School of Medicine and Health Sciences Poster Presentations

Title

Applying Team Science Principles to Biomedical Publications Teams: Understanding Team Effectiveness

Document Type

Poster

Abstract Category

Education/Health Services

Keywords

team science, teamwork, collaboration, biomedical publications, bibliometrics

Publication Date

Spring 5-1-2019

Abstract

The Science of Team Science is a relatively new interdisciplinary field of study that aims to investigate the factors that hinder or facilitate team-based research and practice, with a focus on how these factors impact scientific innovation and translation. Teams and their interactions are complex, making measurement of teams’ characteristics and outcomes challenging. There is a myriad of methods used in the Science of Team Science that aid in measuring the effectiveness of biomedical teams. Bibliometric analysis is one method by which researchers have attempted to measure team effectiveness. In bibliometric studies of team effectiveness, journal, article, and author level data have been used as a proxy for assessing the value of science teams in producing new and/or integrated knowledge. This method, however, is not without its flaws, as co-authorship does not necessarily equate to collaboration and teamwork. Bibliometrics are solely quantitative and leave much to be desired regarding the qualitative interactions between teams working together on biomedical publications. These quantitative metrics cannot provide sufficient insight into the factors that facilitate team functioning, effectiveness, and quality of experience. Given this gap, this case study aimed to assess a biomedical publications team using both quantitative and qualitative methods. Bibliometric data were collected and analyzed by the author. Additionally, a team teleconference with the biomedical publications team occurred in Fall 2018, and qualitative and quantitative coding of the discussion were used to evaluate team interactions. These methods revealed that scientific impact measured by bibliometrics was relatively equal between authors, with only one author having an h-index of at least 20, suggesting no significant differences between authors’ publication impacts. Coding of discussions between team members revealed positive sociopsychological dynamics and high levels of cohesion, as well as robust information sharing among team members leading to knowledge transfer and progression toward project goals. Conflict was least prominent among all types of communication, and when it did occur, it was resolved quickly. Preliminary findings from this study suggest that high levels of positive social interactions and cohesion are necessary to assembling functional publications teams. These findings point to the need to further understand optimal team factors when assembling biomedical publications teams. In future studies, more emphasis on the use of qualitative methods may help to provide further insights into the characteristics of teams and their members that facilitate effective functioning and positive team experiences.

Open Access

1

Comments

Presented at Research Days 2019.

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS
 

Applying Team Science Principles to Biomedical Publications Teams: Understanding Team Effectiveness

The Science of Team Science is a relatively new interdisciplinary field of study that aims to investigate the factors that hinder or facilitate team-based research and practice, with a focus on how these factors impact scientific innovation and translation. Teams and their interactions are complex, making measurement of teams’ characteristics and outcomes challenging. There is a myriad of methods used in the Science of Team Science that aid in measuring the effectiveness of biomedical teams. Bibliometric analysis is one method by which researchers have attempted to measure team effectiveness. In bibliometric studies of team effectiveness, journal, article, and author level data have been used as a proxy for assessing the value of science teams in producing new and/or integrated knowledge. This method, however, is not without its flaws, as co-authorship does not necessarily equate to collaboration and teamwork. Bibliometrics are solely quantitative and leave much to be desired regarding the qualitative interactions between teams working together on biomedical publications. These quantitative metrics cannot provide sufficient insight into the factors that facilitate team functioning, effectiveness, and quality of experience. Given this gap, this case study aimed to assess a biomedical publications team using both quantitative and qualitative methods. Bibliometric data were collected and analyzed by the author. Additionally, a team teleconference with the biomedical publications team occurred in Fall 2018, and qualitative and quantitative coding of the discussion were used to evaluate team interactions. These methods revealed that scientific impact measured by bibliometrics was relatively equal between authors, with only one author having an h-index of at least 20, suggesting no significant differences between authors’ publication impacts. Coding of discussions between team members revealed positive sociopsychological dynamics and high levels of cohesion, as well as robust information sharing among team members leading to knowledge transfer and progression toward project goals. Conflict was least prominent among all types of communication, and when it did occur, it was resolved quickly. Preliminary findings from this study suggest that high levels of positive social interactions and cohesion are necessary to assembling functional publications teams. These findings point to the need to further understand optimal team factors when assembling biomedical publications teams. In future studies, more emphasis on the use of qualitative methods may help to provide further insights into the characteristics of teams and their members that facilitate effective functioning and positive team experiences.