Encouraging Positive Team Dynamics

Even if a team is carefully selected, it may still not succeed in producing valuable research outcomes. Indeed failure is far from uncommon in interdisciplinary research efforts. Several factors are important for positive team dynamics:

· Homogeneity of group members along various social dimensions may make communication easier but may also reduce the degree of novelty.

· Complementary skills and knowledge facilitate cooperation.[See also the Kessel et al book]

· Note that serendipity plays an important role in finding compatible researchers from different disciplines. Institutions can perhaps increase the chance through both research databases and informal meetings.

· Team size renders conversation more difficult but increases the insights that can be integrated. Optimal team size likely varies by project.

· Teams work best either when team members have strong personal incentives to pursue team goals or alternatively when team efforts are evaluated entirely at the team level; cases where team members face a choice between pursuing individual versus team glory are generally problematic.

· Teams work best when there is both a high level of trust and a shared dream.

· In terms of process, it is very important to develop “shared conceptual frameworks that integrate and transcend the multiple disciplinary perspectives represented among team members” (Stokols et al 2008, S97). That is, the process of integration needs to start early: whereas Repko stresses integration of insights to form a common ground understanding, Stokols et al. urge some integration of disciplinary perspectives in order to allow participants to work toward a later integration of insights. It may, though, prove more difficult in practice to integrate perspectives than insights.

· When interdisciplinary research extends beyond the academy (which is important for some types of research but not others) then scholars need to learn how to communicate to the public and members of the public need to learn about scholarly research. Academy-community collaboration also requires careful identification of common goals, distribution of power and control, and organizational support.

These points are made in Stokols, Daniel, Shalini Misra, Richard P. Moser, Kara L. Hall, Brandie K. Taylor, (2008) “The Ecology of Team Science: Understanding Contextual Influences on Transdisciplinary Collaboration” American Journal of Preventive Medicine 35:2S, 96-115.

Kirst, Maritt, Nicole Schaefer-McDaniel, Stephen Hwang, and Patricia O'Campo, eds. Converging Disciplines: A Transdisciplinary Approach to Urban Health Problems. Springer, 2011 stress the importance of valuing each team member's contribution. They encourage a very egalitarian orientation.

Dr. Ingrid Nembhard and Dr. Melissa Valentine summarize (in a blog post) the scholarly literature on the role of teamwork in supporting team efficiency and effectiveness. The blog post discusses how teamwork can be enhanced, and highlights four survey instruments to assess teamwork. See:

https://www.teamsciencetoolkit.cancer.gov/Public/ExpertBlog.aspx?tid=4