Promotion and tenure policies for team science at colleges/schools of medicine

Is team science valued in the academic promotions process? A mixed-methods case study

Introduction

Traditionally, research institutions have valued individual achievements such as principal investigator and lead authorship status as primary indicators in the academic promotions process. However, the scientific process increasingly requires collaboration by teams of researchers across multiple disciplines, sometimes including experts outside academia, often referred to as "team science." We sought to determine whether there is agreement about what constitutes team science at our academic institution and whether current promotion processes sufficiently incentivize faculty participation in team science.

Methods

We conducted 20 qualitative interviews with academic leaders (N = 24) at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) who supervise faculty promotions processes. Participants were asked to share their definitions of team science and the extent to which faculty receive credit for engaging in these activities during the promotions process. A subset of participants also completed a brief survey in which they ranked the importance of participation in team science relative to other factors that are traditionally valued in the promotions process. Interview data were examined by two analysts using structural coding. Descriptive analyses were conducted of survey responses.

Results

Though team science is valued at UCSF, definitions of team science and the approach to assigning credit for team science in academic promotions processes varied widely. Participants suggested opportunities to bolster support for team science.

Conclusions

Efforts to define and provide transparent faculty incentives for team science should be prioritized at institutions, like UCSF, seeking to advance faculty engagement in collaborative research.

Team science criteria and processes for promotion and tenure of Health Science University Faculty

Although team science has expanded with far-reaching benefits, universities generally have not established criteria to recognize its value in faculty promotion and tenure. This paper recommends how institutions might weigh a faculty member's engagement in team science in the promotion and tenure process. Seventeen team science promotion and tenure criteria are recommended based on four sources - an evaluation framework, effectiveness metrics, collaborative influences, and authorship criteria. Suggestions are made for adaptation of the 17 criteria to committee guidelines, faculty team science portfolios, and the roles of individuals and institutions participating in large, cross-disciplinary research projects. Future research recommendations are advanced.

Challenges and solutions for the promotion of medical sciences faculty members in Iran: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

The faculty promotion system is expected to benefit the faculty, institute, and profession and lead to the sustainable and comprehensive development. This present systematic review aims to investigate the challenges and solutions for the promotion of medical sciences faculty members in Iran.

METHOD

This study was a systematic review conducted by searching in PubMed, Scopus, Eric, Web of Science, Cochrane, SID, Magiran, and https://irandoc.ac.ir/line with Persian and English terms in the period from 2015 to 2020. Study selection and data extraction were performed independently by reviewers.

RESULTS

Thirteen articles were included. Challenges and solutions for the promotion of medical sciences faculty members were reviewed and grouped into five main categories: 1. The general regulations for the promotion of faculty members, 2. Cultural, disciplinary, and social activities, 3. Educational activities, 4. Research-technology activities, and 5. Scientific-executive activities.

CONCLUSION

Despite several modifications to regulations for the promotion of medical sciences faculty members in Iran, this process still encounters challenges because of its complex nature. This article provides tips to policymakers on regulations of promotion for educational activities.

Coordinating Centers as a Strategy for Accelerating Cancer Epidemiology Consortia: Best Practices

Purposeof Review

This review highlights six "best practices" for cancer epidemiology coordinating centers to facilitate the success of a research consortium.

Recent Findings

Evidence from emerging literature regarding the Science of Team Science suggests that coordinating centers can more effectively foster collaborative cancer epidemiology research in consortia by (1) establishing collaboration as a shared goal at the start, (2) providing scientific expertise complementary to the research sites that adapts over the course of the project, (3) enacting anti-racist and inclusive approaches in all consortium decisions and activities, (4) fostering early-stage investigator career development, (5) engaging stakeholders including cancer survivors as peers, and (6) delivering reliable logistical support and technology tools with planned process evaluation so that researchers can collaboratively focus on the science.

Summary

By drawing on the Science of Team Science, coordinating centers can accelerate research progress and increase the impact of cancer epidemiology consortia.

Team effectiveness model for science (TEMS): Using a mutual learning shared mindset to design, develop, and sustain science teams

In this paper, we introduce the Team Effectiveness Model for Science (TEMS) and describe a multiphase set of interventions for forming a new team or developing an existing team. TEMS uses a shared mutual learning mindset as the model’s central and guiding element. It shows how team mindset leads to behavior and to results and how this affects the characteristics of effective team functioning. TEMS addresses two related questions: What are the variables that contribute to effective teams? and How do the variables need to be designed to make their relevant contributions? Team models often answer the first question without fully answering the second. By addressing three gaps, TEMS contributes to enhancing science team effectiveness. Gap 1 is the absence of explicit core values, assumptions, and norms that serve as the foundation for developing and maintaining science team effectiveness. Gap 2 is the absence of a process for integrating the science and relationship aspects of a science team. Gap 3 is the absence of team processes and structures that are derived from the team’s values, assumptions, and norms. Using TEMS to design new or intervene with existing teams focuses on shifting mindset, developing behavioral skills, and designing processes and structures congruent with the new mindset.

What does team science look like across the CTSA consortium? A qualitative analysis of the Great CTSA Team Science Contest submissions

INTRODUCTION

The Great CTSA Team Science Contest (GTSC) was developed to discover how Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs promote and support team science [1]. The purpose of this study was a secondary qualitative analysis of the GTSC submissions to better understand the diversity of team science initiatives across the CTSA consortium.

METHODS

Secondary qualitative analysis of the GTSC data addressed the following research questions, which defined the top-level coding: (1) What CTSA component sponsored it? (2) Who was the team doing the work? (3) Who were the intended beneficiaries? (4) What was the intended outcome? (5) What strategies did they use? (6) What translational science (TS) stage was addressed? (7) How do they align with the NCATS team science strategic goals? (8) How do the CTSA's team science efforts align with the National Academies Research Council (NRC) recommendations for enhancing the effectiveness of team science?

RESULTS

The GTSC received 170 submissions from 45 unique CTSA hubs. Qualitative analysis revealed a great variety of team science strategies for virtually all team science stakeholders. In addition to strategies to promote team science, results show successful examples that focus on outcomes and illustrate ways of measuring success.

CONCLUSIONS

The GTSC shows that the CTSA consortium is involved in an extremely diverse array of team science activities, which align well with both the NRC recommendations for enhancing the effectiveness of team science and the NCATS strategic goals for team science. Future research should evaluate the efficacy of team science strategies.