评估跨学科科学团队的团队动态

Sarah Bolduc, J. Knox, E. B. Ristroph
{"title":"评估跨学科科学团队的团队动态","authors":"Sarah Bolduc, J. Knox, E. B. Ristroph","doi":"10.1108/heed-10-2021-0069","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PurposeThis article considers how the evaluation of research teams can better account for the challenges of transdisciplinarity, including their larger team size and more diverse and permeable membership, as well as the tensions between institutional pressures on individuals to publish and team goals.Design/methodology/approachAn evaluation team was retained from 2015 to 2020 to conduct a comprehensive external evaluation of a five-year EPSCoR-funded program undertaken by a transdisciplinary research team. The formative portion of the evaluation involved monitoring the program’s developmental progress, while the summative portion tracked observable program outputs and outcomes as evidence of progress toward short- and long-term goals. The evaluation team systematically reviewed internal assessments and gathered additional data for an external assessment via periodic participation in team meetings, participant interviews and an online formative team survey (starting in Year 2).FindingsSurvey participants had a better understanding of the project’s “Goals and Vision” compared to other aspects. “Work Roles,” and particularly the timeliness of decision-making, were perceived to be a “Big Problem,” specifically in regard to heavy travel by key managers/leadership. For “Communication Channels,” Year 2 tensions included differing views on the extent to which management should be collaborative versus “hierarchical.” These concerns about communication demonstrate that differences in language, culture or status impact the efficiency and working relationship of the team. “Authorship Credit/Intellectual Property” was raised most consistently each year as an area of concern.Originality/valueThe study involves the use of a unique survey approach.","PeriodicalId":32842,"journal":{"name":"Higher Education Evaluation and Development","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating team dynamics in interdisciplinary science teams\",\"authors\":\"Sarah Bolduc, J. Knox, E. B. Ristroph\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/heed-10-2021-0069\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PurposeThis article considers how the evaluation of research teams can better account for the challenges of transdisciplinarity, including their larger team size and more diverse and permeable membership, as well as the tensions between institutional pressures on individuals to publish and team goals.Design/methodology/approachAn evaluation team was retained from 2015 to 2020 to conduct a comprehensive external evaluation of a five-year EPSCoR-funded program undertaken by a transdisciplinary research team. The formative portion of the evaluation involved monitoring the program’s developmental progress, while the summative portion tracked observable program outputs and outcomes as evidence of progress toward short- and long-term goals. The evaluation team systematically reviewed internal assessments and gathered additional data for an external assessment via periodic participation in team meetings, participant interviews and an online formative team survey (starting in Year 2).FindingsSurvey participants had a better understanding of the project’s “Goals and Vision” compared to other aspects. “Work Roles,” and particularly the timeliness of decision-making, were perceived to be a “Big Problem,” specifically in regard to heavy travel by key managers/leadership. For “Communication Channels,” Year 2 tensions included differing views on the extent to which management should be collaborative versus “hierarchical.” These concerns about communication demonstrate that differences in language, culture or status impact the efficiency and working relationship of the team. “Authorship Credit/Intellectual Property” was raised most consistently each year as an area of concern.Originality/valueThe study involves the use of a unique survey approach.\",\"PeriodicalId\":32842,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Higher Education Evaluation and Development\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Higher Education Evaluation and Development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/heed-10-2021-0069\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Higher Education Evaluation and Development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/heed-10-2021-0069","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文考虑了研究团队的评估如何更好地解释跨学科的挑战,包括他们更大的团队规模和更多样化和渗透性的成员,以及个人发表和团队目标之间的制度压力之间的紧张关系。设计/方法/方法2015年至2020年聘请了一个评估小组,对epscor资助的一个跨学科研究团队承担的为期五年的项目进行全面的外部评估。评估的形成部分包括监控项目的发展进展,而总结部分跟踪可观察的项目产出和结果,作为短期和长期目标进展的证据。评估小组系统地回顾了内部评估,并通过定期参加团队会议、参与者访谈和在线形成性团队调查(从二年级开始),为外部评估收集了额外的数据。调查结果与其他方面相比,调查参与者对项目的“目标和愿景”有了更好的理解。“工作角色”,特别是决策的及时性,被认为是一个“大问题”,特别是关于关键经理/领导的频繁旅行。对于“沟通渠道”,第二年的紧张包括对管理应该是协作还是“等级”的程度的不同看法。这些对沟通的关注表明,语言、文化或地位的差异会影响团队的效率和工作关系。“作者信用/知识产权”每年都是最受关注的领域。独创性/价值这项研究使用了一种独特的调查方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluating team dynamics in interdisciplinary science teams
PurposeThis article considers how the evaluation of research teams can better account for the challenges of transdisciplinarity, including their larger team size and more diverse and permeable membership, as well as the tensions between institutional pressures on individuals to publish and team goals.Design/methodology/approachAn evaluation team was retained from 2015 to 2020 to conduct a comprehensive external evaluation of a five-year EPSCoR-funded program undertaken by a transdisciplinary research team. The formative portion of the evaluation involved monitoring the program’s developmental progress, while the summative portion tracked observable program outputs and outcomes as evidence of progress toward short- and long-term goals. The evaluation team systematically reviewed internal assessments and gathered additional data for an external assessment via periodic participation in team meetings, participant interviews and an online formative team survey (starting in Year 2).FindingsSurvey participants had a better understanding of the project’s “Goals and Vision” compared to other aspects. “Work Roles,” and particularly the timeliness of decision-making, were perceived to be a “Big Problem,” specifically in regard to heavy travel by key managers/leadership. For “Communication Channels,” Year 2 tensions included differing views on the extent to which management should be collaborative versus “hierarchical.” These concerns about communication demonstrate that differences in language, culture or status impact the efficiency and working relationship of the team. “Authorship Credit/Intellectual Property” was raised most consistently each year as an area of concern.Originality/valueThe study involves the use of a unique survey approach.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信