The Science of Team Science

The Science of Team Science

Overview of the Field and Introduction to the Supplement

Daniel Stokols,PhD,Kara L.Hall,PhD,Brandie K.Taylor,MA,Richard P.Moser,PhD

Abstract:The science of team science encompasses an amalgam of conceptual and methodologic strategies aimed at understanding and enhancing the outcomes of large-scale collaborative

research and training programs.This?eld has emerged rapidly in recent years,largely in

response to growing concerns about the cost effectiveness of public-and private-sector

investments in team-based science and training initiatives.The distinctive boundaries and

substantive concerns of this?eld,however,have remained dif?cult to discern.An

important challenge for the?eld is to characterize the science of team science more clearly

in terms of its major theoretical,methodologic,and translational concerns.The articles in

this supplement address this challenge,especially in the context of designing,implement-

ing,and evaluating cross-disciplinary research initiatives.This introductory article summa-

rizes the major goals and organizing themes of the supplement,draws links between the

constituent articles,and identi?es new areas of study within the science of team science.

(Am J Prev Med2008;35(2S):S77–S89)?2008American Journal of Preventive Medicine

Background

T he past two decades have witnessed a surge of interest and investments in large-scale team

science programs.1–7Ambitious multiyear initi-atives to promote cross-disciplinary collaboration in research and training have been launched by several public agencies and private foundations.8–15Consider-ing the enormous complexity and multifactorial causa-tion of the most vexing social,environmental,and public health problems(e.g.,terrorism and inter-ethnic violence;global warming;cancer,heart disease, diabetes,and AIDS;health disparities among minority populations),efforts to foster greater collaboration among scientists trained in different?elds are not only a useful but also an essential strategy for ameliorating these problems.16–22At the same time,some observers of science policy question whether the current popu-larity of cross-disciplinary research and training is merely a passing fad whose scienti?c and societal value, relative to smaller-scale unidisciplinary projects,has been overstated.23Critics of cross-disciplinary initiatives contend that they divert valuable resources from im-portant discipline-based research and draw scientists into collaborative centers and teams who otherwise might be more productive working independently or as co-investigators on smaller-scale projects.24,25

As public and private investments in team science initiatives have grown and debates about their intellec-tual and societal value have ensued,the importance of clearly de?ning and evaluating the effectiveness of these programs has become more evident.26–31Practi-cal concerns about gauging the value added and the return on investment accruing from large research initiatives4,26,32have given rise to the science of team science,a rapidly emerging yet still-amorphous?eld characterized by a lack of consensus about its de?ning substantive boundaries and core concerns.

The goals of this article are twofold:(1)to describe the science of team science in terms of its major conceptual,methodologic,and translational concerns; and(2)to introduce the present supplement to the American Journal of Preventive Medicine on the science of team science by offering an overview of its organization and speci?c aims.9,19,27,33–49

The Science of Team Science:Units of Analysis and Distinguishing Features

It is important to distinguish between team science initi-atives themselves and the science-of-team-science?eld, whose principal units of analysis are the large research and training initiatives implemented by public agencies and nonpublic organizations and the various projects within each initiative conducted by scholars who work within and across their respective?elds.Team science initiatives are designed to promote collaborative—and often cross-disciplinary—approaches to analyzing re-

From the School of Social Ecology,University of California Irvine

(Stokols),Irvine,California;the Division of Cancer Control and

Population Sciences,National Cancer Institute(Hall,Moser);and

the Of?ce of Portfolio Analysis and Strategic Initiatives,NIH(Tay-

lor),Bethesda,Maryland

Address correspondence and reprint requests to:Daniel Stokols,

PhD,Department of Planning,Policy and Design,UC Irvine,206-C

Social Ecology I Building,School of Social Ecology,Irvine CA92697.

E-mail: dstokols@https://www.wendangku.net/doc/1711174299.html,.

S77 Am J Prev Med2008;35(2S)0749-3797/08/$–see front matter

?2008American Journal of Preventive Medicine?Published by Elsevier Inc.doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.002

search questions about particular phenomena(e.g.,the joint in?uence of social,behavioral,and biogenetic factors on cancer etiology and treatment examined by Hiatt and Breen,19and the multilevel determinants of health disparities discussed by Holmes et al.34in this supplement).The science-of-team-science?eld,on the other hand,is a branch of science studies concerned especially with understanding and managing circum-stances that facilitate or hinder the effectiveness of team science initiatives.50–54The?eld as a whole fo-cuses not on the phenomena addressed by particular team science initiatives(e.g.,cancer,heart disease, obesity,community violence,environmental degrada-tion),but rather on understanding and enhancing the antecedent conditions,collaborative processes,and outcomes associated with team science initiatives more generally,including their scienti?c discoveries,educa-tional outcomes,and translations of research?ndings into new clinical practices and public policies.9,35,55 Some of the distinguishing features of team science initiatives and the unique substantive concerns of the science-of-team-science?eld are outlined below. Characteristics of Scienti?c Initiatives and Teams Efforts to integrate knowledge in the science-of-team-science?eld face considerable challenges,owing to the highly disparate units of analysis found in the earlier studies of scienti?c teams.27,36,56Research teams,for example,may consist of investigators drawn from either the same or different?elds(i.e.,unidisciplinary versus cross-disciplinary teams).These teams vary not only in terms of their disciplinary composition but also in terms of their size,organizational complexity,and geographic scope,ranging from a few participants working at the same site to scores of investigators dispersed across multiple geographic and organiza-tional venues.55,57Furthermore,the goals of team science initiatives are quite diverse(e.g.,spanning scienti?c discovery;training;and clinical,translational, public health,and policy-related goals),and both the quality and level of intellectual integration intended and achieved among disciplines varies from one pro-gram to the next(i.e.,along a continuum ranging from unidisciplinary to multidisciplinary,interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary integration,as described more fully below).27,37,58–60

Because team science initiatives differ along so many dimensions,including their size,goals,duration,orga-nizational structure,and cross-disciplinary scope,it is important to be clear at the outset about the kinds of research and training initiatives emphasized in the present discussion.Team-based projects can include a handful of scientists working together at a single site, but the focus here is on the larger and more-complex initiatives comprising many(e.g.,often between50and 200)investigators who work collaboratively on multi-ple,closely related research projects,and who may be dispersed across different departments,institutions, and geographic locations.55Trochim and colleagues,6 for example,de?ne large research initiatives as grant-funded projects solicited through speci?c requests for applications with an average annual expenditure of at least$5million.The usual duration of these initiatives (e.g.,NIH P50and U54Centers,National Cancer Institute[NCI]Specialized Programs of Research Ex-cellence[SPOREs])is5years,and they may be re-funded,thus extending over one or more decades,in some cases.61Some especially broad-gauged initiatives, such as the NIH Roadmap and the Of?ce of Portfolio Analysis and Strategic Initiatives(OPASI)programs, provide the organizational framework and funding source for scores of other interrelated research and training initiatives,all of which are designed to pro-mote cross-disciplinary scienti?c collaboration.11,14Of-ten,large research initiatives incorporate career devel-opment and training components as well as clinical translation,health promotion,and policy-related func-tions.13,62–64The articles in this supplement address the full range of scienti?c,training,clinical translation, community outreach,health promotion,and public-policy goals emphasized within relatively large team science initiatives of varying size and complexity. Large initiatives also vary with respect to the collab-orative orientations and disciplinary perspectives of team members.This discussion focuses on initiatives intended to promote cross-disciplinary rather than unidisciplinary collaboration.a Cross-disciplinary teams strive to combine and,in some cases,to integrate concepts,methods,and theories drawn from two or more?elds.Three different approaches to cross-disciplinary collaboration have been described by Rosen?eld.60Multidisciplinarity is a process in which scholars from disparate?elds work independently or sequentially,periodically coming together to share their individual perspectives for purposes of achieving broader-gauged analyses of common research prob-lems.Participants in multidisciplinary teams remain ?rmly anchored in the concepts and methods of their respective?elds.Interdisciplinarity is a more robust approach to scienti?c integration in the sense that team members not only combine or juxtapose concepts and a Distinctions between cross-disciplinary and unidisciplinary collabo-ration depend on how individual disciplines are de?ned and boun-ded.65Disciplines are generally organized around distinctive substantive concerns(e.g.,biological,psychological,environmental,or socio-logic phenomena);analytic levels(e.g.,molecular,cellular,cognitive, behavioral,interpersonal,organizational,community);and concepts, methods,and measures associated with particular?elds.The bound-aries between disciplines and subdisciplines are to some extent arbitrarily de?ned and agreed upon by communities of scholars.66,67 For instance,the boundaries between some?elds may be overlapping (e.g.,physiology and molecular biology)and other?elds,such as

public health and urban planning,are inherently multidisciplinary in that they combine several disciplinary perspectives in analyses of population health and urban development.

S78 American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Volume 35, Number 2S https://www.wendangku.net/doc/1711174299.html,

methods drawn from their different ?elds,but also work more intensively to integrate their divergent per-spectives,even while remaining anchored in their own respective ?elds.27

Transdisciplinarity is a process in which team mem-bers representing different ?elds work together over extended periods to develop shared conceptual and methodologic frameworks that not only integrate but also transcend their respective disciplinary perspec-tives.b Examples of unidisciplinary,multidisciplinary,interdisciplinary,and transdisciplinary scienti?c orien-tations are provided in Table 1.Transdisciplinary collaborations perhaps have the greatest potential to produce highly novel and generative scienti?c out-comes,but they are more dif?cult to achieve and sustain than unidisciplinary,multidisciplinary,and interdisciplinary projects due to their greater com-plexity and loftier aspirations for achieving transcen-dent,supra-disciplinary integrations.27,31,37,56,68–70

The ensuing discussion focuses primarily on interdis-ciplinary and transdisciplinary science initiatives in which an explicit goal of the collaboration is to inte-grate theories,methods,and training strategies drawn from two or more ?elds.Examples of large-scale inter-disciplinary and transdisciplinary team initiatives are the NCI,National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA),and National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA)Transdisciplinary Tobacco Use Research Cen-ters (TTURCs)71;the NCI Transdisciplinary Research on Energetics and Cancer (TREC)Centers 72;the Cen-ters for Excellence in Cancer Communications Re-search (CECCR)73;the National Institute of Environ-mental Health Sciences (NIEHS)64;the National Institute on Aging (NIA)64;the NIH Of?ce of Behav-ioral and Social Sciences Research (OBSSR)64;the NCI Centers for Population Health and Health Disparities (CPHHD)64;and the National Center for Research Resources (NCCR)Clinical and Translational Science Centers (CTSC).13,74

The distinctions among unidisciplinary,multidisci-plinary,interdisciplinary,and transdisciplinary forms of scienti?c collaboration are directly relevant to the development of criteria for gauging the success of team science initiatives.In particular,measures of scienti?c collaboration and its outcomes should be appropriately matched to the research,training,and translational goals of particular initiatives.A key goal of interdisci-plinary and transdisciplinary initiatives,for example,is

b As Klein 27has observed,cross-disciplinary teams,rather than being exclusively multidisciplinary,interdisciplinary,or transdisciplinary in their orientation,often incorporate a mixture of these approaches,each of which may become more or less predominant during different phases of collaboration.

Table 1.De?nitions and examples of scienti?c orientations 60Scienti?c orientation De?nition

Example

Unidisciplinarity

Unidisciplinarity is a process in which

researchers from a single discipline work together to address a common research problem.

A team of pharmacologists collaborate on a laboratory study of the relationships between nicotine consumption and insulin metabolism.Multidisciplinarity

Multidisciplinarity is a sequential process whereby researchers in different disciplines work independently ,each from his or her own discipline-speci?c perspective,with a goal of eventually combining efforts to address a common research problem.

A pharmacologist,health psychologist,and neuroscientist each contribute sections to a multi-authored manuscript that reviews

research in their respective ?elds pertaining to the links between nicotine consumption,

changes in brain chemistry and caloric intake induced by nicotine,and physical activity levels.Interdisciplinarity

Interdisciplinarity is an interactive process in which researchers work jointly ,each drawing from his or her own discipline-speci?c perspective,to address a common research problem.

A pharmacologist,health psychologist,and

neuroscientist conduct a collaborative study to examine the interrelations among patterns of nicotine consumption,brain chemistry,caloric intake,and physical activity levels.Their

research design incorporates conceptual and methodologic approaches drawn from each of their respective ?elds.

Transdisciplinarity

Transdisciplinarity is an integrative process in which researchers work jointly to develop and use a shared conceptual framework that synthesizes and extends discipline-speci?c theories,concepts,methods,or all three to create new models and language to address a common research problem.

A pharmacologist,health psychologist,and

neuroscientist conduct a collaborative study to examine the interrelations among nicotine consumption,brain chemistry,caloric intake,and physical activity levels.Based on their

?ndings,they develop a neurobehavioral model of the links among tobacco consumption,brain chemistry,insulin metabolism,physical activity,and obesity that integrates and extends the concepts and methods drawn from their respective ?elds.

August 2008

Am J Prev Med 2008;35(2S)

S79

to bridge the perspectives of different?elds through the collaborative development of integrative conceptu-alizations,methodologic approaches,and training strategies.Thus,an important criterion for gauging the success of these initiatives is the extent to which cross-disciplinary integrations are actually achieved by re-search teams.27,37,75These issues are discussed more fully below.

Substantive Concerns and Research Foci Within the Science-of-Team-Science Field

The science-of-team-science?eld encompasses an amal-gam of conceptual frameworks and methodologies that have been used in earlier studies to assess the processes and outcomes of cross-disciplinary research centers and teams.The?ndings from these studies are part of a rapidly growing database within the science-of-team-science?eld.2,3,8,10,31,32,38,74–80Common themes that offer a basis for integrating prior and future studies of team science initiatives are beginning to emerge, but the?eld still lacks the conceptual coherence of a more established and widely recognized scienti?c paradigm.27,39,66Greater scienti?c coherence may be achieved as science-of-team-science scholars reach further agreement about the?eld’s major concep-tual,methodologic,and translational concerns.Sev-eral substantive concerns and challenges within the science-of-team-science?eld are outlined below. Conceptual Concerns

Scholars in the science-of-team-science?eld have given considerable attention to at least two broad categories of conceptual tasks:(1)de?ning key terminology and (2)developing theoretical models to account for the circumstances under which team science initiatives are more or less effective.

De?ning key terms.It is important to clearly de?ne the major units of analysis and the core subject matter of the science-of-team-science?eld(e.g.,organizational complexity and geographic scope of team science initiatives;different forms of cross-disciplinary re-search,including multidisciplinary,interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary collaboration).8,58A major chal-lenge is to specify the dimensions of program effective-ness or success as they pertain to team science initia-tives.For instance,the quality of scienti?c work may be de?ned differently in the context of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary team initiatives than in unidisci-plinary projects.Traditional criteria of scienti?c qual-ity include conceptual originality;methodologic rigor(e.g.,validity and reliability of empirical?nd-ings);and the quantity of research outputs produced, such as peer-reviewed publications.In the context of team science initiatives,however,the quality and scope of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary inte-gration(e.g.,the development of integrative concep-tualizations and methodologic approaches,the devel-opment of training programs bridging two or more ?elds,the emergence of new hybrid?elds of inquiry) are important facets of collaborative scholarship that must be considered in view of their explicit mission to promote scienti?c integration.14,27,31,37

Also,because the scienti?c,educational,and transla-tional aims of team science initiatives are highly diverse, it is crucial to identify the highest-priority goals and corresponding criteria of success for any given pro-gram.27,36The overall success of large-scale initiatives (e.g.,the NCI TTURC,CECCR,TREC,and CPHHD programs)may be construed differently than the effec-tiveness of the particular research centers and projects subsumed within them.9,78For instance,the cumulative scienti?c and public health advances associated with large-scale initiatives are qualitatively distinct from the more circumscribed intellectual achievements of a par-ticular research center or team.For both broad-gauged initiatives and their subsidiary projects,key dimensions of program effectiveness(e.g.,development of transdis-ciplinary syntheses,publication of empirical?ndings, translations of research into clinical practices and pol-icy innovations)are likely to shift as team members progress through the initial,intermediate,and later stages of collaboration.6,31,36Collaborative processes and outcomes appear to be stage-dependent,and therefore should be de?ned differently for near-,mid-,and longer-term phases of team science programs.

Finally,for many team science initiatives,it is important to de?ne not only the distinguishing fea-tures of effective scienti?c collaboration but also the essential facets of successful interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary training(e.g.,the career trajecto-ries and intellectual contributions of current and former trainees).37,62,81–83

Developing theoretical models and conceptual frame-works.To date,a number of conceptual models have been proposed by science-of-team-science scholars to identify key antecedent conditions,intervening pro-cesses,and outcomes associated with team science initiatives and to explain the interrelationships among them(e.g.,the presence of institutional sup-ports or constraints at the beginning of an initiative and their impact on subsequent collaborative pro-cesses and outcomes).6,8,55,75,84For instance,Tro-chim and colleagues6offered an empirically derived logic model(based on the NCI TTURC initiative-wide evaluation study)that accounts for the temporal links observed between the early processes of intellectual collaboration and integration,on the one hand,and subsequent team products—including scholarly publi-cations,transdisciplinary training programs,community health interventions,and public-policy initiatives—on the

S80 American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Volume 35, Number 2S https://www.wendangku.net/doc/1711174299.html,

other;and in this supplement,Holmes et al.34and Hall et al.40present multistage conceptual frameworks that have guided transdisciplinary research,training,and commu-nity intervention efforts within the NCI CPHHD and TREC initiatives,respectively.

Earlier,Stokols and colleagues31,76proposed an antecedent–process–outcome model of transdisci-plinary science in which several interpersonal,environ-mental,and organizational antecedents of collabora-tion are considered,such as the leadership styles of center directors,scientists’commitment to team re-search,the availability of shared research and meeting space,electronic connectivity among team members, and the extent to which they share a history of working together on prior projects.The intervening processes examined in this model included intellectual,interper-sonal,and affective experiences as well as observed or self-reported collaborative behaviors,or both.Examples of these processes are the brainstorming of strategies to create and integrate new ideas,to deal with the cross-disciplinary biases and tensions that often arise in collab-orative situations,and to negotiate and resolve con?icts. The antecedent and process variables speci?ed in the model,in turn,in?uence several near-,mid-,and long-term outcomes of scienti?c collaboration,includ-ing the development of new conceptual frameworks, research publications,training programs,and transla-tional innovations over the course of the initiative. Empirical support for the hypothesized links among antecedent,process,and outcome variables was derived from a longitudinal(5-year)comparative study of the TTURC centers.31,62,75,77

Existing models of interdisciplinary and transdisci-plinary collaboration raise several questions for future research.For example,certain antecedent conditions present at the outset of a team science project can be conceptualized as collaboration-readiness factors that jointly in?uence a team’s prospects for success over the course of an initiative.36,40,75However,the relative contributions of individual collaboration-readiness fac-tors(e.g.,the leadership skills of center directors,the availability of shared of?ce and laboratory space,team members’experiences working together on earlier projects)to speci?c dimensions of collaborative effec-tiveness(e.g.,the quantity of team publications pro-duced as well as their integrative quality and scope,the development of sustainable partnerships with commu-nity organizations)are not well-understood and war-rant further study.39

Also,earlier conceptual models and the?eld studies on which they are based suggest that the intellectual and scienti?c outcomes of team science initiatives are strongly in?uenced by social and interpersonal pro-cesses,including team members’collaborative styles and behaviors,interpersonal con?icts,and negotiation strategies.6,27,75,85Yet the precise ways in which these social processes in?uence scienti?c productivity and transdisciplinary integration are not known.For in-stance,team members’disagreements about scienti?c issues may enhance collaborative effectiveness by stim-ulating new insights and countering tendencies toward “groupthink”among individuals who have worked to-gether for extended periods.86On the other hand, long-standing scholarly disagreements that provoke in-terpersonal con?ict can undermine members’trust of each other and their overall performance.87,88The empirical relationships between the interpersonal and intellectual dimensions of scienti?c collaboration re-main to be elucidated in future studies. Methodologic and Measurement Issues

A variety of methods and measures have been used to assess the antecedents,processes,and outcomes of team science initiatives.The most useful or strategic are those that ef?ciently apply evaluation resources to yield information about the major contributions and limita-tions of particular programs in a manner that is respon-sive to the needs of multiple stakeholder groups,in-cluding participating scientists and trainees,funding organizations,policymakers,and translational partners in clinical settings and community organizations.9Eval-uations of team science programs are embedded within overlapping spheres of in?uence encompassing organi-zational,institutional,community,regional,national, and global levels,with multiple stakeholders situated at each level.29,41,42,89Strategic evaluations incorporate the diverse perspectives of team science interest groups and adopt some or all of the methodologic strategies mentioned below.

Weighted measures of program success.Strategic eval-uations begin with a clear vision of what constitutes success within a particular initiative.For example,NCI research and training center initiatives(TTURC, CECCR,CPHHD,TREC)include multiple goals and objectives,ranging from the achievement of:(1)scien-ti?c advances in a targeted area of research(e.g., cancer communications or tobacco-use research)re-sulting from collaborative synergies within and across participating research centers;(2)innovative ap-proaches to and intended outcomes of transdisciplinary research training;(3)translations of scienti?c research into useful and sustainable clinical practices and com-munity health programs;(4)translations of scienti?c research into innovative health-policy initiatives;and, ultimately;(5)reductions in health-risk behaviors, health disparities,and the incidence of chronic diseases within a particular population.9The relative priorities assigned to these goals may vary from one initiative to another.Thus,evaluations of team science initiatives are most strategic when the criteria for judging pro-gram effectiveness are selected and weighted to re?ect the highest-priority goals of the particular programs established by funding agencies and other stakeholder

August2008Am J Prev Med2008;35(2S)S81

groups(e.g.,participating scientists,community mem-bers,and[in the U.S.]the DHHS and Congressional oversight committees).29

Multimethod evaluation.The diversity of goals encom-passed by team science initiatives requires the use of multiple quantitative and qualitative methods to mea-sure their intended processes and outcomes as well as to document their unintended ones.The methods used may include surveys and interviews of team members; behavioral observations of centerwide and initiative-wide meetings and collaborative discussions;archival analyses of scienti?c productivity and impact based on content analyses of written products developed by team members and bibliometric assessments of initiative-based publications;focus-group meetings among scien-tists,trainees,and staff members participating in an initiative;online diary logs of cross-disciplinary encoun-ters;social-network analyses of collaborative exchanges; and peer reviews by external referees obtained through periodic site visits and independent evaluations of progress reports and collaborative publications.The combined use of survey,interview,observational,and archival measures in evaluations of team science initia-tives affords a more complete understanding of collab-orative processes and outcomes than can be gained by adopting a narrower methodologic approach.6,40,83 Temporal sequencing of evaluative measures.In addi-tion to establishing prioritized criteria for gauging the scienti?c,training,translational,and public health outcomes of an initiative,attention should be paid to the temporal patterning of evaluation measurements, ranging from assessments of antecedent conditions present at the outset of a collaborative project to early-stage indicators of collaborative synergy and inno-vation,mid-term markers of scienti?c and training innovations,and long-term societal(e.g.,policy and public health)outcomes.90The latter categories of outcomes may be so gradual or temporally lagged that they are not detectable during the period in which an initiative is actively funded.32Future studies should be undertaken to assess the postfunding impacts of team science initiatives on science,training,and public health over extended periods(e.g.,encompassing one or more decades).39

Research design and sampling issues.Team science initiatives pose several challenges related to the sam-pling of participants and respondents,the establish-ment of appropriate comparison groups with which to compare initiative-based research centers and teams, and the implementation of?eld experimental or quasi-experimental research designs.Experimental and quasi-experimental evaluations of team science initiatives are dif?cult to achieve due to the nonrandom self-selection of scientists into collaborative teams.Appropriate com-parison groups may involve teams of scientists working in a particular area of health research(e.g.,tobacco science,cancer communications)that applied for a team–center grant and received“nearly fundable”eval-uation scores but were not among those applicants funded to establish a transdisciplinary research pro-gram.Prospective evaluations of team science initiatives require suf?cient numbers of initiative-based research teams and relevant comparison groups,all of which are working in a common research area over the same multiyear period.

To date,the science-of-team-science?eld has relied almost exclusively on retrospective and prospective case-comparison studies rather than on experimental or quasi-experimental evaluations of research teams, centers,and the multisite initiatives in which they participate.However,longitudinal bibliometric and social-network analyses incorporating multiple compar-ison groups are currently being implemented at NCI to evaluate the quantitative and qualitative differences in the productivity of health scientists(e.g.,tobacco-use researchers)who are working individually on R01 grants,participating in non-initiative–based research centers,or collaborating as members of transdisci-plinary team science initiatives.The increasing use of quasi-experimental research designs incorporating multiple comparison groups is an important direc-tion for the science-of-team-science?eld.39 Convergent validation of evaluation data.Regardless of the research designs used to assess program effec-tiveness,the convergent validation of empirical data is an important benchmark of strategic evaluation.When evaluations of team science initiatives are conducted, the survey and interview assessments of program out-comes offered by participating scientists,trainees,and staff members should be supplemented with peer ap-praisals provided by external reviewers and consultants. Additional challenges inherent in peer reviews of team science initiatives are discussed by Klein in this supple-ment27and by Laudel.54

Translational Strategies

Within the science-of-team-science?eld,translational strategies can be grouped into two general categories: (1)the use of research?ndings from team science initiatives as a basis for developing improved clinical practices,disease-prevention strategies,and public health policies;and(2)the use of research?ndings from the evaluations of team science initiatives as a basis for enhancing the effectiveness of future collabo-rative research and training programs.Examples of these two kinds of translational research are outlined below.

S82 American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Volume 35, Number 2S https://www.wendangku.net/doc/1711174299.html,

Translating research?ndings from team science initia-tives into clinical and preventive practices.The NCI SPOREs and the CPHHD initiative emphasize trans-lational research in which scienti?c?ndings are used to improve the prevention,detection,diagnosis, treatment—or all of these—of human cancer and to reduce health disparities in medically underserved populations.34,63,64Similarly,utilizing research evi-dence for the improvement of healthcare delivery is a core goal of the NCRR CTSCs.13The scienti?c discovery processes associated with team science ini-tiatives are the initial phase of a transdisciplinary action–research cycle in which team science investi-gators work closely with community health practitio-ners and policymakers to translate their?ndings into improved therapeutic and preventive practices.55 Community-based coalitions consisting of health sci-entists and practitioners and intersectoral partner-ships between public and private organizations pro-vide the collaborative contexts in which research ?ndings produced by scienti?c teams are eventually translated into practical applications.3,43,91Examples of university–community partnerships that have pro-duced effective and sustainable translations of cancer research?ndings into community health promotion and disease-prevention strategies are described by Emmons et al.44

Translating research?ndings from team science evalu-ation studies to enhance future initiatives.This second category of translational research applies the?ndings from team science evaluation studies to improve the design and effectiveness of ongoing and future collab-orative research and training programs.In the case of ongoing initiatives,formative evaluation strategies can be used for continuous quality improvement by provid-ing team science participants with regular(e.g.,quar-terly,annual)feedback about their collaborative pro-cesses and outcomes.31,92,93When future team science initiatives are designed,collaboration readiness audits based on the?ndings from the evaluations of prior team science programs can be administered to assess a team’s prospects for collaborative success and to iden-tify opportunities for strengthening institutional and environmental supports for cross-disciplinary research and training.75Also,workshops and training modules can be implemented to familiarize researchers and trainees with the challenges inherent in team-based projects and the steps they can take to improve their chances for success.These translational strategies con-tribute toward building greater capacity for scienti?c collaboration in team science initiatives.40

Earlier research on team performance suggests that the structural complexity of team science initiatives is closely related to the collaborative challenges and co-ordination constraints encountered by team mem-bers.36Collaborative research and training programs that span multiple organizations,geographic sites,sci-enti?c disciplines,and levels of analysis may require greater institutional and organizational investments in collaboration-readiness resources to ensure program-matic success than those that are less complex.55The empirical links among program complexity;collabora-tion readiness;and cumulative research,training,and translational outcomes of team science initiatives should be examined in future studies.

Goals and Organization of This Supplement on the Science of Team Science

The present supplement is based on the proceedings of the NCI Conference on the Science of Team Science held in Bethesda MD during October2006,cospon-sored by the NCI,the NIH OBSSR,and the American Psychological Association.33The purposes of the NCI conference were to address ambiguities and gaps in the science-of-team-science literature,promote greater in-tegration of knowledge in this?eld,and identify key issues for future investigation.As a prelude to this event,the NCI convened a group of science-of-team-science scholars in October2005to assess the state of the knowledge in the?eld,identify the most pressing questions for future study,and articulate major goals and strategies for the2006conference.The intent of the planning meeting was to build on and go beyond the issues addressed in earlier scholarly discussions of the implementation and evaluation of large-scale, cross-disciplinary science and training programs(e.g., National Academy of Sciences[NAS]Convocation on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research;NAS Confer-ence on Bridging Disciplines in the Brain,Behavioral, and Clinical Sciences;National Research Council Con-ference on Interdisciplinary Research;NIH Bioengi-neering Consortium Symposium on Catalyzing Team Science).5,21,94,95In particular,participants were asked to identify cutting-edge issues and themes that had received relatively little attention in prior meetings and research and to draft an agenda of high-priority ques-tions for future study.

During the day-long discussions at the2005plan-ning meeting,it was decided that the2006meeting would incorporate structured panel sessions orga-nized around the conference themes;peer-reviewed poster presentations;opportunities for informal discus-sion;and a series of commissioned papers to address high-priority research,training,and translational ques-tions for future investigation.33The commissioned pa-pers were intended to integrate existing knowledge in the science-of-team-science?eld and to open new ave-nues of research on a variety of previously neglected topics.These high-priority topics for future research are addressed in the articles presented in this supple-ment and are outlined below.

August2008Am J Prev Med2008;35(2S)S83

Developing Integrative Conceptualizations of Team Science Processes and Outcomes

Earlier conferences and publications revealed impor-tant facets of team-based science and training(e.g., institutional strategies for facilitating cross-disciplinary research,metrics for evaluating collaborative processes and outcomes),but the?ndings from science-of-team-science studies remain relatively disjointed and lack theoretical grounding and interpretation.Some re-search reports go relatively unnoticed as chapters in edited volumes published in several different countries or as reports posted on websites that remain unknown to many science-of-team-science scholars.Sorely needed are new conceptualizations of the science-of-team-science ?eld that are informed by an international perspective and by integrative frameworks for organizing and inter-preting the?ndings from prior studies.Klein’s article27 addresses these needs by offering an integrative approach to the evaluation of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary collaboration—organized around seven core principles or themes—and an integrative assessment of empirical knowledge in this?eld,viewed from an international perspective.Additionally,the present article and the ones by Kessel and Rosen?eld,38Croyle,9and Syme35in this supplement provide overviews of the science-of-team-science?eld in terms of its major research,training,and translational concerns,and identify for future investiga-tion several topics that have received little attention in prior studies.

Implementing Team Science Initiatives Selectively and Strategically

Earlier studies10,31,36,55suggest that cross-disciplinary team research centers and programs are not uniformly successful.In some situations,smaller-scale unidisci-plinary projects may be more feasible and likely to succeed than larger,team-based initiatives.Also,cer-tain research questions may be more amenable than others to interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary ap-proaches.Thus,cross-disciplinary collaboration should be viewed as a means for achieving the desired scien-ti?c,training,and translational goals rather than as an end in and of itself.That is,investments in team-based initiatives should be reserved for those settings and research topics that are most suited to and would bene?t most from collaborative approaches.An impor-tant goal for science-of-team-science research is to facili-tate“smarter”science,in which particular approaches (e.g.,single-investigator versus team-based projects;uni-disciplinary versus multidisciplinary,interdisciplinary,or transdisciplinary initiatives)are closely matched to the unique talents and predilections of the participating scientists,the institutional contexts in which they work, and particular research topics and?elds(some of which may be more amenable to cross-disciplinary integration than others,as noted by Hays45).

Yet conceptual frameworks that enable researchers and their host organizations to forecast when and where team science initiatives will be more or less effective have been lacking.Accordingly,the ecology of team science by Stokols and colleagues36in this supple-ment is intended to provide an integrative typology of contextual factors that have been found to jointly in?uence collaborative effectiveness across a variety of research and community settings.The typology is based on a review of empirical?ndings from the?elds of social psychology,organizational behavior,information science,community health promotion,and team sci-ence evaluation.It offers a conceptual starting point for developing more?ne-grained analyses of high-leverage variables(i.e.,those that most strongly determine the success of team-based initiatives).Examples of contex-tual factors that appear to be especially strong determi-nants of collaborative effectiveness in research settings are discussed below.

The Impact of Interpersonal Processes and Leadership Styles on Scienti?c Collaboration Prior evaluations of team science initiatives suggest that the social organization of research teams strongly in?u-ences their capacity to achieve scienti?c or intellectual integration.6,27,36,75Several interpersonal processes may directly in?uence collaborative effectiveness in research settings.To the extent that team members have worked together previously and share a strong commitment to scienti?c collaboration,they may be better able to coordinate their efforts and accomplish their research,training,and translational goals in sub-sequent team science projects.31,40,76On the other hand,interpersonal con?icts among team members (especially those persisting over long periods)under-mine mutual trust and hinder collaborative processes and outcomes.10,85,88,96Among the factors that most strongly in?uence the quality of social interactions in collaborative settings are the abilities and styles of team leaders.Although the links between leadership and collaborative effectiveness have been studied exten-sively in nonscienti?c settings,97–100they have received relatively little attention in the science-of-team-science ?eld.This gap in science-of-team-science knowledge is directly addressed in the supplement article by Gray,46 who offers an empirically based conceptualization of three types of leadership tasks that promote transdisci-plinary collaboration among leaders of scienti?c teams. Her analysis of the ways in which leadership styles and abilities in?uence scienti?c collaboration provides a con-ceptual foundation for future research on this topic. Another important facet of scienti?c collaboration are the social networks that exist among researchers and the ways in which they in?uence patterns of

S84 American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Volume 35, Number 2S https://www.wendangku.net/doc/1711174299.html,

communication and cross-disciplinary integration.The article by Provan and colleagues42summarizes an em-pirical study of social networks among scientists work-ing in the?eld of tobacco harm https://www.wendangku.net/doc/1711174299.html,muni-cations among participating tobacco harm–reduction scientists from multiple?elds that involve only ex-changes of information are considered interdiscipli-nary,whereas those that lead to the creation of syner-gistic products(e.g.,multi-authored publications)are de?ned as transdisciplinary.The analyses of network data provided by Provan et al.reveal that homophily,or the tendency to interact with others whose back-grounds are similar to a person’s own(evidenced by intradisciplinary network ties),is more prevalent than heterophily(de?ned as cross-disciplinary communica-tions among network members).Moreover,nonsyner-gistic interdisciplinary interactions are much more common than transdisciplinary transactions that result in collaborative research outcomes.These data,along with the?ndings from earlier research,highlight scien-tists’strong tendencies to af?liate with colleagues whose disciplinary perspectives are similar to their own,and the need to better understand the circumstances under which scientists achieve and sustain cross-disciplinary collabora-tion and integration.75,101

Developing Cyber-Infrastructures to Support Scienti?c Collaboration

Interpersonal processes(e.g.,communication net-works,con?ict-resolution strategies,leadership styles) are contextual factors that directly in?uence a team’s readiness for collaboration at the outset of a project and their capacity to work together effectively over extended periods.Additional determinants of collabo-rative capacity and long-term success are the techno-logic resources(e.g.,intranet and Internet connec-tivity,grid computing infrastructures,data-mining strategies)that enable team members to communicate and integrate diverse sets of data effectively over the course of a team science project.102These facets of technologic infrastructure and expertise and their in-?uence on scienti?c collaboration have received atten-tion in the?elds of information science and organiza-tional behavior,but warrant further investigation in the context of team science research and training pro-grams.36The ways in which cyber-infrastructures can support successful scienti?c collaboration spanning multiple disciplines and research sites,and an agenda of related questions for future science-of-team-science studies,are discussed by Hesse in this supplement.47 Conceptualizing and Measuring Distinctive Features of Cross-Disciplinary Training

On the one hand,distinctions among multidisci-plinary,interdisciplinary,and transdisciplinary forms of cross-disciplinary(versus unidisciplinary)research have received considerable attention among science-of-team-science scholars.On the other hand,these same distinctions,as they relate to strategies of cross-disciplinary training,have been relatively ne-glected.62,82,83Nash’s article37in this supplement confronts current gaps in the understanding of cross-disciplinary education by offering a broad conceptualiza-tion of multidisciplinary,interdisciplinary,and transdisci-plinary training and their respective https://www.wendangku.net/doc/1711174299.html,pared to multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches, transdisciplinary training is uniquely de?ned by its intention to produce scholars who synthesize theo-retical and methodologic perspectives spanning mul-tiple disciplines and analytic levels.Nash distinguishes among different forms of transdisciplinary training, including single-mentor and team-mentoring appren-ticeship models,and transdisciplinary training pro-grams that are either broad or narrow in their analytic scope(e.g.,in which trainees learn to integrate the perspectives of disciplines sharing the same or widely different levels of analysis).Nash also outlines intrap-ersonal,interpersonal,and systems-level constraints on—as well as facilitators of—transdisciplinary training processes and outcomes.Finally,his analysis highlights the importance of developing new methods and met-rics for evaluating transdisciplinary training,and sug-gests new directions for research in this area. Translating Team Science into Effective Clinical, Community Health,and Policy Initiatives

Many large-scale team science initiatives are designed to foster translations of scienti?c knowledge into im-proved clinical practices,community health outcomes, and public policies(e.g.,statewide taxation of cigarette sales).13,63,64However,the processes by which scienti?c evidence from team science initiatives is incorporated into clinical and community-based programs for health improvement are not well understood.3A useful start-ing point for the development of community-based health initiatives is the transdisciplinary integration of research?ndings on a particular topic drawn from multiple?elds and levels of analysis.For instance,Hiatt and Breen’s article19in this supplement offers a broad-gauged transdisciplinary synthesis of research evidence documenting the role of social factors in cancer etiol-ogy and the ways in which social,behavioral,psycho-logical,and biologic variables as well as the healthcare system jointly in?uence cancer incidence,survival,and mortality rates.Hiatt and Breen’s analysis provides conceptual grounding for developing more compre-hensive strategies of cancer prevention and control than have been available in the past.

Emmons and colleagues44describe several cases in which the scienti?c?ndings obtained through team science initiatives at a university-based cancer center

August2008Am J Prev Med2008;35(2S)S85

were translated into novel health-communication pro-grams for disease prevention.Examples of these trans-lational initiatives are the Harvard Colorectal Cancer Risk Assessment and Communication Tool for Re-search and two public Internet sites,Your Cancer Risk and Your Disease Risk.103Emmons and colleagues note that the features and functionality of these award-winning websites were in?uenced by transdisciplinary collaboration among scholars from several different ?elds.They also describe other translational programs designed collaboratively with non-university partners through community-based participatory research strat-egies,104including the Massachusetts Community Net-work for Cancer Education,Research,and Training. Taken together,the supplement articles by Hiatt and Breen19and Emmons et al.44highlight the value of transdisciplinary research?ndings and conceptual frameworks as a basis for developing novel and sustain-able interventions for disease prevention. Improving the Transfer of Knowledge Across Team Science Initiatives and Evaluation Studies Another type of translational challenge facing the science-of-team-science?eld is to improve the transfer of knowledge across multiple initiatives and evaluation studies.Too often,the lessons learned over the course of an initiative are not effectively communicated or transferred to other research organizations and scien-tists who are contemplating or already engaged in subsequent team science programs.6,9,75Investments in team science evaluation studies become more cost effective and strategic to the extent that their concep-tual integrations,empirical?ndings,methodologic tools,and translational innovations are made available to current or prospective members of other initiatives. Hiatt and Breen’s analysis19of social factors in disease etiology exempli?es a conceptual tool that can be used to guide future research,training,and translation initiatives in the?eld of cancer control.Similarly, Holmes and colleagues34summarize several method-ologic lessons learned through their multilevel analyses of health disparities that can be of bene?t to participants in future transdisciplinary team science initiatives. Similarly,new methods and metrics for gauging the effectiveness of a particular team science program can be used later to guide the design and evaluation of other team initiatives once their reliability and validity have been established.The development of new meth-ods for evaluating team science is the focus of two additional articles in this supplement.Hall and col-leagues40present initial?ndings from the2006NCI TREC Year-One evaluation study in which a new online survey protocol was developed to assess the levels of institutional and interpersonal readiness for transdisci-plinary collaboration during the early stages of a5-year initiative.Empirical links among several dimensions of collaborative readiness,including the availability of shared research facilities;investigators’history of work-ing together on prior projects;and their endorsement of unidisciplinary,multidisciplinary,interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary research perspectives,were exam-ined in this study.Also,Masse and colleagues48summa-rize new analyses of survey data obtained from tobacco scientists participating in the?rst5-year phase of the NCI TTURC initiative.The survey measures and the ?ndings from this study—conducted as part of the NCI evaluation of large initiatives(ELI)6,31—exemplify new tools for assessing the impact of interpersonal processes (e.g.,collaborative experiences and behaviors)on sci-enti?c integration and productivity.These methods and metrics are potentially applicable to the evalua-tions of other initiatives.

Finally,Kessel and Rosen?eld38provide a broad review of earlier transdisciplinary research,training, and translational programs as a basis for identifying insights and guidelines that can be used to improve the design and evaluation of future initiatives.Their?nd-ings are directly relevant to the goal of enhancing the transfer of knowledge from prior team science initia-tives and evaluation studies to subsequent ones. Understanding the Systemic Contexts of Team Science Initiatives and Their Evaluation

Another relatively neglected topic within the science-of-team-science?eld is the in?uence of systemic factors (e.g.,institutional supports for interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary collaboration,public and private in-vestments in large-scale research initiatives,societal concerns about the accountability of scienti?c re-search)on the design,functioning,and evaluation of team science initiatives.29,42,89These issues are ad-dressed in several of the supplement articles.Leischow and colleagues41present an overview of systems theory and the ways in which systems thinking can be used to promote public health.A key principle of systems theory is that socio-technical systems(e.g.,team science research initiatives)are embedded within broader sys-temic units(e.g.,the Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences[DCCPS]of NCI)that administer several large initiatives that in turn are nested within larger entities and spheres of in?uence(e.g.,the NIH).105,106An advantage of systems thinking is that it reveals the interdependencies among systemic units that operate at these different levels.

For instance,Croyle9describes four large-scale trans-disciplinary research and training initiatives(TTURC, CECCR,CPHHD,TREC)that are directed by DCCPS within NCI.Because DCCPS serves as the coordinating unit for these programs,lessons learned from the evaluations of the?rst initiatives to be implemented (TTURC and CECCR)have been incorporated into the design of subsequent programs(CPHHD and TREC).

S86 American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Volume 35, Number 2S https://www.wendangku.net/doc/1711174299.html,

This transfer of knowledge among several large-scale initiatives has the potential advantage of enhancing the cost effectiveness of DCCPS’s and NCI’s investments in transdisciplinary science and training programs.

At a broader institutional level,the article by Hays45 in this supplement(and the papers presented by Far-ber107and Kington11at the2006NCI conference on the science of team science)describe the NIH Road-map and OPASI initiatives,both of which are intended to promote greater integration among the disciplines represented within the various institutes that constitute NIH.The design and mission of these initiatives have been informed not only by health research and the assessments of the scienti?c readiness45of particular ?elds for transdisciplinary integration,but also by soci-etal concerns about public health and the accountabil-ity of science to society as a whole.9,14Both the Road-map and OPASI initiatives encompass several other interrelated team science research and training programs, coordinated by multiple institutes at NIH,whose goals are closely aligned with the Roadmap initiative’s emphasis on transdisciplinary scienti?c integration,training,and trans-lation(e.g.,the ambitious Clinical Translational Science Awards initiative).13,29,74The Roadmap and OPASI initi-atives thus provide a strategic framework and mission for organizing several subsidiary team-based programs. Also within the context of the NIH,Mabry and colleagues49describe the strategic mission and cross-disciplinary initiatives supported by OBSSR.Systems principles drawn from the?elds of social ecology, populomics,and informatics have been integrated with the biomedical concerns of the Human Genome Project and incorporated into the various programs administered by OBSSR.16,108–111The broad biopsycho-social and ecologic vision re?ected in OBSSR’s strategic plan exempli?es an application of systems thinking to broaden the conceptual scope,the positive health impacts,and the cost effectiveness of large-scale trans-disciplinary initiatives.

Federal funding agencies such as the NIH are but one of several potential contributors to the develop-ment of transdisciplinary health science and the im-provement of public health outcomes.Shen’s article43 in this supplement calls for the establishment of cross-sectoral team science,and underscores the importance of forging new collaborative relationships among pri-vate corporations and foundations,public research agencies,and nongovernmental organizations for the purpose of funding and sustaining transdisciplinary health science and improving public health.This is an exciting and potentially fruitful direction for the science-of-team-science?eld.

The concluding article by Hall and colleagues39 recaps major themes re?ected in the supplement and identi?es promising directions for future research or-ganized around key programmatic challenges related to the re?nement of science-of-team-science terminol-ogy,conceptual frameworks,research methods,trans-disciplinary training strategies,cross-sectoral partner-ships,and sustainable funding mechanisms.For instance,it will be important in future science-of-team-science research to more clearly conceptualize and measure the construct of readiness for collaboration. This concept has been de?ned variously in terms of individual and group research orientations,40,69organi-zational and technologic resources that enhance capac-ity for collaboration,36,47,57and the scienti?c readiness of different?elds for collaborative integration.41,45Yet, as Hall et al.39observe,little is currently known about how these different dimensions of collaborative readi-ness jointly in?uence the effectiveness of transdisci-plinary initiatives.

Summary

The preceding discussion offers an overview of the science-of-team-science?eld in terms of its major con-ceptual,methodologic,and translational concerns. This?eld encompasses a wide array of research projects and strategies aimed at better understand-ing,evaluating,and managing circumstances that in?uence the effectiveness of large-scale team sci-ence https://www.wendangku.net/doc/1711174299.html,mon themes are beginning to emerge in the literature,but several gaps in the science-of-team-science knowledge base remain to be addressed in future studies.The2006NCI confer-ence on the science of team science and the present supplement were organized for the purposes of iden-tifying and analyzing several cutting-edge issues that had received little or no attention in prior science-of-team-science meetings and publications.It is hoped that the articles included in this supplement will help to establish the foundation for achieving greater clarity and integration in science-of-team-science research and for advancing the?eld’s scien-ti?c,training,and translational goals.

This article is based on a paper presented at the NCI conference on The Science of Team Science:Assessing the Value of Transdisciplinary Research on October30–31,2006, in Bethesda MD.The authors gratefully acknowledge support for this manuscript provided by an IPA contract to Daniel Stokols from the Of?ce of the Director,DCCPS of the NCI; and by Cancer Research Training Award fellowships to Kara L.Hall and Brandie K.Taylor.

No?nancial disclosures were reported by the authors of this paper.

References

1.Klein JT.Crossing boundaries:knowledge,disciplinarities,and interdisci-

plinarities.Charlottesville VA:University of Virginia Press,1996.

https://www.wendangku.net/doc/1711174299.html,udel G,Origgi G.Introduction to a special issue on the assessment of

interdisciplinary research.Research Evaluation2006;15:2–4.

August2008Am J Prev Med2008;35(2S)S87

3. Maton KI, Perkins DD, Altman DG, et al. Community-based interdiscipli-

nary research: introduction to the special issue. Am J Community Psychol 2006;38:1–7.

4. Nass SJ, Stillman B. Large-scale biomedical science: exploring strategies

for future research. Washington DC: The National Academies Press, 2003.

5. Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research, National Academy

of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine.

Facilitating interdisciplinary research. Washington DC: The National Academies Press, 2005. https://www.wendangku.net/doc/1711174299.html,/catalog.php?record_id?11153#toc.

6. Trochim WM, Marcus SE, Masse LC, Moser RP, Weld PC. The evaluation

of large research initiatives: a participatory integrated mixed-methods approach. Am J Eval 2008;29:8 –28.

7. Wuchty S, Jones BF, Uzzi B. The increasing dominance of teams in

production of knowledge. Science 2007;316:1036 –9.

8. Bruun H, Hukkinen J, Huutoniemi K, Klein JT, eds. Promoting interdis-

ciplinary research: the case of the academy of Finland. Helsinki, Finland: The Academy of Finland, 2005.

9. Croyle RT. The National Cancer Institute’s transdisciplinary centers

initiatives and the need for building a science of team science. Am J Prev Med 2008;35(2S):S90 –S93.

10. Kahn RL. An experiment in scienti?c organization. Chicago IL: The John

D.and Catherine T.MacArthur Foundation,Program in Mental Health

and Human Development.A MacArthur Foundation Occasional Paper, 1993. https://www.wendangku.net/doc/1711174299.html,/atf/cf/%7BB0386CE3-8B29-4162-8098-E466FB856794%7D/experiment_in_scienti?c_organization.pdf.

11.Kington R.Goals and directions of the OPASI initiative at NIH.Proceed-

ings of the NCI–NIH Conference on The Science of Team Science: Assessing the Value of Transdisciplinary Research.2006Oct30–31;

Bethesda MD. https://www.wendangku.net/doc/1711174299.html,/Summary.asp?File?13474.

12.National Academy of Sciences.The NAS Keck futures initiative.2003.

https://www.wendangku.net/doc/1711174299.html,.

13.National Center for Research Resources.Clinical and translational science

awards to transform clinical research. 2006. https://www.wendangku.net/doc/1711174299.html,/ncrrprog/ roadmap/CTSA_9-2006.asp.

14.NIH.NIH roadmap for medical research:interdisciplinary research.2003.

https://www.wendangku.net/doc/1711174299.html,/interdisciplinary/index.asp.

15.Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.RWJF active living research program.

https://www.wendangku.net/doc/1711174299.html,/applications/solicited/npo.jsp?FUND_ID?55113.

16.Abrams DB.Applying transdisciplinary research strategies to understand-

ing and eliminating health disparities.Health Educ Behav2006;33: 515–31.

17.Brainard J.U.S.agencies look to interdisciplinary science.Chron High

Educ2002;48:A20.

18.Esparza J,Yamada T.The discovery value of“Big Science.”J Exp Med

2007;204:701–4.

19.Hiatt RA,Breen N.The social determinants of cancer:a challenge for

transdisciplinary science.Am J Prev Med2008;35(2S):S141–S150.

20.Kahn RL,Prager DJ.Interdisciplinary collaborations are a scienti?c and

social imperative.The Scientist1994:12.

21.Pellmar TC,Eisenberg L,eds.Bridging disciplines in the brain,behav-

ioral,and clinical sciences.Washington DC:IOM/The National Acade-mies Press,2000.

22.Smedley BD,Syme SL,eds.Promoting health:intervention strategies from

social and behavioral research.Washington DC:The National Academies Press,2000.

23.Breckler S.The importance of disciplines.Psychological Science Agenda

2005;19:1–2.

24.Marks AR.Rescuing the NIH before it is too late.J Clin Invest

2006;116:844.

25.Weissmann G.Roadmaps,translational research,and childish curiosity.

FASEB J2005;19:1761–2.

26.Brainard J.New science measures released by OMB.Chron High Educ

2002;48:A25.

27.Klein JT.Evaluation of interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research:a

literature review.Am J Prev Med2008;35(2S):S116–S123.

28.Mervis J.Science policy.NSF begins a push to measure societal impacts

of research.Science2006;312:347.

29.Morrison L.The CTSAs,the Congress,and the scienti?c method.

J Investig Med2008;56:7–10.

30.Smith R.Measuring the social impact of research.BMJ2001;323:528.

31.Stokols D,Fuqua J,Gress J,et al.Evaluating transdisciplinary science.

Nicotine Tob Res2003;5(1S):S21–S39.

32.Abrams DB,Leslie FM,Mermelstein R,Kobus K,Clayton RR.Transdisci-

plinary tobacco use research.Nicotine Tob Res2003;5(1S):S5–S10.33.National Cancer Institute.Proceedings of the NCI–NIH Conference on

The Science of Team Science:Assessing the Value of Transdisciplinary Research. 2006 Oct 30 –31; Bethesda MD. https://www.wendangku.net/doc/1711174299.html,/Summary.

asp?File?13474; https://www.wendangku.net/doc/1711174299.html,/Summary.asp?File?13471.

34.Holmes JH,Lehman A,Hade E,et al.Challenges for multilevel health

disparities research in a transdisciplinary environment. Am J Prev Med 2008;35(2S):S182–S192.

35.Syme SL.The science of team science:assessing the value of transdisci-

plinary research.Am J Prev Med2008;35(2S):S94–S95.

36.Stokols D,Misra S,Moser RP,Hall KL,Taylor BK.The ecology of team

science:understanding contextual in?uences on transdisciplinary collab-oration.Am J Prev Med2008;35(2S):S96–S115.

37.Nash JM.Transdisciplinary training:key components and prerequisites

for success.Am J Prev Med2008;35(2S):S133–S140.

38.Kessel FS,Rosen?eld PL.Toward transdisciplinary research:historical and

contemporary perspectives.Am J Prev Med2008;35(2S):S225–S234. 39.Hall KL,Feng AX,Moser RP,Stokols D,Taylor BK.Moving the science of

team science forward:collaboration and creativity.Am J Prev Med 2008;35(2S):S243–S249.

40.Hall KL,Stokols D,Moser RP,et al.The collaboration readiness of

transdisciplinary research teams and centers:?ndings from the National Cancer Institute’s TREC year-one evaluation study.Am J Prev Med 2008;35(2S):S161–S172.

41.Leischow SJ,Best A,Trochim WM,et al.Systems thinking to improve the

public’s health.Am J Prev Med2008;35(2S):S196–S203.

42.Provan KG,Clark P,Huerta T.Transdisciplinarity among tobacco harm–

reduction researchers:a network analytic approach.Am J Prev Med 2008;35(2S):S173–S181.

43.Shen B.Toward cross-sectoral team science.Am J Prev Med2008;

35(2S):S240–S242.

44.Emmons KM,Viswanath K,Colditz GA.The role of transdisciplinary

collaboration in translating and disseminating health research:lessons learned and exemplars of success.Am J Prev Med2008;

35(2S):S204–S210.

45.Hays TC.The science of team science:commentary on measurements of

scienti?c readiness.Am J Prev Med2008;35(2S):S193–S195.

46.Gray B.Enhancing transdisciplinary research through collaborative lead-

ership.Am J Prev Med2008;35(2S):S124–S132.

47.Hesse BW.Of mice and mentors:developing cyber-infrastructure to

support transdisciplinary scienti?c collaboration.Am J Prev Med 2008;35(2S):S235–S239.

48.Masse LC,Moser RP,Stokols D,et al.Measuring collaboration and

transdisciplinary integration in team science.Am J Prev Med2008;

35(2S):S151–S160.

49.Mabry PL,Olster DH,Morgan GD,Abrams D.Interdisciplinary and systems

science to improve population health:a view from the NIH Of?ce of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research.Am J Prev Med2008;

35(2S):S211–S224.

50.Dunbar K.How scientists really reason:scienti?c reasoning in real-world

laboratories.In:Sternberg RJ,Davidson J,eds.Mechanisms of insight.

Cambridge MA:MIT Press,1995.

51.Hess DJ.Science studies:an advanced introduction.New York:New York

University Press,1997.

52.Klahr D,Simon HA.Studies of scienti?c discovery:complementary

approaches and convergent?ndings.Psychol Bull1999;125:524–43. https://www.wendangku.net/doc/1711174299.html,tour B,Woolgar https://www.wendangku.net/doc/1711174299.html,boratory life:the construction of scienti?c facts.

Princeton NJ:Princeton University Press,1986.

https://www.wendangku.net/doc/1711174299.html,udel G.Conclave in the Tower of Babel:how peers review interdisci-

plinary research proposals.Res Eval2006;15:57–68.

55.Stokols D.Toward a science of transdisciplinary action research.Am J

Community Psychol2006;38:63–77.

56.Ramadier T.Transdisciplinarity and its challenges:the case of urban

studies.Futures2004;36:423–39.

57.Olson GM,Olson JS.Distance matters.Human-Computer Interaction

2000;15(2/3):139–78.

58.Klein JT.A conceptual vocabulary of interdisciplinary science.In:

Weingert P,Stehr N,eds.Practising interdisciplinarity.Toronto: University of Toronto Press,2000.

https://www.wendangku.net/doc/1711174299.html,wrence RJ,Despres C.Futures of transdisciplinarity.Futures2004;

36:397–405.

60.Rosen?eld PL.The potential of transdisciplinary research for sustaining

and extending linkages between the health and social sciences.Soc Sci Med1992;35:1343–57.

61. NIH. Types of grant programs. 2008. https://www.wendangku.net/doc/1711174299.html,/grants/funding/

funding_program.htm.

S88 American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Volume 35, Number 2S https://www.wendangku.net/doc/1711174299.html,

62.Nash JM,Collins BN,Loughlin SE,et al.Training the transdisciplinary

scientist:a general framework applied to tobacco use behavior.Nicotine Tob Res2003;5(1S):S41–S53.

63.National Cancer Institute.Guidelines:specialized programs of research

excellence (SPOREs). 2001. https://www.wendangku.net/doc/1711174299.html,/.

64.National Cancer Institute.Centers for population health and health

disparities. 2006. https://www.wendangku.net/doc/1711174299.html,/populationhealthcenters/. 65.Turner S.What are disciplines?And how is interdisciplinarity different?

In:Weingart P,Stehr N,eds.Practising interdisciplinarity.Toronto: University of Toronto Press,2000.

66.Kuhn T.The structure of scienti?c revolutions.Chicago:University of

Chicago Press,1970.

67.Klein JT.Interdisciplinarity:history,theory and practice.Detroit MI:

Wayne State University Press,1990.

68.Hirsch Hadorn G,Hoffmann-Riem H,Biber-Klemm S,et al.,eds.Hand-

book of transdisciplinary research.New York:Springer,2008.

69.Kessel FS,Rosen?eld PL,Anderson NB,eds.Interdisciplinary research:

case studies from health and social science.New York:Oxford University Press,2008.

https://www.wendangku.net/doc/1711174299.html,work for transdisciplinarity in sciences and humanities.2005.

www.transdisciplinarity.ch.

71.National Cancer Institute.Transdisciplinary tobacco use research centers.

2006. https://www.wendangku.net/doc/1711174299.html,/tcrb/tturc/.

72.National Cancer Institute.Transdisciplinary research on energetics and

cancer. 2006. https://https://www.wendangku.net/doc/1711174299.html,/trec/.

73.National Cancer Institute.Health communication and informatics re-

search:NCI centers of excellence in cancer communications research.

2006. https://www.wendangku.net/doc/1711174299.html,/hcirb/ceccr/.

74.Zerhouni EA.Translational and clinical science—time for a new vision.

N Engl J Med2005;353:1621–3.

75.Stokols D,Harvey R,Gress J,Fuqua J,Phillips K.In vivo studies of

transdisciplinary scienti?c collaboration:lessons learned and implications for active living research.Am J Prev Med2005;28(2S2):202–13.

76.Fuqua J.Transdisciplinary scienti?c collaboration:an exploration of the

research process[dissertation].Irvine(CA):School of Social Ecology, University of California,2002.

77.Fuqua J,Stokols D,Gress J,Phillips K,Harvey R.Transdisciplinary

collaboration as a basis for enhancing the science and prevention of substance use and“abuse.”Subst Use Misuse2004;39:1457–514.

78.Morgan G,Kobus K,Gerlach KK,et al.Facilitating transdisciplinary

research:the experience of the transdisciplinary tobacco use research centers.Nicotine Tob Res2003;5(1S):S11–S19.

79.Rhoten D.Final report:a multi-method analysis of the social and technical

conditions for interdisciplinary collaboration. 2003. https://www.wendangku.net/doc/1711174299.html,/ publications.pl?s?interdis.

80.Younglove-Webb J,Gray B,Abdalla CW,Purvis Thurow A.The dynamics

of multidisciplinary research teams in academia.The Review of Higher Education1999;22:425–40.

https://www.wendangku.net/doc/1711174299.html,ttuca LR.Creating interdisciplinarity.Nashville TN:Vanderbilt Univer-

sity Press,2001.

82.Mitrany M,Stokols D.Gauging the transdisciplinary qualities and outcomes

of doctoral training programs.J Planning Educ Res2005;24:437–49.

83.Rhoten D,Parker https://www.wendangku.net/doc/1711174299.html,cation:risks and rewards of an interdisciplinary

research path.Science2004;306:2046.

84.Weingart P,Stehr N,eds.Practising interdisciplinarity.Toronto:

University of Toronto Press,2000.

85.Sonnenwald DH.Scienti?c collaboration:a synthesis of challenges and

strategies.In:Cronin B,ed.Annual Review of Information Science and Technology,vol.41.Medford NJ:Information Today,Inc.,2007.

86.Janis I.Groupthink:psychological studies of policy decisions and?ascoes.

2nd ed.Boston MA:Houghton Mif?in,1982.

87.Tuckman BW.Developmental sequence in small groups.Psychol Bull

1965;63:384–99.

88.Sonnenwald DH.Managing cognitive and affective trust in the conceptual

R&D organization.In:Houtari M,Iivonen M,eds.Trust in knowledge management and systems in organizations.Hershey PA:Idea Publishing, 2003.

89.Best A,Tenkasi R,Trochim W,et al.Systemic transformational change in

tobacco control:an overview of the Initiative for the Study and Imple-mentation of Systems(ISIS).In:Casebeer AL,Harrison A,Mark AL,eds.

Innovations in health care:a reality check.London:Palgrave MacMillan, 2006.

90.Walter AI,Helgenberger S,Wiek A,Scholz RW.Measuring societal effects

of transdisciplinary research projects:design and application of an evaluation method.Eval Program Plann2007;30:325–38.

91.Syme https://www.wendangku.net/doc/1711174299.html,munity participation,empowerment,and health:develop-

ment of a wellness guide for California.In:Schneider Jamner M,Stokols D,eds.Promoting human wellness:New frontiers for research,practice, and policy.Berkeley CA:University of California Press,2000:78–98. 92.Rossi PH,Freeman HE.Evaluation:a systematic approach.Newbury Park

CA:Sage Publications,1993.

93.Scriven MS.The science of valuing.In:Shadish WR,Jr.,Cook TD,Leviton

LC,eds.Foundations of program evaluation:theories of practice.New-bury Park CA:Sage Publications,1991.

94. NIH. BECON 2003 symposium on catalyzing team science (Day 1). 2003

June 23–24; Bethesda MD. https://www.wendangku.net/doc/1711174299.html,/launch.asp?9924.

95.National Research Council.Interdisciplinary research:promoting collab-

oration between the life sciences and medicine and the physical sciences and engineering.Washington DC:IOM/The National Academies Press, 1990.

96.Maglaughlin KL,Sonnenwald DH.Factors that impact interdisciplinary

natural science research collaboration in academia.In:Ingwersen P, Larsen B,eds.Proceedings of the ISSI.2005Jul24–25;Stockholm, Sweden:Karolinska University Press,2005.

97.Collins J.Level5leadership:the triumph of humility and?erce resolve.

Harv Bus Rev2001;79:66–76.

98.Jacobs D,Singell L.Leadership and organizational performance:isolating

links between managers and collective success.Soc Sci Res1993;22:165–89.

99.Kumpfer KL,Turner C,Hopkins R,Librett J.Leadership and team

effectiveness in community coalitions for the prevention of alcohol and other drug abuse.Health Educ Res1993;8:359–74.

100.Hackman JR.Leading teams:setting the stage for great performances.

Boston MA:Harvard Business School Press,2002.

101.Festinger L.A theory of social comparison processes.Human Relat 1954;7:117–40.

102.Olson GM,Olson JS,Zimmerman A,eds.Science on the Internet.

Cambridge MA:MIT Press,2008.

103.Harvard Center for Cancer Prevention.Your disease risk.2005.www.

https://www.wendangku.net/doc/1711174299.html,/.

104.Minkler M,Wallerstein N,https://www.wendangku.net/doc/1711174299.html,munity-based participatory research for health.San Francisco:Jossey-Bass,2003.

105.Emery FE,ed.Systems thinking.London:Penguin Books,1969.

106.Emery FE,Trist EL.Socio-technical systems.In:Churchman CW,Verhulst M,eds.Management science:models and techniques.Oxford,England: Pergamon,1969.

107.Farber G.An overview of the NIH Roadmap initiative.Proceedings of the NCI–NIH Conference on The Science of Team Science:Assessing the Value of Transdisciplinary Research.2006Oct30–31;Bethesda MD.

https://www.wendangku.net/doc/1711174299.html,/Summary.asp?File?13474.

108.Abrams DB.Transdisciplinary paradigms for tobacco prevention research.

Nicotine Tob Res1999;(1S):S15–S23.

109.Gibbons MC.A historical overview of health disparities and the potential of eHealth solutions.J Med Internet Res2005;7:e50.

110.Stokols D.Translating social ecological theory into guidelines for com-munity health promotion.Am J Health Promot1996;10:282–98.

111.Tyers M,Mann M.From genomics to proteomics.Nature2003;

422:193–7.

August2008Am J Prev Med2008;35(2S)S89