Abstract

Current trends validate the notion that multifaceted, multimodal interdisciplinary collaborations lead to increased research productivity in publications and citations, compared to those achieved by individual researchers. Moreover, it may be that scientific breakthroughs are increasingly achieved by interdisciplinary research teams. Nonetheless, despite the perceived importance of collaboration and its bibliometric benefits, today’s scientists are still trained to be autonomous, work individually, and encourage their graduate students to do the same—perpetuating values which impede the creation of collaborative space between disciplines. As a consequence, scientists working in teams typically report serious obstacles to collaboration. This paper builds off of recent recommendations from a 2015 National Academies report on the state of team science which emphasizes greater definition of roles, responsibility, accountability, goals, and milestones. However, these recommendations do not address the subjective, relational components of collaboration which can drive innovation and creativity. The relational side of collaboration is key to understanding the capacity and capabilities of the knowledge workers, such as scientists and engineers, who comprise interdisciplinary research teams. The authors’ recommendations, grounded in organizational communication and knowledge worker literature, include a renewed focus on the process of organizing through communication rather than focusing on organization as an outcome or consequence of teamwork, leading and cultivating team members rather than managing them, and the need to address self-driven, rather than external, motivations to engage in knowledge work.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1-12
Number of pages12
JournalEnvironment Systems and Decisions
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Oct 5 2016

Fingerprint

innovation
communication
accountability
student
productivity
recommendation
science
interdisciplinary research
responsibility
trend

Keywords

  • Collaboration
  • Communicative construction of organizations
  • Emotional leadership
  • Interdisciplinary science
  • Knowledge work
  • Team science

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Environmental Science(all)

Cite this

Innovation in the Knowledge Age : implications for collaborative science. / Hinrichs, Margaret M.; Seager, Thomas; Tracy, Sarah; Hannah, Mark.

In: Environment Systems and Decisions, 05.10.2016, p. 1-12.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{aca2b784c5ae46c78dbf861817e685a0,
title = "Innovation in the Knowledge Age: implications for collaborative science",
abstract = "Current trends validate the notion that multifaceted, multimodal interdisciplinary collaborations lead to increased research productivity in publications and citations, compared to those achieved by individual researchers. Moreover, it may be that scientific breakthroughs are increasingly achieved by interdisciplinary research teams. Nonetheless, despite the perceived importance of collaboration and its bibliometric benefits, today’s scientists are still trained to be autonomous, work individually, and encourage their graduate students to do the same—perpetuating values which impede the creation of collaborative space between disciplines. As a consequence, scientists working in teams typically report serious obstacles to collaboration. This paper builds off of recent recommendations from a 2015 National Academies report on the state of team science which emphasizes greater definition of roles, responsibility, accountability, goals, and milestones. However, these recommendations do not address the subjective, relational components of collaboration which can drive innovation and creativity. The relational side of collaboration is key to understanding the capacity and capabilities of the knowledge workers, such as scientists and engineers, who comprise interdisciplinary research teams. The authors’ recommendations, grounded in organizational communication and knowledge worker literature, include a renewed focus on the process of organizing through communication rather than focusing on organization as an outcome or consequence of teamwork, leading and cultivating team members rather than managing them, and the need to address self-driven, rather than external, motivations to engage in knowledge work.",
keywords = "Collaboration, Communicative construction of organizations, Emotional leadership, Interdisciplinary science, Knowledge work, Team science",
author = "Hinrichs, {Margaret M.} and Thomas Seager and Sarah Tracy and Mark Hannah",
year = "2016",
month = "10",
day = "5",
doi = "10.1007/s10669-016-9610-9",
language = "English (US)",
pages = "1--12",
journal = "Environment Systems and Decisions",
issn = "2194-5403",
publisher = "Springer Science + Business Media",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Innovation in the Knowledge Age

T2 - implications for collaborative science

AU - Hinrichs, Margaret M.

AU - Seager, Thomas

AU - Tracy, Sarah

AU - Hannah, Mark

PY - 2016/10/5

Y1 - 2016/10/5

N2 - Current trends validate the notion that multifaceted, multimodal interdisciplinary collaborations lead to increased research productivity in publications and citations, compared to those achieved by individual researchers. Moreover, it may be that scientific breakthroughs are increasingly achieved by interdisciplinary research teams. Nonetheless, despite the perceived importance of collaboration and its bibliometric benefits, today’s scientists are still trained to be autonomous, work individually, and encourage their graduate students to do the same—perpetuating values which impede the creation of collaborative space between disciplines. As a consequence, scientists working in teams typically report serious obstacles to collaboration. This paper builds off of recent recommendations from a 2015 National Academies report on the state of team science which emphasizes greater definition of roles, responsibility, accountability, goals, and milestones. However, these recommendations do not address the subjective, relational components of collaboration which can drive innovation and creativity. The relational side of collaboration is key to understanding the capacity and capabilities of the knowledge workers, such as scientists and engineers, who comprise interdisciplinary research teams. The authors’ recommendations, grounded in organizational communication and knowledge worker literature, include a renewed focus on the process of organizing through communication rather than focusing on organization as an outcome or consequence of teamwork, leading and cultivating team members rather than managing them, and the need to address self-driven, rather than external, motivations to engage in knowledge work.

AB - Current trends validate the notion that multifaceted, multimodal interdisciplinary collaborations lead to increased research productivity in publications and citations, compared to those achieved by individual researchers. Moreover, it may be that scientific breakthroughs are increasingly achieved by interdisciplinary research teams. Nonetheless, despite the perceived importance of collaboration and its bibliometric benefits, today’s scientists are still trained to be autonomous, work individually, and encourage their graduate students to do the same—perpetuating values which impede the creation of collaborative space between disciplines. As a consequence, scientists working in teams typically report serious obstacles to collaboration. This paper builds off of recent recommendations from a 2015 National Academies report on the state of team science which emphasizes greater definition of roles, responsibility, accountability, goals, and milestones. However, these recommendations do not address the subjective, relational components of collaboration which can drive innovation and creativity. The relational side of collaboration is key to understanding the capacity and capabilities of the knowledge workers, such as scientists and engineers, who comprise interdisciplinary research teams. The authors’ recommendations, grounded in organizational communication and knowledge worker literature, include a renewed focus on the process of organizing through communication rather than focusing on organization as an outcome or consequence of teamwork, leading and cultivating team members rather than managing them, and the need to address self-driven, rather than external, motivations to engage in knowledge work.

KW - Collaboration

KW - Communicative construction of organizations

KW - Emotional leadership

KW - Interdisciplinary science

KW - Knowledge work

KW - Team science

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84990847679&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84990847679&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s10669-016-9610-9

DO - 10.1007/s10669-016-9610-9

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84990847679

SP - 1

EP - 12

JO - Environment Systems and Decisions

JF - Environment Systems and Decisions

SN - 2194-5403

ER -