MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2775837068

Collaboration in scientific research : factors that Influence effective collaboration during a period of transformational change

2017· article· en· W2775837068 on OpenAlex
Barbara T. Waruszynski

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueVIURRSpace (Vancouver Island University) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicInterdisciplinary Research and Collaboration
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFPInnovationsGovernment of CanadaAustralian GovernmentTechnische Universiteit EindhovenYale University
KeywordsPeriod (music)Transformational leadershipPolitical sciencePublic relations
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In an era of fiscal restraint, federal science and technology organizations are promoting more advanced whole-of-government solutions to complex problems through effective intra-organizational and inter-organizational collaboration. Although the literature reveals that there are several factors which influence the effectiveness of collaborations, there remains a major gap in determining which factors affect researchers’ attitudes and behaviours to collaborate during periods of organizational change. This ethnographic study aims to bridge this gap by: (1) identifying the factors that influence researchers’ attitudes and behaviours in scientific research collaborations; (2) establishing if these factors affect team outputs and outcomes; and (3) understanding if organizational change impacts the effectiveness of research collaborations. 
\n
\nTheories on teamwork, collaboration, social interdependence, social systems, and organizational change are incorporated to examine effective collaboration practices in one case study. The Canadian Wood Fibre Centre (CWFC) under the Canadian Forest Service (CFS) within Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) is the case under study, and is employed to understand the effectiveness of scientific research collaborations during a period of transformational change. Twenty-six participants took part in this qualitative study, including 13 researchers and 13 managers. 
\n
\nBased on interviews with federal researchers and managers, and industry managers, and a focus group with federal managers, the findings reveal that there are several factors that influence effective collaborations: (1) collaborative culture (e.g., shared vision, governance, and values of mutual trust and respect); (2) leadership (i.e., visionary, collective, and team leadership); (3) human and financial resources; (4) team integration and synergy (i.e., shared commitment and team cohesion); (5) shared communications (e.g., face-to-face communications); and (6) interpersonal relationships that are enabled by social interdependence. 
\n
\nThe findings also suggest that the above factors positively influence the quality of collaborative team performance in the following ways: (1) ability for researchers to work in a collaborative culture through a shared vision, an established governance, and values; (2) visionary, collective, and team leadership styles that enable an integrated collaborative environment and goal attainment; (3) human and financial resources that support the right team composition and funding to successfully complete the projects; (4) team synergy for accomplishing goals and generating good quality outputs; (5) shared communications to foster greater information sharing and trust between researchers; and (6) social interdependence to nurture relationships over time. Team viability is dependent on how well the team performed together to achieve its project goals, and if researchers trusted each other and shared information throughout the collaboration. Individual and team satisfaction is based on participants’ overall contentment (individually and as a team) in producing scientific or client-related outputs and outcomes. 
\n
\nThis study has also shown that organizational changes have an impact on the factors that influence effective collaboration. The findings suggest that effective collaboration is contingent on researchers’ adaptability to organizational change. Although the transformation of the forest sector generally fostered positive change, there were specific factors of organizational change that challenged the effectiveness of collaborations. These factors include: (1) the lack of integrated research programs and processes between the CWFC and its main industry partner; (2) new government administrative processes that impacted scientific productivity; and (3) the lack of face-to-face interactions due to government travel restrictions. 
\n
\nBased on the literature review and this doctoral study, a new model on collaboration is proposed and provides a list of factors that are considered to be important in facilitating effective collaboration. Additional research is required to better unfold the interrelationships between these factors and how their interrelationships impact effective collaboration, particularly during periods of organizational change. Recommendations are put forward on how to improve collaboration in the workplace and are intended to inform departmental policies, practices, and programs on ways to enable better collaboration. Recommendations are also suggested for the conduct of future research on team science and propose ways to improve collaboration in scientific research.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.240
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.006
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.305 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it