five key competency domains for translational teams: facilitating team affect, team communication, managing team research, collaborative problem-solving, and team leadership. Within these domains, they defined five individual competencies and eight team-level competencies.

A critical finding of this study is the importance of trustworthiness, and the way it underlies all other competencies. The researchers argue that trustworthiness contributes to an environment of psychological safety, which is crucial for high-functioning science teams. This emphasis on trust and psychological safety aligns with the findings of the first study, highlighting the interconnectedness of individual needs and team dynamics.

The competencies identified in this study provide a foundation for designing professional development activities and evaluating their impact on team performance, innovation, member satisfaction, and impact on health or healthcare delivery. This work represents a significant step towards more targeted and effective training for translational science teams.

The third study examines translational team science competencies through the lens of sensemaking. This research offers a novel and alternative model for evaluating team science effectiveness using multiple perspectives from the social sciences.

Lotrecchiano and his team argue that while competencies have been formally defined in accreditation descriptions and study regulations, the actual developmental process of acquiring competencies in higher education is not well understood. They note that there is a significant lack of empirical studies on competency research and development in higher education, despite a growing emphasis on developing and revising competencies that are important to employers. It is important that research identifies competencies that are relevant to the changing nature of work and the demands of knowledge-intensive industries, such as science.

The researchers propose using a sensemaking framework to evaluate team science effectiveness. As we’ve previously explored, sensemaking is the process through which team members work out how to behave and exercise their skills in unfamiliar environments. This process allows individuals to create generalizable points of view that can be carried from one context to another, contributing to more advanced competencies as experiences evolve.

The study introduces five observational orientations or “modalities” identified in research by Schwandt: Behaviorist, Cognitivist, Humanist, Constructivist, and Social Learning. These modalities serve as different lenses through which to observe and understand team science competencies. The researchers argue that using multiple modalities provides a richer, more comprehensive understanding of the complex dynamics at play.

Lotrecchiano and colleagues identify five key competency domains for translational team science: facilitating team affect, team communication, managing team research, collaborative problem-solving, and team leadership. For each of these domains, the researchers provide examples of how different modalities might be applied to understand and evaluate competencies.

The study concludes by emphasising the need for further research to develop observable strategies for evaluating these competencies through both individual and team-led interventions.

These research projects conducted by Lotrecchiano and his colleagues highlight the multifaceted nature of effective team science. By focusing on both personal growth and collective dynamics, the research provides a comprehensive framework for developing and evaluating successful scientific collaborations. Together, these studies pave the way for more targeted training programs and evaluation methods, ultimately aiming to enhance the ability of diverse teams to tackle complex health challenges and drive scientific innovation.