|
Session Title: The Science of Team Science: Advances in the Evaluation of Interdisciplinary Team Science From the National Institutes of Health (NIH) National Evaluation of the Interdisciplinary Research Consortia
|
|
Panel Session 924 to be held in Laguna A on Saturday, Nov 5, 12:35 PM to 2:05 PM
|
|
Sponsored by the Research on Evaluation
|
| Chair(s): |
| Jacob Tebes, Yale University School of Medicine, jacob.tebes@yale.edu
|
| Abstract:
Interdisciplinary team science addresses complex public health challenges that cannot be addressed by a single discipline. Its emergence has fostered a new type of evaluation research: the science of team science. This emerging field focuses on understanding the structures, processes, and outcomes of team-based research, its benefits and limitations relative to single-discipline inquiry, and its capacity for achieving accelerated scientific innovation. In recent years, the National Institutes of Health, through its Roadmap for Medical Research, funded nine programs in its Interdisciplinary Research Consortium (IRC) program to conduct interdisciplinary team science. Each IRC included both local and national evaluation components, thus offering a unique opportunity for advancing the science of team science. This panel session describes methods and results of the national evaluation and selected local evaluations, presents essential tools and resources for use by evaluators, and discusses current trends and future directions in the science of team science.
|
|
Advancing the Science of Team Science Through the NIH National Evaluation of Interdisciplinary Research Consortia
|
| Sue Hamann, National Institutes of Health, sue.hamann@nih.gov
|
|
The NIH Roadmap for Medical Research funded the Interdisciplinary Research Consortia (IRC) Program in order to transform biomedical research. IRCs sought to utilize interdisciplinary team science to study multiple health and disease conditions that could not be addressed by a single discipline. The IRC Program within NIH enlisted multiple institutes to fund research and developed a unique funding mechanism that linked individual R01 projects across institutes to one another for each of the nine consortia that were funded. The NIH also commissioned a national evaluation of the IRC program to identify its effectiveness and to make recommendations for policy regarding continued funding of interdisciplinary team science. This presentation, conducted by the director of the NIH national evaluation, provides an overview of the national evaluation, summarizes its major findings, and discusses its implications for subsequent evaluations in the science of team science.
|
|
|
Implications of the National Evaluation of Interdisciplinary Research Consortia for Infrastructure Development and Training in Interdisciplinary Team Science
|
| Alina Martinez, Abt Associates Inc, alina_martinez@abtassoc.com
|
|
Because interdisciplinary team science is a relatively new area of inquiry, structures to enhance its sustainability remain embryonic. One emphasis in the national evaluation of Interdisciplinary Research Consortia was identifying the essential infrastructure for interdisciplinary team science, including interdisciplinary training. NIH contracted with Abt Associates to conduct the national evaluation and to focus significant evaluation resources to examine infrastructure development and training. This presentation, conducted by the lead evaluator of the national evaluation, summarizes a mixed methods evaluation design to examine various types of essential infrastructure to support interdisciplinary team science, describes the key process and outcome results of the evaluation, and discusses the implications of the findings for future evaluations of the science of team science as well as for the development of interdisciplinary team science.
| |
|
An Illustration of Social Network Analysis in the Evaluation of Interdisciplinary Team Science
|
| Irina Agoulnik, Brigham and Women's Hospital, irina@syscode.med.harvard.edu
|
|
Social network analysis assesses the extent and strength of interactions among individuals or groups within a system. This type of analysis has become an important tool in understanding the work among scientists engaged in interdisciplinary team science. This presentation, conducted by one of the nine Consortia funded by the NIH Interdisciplinary Research Consortia Program, summarizes its own independent, local evaluation that emphasized the use of social network analysis. As part of the local evaluation, social network analysis was used to identify areas for strengthening consortium interactions and promote interdisciplinary collaboration. This presentation, conducted by the lead evaluator of one of the IRC local evaluations and a member of the national evaluation work group, describes the results of the social network analysis, its use as a tool in evaluating interdisciplinary team science, and its utility more generally in the science of team science.
| |
|
Advancing the Science of Team Science Through Comprehensive Mixed Methods Approaches
|
| Jacob Tebes, Yale University School of Medicine, jacob.tebes@yale.edu
|
|
Evaluation in the science of team science is complex because it involves the assessment of processes, outcomes, and impacts of multiple teams that are usually working in various remote sites. In addition, since team members have different backgrounds, their views of the nature of the scientific challenges facing the team are often based on different assumptions and perspectives. For the evaluator interested in understanding this complex terrain, the use of mixed methods approaches is essential. Mixed methods allow for the systematic integration of qualitative perspectival data with quantitative productivity data to assess the quality and extent of innovation in team science. This presentation, by the lead evaluator of one of the local IRC evaluations and a member of the national evaluation work group, describes a comprehensive mixed methods evaluation of interdisciplinary team science, summarizes local evaluation findings, and illustrates key approaches for use in the science of team science.
| |