Blog Viewer

Volume LVI, Number 1

Expanding Roles for Research Administration and Research Development Professionals: A Team Science Coaching Program

Melanie Bauer
Division of Research and Economic Development, Nova Southeastern University

Philip M. Reeves
School of Education, Johns Hopkins University

Joshua Roney
Office of Research, University of Central Florida

Stephen M. Fiore
Department of Philosophy, University of Central Florida

Abstract

Interdisciplinary research teams are crucial for tackling complex societal issues but often struggle with goal alignment, leadership, and communication. This reflective inquiry article explores expanding the role of Research Administration (RA) and Research Development (RD) professionals as team coaches to address these challenges and improve team effectiveness. A team science program was created to train RA and RD staff in team coaching, using both in-person and virtual activities. Coaches helped teams from formation through the development of research products. The use of team science-informed tools and activities supported these coaching roles. Findings indicate that incorporating RA and RD professionals as coaches is beneficial to faculty, providing logistical support and non-technical perspectives. RA and RD professionals saw this coaching role as a natural extension of their work, although interpretations of the role varied among coaches. This project underscores the potential for RA and RD staff to enhance their support for research teams, particularly those teams that may encounter obstacles integrating diverse perspectives and collaborating virtually over long periods.

Keywords: research administration, research development, team science, team coaching, interdisciplinary research, training program

Introduction & Problem Statement

Real-world problems that impact multiple aspects of society, such as climate change and public health, must be addressed with expertise and perspectives from multiple disciplines (National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine, 2005; Stokols et al., 2008). Diverse individuals need to work together closely and integrate ideas in an interdisciplinary manner to solve these problems (Fiore, 2008). Research along these lines has been called interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary and, more recently, “convergence science.” The goal is to have a convergence of multiple fields and interdisciplinary work that will “make fundamental contributions in our drive to provide creative solutions to the most difficult problems facing us as a society” (National Research Council, 2014, p. vii).

Research teams are forming around these problems, in no small part motivated by the increased funding of research requiring collaboration across multiple disciplines and aimed at solving complex scientific and societal problems. Funding is coming from the National Science Foundation such as their Science and Technology Centers and Growing Convergence Research programs, and from the National Institutes of Health such as the Clinical and Translational Science Awards. However, a longer history exists, starting with the National Cancer Institute’s Transdisciplinary Tobacco Use Research Centers (TTURC) program (National Cancer Institute, n.d.), which ran from 1999 to 2009. The TTURC initiative was specifically designed to fund research that integrated fields of science to understand tobacco use as a significant health problem.

Despite the value of conducting interdisciplinary research, diverse research teams can encounter issues related to aligning goals, sharing leadership, and communicating effectively. This can impede progress, lead to dissatisfaction, and negatively impact team science effectiveness (National Research Council, 2015). Having an individual on the research team who focuses their attention on interpersonal dynamics can help mitigate some of these challenges (e.g., Jiang et al., 2023). Traditionally, the principal investigator (PI) has assumed this responsibility, managing both the research and teamwork processes. However, the administrative burden associated with developing and leading research projects, especially complex collaborative ones, limits the time that PIs can devote to team building—establishing effective communication channels, mediating interpersonal disputes, motivating team members, and uniting diverse perspectives (Bammer et al., 2020).

Research Administration (RA) and Research Development (RD) staff could serve as coaches and play a larger role in supporting positive interdisciplinary teaming, filling these noted gaps in team support. RA and RD staff may already be ideally placed to serve as coaches because they already collaborate with faculty at higher education institutions related to grant seeking and other research-related activities. These staff members are already seen by PIs as providing valuable support for their grant seeking and other research-related endeavors (Goff-Albritton et al., 2022) and have seen recent increased expansion in scope and areas of specialization, including in the areas of networking and team management (Eck & Roney, 2023; Zink et al., 2022). RD professionals as described by Levin (2011) and RA professionals as described by Zink et al. (2022) already support the pursuit of large and complex projects, which are typically conducted by faculty teams. Therefore, the opportunity exists to modify and enhance the ways RA/RD staff provide this type of support. It is relevant and timely to provide solutions that help support interdisciplinary research teams in proactive and practical ways by examining existing resources and services (i.e., provided RA/RD staff), as well as determining what competencies could be internally developed.

“Team science” refers to collaborative, often cross-disciplinary endeavors engaged in by researchers (Hall et al., 2018). These researchers may be situated solely at institutions of higher education or may collaborate with non-academic partners including government, industry, and community organizations. Science teams often engage in differing forms of cross-disciplinary research–from multidisciplinary to interdisciplinary to transdisciplinary–in order to examine problems and develop new knowledge not feasible by a single discipline (Fiore, 2008). Those scholars who study what makes science teams effective, how to best manage such collaborative engagements, and what interventions can improve scientific teamwork, are associated with the “science of team science” field. This area of scholarship draws from multiple disciplines that examine the study of groups and organizations, including scholars from the social and organizational sciences (Hall et al., 2018; Stokols et al., 2008). As team-based efforts are becoming the norm (Wuchty et al., 2007), how to best support those teams working to solve complex scientific and societal challenges will likewise grow in importance (National Research Council, 2015) .

To provide enhanced support to faculty research teams, and explore how RA and RD professionals can play a larger role in team development and project ideation, we developed a team science program that drew from the Science of Team Science (SciTS) and studies of team science effectiveness (e.g., Hall et al., 2018). This area of research was started in the 2000s by the National Cancer Institute in order to study the effectiveness of collaborative research and scientific teamwork (Stokols et al., 2008). Since then, researchers have examined a number of approaches for improving teamwork in science—from team charters (e.g., Brower et al., 2021) to communication training (Hubbs et al., 2020) to mentoring programs (Guise et al., 2017). For the current program, we focused on one area of team science, that of coaching. Following Hackman and Wageman (2005), we generally define team coaching as a role providing activities to support coordination of individual and joint effort to help meet objectives and complete the team’s task.  More specifically, this role supports team members’ collaborative activities, which include focusing on interpersonal skills (e.g., communicating clearly and openly), team contributions (e.g., ensuring all members are heard and participating), and coordination (e.g., scheduling), all in service of meeting team goals and objectives.

In the current program, coaches filled various needs of interdisciplinary research teams—facilitating activities, providing feedback, encouraging members, asking questions, among others. In general terms, coaches were responsible for attending to both the teamwork and taskwork of their teams (this distinction is covered in more detail below; see Figure 1). Coaches were embedded within each of the program’s faculty research teams, with an RA or RD professional serving the coach role. This coaching support began when teams were first forming and continued through the creation and writing of a collaborative project idea.

Figure 1. The “Teamwork” and “Taskwork" of Team Science

Reflections on the Coach Role in an Interdisciplinary Team Science Program

This reflective inquiry article describes a team science program funded through a collaborative award from the National Science Foundation to a multidisciplinary blend of experts in Research Administration (RA), Research Development (RD), and team science located at universities across the state of Florida¹. The award supported the creation and implementation of the program to help interdisciplinary, inter-institutional faculty research teams form and ideate around societal challenges. The unifying theme for the program was “Florida coastal challenges.” The following guiding questions drove the creation of the program and the summary of findings:

1. What roles can non-technical coaches perform for interdisciplinary research teams?
2. What are RA and RD professionals’ perspectives on the roles and value of coaches embedded in interdisciplinary research teams?
3. What are faculty perspectives on the roles and value of coaches embedded in interdisciplinary research teams?

The subsequent sections summarize the program components and participants as well as describe the coach role from the faculty and RA/RD professionals’ perspectives. The paper closes with conclusions and recommendations for how to adapt the program and its components to other institutional and research contexts.
 

Overview of the Program

The team science program included both professional development training and experiential components across two stages: a three-day, in-person “Research Summit” (August, before the Fall semester began) and an eight-month virtual “Idea Sprint” (September through April). The program was designed to increase faculty knowledge, skills, and attitudes related to team science through training (at the Summit), supportive coaching (Summit and Sprint), and knowledge integration activities (Summit and Sprint). Through the program activities, faculty researchers shared their expertise, interests, and ideas as well as stabilized into teams focused on an interdisciplinary research question and project idea that addressed a societal challenge, and ultimately produced a collaborative research product (white paper). The RA/RD team coaches participated in the same team science training (Summit) as the faculty to enhance their knowledge, skills, and attitudes in relation to interdisciplinary collaborations. Additionally, a member of the grant group who is an expert in team science met monthly with the coaches to continue their professional development and guide them throughout the Sprint as they were navigating their enhanced team support role.

The Summit was designed to provide opportunities for faculty to learn from and collaborate with diverse stakeholders on the topic of Florida coastal issues (see Table 1 for an overview of the Summit schedule). Team science experts were invited to the Summit to present on how best to engage in interdisciplinary teaming. An important element was helping participants understand the difference between teamwork (focusing on interpersonal communication and conflict management) and taskwork (focusing on research-related responsibilities and goals)—including how teamwork is an intentional process, how teamwork affects taskwork, how these activities are often simultaneously engaged in, and the importance of attending to both for team success. Team coaches began their role during the Summit and facilitated the implementation of team activities. Faculty participated in these facilitated team activities, presented on their research interests, and pitched a project idea (as a team) related to a pressing coastal problem in the state.

Table 1. Overview of Key Research Summit Presentation Topics and Team Activities

As can be seen in the above table, the Summit’s morning informational sessions were paired with afternoon activities where faculty coalesced into small teams (three to five members each) around shared interests and proceeded to work in those teams to develop a collaborative research project idea around a central interdisciplinary research question (see Table 2 for team makeup by discipline). The teams were formed the afternoon of Summit Day 1, after the “topic generation” activity, and teams pitched their collaborative project ideas on the final day of the Summit.

Table 2. Disciplinary Make-up of the Faculty Research Teams

The Sprint portion of the program began a few weeks after the Summit ended. During the Sprint, teams met approximately every other week for an hour along with their assigned team coach. Virtual engagement at this stage was necessary because the teams were geographically dispersed, with all members coming from different institutions. Teams refined the research questions that were originally developed during the Summit, created accompanying conceptual frameworks, and drafted white papers to integrate and elaborate on their interdisciplinary project plan.

Team engagement included both structured and unstructured interactions. Structured interactions were team science-based activities and followed a set schedule for all teams, each activity facilitated by the team coach. For these structured activities, and with other coaching-related activities (e.g., identifying relevant funding, reviewing white papers), coaches dedicated time outside of the team meeting (approximately 1-2 hours for a given activity). Structured activities often included the use of an existing collaboration tool or resource that was adapted for use in the current program. The versions of the tools that were used in this program are described in Table 3. The table also includes hyperlinks for more detailed information about each tool. Additional suggestions for adapting and implementing these tools are included in the final section of this paper.

As an overview of the implementation process, the Problem Tree activity was used during the Summit once teams were formed to help define their research topic. The Inventory and Ideation activity, which also occurred during the Summit, helped teams narrow their research topic based on the knowledge, skills, and resources of team members. The Shared Team Roles activity occurred at the team’s first Sprint meeting to recognize and encourage the diverse contributions of members to the team’s functioning. The Collaboration Agreement activity occurred early in the Sprint period, over several meetings, to help define team norms and create a strong foundation for communication and cooperation. The Thumbs Up or Down activity was a technique introduced during the Sprint, and subsequently used throughout this virtual engagement period at the coach’s discretion, to facilitate decision making and work towards consensus. 

Table 3. Team Science Tools and Resources Used in the Current Program

Unstructured team interactions occurred during the biweekly team meetings in the Sprint period when no formal team development activities were scheduled. Unstructured time represented the majority of the eight-month Sprint period and allowed teams to individually engage in their scientific taskwork (e.g., work on white paper) and coordinate their collaborative efforts (e.g., articulate goals).

Program Participants

The team coaches included Research Administration (RA) and Research Development (RD) staff from four universities. See Table 4 for additional information about the involved staff along with information about their institutions (institutional characteristics are drawn from the Carnegie Foundation’s Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, Basic classification, 2021 and the U.S. Department of Education, Eligibility designations and applications for waiver of eligibility requirements, 2024). The faculty participants included 16 researchers from 12 institutions across the state of Florida, who were recruited through an open call for participants circulated via email. They had disciplinary interests spanning marine sciences (n = 5), biology (n = 3), engineering (n = 3), environmental studies (n = 2), disaster studies (n = 1), education (n = 1), and urban and regional planning (n = 1). See Table 4 for more information about the faculty participant ranks and institutions.

Table 4. Participant and Affiliated Institution Information

Note: R1, R2, M1, M2, and Baccalaureate College are Carnegie classifications. PUI=Primarily Undergraduate Institution, HSI=Hispanic-Serving Institution, HBCU=Historically Black Colleges and Universities.

Program Observations

Information about the experiences and reflections of the faculty and coach participants was collected throughout the program. This information included both quantitative and qualitative information to capture participant perceptions of themselves as well as their teams and other aspects of the program before, during, and after the program period. The following sections present a brief description of how this information was collected and analyzed as well as how participants viewed the program activities, role of the team coach, and their own development over time.

Data Collection Method and Analytical Approach

Reflections and outcomes for both coaches and faculty were collected via longer surveys administered at the beginning and end of the program as well as brief monthly surveys. These surveys tracked opinions on team-based research, learnings and confidence related to team science, reflections on team activities, perceptions of team progress, takeaways from the program, and other feedback related to program content and format. Coaches also engaged in reflection through journaling (weekly and monthly) and structured interviews (beginning of the program and post-program). Two authors analyzed the collected information for themes, including direct quotations to support and illustrate the identified themes. The remainder of the research team reviewed the summary findings and agreed upon the reported observations. The themes were considered in conjunction with descriptive statistics to gain a holistic understanding of how both coaches and faculty experienced the program. These were used by the team science expert to help guide coaches in their development, for example, in discussing challenges identified in their reflections or team process issues revealed through faculty feedback.

Given the small number of individuals in the program, this reflective inquiry piece is provided to outline initial observations and evidence about a potential new role for RA/RD professionals. Further, the limited sample prevents statistical analyses that could provide more general inferences. Thus, more controlled studies would be needed to provide data to more clearly evaluate the effectiveness of the program or to generalize results to other contexts. As such, the following sections present quotations and some basic descriptive statistics to describe the experience of having a non-technical support person provide coaching during the development of interdisciplinary research questions, project ideas, and white paper products. In this way, we provide a foundation for follow-on research that could more rigorously test varieties of team coaching initiatives for RA/RD professionals.

The Role of Coaches 

Within the structured elements of the program, each coach facilitated the same activities to enable the continued interpersonal (teamwork) and research-related (taskwork) development of their team. However, the role was not standardized. Throughout the program each coach had a somewhat unique approach to their role that was influenced by their experience working in research administration or research development, their personal view of the role, and the perceived needs and expectations of their research team. Given this, we can offer a general definition of team roles as activities that support team collaboration such as facilitator, mediator, motivator, and organizer. 

As a more detailed example of how the coaches viewed their roles, one coach expressed a preference for not being viewed as part of the research team. From this perspective, the role of the coach did not involve contributing to the completion of project tasks. Instead, this coach organized the “behind the scenes” meeting logistics while not intervening in the majority of team meetings and activities. The other coaches viewed their role more expansively. Two coaches functioned as team builders while also making key contributions to the taskwork of the team, anticipating their needs and what to do next. The final coach interpreted the role as a support function whose work—whether administrative, team development, or research-focused—should be defined by the rest of the team. In this latter view, the role of the coach reactively changed to meet the needs of the team throughout the course of the program.

Despite taking different approaches, there were commonalities in how coaches interacted with their teams. For example, all coaches provided administrative support in the form of scheduling, document management, and notetaking as indicated in the following quotes. 

“First and foremost [I was the] logistics manager. I was responsible for setting the meeting, sending out the calendar invites, and after each meeting sending the notes document, the recording, and within the email the next steps that each person or the group is going to take before the next meeting. Otherwise, during the meeting, I took notes.” 

“I was there to support them, but they are so self-sufficient, like they just took off and all worked together so well that I didn't really have to do much except rein them in on time…And then of course I took notes for them.” 

Coaches also guided the teams through the research process to ensure that all members were engaged, had a mutual understanding of the key points of the discussion, and agreed on the timeline. Coaches provided this monitoring function by paying attention to individual members of the team, gauging their feelings through nonverbal and verbal cues, and ensuring everyone had space to contribute.

“Moving people through the steps and being the recorder, the note taker, as well as at moments taking a step back and saying, ‘Ok, what did we just discuss? Let me write it down. Can we move on now?’” 

“I really enjoyed asking faculty and posing questions that could help them consider other perspectives. ‘Have you considered this? What did you think about this? Is this the next direction?’ I don't want to say leading a group because it was coaching it, but I like being on the leading edge of helping the discussion progress.” 

“I also served as a gauge. So if things were going off the rails for anybody, just observing body language and expressions and things that maybe something wasn't going well, that type of thing.” 

“I did try to keep an eye on making sure everyone had an opportunity to share a thought, especially around major decisions or next steps.” 

Coaches provided a unique, non-technical viewpoint on the research teams’ project ideas and provided feedback. The coaches provided a check on technical jargon, motivated the team, and were able to pay attention to interpersonal dynamics. Coaches perceived that faculty viewed this type of support as beneficial. 

“I had a couple rounds of giving them feedback on how they talked about each slide and what they might want to focus on, as well as suggesting to them, which they accepted, a less jargony and more broad audience title for their project.” 

“What does the coach do? At pivotal moments helps the team move forward. At points of indecision helps the team move forward. At times, I think I also helped with motivation, like ‘You guys are doing good. This is great. Here’s what you might consider next.’ You're an extra support in moments where there's gaps.”

“I wish we could have a coach in every large group. One of my team members said, ‘If we could have somebody like you in all of our big things, how much better everything could go. Someone who is not involved in the research but who is just being attentive to the team.’ And I completely agree.”

Coach Growth and Perspectives on Coaching

Based on the data collected at the start of the program, all the RA and RD professionals who served as team coaches in this program came with an interest in team science and willingness to learn. The coaches had varying degrees of prior experience supporting research teams, and generally lacked explicit knowledge and skills related to team science. Based on a pre-program survey, none of the coaches reported prior training in team science. However, on average, they felt confident in their ability to support researchers in team science activities (M = 4.00; scale of 1 “strongly disagree” to 5 “strongly agree”). This is despite acknowledging they did not fully understand the theoretical (M = 2.60), practical (M = 2.60), and technological (M = 2.80) considerations of team science, likely owing to their lack of formal training. 

When asked to reflect on what they already knew about team science, most coaches had no prior knowledge in this area but were interested in learning about foundational concepts such as shared leadership, diversity for innovation, virtual teaming, and facilitation. Coaches were initially concerned with how to ensure that all team members had a voice, methods for maintaining motivation within geographically dispersed teams, and whether faculty would be open to the program’s team formation and development activities. 

Participation in the program enhanced the coaches’ understanding of team science. At the end of the program, after the coaches were no longer meeting with their teams, a complementary post-survey was administered covering the same topics as the pre-survey and using the same response scale (1 “strongly disagree” to 5 “strongly agree”). The biggest gains were seen from pre- to post-program in the questions related to team science theory (Δ=2.15), practice (Δ=2.15), and technology (Δ=1.95). Coaches also felt more confident in their ability to train others in the practical (Δ=1.80) and technological (Δ=1.75) considerations of team science and somewhat less confident in training others in the theoretical considerations of team science (Δ=1.25). 

Related to the theoretical aspect of team science, coaches reflected on the importance of developing a safe and trusting environment where team members could take risks and ask vulnerable questions. Aligning expectations, setting norms, and developing trust allowed teams to move through challenges. Coaches benefited from a “team science guide” when navigating this new support role and the related literature.

“[The most impactful experience in the program was] exploring the field of team science for the first time under the guidance of an expert. I had no idea of its existence and robustness, and I think we've pulled out some very practical tools, even some that can be used on a daily basis outside of team science proper.” 

Coaches also described an increased appreciation for many of the practical considerations around forming interdisciplinary teams with members from multiple institutions. For example, more time and resources were needed to support a team with members from different institutions and disciplines than initially anticipated. Tasks such as integrating ideas across disciplines to form a conceptual framework were challenging for teams and required adequate time. The challenge was amplified when some members were absent from group meetings or had to prioritize other aspects of their university work over the team. Coaches helped to keep their team members in sync through a shared team folder in the Cloud (with meeting notes and team files) and email communications related to meetings, including to catch up members in their absence.

During the program, coaches were embedded within their teams (attending all team meetings) but were also “outsiders” in terms of not possessing disciplinary expertise. This outsider position came with some challenges, but generally, the coaches felt that the faculty respected their role on the team.

“Sometimes I struggle as a coach because I don’t understand the technical topics so I feel like I can’t help them make breakthroughs, when the conversation seems to not be going anywhere but I can see they need a breakthrough.” 

“They overall were so respectful of me…when you're a younger person coming into a team of scientists who are established in their field, and me being outside their field, you never know what's going to happen in that formula.” 

“They listened to me. I listened to them…about what their needs were and tried to pivot. I think in our roles anyway that's what we tend to do. We just take people as they are and help them from that point of view. I felt it started off very tenuous but ended up being a very strong relationship.”

Coaches enjoyed supporting these teams and found the role to be professionally rewarding. They recommended that other RA and RD professionals pursue more opportunities to coach interdisciplinary teams.

“Making connections and supporting other faculty will always be my deepest joy in this field. If I can support one faculty in pursuing their dream, I will also be a success.”    

“The most impactful experience has been to be in a room with magnificent, caring minds that want to find a solution to a problem they are passionate about.”

“As an RD professional, if I could do that as my job, I would love [coaching].”

“Don’t be scared. There are very good resources available to you. You don’t have to have all the answers. And you can make a difference by doing this.”

Faculty Growth and Perspectives on Coaching

About one-third of faculty in the program had previously participated in one or no interdisciplinary research projects, and about one-third additional faculty had previously participated in two to three. The remainder of the faculty had participated in an estimated five to 20 previous interdisciplinary projects in their career. At the start of the program, in response to questions capturing faculty members’ experience and confidence in generating interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research questions, over two-thirds of faculty were already fairly confident and experienced in these areas, indicating either “agree” or “strongly agree” in response to these items (experience M = 4.19, confidence M = 4.13). This can likely be attributed to the self-selection by participants into the program as a result of advertising with a focus on interdisciplinary collaboration to solve complex scientific problems.

Despite many faculty members’ pre-existing experience and confidence in the research question generation space, as noted above, most had yet to find more than a few opportunities to apply these skills in actual research projects. As such, this program afforded several faculty benefits. Faculty valued the opportunities to find new collaborators across the state, be creative and interdisciplinary, practice and get better at collaboration and team science, and secure research funding. They also gained an increased awareness of several aspects of team science, including how to engage across disciplines and the value of collaborating in this way. 

“I learned a new way to collaborate with group members where it really felt productive, equal, and challenging.” 

“I learned that my expertise will not always be the focus of the team and that learning a new discipline can improve how I approach big picture questions in science.” 

 “My default position for big scientific questions is no longer, ‘What are the reasons this won’t work?’ It is now, ‘How can I build the right team for this?"

Coaching helped these disciplinary experts form into well-functioning, interdisciplinary teams. Faculty appreciated having a non-technical member connected to their team, with 70% of faculty indicating that having a coach was beneficial “to a very great extent.” Faculty reported that the most important coaching activities were scheduling meetings and supporting and encouraging members (see Table 5). 

Table 5. Faculty Ranking Responses for the Usefulness of Various Coaching Activities

Note: “Mean Rank” refers to the average ranking position respondents placed each activity at. Nine options were provided. Lower mean rank values are interpreted as being more useful (i.e., closer to the #1 spot).

From the faculty perspective, coaching was especially important when teams experienced challenges. The presence of the coach helped faculty to navigate, facilitate discussion around, and progress through these challenges.

“If it were not for our coach, I am not sure we would still be a team, but the coach has really done a great job to keep open the lines of communication.”

“She [the coach] has also provided a lot of great tools to keep us organized, on point, and is trying to hold each one of us accountable (action items after meeting, for example).” 

“Working with group members that are cross-disciplinary was uncomfortable at first but became powerful throughout the process and is different than what I’ve done before.” 

“Collaboration takes time and patience to keep pushing through the setbacks that inevitably arise when tackling complex questions.” 

 “Life (competing priorities) will always get in the way, but having a goal, process, and project manager/coach can improve the likelihood of success.”

The faculty also reported that they considered the coaches to be important members of their team as well as a particularly valuable aspect of the program in supporting team progress.

“The most helpful aspect of the program so far is the efforts of our team coach.” 

“We wouldn't be making the progress we actually have been making without the prodding by our coach.” 

“Coaching was crucial to progress and team development.”

The role of coaches in the program was both structured and adaptable, with each coach tailoring their approach based on their professional background, personal philosophy, and the evolving needs of their team. While all coaches provided administrative support and facilitated teamwork, their level of involvement varied—some remained mostly behind the scenes, while others actively contributed to team discussions and progress. Despite these differences, faculty overwhelmingly found coaching to be beneficial, particularly in maintaining organization, overcoming challenges, and fostering collaboration. 

Building on these insights, the next section examines broader themes that surfaced throughout the program, connecting them to the literatures on team development and coaching. The analysis highlights how coaches embodied roles that blend facilitation, integration expertise, and advising, positioning RA and RD professionals as valuable team science coaches who can enhance interdisciplinary collaboration and grant success.

Evaluation of Emergent Concepts

In this section we evaluate our observations in the context of the broader literature on team science and the study of team coaching. First, regarding the study of teams, our findings show that coaches alternated between and sometimes integrated support for two key team processes: teamwork and taskwork. Fiore (2008) noted that science teams consist of those who have developed a tremendous amount of expertise in their “task” of science (e.g., understanding theory, methods, data analyses), which is developed through academic course work and experientially. However, he noted that scientists have little formal training or courses on teamwork (e.g., communication, shared leadership) and relatively few have learned this skill experientially. In the present context, coaches and faculty were taught about these distinctions and limitations in teamwork experience, first through the Summit’s team science presentations and then in practice through team science activities incorporated into the Sprint (e.g., collaboration agreement). As captured in coach reflections, we see that most of their time was spent in support of teamwork (e.g., ensuring contributions from all members), with some elements of taskwork brought forth (e.g., facilitating conceptual model building such as in the Problem Tree exercise). 

Second, in the literature on coaching, our findings fit with the ideas foundational to initial research on coaching in teams (Hackman & Wageman, 2005). In this research coaching that focuses on team effort, strategy, and knowledge of team members is productive. We find this in various instances in the current program. For example, the Inventory and Ideation activity (part of the Summit) in the early stages after teams had formed, focused explicitly on the knowledge and other resources team members bring to the team. Outside of planned activities like this one, coaches were flexible in the type of support they provided depending on the stage of the program (early or later) and what the team was working on (e.g., creating a white paper outline, revising a white paper draft). This aligns with what coaching theory as described by Hackman and Wageman (2005) considers as “time dependence” and “developmental coaching,” that is, focusing on the form of coaching that will be most effective depending on whether the team is more novice (i.e., newly formed) or mature. Applying these concepts to our case, coaching theory notes that motivational coaching is best done with newly formed teams. In our coaches’ reflections they often point to their role as motivator for the team and encouraging the team’s progress. Hackman and Wageman also note that coaching that focuses on more intensive team learning, such as how to self-regulate and detect and correct errors, tends to be better once the team matures. This fits with the general team learning literature on concepts like team reflexivity (e.g., Gabelica et al., 2014), where teams are provided feedback and encouraged to reflect on prior performance and plan for improvement. Our coaches noted that they benefited from their reflections and how the monthly sessions with the team science expert helped them understand team performance issues, throughout the many months of the Sprint period, to help improve teamwork.
 
Third, the study of science teams has led to the identification of new roles that align with, or are complementary to, team coaching. The roles and the terminology used to describe them vary, but there exists substantial conceptual overlap. In the study of teams, the more general role of “facilitator” was used to describe those who work with research teams in some capacity to support their collaboration. Widdowson et al. (2020) defined the facilitator role as one that provides advice and guidance to a team, whereas a “coach” does not provide such solutions but rather empowers the team to find their own solutions. In our case, the program’s coaches straddled these definitions, incorporating both moments of explicit advice as well as posing open-ended questions for faculty members to arrive at their own conclusions. In this way coaches in the program treated the coach role as operating on a continuum, as Hawkins (2017) describes, where different skills were needed to serve different purposes and time points in the team’s development. Clutterbuck (2007) prefers a starker line between coaching and facilitating, acknowledging that coaches may sometimes use facilitation, but that these two roles are aimed at fundamentally different purposes.

More recently, the role of facilitation has been adapted for science teams and operationalized as a formal role within a team. Here, the role is held by someone with expertise grounded in why and how disciplines integrate their knowledge bases for new knowledge creation, but who also holds “interactional expertise” (Cravens et al., 2022). This latter element of interactional expertise requires some level of understanding of how scientific communities associated with many different disciplines communicate and practice their science (Bammer et al., 2020; Collins, 2004). RA and RD professionals are frequently in close contact with researchers, and those agencies and organizations who fund them, and have become socialized to research in many fields. This provided the coaches in the current program with a foundation in the language of the scientific process as well as an awareness of obstacles that may arise during this process. Despite this prior experience, it can still be challenging for the coach “outsider.” Our coaches noted that they sometimes felt challenged by their lack of disciplinary expertise in the domains of research in their team. At other times, however, the non-technical viewpoint brought by the coach was considered an asset to the team, ensuring their written products were understandable to broader audiences. A more general definition describes science facilitation as including areas like organizing scientists and their meetings as well as providing support for project coordination (Jiang et al., 2023), without the need for deeper knowledge of or experience with the engaged disciplinary communities. Here we see clear overlap with our coaches in that managing responsibilities like team meetings was prevalent.
 
A related role, with greater specificity, is that of an “integration expert.” These are individuals who take on the role of helping scientists synthesize knowledge from different disciplines. Hoffmann et al. (2022) define integration experts as “academics who lead, administer, manage, monitor, assess, accompany, and/or advise others” on the process of interdisciplinary integration (p. 3). Coaches in the current program facilitated integration across disciplines using tools such as the Problem Tree and Inventory and Ideation exercises. These tools helped faculty participants’ various views on a central problem come together for a greater understanding and multifaceted approach to addressing it. Also fitting with our findings, in discussions of facilitators and integration experts, there is mention of coaching in some form or another. That is, although they define these other roles along some set of competencies, there is overlap in that facilitation, integration, and coaching all find their way into discussions of each. For example, Cravens et al. (2022) assert that facilitators can “serve as a coach to aid reflective learning” of others in a meeting (p. 11). Hoffmann et al. (2022) describe “advisor” as a competency for integration expertise that aligns with our results in that it involves “accompanying, supporting, or coaching others in leading integrative processes and reaching integrated outputs” (p. 3). Thus, even if these roles are taking on different named titles, they share some core competencies that were articulated by the current program’s coaches.

Shifting to where coaching itself shows up in the research of science teams, the only empirical study to this effect included examination of the amount and type of support given by research development offices at a large medical school (Stephens et al., 2024). The focus was on support for proposal writing, and they examined nearly a decade’s worth of grant applications. “Science team coaching” was defined as team facilitation, project management, and meeting guidance. Team facilitation involved processes like monitoring taskwork or providing feedback to keep the team on track. Project management for grant writing had to do with helping organize documents relevant to the proposal, with an emphasis on managing grant subsections as well as ancillary documents (e.g., support letters). Finally, meeting guidance focused on preparation (e.g., agenda setting) as well as traditional facilitation of meetings (e.g., monitoring discussions). Stephens et al. (2024) found that coaching was related to success in grant awards and mattered most for large awards. Importantly, this was a retrospective analysis of coaching support provided to the proposal team, and there was no formal training in coaching by the research offices reported. Thus, we complement the findings of Stephens et al. by providing one of the first interventions to include coach training for RA and RD professionals that is amenable to multiple stages of team development from early networking and team formation, through project ideation, and to the writing of grant proposals and other research-related documents.

Our findings also build on earlier work that included a retrospective analysis of research office support for team science proposals. Mulfinger et al. (2016) found that most team science proposals relied on decentralized support for grant writing, where help was provided at the department or college level rather than through the central research office. Further, they did not discuss whether there was any form of team science training and only considered where any grant support was offered. As such, we pave the way for creating a new set of competencies, type of service, and potentially a dedicated position within grant development offices by providing a model for how to train research office personnel on coaching teams, including those seeking team science grants. Additionally, our program aligns with others who have developed support initiatives for already existing science teams. For example, Demes et al. (2019) describe a program of professional development for interdisciplinary research clusters at their university. They tailored their program based upon the needs and maturity of the research clusters (e.g., from new teams needing help in writing collaborative grants to more mature teams already successful in partnering). Thus, our program is similar to what they would provide for newly forming teams, although they did not focus in detail on methods like coaching. Finally, our program and the coaches’ responses support recent findings on the professions and services offered by research administration and development professionals. In particular, a survey of research development professionals found that over 90% believed that there should be support provided to faculty for complex collaborative proposals, with over 80% stating that there should be some form of grant team project management like help with coordinating meetings (Ross et al., 2019). Further, research development professionals viewed these as likely being the most impactful support activities. Additionally, Zink et al. (2022) found that the research administration profession is expanding, with RA staff adding new roles including those considered research development.

Taken together, the existing literature highlights various roles that individuals can take, with varying skills and prior experiences, in relation to supporting collaboration and team science. The current program adds to these areas by defining a “team science coach” role and providing accompanying training and activity ideas that can be filled by RA and RD professionals. These professional groups are well positioned in relation to faculty and research teams, and they have great potential to be tapped for team support roles. A combination of advisor, facilitator, and coach—focusing on both teamwork and taskwork processes—will likely serve RA and RD staff for most team support positions. 

Reflections and Recommendations

Collaborative research, especially pursuits that cross disciplinary boundaries, presents challenges. Additional support can help with team interactions and performance. In the case of the current program, this support was provided by non-technical experts in the form of RA and RD staff brought in to work with newly formed faculty research teams. The support was directed at both the task- and team-related aspects of the research groups and was termed “coaching.” This twofold coaching support had as one component to help teams meet their objectives generating research questions, developing shared scientific frameworks, and writing research products (taskwork). More unique to this program, and as compared to other research support roles, coaches were also charged with fostering a positive collaborative environment to help members communicate better, navigate disagreements, and make decisions (teamwork). Interestingly, the top-ranked coaching activity by faculty was meeting scheduling (taskwork) with supporting and encouraging members (teamwork) coming second. While perhaps considered by most as a menial task, coordinating busy faculty schedules (especially for those at teaching-intensive institutions) is no small feat and acknowledged by faculty in their rankings (remember the administrative burden of teaming noted in the introduction). This coaching task was likely a required support function for faculty participation in this voluntary, exploratory program. Once faculty were in the same virtual place, the team building functions of the coach, along with other resources and support the coach could provide, were able to be utilized.

Overall, what was learned through examining the coach role in this team science program was that both the RA/RD coaches and faculty researchers recognized the value of the extra coaching support. This was even though both parties were new to the concept of coaching within research teams. The coaches were somewhat more accustomed to supporting the taskwork of faculty and research teams, as their daily jobs in RA and RD typically involve interacting with researchers, serving as project managers, collecting grant proposal documents, providing feedback on proposals, and (in some cases) supporting groups in the grant seeking process. The teamwork aspect of the program and taking on a more proactive role in directing the team’s next steps, was new to the participating RA and RD professionals but was seen as a natural extension of the support they provided and was found to be fulfilling.

The coach’s role on the team was facilitated using tools. These tools were activities or resources adapted from those published for use by research teams by other entities, such as the NIH Ombuds Office and those in the team science field (adapted from Bennett et al., 2022; NIH Ombuds Office , n.d.) in the case of the Collaboration Agreement, or inspired by the team science literature, as in the case of the Shared Team Roles activity (inspired by Mathieu et al., 2015). Faculty were participatory and receptive to these tools and related activities. They benefited from the non-technical viewpoint that their coach provided, helping them to write using language that was understandable to broader audiences, as well as having an accountability partner who was keeping them on track to meet their goals. The professional experiences of the RA and RD coaches in the grant seeking space provided them with an understanding of researcher culture and norms and also enabled them to provide additional key resources to teams such as templates, guides, and funding opportunities, which faculty appreciated. Having a coach present at team meetings also ensured all faculty, even quieter ones, had a voice in the direction and decisions of the team.

Ideas for Adaption and Adoption

There are some important points for those considering adopting this program or a subset of its components in support of faculty research teams. First, a full-blown program with dedicated coaches and an intensive schedule of team science training and activities is not necessary for every research team. The featured program’s schedule served the purpose in the current project to explore the coach role and develop helpful team tools. A second program iteration is already being implemented that tests a scaled back program model with reduced time and training commitments. The new program relies on the documentation and guidance developed for each tool via the discussed program in place of training seminars (see description of the developed “learning objects” below) and considers other areas the comprehensive program can be adapted for accessibility, scalability, and sustainability. This program will further explore what parts of a program like this are essential for success.

That being said, in the current program the coach’s commitment was largest at the program start, with the all-day Summit event occurring over three days. After the Summit, when the biweekly (every other week) Sprint meetings occurred, a coach’s time commitment was typically just for the one-hour team meeting. Occasionally, pre- and post-meeting activities such as providing feedback on a white paper or collecting resource materials for the team took the coach an hour or two outside of the team’s meeting. While this ongoing commitment was not large for the one team for which the coach was responsible, it could be challenging for a single staff member to scale this type of constant support and presence at team meetings for many teams.

For those considering a more limited intervention, one or more tools can be selected and used in isolation or together, depending on the nature of the team, length of engagement, and type of support being provided from within or outside the team. Additionally, a coach may be invited just for the implementation of a single activity for the team, and then not invited again to a team meeting until a future date (or not at all). For example, the Collaboration Agreement can be used to launch a new team, especially one that is planning to be engaged over the longer term. The length of engagement is important for the full use of this tool as it covers a wide array of topics related to sustained team interactions and can take several team meetings to complete. Alternatively, a subset of the questions contained in the agreement could be chosen for short-term teaming based on the needs and planned activities of the team. For example, for team members in the planning phases of a collaboration, such as at the start of writing a grant proposal, questions related to purpose, vision, and communication may be most pressing whereas authorship and credit may become more relevant once it is known whether the proposal is funded and the project gets underway.

A simple tool that can be used in any team setting, short or long term, and that especially benefits a virtual team environment is the Thumbs Up or Down technique. This quick process can be called for to assess agreement among team members in relation to a topic under discussion or when deciding on next steps. For example, to determine whether individuals are ready to move forward to another agenda item in a meeting, someone may ask, “Can I get a thumbs up or down about whether we are ready to move on to the next topic?” Members on the videoconference screen can show thumbs up, down, or even sideways. Any members whose thumbs are not up are invited to express their feelings or concerns about moving on to the next topic.

For those desiring to expand their coaching toolbox, the program’s above-linked tools (Table 3) are designed to be usable “off the shelf” by anyone interested in implementing them. Each tool has content that acquaints users with relevant team science subject matter, provides instructions for an interactive activity, and includes use cases and considerations for implementation. The authors have turned many additional resources from the program into modular team science activities in the form of “learning objects” that are free to use and published on the Florida Research Development Alliance’s (FL-RDA) website (Team Science Learning Objects, n.d.). (FL-RDA is a statewide network of professionals who engage in research development activities, including RD and RA staff, research leaders, and faculty holding leadership positions.) These learning objects can be used in place of formal team science training for individuals interested in being team coaches or others interested in incorporating team-focused activities into their own teams. This resource is like other ready-to-use collaboration toolkits available online that do not require specialized knowledge or experience to use.

The current findings and cited literature suggest that several coaching methods can be beneficial (i.e., there is no “one right way” to coach). Coaching is, by design, responsive to the nature and activities of the individuals it serves. Coaches in the current program served various roles (that varied between coaches and across time): administrator, monitor, motivator, and guide. Importantly, coaches need to find the balance between the tasks and teaming of the group and not let interpersonal issues go unattended. The data from the current study do not suggest that an external support person is required to serve this coaching role. A member of the research team, such as the PI or another member, could take on the responsibility of providing teamwork support, or these responsibilities could be shared. However, from experience, it is often the case that all the technical experts on the team (PI, Co-PIs, and other collaborating researchers) concentrate on the taskwork activities and the team-related aspects get overlooked. Having an external support person with defined roles—such as being the meeting scheduler, note taker, and teamwork champion (all of these roles being the most favored aspects of how coaches supported teams in the current program) ensures someone is dedicated to and responsible for ensuring a cooperative environment.

We purport that RA and RD staff are well-situated to provide this coaching support, as they are frequently tasked with supporting groups of researchers (in the typical case, when these groups are pursuing grant funding). Not only are they already working with faculty teams, but they may already be seen as go-to people to organize meetings, monitor project tasks, and provide advice. We suggest these staff members could offer additional services, likely working in collaboration with the PI(s) of teams, especially for groups that are new and still learning about each other, to help in defining member roles and norms for interacting. In this vulnerable time, when members are often overwhelmed with the tasks of creating a cohesive project idea and collaboratively crafting grant documents, having someone dedicated to maintaining positive working relationships within the team can be valuable. RA and RD staff can also aid in helping researchers (especially those from different disciplines) combine their expertise into a collaborative project framework and idea (termed “integration” in the literature). This role is an enhancement of the typical RA/RD taskwork of managing meetings and proposal documents—or, for some, running faculty networking events—and can be facilitated by using available ideation and collaboration tools, such as the Problem Tree activity described above. 

While reference is made to RA and RD professionals, other positions (either embedded within or external to teams) can also be substituted based on the team’s needs and affordances of the research context. Increasing the proportion of “coaching” that a staff member performs, especially if it becomes a substantial portion of their professional role, would also require careful consideration of workload, compensation, and professional development opportunities to ensure that these individuals remain motivated and effective. Future research should be conducted to examine how the new coaching role impacts the professional development (e.g., competencies) of the coaches, how training impacts the effectiveness of coaches, research productivity outcomes for “coached” faculty and teams, and how the level and amount of support provided by coaches impact these outcomes.

The observations made from the implementation of this team science program suggest that interdisciplinary research teams can benefit from including a role designed to support collaborative activities. This scenario includes providing opportunities and making space for full participation of all members. When researchers see the positive experiences that can be had in these groups, they may become more inclined to seek out or start collaborations, including those that tackle complex societal challenges. With higher-functioning teams comes greater discovery and innovation as well as outputs and success, from scholarly publications to grant awards  (Stipelman et al., 2014). The current program instituted a coaching model including RA and RD professionals as the non-technical support persons on teams, directing their attention to the teamwork and taskwork aspects of the research project. Participating faculty and RA/RD staff enjoyed and benefitted from the collaboration, integrating and complementing each other’s work efforts. Engaging RA and RD professionals in this work makes them part of the research process, elevating their role in assisting research teams to reach their fullest collaborative potential and have their biggest potential impact on science and society.

Corresponding Author:

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Melanie Bauer, Division of Research and Economic Development, Nova Southeastern University.

mbauer1@nova.edu 

Footnotes

¹ National Science Foundation awards 2203470, 2203425, 2203459, 2203442, 2203496.

References

Bammer, G., O’Rourke, M., O’Connell, D., Neuhauser, L., Midgley, G., Klein, J. T., Grigg, N. J., Gadlin, H., Elsum, I. R., Bursztyn, M., Fulton, E. A., Pohl, C., Smithson, M., Vilsmaier, U., Bergmann, M., Jaeger, J., Merkx, F., Vienni Baptista, B., Burgman, M. A., … Richardson, G. P. (2020). Expertise in research integration and implementation for tackling complex problems: When is it needed, where can it be found and how can it be strengthened? Palgrave Communications, 6(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0380-0

Bennett, L. M., Cardenas, E., & O’Rourke, M. (2022). Collaboration agreement template (version 1). Zenodo. https://zenodo.org/records/6394789

Brower, H. H., Nicklas, B. J., Nader, M. A., Trost, L. M., & Miller, D. P. (2021). Creating effective academic research teams: Two tools borrowed from business practice. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science, 5(1), e74. https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2020.553

Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. (2021). Basic classification. Carnegie Foundation. https://carnegieclassifications.acenet.edu/carnegie-classification/classification-methodology/basic-classification/

Clutterbuck, D. (2007). Coaching the team at work. Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

Collins, H. (2004). Interactional expertise as a third kind of knowledge. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 3(2), 125–143. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:PHEN.0000040824.89221.1a

Cravens, A. E., Jones, M. S., Ngai, C., Zarestky, J., & Love, H. B. (2022). Science facilitation: Navigating the intersection of intellectual and interpersonal expertise in scientific collaboration. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 9(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01217-1

Demes, K. W., Murphy, G. C., & Burt, H. M. (2019). Catalyzing clusters of research excellence: An institutional case study. 50(1), 108–122. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1213139.pdf

Eck, K., & Roney, J. (2023). What is research development? A NORDP Invited Opinion Piece. National Organization of Research Development Professionals. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370684039_WHAT_IS_RESEARCH_DEVELOPMENT

Fiore, S. M. (2008). Interdisciplinarity as teamwork: How the science of teams can inform team science. Small Group Research, 39(3), 251–277. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496408317797

Florida Research Development Alliance. (n.d.). Team science learning objects. https://fl-rda.org/team-science-learning-objects/

Gabelica, C., Van den Bossche, P., De Maeyer, S., Segers, M., & Gijselaers, W. (2014). The effect of team feedback and guided reflexivity on team performance change. Learning and Instruction, 34, 86–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.09.001

Goff-Albritton, R. A., Cola, P. A., Walker, J., Pierre, J., Yerra, S. D., & Garcia, I. (2022). Faculty views on the barriers and facilitators to grant activities in the USA: A systematic literature review. The Journal of Research Administration, 53(2), 14–39. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1362093

Guise, J.-M., Winter, S., Fiore, S. M., Regensteiner, J. G., & Nagel, J. (2017). Organizational and training factors that promote team science: A qualitative analysis and application of theory to the National Institutes of Health’s BIRCWH career development program. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science, 1(2), 101–107. https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2016.17

Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (2005). A theory of team coaching. Academy of Management Review, 30(2), 269–287. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2005.16387885

Hall, K. L., Vogel, A. L., Huang, G. C., Serrano, K. J., Rice, E. L., Tsakraklides, S. P., & Fiore, S. M. (2018). The science of team science: A review of the empirical evidence and research gaps on collaboration in science. American Psychologist, 73(4), 532–548. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000319

Hawkins, P. (2017). Leadership team coaching: Developing collective transformational leadership (3rd ed.). Kogan Page Publishers.

Hoffmann, S., Deutsch, L., Klein, J. T., & O’Rourke, M. (2022). Integrate the integrators! A call for establishing academic careers for integration experts. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 9(1), Article 1. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01138-z

Hubbs, G., O’Rourke, M., & Orzack, S. H. (2020). The Toolbox Dialogue Initiative: The power of cross-disciplinary practice. CRC Press.

Jiang, G., Boghrat, D., Grabmeier, J., & Cross, J. E. (2023). Complexity leadership in action: A team science case study. Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 8, 1211554. https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2023.1211554

Levin, J. (2011, April 1). The emergence of the research-development professional. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 57(3). https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&sw=w&issn=00095982&v=2.1&it=r&id=GALE%7CA252661210&sid=googleScholar&linkaccess=abs

Mathieu, J. E., Tannenbaum, S. I., Kukenberger, M., Donsbach, J. S., & Alliger, G. M. (2015). Team role experience and orientation: A measure and tests of construct validity. Group & Organization Management, 40(1), 6–34. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1177/1059601114562000

Mulfinger, L. M., Dressler, K. A., & James, L. E. (2016). Trends in large proposal development at major research institutions. The Journal of Research Administration, 47(1), 40–57. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1155567.pdf

National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine. (2005). Facilitating interdisciplinary research. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/11153

National Cancer Institute. (n.d.). Transdisciplinary Tobacco Use Research Centers (TTURC) Initiative. https://cancercontrol.cancer.gov/brp/research/team-science-toolkit/about-scits/studying-team-science

National Institutes of Health Ombuds Office. (n.d.). Sample partnering agreement template. https://ombudsman.nih.gov/partnerAgree

National Research Council. (2014). Convergence: Facilitating transdisciplinary integration of life sciences, physical sciences, engineering, and beyond. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18722

National Research Council. (2015). Enhancing the effectiveness of team science. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/19007

Ross, R., Reeves, J., Scarpinato, K., & Pelham, M. (2019). Success factors for university research development offices and activities. The Journal of Research Administration, 50(3), 107–124.  https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1237840.pdf

Stephens, B., Downer, J. B., & Cummings, J. N. (2024). Teamwork coaching in the research development process. Small Group Research, 55(6), 953–983. https://doi.org/10.1177/10464964241240721

Stipelman, B., Hall, K., Zoss, A., Okamoto, J., Stokols, D., & Borner, K. (2014). Mapping the impact of transdisciplinary research: A visual comparison of investigator-initiated and team-based tobacco use research publications. Journal of Translational Medicine & Epidemiology, 2(2), 1033. https://cns.iu.edu/docs/publications/2014-stipelman-mappingimpact.pdf

Stokols, D., Hall, K. L., Taylor, B. K., & Moser, R. P. (2008). The science of team science: An overview of the field and introduction to the supplement. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2), S77–S89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.002

U.S. Department of Education. (2024, May 7). Eligibility designations and applications for waiver of eligibility requirements. [Application Materials; Application Packages; Programs]. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ope/idues/eligibility.html

Widdowson, L., Rochester, L., Barbour, P. J., & Hullinger, A. M. (2020). Bridging the team coaching competency gap: A review of the literature. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 18(2), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.24384/Z9ZB-HJ74

Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F., & Uzzi, B. (2007). The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science, 316(5827), 1036–1039. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1136099

Zink, H. R., Hughes, D., & Vanderford, N. L. (2022). Reconfiguring the research administration workforce: A qualitative study explaining the increasingly diverse professional roles in research administration. The Journal of Research Administration, 53(2), 119–140. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1362090.pdf