A tool for developing shared awareness of team member research interests and expertise

By Melanie Bauer, Joshua Roney and Stephen M. Fiore.

How can team members who have been working together for a while check assumptions, ensuring they are aware of each other’s breadth of expertise and research interests?

We have developed the “Linking-Relinking” tool to facilitate such a process. This tool supports science teams through development of a transactive memory system, which is a form of shared cognition having to do with “who knows what” on a team. Studies continually show that teams that develop an accurate transactive memory system are better able to coordinate their knowledge when working on challenging problems. The Linking-Relinking Tool can support transactive memory system development by helping members determine how accurate their knowledge is of their teammates and calibrate appropriately. It can also help members identify potential areas of shared interest and help a team develop collective awareness of complementary expertise.

Key to the Linking-Relinking tool is a worksheet, as shown in the first figure below, which is distributed to each team member to fill in and which forms the basis for subsequent discussion. The worksheet should have a row at the top representing the team member completing the worksheet, and an additional column for each of the other members.

After each member is given a worksheet, team members work independently to complete the following steps:

• Fill in their own name and research interests at the top of the worksheet.
• Add the names of each team member, along with their research interests, in the columns. This information should be based on past experience and perceptions, rather than official descriptions such as could be found online, in team documents, or in a CV. (No Googling!)
• Additionally, for each team member’s column, generate potential opportunities to connect based on perceived intersections of interests.

When everyone has completed their worksheet, the team shares aloud their responses as follows:

• One person (eg., Team Member 1 as depicted in the worksheet) starts by sharing their own research interests and then their responses regarding each of the other team members, along with possible opportunities for collaboration.
• The other team members then provide reactions and clarifications to what Team Member 1 shared. All team members are encouraged to take notes within their worksheets when new interests or opportunities are uncovered during the discussion. (Note: This step could be somewhat stressful for members, so it is important that everyone is reminded that this activity is a learning opportunity and not an evaluative “pop quiz.”)
• Team Member 2 will do the same as Team Member 1, sharing what they responded with in their table regarding each of the other team members, followed by time for reactions and clarifications from the other team members.
• This process continues until all members have shared what is in their tables and provided an opportunity for others to react, clarify, and take additional notes within their worksheets.

The figure below shows an example of a completed worksheet.

This activity works best with relatively small teams (around 5 members). For a 5-person team, the task of filling out the worksheet should take around 10-15 minutes, with the sharing and discussion taking around 30-45 minutes.

There are two key outcomes:

• Increased awareness of team members’ interests, capabilities, and potential areas of connection. This can help replace inaccurate assumptions and expectations in a low-conflict, psychologically-safe way that encourages shared learning.
• A written product for each team member that serves as a reference, reinforces understanding, and can lead to new and improved collaborative activities.

Additional tips on using the tool

This exercise was designed for teams who had been working together for a while, although it is useful for teams at various stages of development:

• For a team that has been working together for a while or wants to move in a new direction, this activity can provide members with “fresh eyes” on what their team members’ interests are and opportunities for new directions in their collaboration. A result following the activity for a team like this may be potential changes to how each member engages with the team.
• For a team with members who are feeling misunderstood or disconnected, this exercise is a soft reset that opens the door for better communication (and clarifications) about each member’s areas of expertise and interests as well as how they would like to collaborate and contribute. A result for this type of team after completing the activity is a renewed sense of connection, understanding, and consideration, hopefully leading to ways for members to feel less frustrated and more engaged.
• For new teams (or teams with new members), this activity can be a follow-up shortly after an initial introductory team meeting. The documented research interests of team members in the worksheet can serve as a quick reference guide as members get to know each other and can evolve as they learn new things. The noted opportunity intersections can also serve as brainstorming ideas for potential collaborative activities, which can be explored in future meetings.

As a note, the focus of this tool can be on shared activities other than research. For example, a group of faculty members looking to co-teach a course may change it to “teaching interests” or think more broadly about “interests and access to resources.”

Conclusion

This tool was developed as part of an interdisciplinary faculty teaming program with colleagues from the Florida Research Development Alliance. This program relied in part on existing tools from the team science community as well as new tools (like Linking-Relinking) developed for the program at hand. The Linking-Relinking tool was developed in response to an immediate need of one of the program’s faculty teams, and implementing the activity led to a much-needed lightening of tensions and resetting of moods among members.

What is your experience in using this or other tools to revisit discussions around expertise? Do you have additional tips or cautions to share?

To find out more:

Florida Research Development Alliance (FLR-RDA; 2025), “Linking-Relinking” Learning Object. (Online – open access): https://fl-rda.org/linking-relinking-learning-object/, which also provides sources from the scholarly literature on which this tool is based.

The “Linking-Relinking” Learning Object is one of (currently) 11 team science-focused activities and tools, termed “Learning Objects,” which were developed as part of an interdisciplinary teaming project funded by the US National Science Foundation (NSF; Award Nos. 2203470, 2203425, 2203459, 2203442, 2203496), see (Online): https://fl-rda.org/team-science-learning-objects/. The “Linking-Relinking” tool was originally developed in 2023, revised with expert input in 2024, and is updated periodically to further improve its design.

Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Statement: Generative artificial intelligence was not used in the development of this i2Insights contribution. (For i2Insights policy on generative artificial intelligence please see https://i2insights.org/contributing-to-i2insights/guidelines-for-authors/#artificial-intelligence.)

Biography: Melanie Bauer MA is the Grant Writing Manager at Nova Southeastern University (NSU) in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, USA, where she plays a pivotal role in research development efforts across 13 colleges and other institutional units, guiding their grant-seeking initiatives. She currently serves as President of the Florida Research Development Alliance (FL-RDA) and has also served as a volunteer in the National Organization of Research Development Professionals (NORDP) in multiple mentoring activities. Her interests in interdisciplinary and team science work stem from the practitioner perspective, and she continues to seek ways to enable the research support professional’s work through training, tools, community building, and other resources.

Biography: Joshua Roney PhD is Director, Research Development at the University of Central Florida (UCF) in Orlando, Florida, USA, with professional interests that include strategic planning, research analytics, program management, proposal development, and resources for researchers. He is the Immediate Past President of the Florida Research Development Alliance (FL-RDA) and Co-Chair of the New Opportunities for Research Development (NORD) Committee in the National Organization of Research Development Professionals (NORDP). His scholarly and research interests include technical communication, collaborative tools, and team science.

Biography: Stephen M. Fiore PhD is Director, Cognitive Sciences Laboratory, and Pegasus Professor with the Cognitive Sciences Program in the Department of Philosophy and Institute for Simulation and Training at the University of Central Florida in Orlando, Florida, USA. He is a founding board member of the Global Alliance for Inter- and Transdisciplinarity (ITD Alliance), Past-President and co-founder of the International Network for the Science of Team Science (INSciTS), as well as Past-President and co-founding member of the Interdisciplinary Network for Group Research. He maintains a multidisciplinary research interest that incorporates aspects of the cognitive, social, organizational, and computational sciences in the investigation of learning and performance in individuals and teams.