By Sawsan Khuri and Stefan Wuchty
As team science gains momentum, we present this glossary to standardize definitions for the most frequently used terms and phrases in the science of team science literature, and to serve as a reference point for newcomers to the field. Source material is provided where possible.
Co-authorship
When team members are given due credit by co-authoring publications from the project. There are various co-authorship models, some are dependent on disciplinary or departmental practices, and some are negotiable. This is an issue that needs to be clarified and documented very early on in a collaborative effort (Bennet et al., 2010).
Collaboration, or Collaborative project
When two or more scientists work together on a project that is expected to end with a joint publication, and maybe even a grant proposal for more collaborations.
Collaboration readiness
The propensity of an individual, a group, or an organization to engage in active and effective team-based collaborative research. A measure of readiness is often seen as a predictor of the success of a team, whereby the more willing and well supported the members are, the better the outputs from that team will be (Börner et al., 2010; Lotrecchiano et al., 2016).
Collective intelligence
Knowledge that arises from a group collaboration that would not normally have come about if the individuals had not brainstormed together on a topic (Woolley et al., 2010). This parameter justifies the basic need for team science, and appears regularly in team science literature.
Community engagement in science
A role played by people behind the scenes of a scientific research project, often considered as a role of lesser importance. However, these people keep the project on track, oiling the wheels, and acting as the knowledge brokers who make vital connections between researchers and the resources they need (Woodley 2015).
Convergence
“Convergence comes as a result of the sharing of methods and ideas by chemists, physicists, computer scientists, engineers, mathematicians, and life scientists across multiple fields and industries. It is the integration of insights and approaches from historically distinct scientific and technological disciplines” (Sharp et al., 2016; Committee on Key Challenge Areas for Convergence and Health 2014; p. 8.).
Cross-disciplinary
Any collaboration between groups from more than one discipline. An overarching term that encompasses multi-, inter- and trans-disciplinary collaborations (Stokols et al., 2008). See individual definitions of these terms.
Discipline
An area of study within one field. Traditional disciplines include biology, physics, literature, etc. Boundaries between disciplines have become fuzzier over the last quarter century, as a more integrated approach to scientific enquiry has grown (Stokols et al., 2008; Klein 2008).
Interdisciplinary
Research collaboration between two or more disciplines undertaken jointly between two or more individuals from each discipline, in a way that integrates information, data, and concepts (Stokols et al., 2008). Groups will often set up exchange programs, and implement and publish joint methods papers as well as project results papers.
Leadership
In scientific research groups, the team leader is often the main principal investigator of the grant, and often is a well-known senior level faculty member. Ideally, the leader has access to institutional support, can navigate social networks, and is able to speak on behalf of the team as a whole (Bennet and Gadlin 2012).
Multidisciplinary
Research collaboration between groups belonging to two or more disciplines that is performed in a sequential, additive manner where each group contributes independently to achieve the end result (Stokols et al., 2008). Interaction between groups is mostly for coordination purposes, rather than integration of concepts and methods.
Polymath
An individual who has a deep understanding and working knowledge of more than one discipline (Greek: poly many, math knowledge) such as Galileo, Leonardo da Vinci, or Oliver Sacks.
Omadamathy
A term coined by students of a full-semester course in team science taught at the University of Miami in 2015. While not yet in common use, omadamathy refers to the collaborative work of a cross-disciplinary team (Greek: omada team, mathy knowledge). Usage example: Successful biomedical research today is a case of successful omadamathy.
Science of Team Science (SciTs)
The field of understanding the ways scientific teams can achieve success using themes and concepts from the sciences themselves, social and behavioral sciences, organizational science, and other disciplines (Stokols et al., 2008). SciTs aims to understand and improve upon the outcomes of collaborative scientific research.
Soft skills
Soft skills represent communication, project management and presentation skills that are crucial for the success of a scientific team, but are currently not taught as core skills in scientific training. The Science of Team Science community argues that soft skills training should be mandatory for science students at every level.
Systems thinking
In the context of team science, this phrase is sometimes used to point to the understanding of how the whole team performs within its organization and between the different organizational entities that it may include. When using this term, be sure to define the environment and boundaries of the particular system you are describing.
Team dynamics
This term refers to the interactions between the team members, both on a personal and professional level. It includes Tuckman’s (1965) five stages of group development, outlined below, and is heavily influenced by trust and effective leadership.
Forming: team members getting to know each other, let’s have a party
Storming: now they are jostling for leadership hierarchies
Norming: they have settled down to get the job done
Performing: everyone is busy
Adjourning: project ends, let’s have a party
Team science
Collaborative scientific research conducted in an interdependent manner by individuals working in small teams or larger groups (Cooke and Hilton 2015). Small teams are defined as 2-5 individuals, while larger groups are made up of more than 10 researchers, often working in smaller sub-groups.
Team science education
Training researchers in effective collaboration strategies. Team science education could take the form of entire courses at undergraduate level, through to 2-hour workshops for faculty and staff.
Team training
Teaching a group of individuals how to work together more effectively, ensuring that they are aware of the dynamics of teamwork and how to get the best out of a collaborative effort. Usually conducted in 2-hour workshops or seminar groups.
Transdisciplinary
A collaboration between two or more disciplines that integrates concepts and methods to an extent that transcends each, leading to the creation of a new discipline (Stokols et al., 2008 and Falk-Krzesinski et al., 2010). One of the best examples of this is the field of bioinformatics.
Unidisciplinary
Research undertaken by individuals or groups within a single discipline, such as ecology, pharmacology or religious studies.
Team science is a rapidly evolving field. Are there additional terms that you think should be included in this glossary? Does your experience match the definitions provided here? Are there subtle differences in the usage of these terms at your institute, or in the country you work in?
References:
Bennet, M. and Gadlin, H. (2012). Collaboration and Team Science: From Theory to Practice. Journal of Investigative Medicine, 60, 5: 768–775.
Online: http://jim.bmj.com/content/60/5/768.long
Bennet, M., Gadlin, H. and Levine-Finley S. (2010). Collaboration and Team Science, a Field Guide. NIH report: 10-7660: Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.
Online: https://ombudsman.nih.gov/collaborationTS
Börner, K., Contractor, N., Falk-Krzesinski, H., Fiore, S., Hall, K., Keyton, J.,
Spring, B., Stokols, D., Trochim, W. and Uzzi, B. (2010). A Multi-Level Systems Perspective for the Science of Team Science. Science Translational Medicine, 2, 49: 49cm24.
(Online): https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/scitranslmed.3001399
Committee on Key Challenge Areas for Convergence and Health, Board on Life Sciences, Division on Earth and Life Studies, and National Research Council. (2014). Convergence: Facilitating Transdisciplinary Integration of Life Sciences, Physical Sciences, Engineering, and Beyond. National Academies Press: Washington DC., United States of America.
Online: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/18722/convergence-facilitating-transdisciplinary-integration-of-life-sciences-physical-sciences-engineering
Cooke, N., J. and Hilton, M. L. (eds). (2015). Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science. National Research Council of the Research Academies, National Academies Press: Washington D.C., United States of America.
Online: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/19007/enhancing-the-effectiveness-of-team-science
Falk-Krzesinski, H., Börner, K., Contractor, N., Fiore, S., Hall, K., Keyton, J., Spring, B., Stokols, D., Trochim, W. and Uzzi, B. (2010). Advancing the Science of Team Science. Clinical and Translational Science, 3, 5: 263-6.
Online: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1752-8062.2010.00223.x/abstract
Klein, J. (2008). Evaluation of Interdisciplinary and Transdisciplinary Research: A Literature Review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35, 2S: S116 –S123.
Online: http://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(08)00420-0/abstract
Lotrecchiano, G., Mallinson, T., Leblanc-Beaudoin, T., Schwartz, L., Lazar, D. and Falk-Krzesinski, H. (2016). Individual Motivation and Threat Indicators of Collaboration Readiness in Scientific Knowledge Producing Teams: A Scoping Review and Domain Analysis. Heliyon, 2, 5: e00105.
Online: http://www.heliyon.com/article/e00105
Sharp, P., Hockfield, S. and Jacks, T. (2016). Convergence: the future of health. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Report, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Online: https://alliancecan.ca/sites/default/files/2022-03/convergence-the-future-of-health-2016-report.pdf (PDF 1.5MB)
Stokols, D., Hall, K., Taylor, B. and Moser, R. (2008). The Science of Team Science, Overview of the Field and Introduction to the Supplement. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 35, 2S: S77–S89.
Online: http://www.ajpmonline.org/article/S0749-3797(08)00408-X/abstract
Tuckman, B. (1965). Developmental Sequence in Small Groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 6: 384-399.
Online: http://openvce.net/sites/default/files/Tuckman1965DevelopmentalSequence.pdf
Woodley, L. (2015). What is community engagement in science – and why does it matter?.
Online: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-community-engagement-science-why-does-matter-lou-woodley
Woolley, A., Chabris, C., Pentland, A., Hashmi, N. and Malone, T. (2010). Evidence for a Collective Intelligence Factor in the Performance of Human Groups. Science, 330: 686-688.
Online: https://www.science.org/doi/full/10.1126/science.1193147
Biography: Sawsan Khuri (@sawsankhuri) is an Honorary Senior Lecturer at the University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK. She is a member of the genomics faculty team, and she continues to develop materials and work on strategies for education in computational science and in team science.
Biography: Stefan Wuchty is Associate Professor of Computer Science at the University of Miami, Florida, USA. His research interests are in the development and application of bioinformatics and systems biology algorithms, and the analysis and modeling of datasets from social media. His 2007 paper (Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F. and Uzzi, B. (2007). ‘The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge’. Science, 316, 5827: 1036-1039) demonstrated the increasing dominance of team work, and he continues to be involved in team science research and education.