Facilitators: Christine Velez, Grace González, The Evaluation Center, and Bridge Center
Say: "Raise your hand if you've ever been part of a collaboration that felt effortless and productive." [Pause for hands] "Keep your hand up if you've been part of one that was frustrating or unproductive." [Usually more hands go up]
Transition: "Today we're going to unpack why some collaborations soar while others struggle, using evidence from the science of team science itself."
Data to Share:
- 2007 study of 19.9 million papers showed teams produce higher-impact research
- Nobel Prize data: 42% of physics prizes since 2000 went to collaborations
- NIH success rates higher for multi-PI grants in many programs
Discussion Prompt: "What drives this trend toward collaboration in your field?"
Listen for: Complexity of problems, resource needs, interdisciplinary requirements, technology demands
Bridge: "But collaboration isn't automatically better - it has to be done well."
Common Failure Modes (present as bullets on slide):
- Coordination loss: Too much time spent organizing, not enough creating
- Social loafing: Some members contribute less in group settings
- Groupthink: Pressure for consensus stifles critical thinking
- Unresolved process conflict: Disagreements about how to work together
- Goal misalignment: Different objectives or success metrics
Facilitator Note: Don't dwell on failures - this sets up the solution-focused content ahead.
The IMPACT Framework:
- Interdependence: Members need each other to succeed
- Motivation: Shared purpose and individual engagement
- Processes: Clear workflows and communication protocols
- Abilities: Complementary skills and expertise
- Culture: Trust, psychological safety, inclusion norms
- Tools: Infrastructure for collaboration and data sharing
Facilitator Tip: This framework threads through the entire training - refer back to it throughout.
Instructions to Give: "Think of a research collaboration you've been part of - current or recent. Rate it on these six dimensions using a 1-5 scale, where 1 is 'major weakness' and 5 is 'major strength.' Be honest - this is for your learning."
Dimensions to Rate:
- Clear shared goals: Everyone understood what we were trying to achieve
- Complementary expertise: Team had the right mix of skills and knowledge
- Effective communication: Information flowed well, meetings were productive
- Equitable participation: All voices were heard, contributions were valued
- Conflict resolution: We handled disagreements constructively
- Resource sharing: Data, materials, and tools were accessible to team members
Facilitator Actions:
- Walk around, but don't look over shoulders
- Give 1-minute and 30-second warnings
- Model reflection by jotting your own notes
Instructions: "Form groups of 4-5. Each person shares:
- One area where your team was strongest (highest score)
- One area that was most challenging (lowest score)
- Don't name the team or people - focus on the dynamics"
Your Role:
- Visit each group briefly, listen for patterns
- Note common strengths and challenges on your notepad
- Prepare to synthesize themes in debrief
Listen for These Patterns:
- Strengths: Often include shared excitement about the problem, clear expertise divisions, strong PI leadership
- Challenges: Frequently communication breakdowns, unclear roles, data sharing difficulties, conflict avoidance
Process:
- "What themes did you hear in your groups about team strengths?"
- "What about common challenges?"
- Capture responses on flipchart/screen
- "Great - we're going to address many of these challenges directly in our time together"
Transition: "Let's start with one of the most commonly cited issues: communication."