Team science for science communication.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Wong-Parodi G
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4183174 | biostudies-other | 2014 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:Scientific debates in modern societies often blur the lines between the science that is being debated and the political, moral, and legal implications that come with its societal applications. This manuscript traces the origins of this phenomenon to professional norms within the scientific discipline and to the nature and complexities of modern science and offers an expanded model of science communication that takes into account the political contexts in which science communication takes place. In a second step, it explores what we know from empirical work in political communication, public opinion research, and communication research about the dynamics that determine how issues are debated and attitudes are formed in political environments. Finally, it discusses how and why it will be increasingly important for science communicators to draw from these different literatures to ensure that the voice of the scientific community is heard in the broader societal debates surrounding science.
| S-EPMC4183176 | biostudies-other
Project description:Effective communication is a requisite skill for scientists. However, formalized training in this area is often unavailable for members of the scientific community. As one approach to combat this problem, the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB) developed The Art of Science Communication, an eight-week-long online course that provides facilitated instruction on how to communicate science in an oral format. The course is offered three times a year, and as of December 2017, nearly 200 individuals from all career stages have taken part in it. The course completion rate is currently 60%, a rate three to five times as high as the average for similar Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). Participants have indicated that taking the course has improved their ability to communicate about their research, and that the skills and lessons learned have benefited them professionally. Moving forward, we are examining approaches that will help us improve the course and expand its reach throughout the scientific community. This article details the development of the course and examines the role and potential of such training within the larger scientific community.
| S-EPMC5969408 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Mentoring is critical for academic success. As science transitions to a team science model, team mentoring may have advantages. The goal of this study was to understand the process, benefits, and challenges of team mentoring relating to career development and research.A national survey was conducted of Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women's Health (BIRCWH) program directors-current and former scholars from 27 active National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded BIRCWH NIH K12 programs-to characterize and understand the value and challenges of the team approach to mentoring. Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively, and qualitative data were analyzed thematically.Responses were received from 25/27 (93%) program directors, 78/108 (72%) current scholars, and 91/162 (56%) former scholars. Scholars reported that team mentoring was beneficial to their career development (152/169; 90%) and research (148/169; 88%). Reported advantages included a diversity of opinions, expanded networking, development of stronger study designs, and modeling of different career paths. Challenges included scheduling and managing conflicting opinions. Advice by directors offered to junior faculty entering team mentoring included the following: not to be intimidated by senior mentors, be willing to navigate conflicting advice, be proactive about scheduling and guiding discussions, have an open mind to different approaches, be explicit about expectations and mentors' roles (including importance of having a primary mentor to help navigate discussions), and meet in person as a team.These findings suggest that interdisciplinary/interprofessional team mentoring has many important advantages, but that skills are required to optimally utilize multiple perspectives.
| S-EPMC5263095 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionClinical/translational science (CTS) is team-based, requiring effective collaboration and communication across many disciplines involving a variety of stakeholders. We implemented a pre-doctoral team-based training model with didactic and experiential curricular interventions to support the development of CTS research skills in a cross-disciplinary team environment. We assessed the potential impact of this new training model as a team science intervention that can catalyze new cross-disciplinary collaborations across the institution.MethodsBetween 2016 and 2020, 32 pre-doctoral students and 26 co-mentors participated in the assessment of the CTS Team program over a two-year period of TL1 training grant support. Data collection and analyses followed a program logic model and used a variety of metrics for clinical and translational scientist career success.ResultsCTS training in the context of CTS Teams supported improved self-efficacy for clinical research skills and resulted in a significant increase in the frequency of participation in cross-disciplinary collaborative activities by both trainees and mentors. Most CTS Team co-mentor pairs had not previously collaborated. Two-thirds of the co-mentors plan to continue collaborating, and most (85%) currently use or plan to use collaboration tools, for example, written collaboration plans, authorship agreements.ConclusionsThe CTS Team training model provides a unique clinical and translational science team training experience that embeds authentic cross-disciplinary research collaboration into PhD research projects. It establishes trainee cohorts that are diverse in terms of scientific disciplines and translational research phases, and creates a new cross-disciplinary community of practice across faculty members and research groups in multiple colleges.
| S-EPMC8596063 | biostudies-literature
Project description:First impressions based on facial appearance predict many important social outcomes. We investigated whether such impressions also influence the communication of scientific findings to lay audiences, a process that shapes public beliefs, opinion, and policy. First, we investigated the traits that engender interest in a scientist's work, and those that create the impression of a "good scientist" who does high-quality research. Apparent competence and morality were positively related to both interest and quality judgments, whereas attractiveness boosted interest but decreased perceived quality. Next, we had members of the public choose real science news stories to read or watch and found that people were more likely to choose items that were paired with "interesting-looking" scientists, especially when selecting video-based communications. Finally, we had people read real science news items and found that the research was judged to be of higher quality when paired with researchers who look like "good scientists." Our findings offer insights into the social psychology of science, and indicate a source of bias in the dissemination of scientific findings to broader society.
| S-EPMC5468637 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe 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.MethodsSecondary 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?ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsThe 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.
| S-EPMC8411266 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The May 2012 Sackler Colloquium on "The Science of Science Communication" brought together scientists with research to communicate and scientists whose research could facilitate that communication. The latter include decision scientists who can identify the scientific results that an audience needs to know, from among all of the scientific results that it would be nice to know; behavioral scientists who can design ways to convey those results and then evaluate the success of those attempts; and social scientists who can create the channels needed for trustworthy communications. This overview offers an introduction to these communication sciences and their roles in science-based communication programs.
| S-EPMC3752164 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND:Interprofessional team training is needed to improve nurse-physician communication skills that are lacking in clinical practice. Using simulations has proven to be an effective learning approach for team training. Yet, it has logistical constraints that call for the exploration of virtual environments in delivering team training. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to evaluate a team training program using virtual reality vs conventional live simulations on medical and nursing students' communication skill performances and teamwork attitudes. METHODS:In June 2018, the authors implemented nurse-physician communication team training using communication tools. A randomized controlled trial study was conducted with 120 undergraduate medical and nursing students who were randomly assigned to undertake team training using virtual reality or live simulations. The participants from both groups were tested on their communication performances through team-based simulation assessments. Their teamwork attitudes were evaluated using interprofessional attitude surveys that were administered before, immediately after, and 2 months after the study interventions. RESULTS:The team-based simulation assessment revealed no significant differences in the communication performance posttest scores (P=.29) between the virtual and simulation groups. Both groups reported significant increases in the interprofessional attitudes posttest scores from the baseline scores, with no significant differences found between the groups over the 3 time points. CONCLUSIONS:Our study outcomes did not show an inferiority of team training using virtual reality when compared with live simulations, which supports the potential use of virtual reality to substitute conventional simulations for communication team training. Future studies can leverage the use of artificial intelligence technology in virtual reality to replace costly human-controlled facilitators to achieve better scalability and sustainability of team-based training in interprofessional education. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04330924; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04330924.
| S-EPMC7177432 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The National Institutes of Health's Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) institutes have been created, in part, to have a positive impact on collaboration and team science. This study is the first to examine the associations between a CTSA hub, the Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research (MICHR), and investigators' ego networks. We ran cross-sectional and panel models of the associations between consulting with MICHR and the ego network measure of two-step reach (TSR) - that is, colleagues of colleagues reachable in two steps - from a network of 2161 investigators who had co-submitted a grant proposal to an external sponsor in 2006. Our analyses covered the period 2004-2012, although some model specifications covered the shorter time period 2006-2010. Consulting with MICHR had positive associations with the size of and changes in an investigator's TSR across and over time, even controlling for research productivity and organizational affiliation. For example, over the period 2006-2010 an investigator who consulted with MICHR reached 44 more individuals than a non-consulting investigator. This study expands our understanding of the indirect impacts that clinical and translational science institutes have on investigators' scientific networks. This network-based approach might be useful in quantifying the impact of team science initiatives at the university level.
| S-EPMC6676646 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Scientific research-especially high-impact research-is increasingly being performed in teams that are interdisciplinary and demographically diverse. Nevertheless, very little research has investigated how the climate on these diverse science teams affects data sharing or the experiences of their members. To address these gaps, we conducted a quantitative study of 266 scientists from 105 NSF-funded interdisciplinary environmental science teams. We examined how team climate mediates the associations between team diversity and three outcomes: satisfaction with the team, satisfaction with authorship practices, and perceptions of the frequency of data sharing. Using path analyses, we found that individuals from underrepresented groups perceived team climate more negatively, which was associated with lower satisfaction with the team and more negative perceptions of authorship practices and data sharing on the team. However, individuals on teams with more demographic diversity reported a more positive climate than those on teams with less demographic diversity. These results highlight the importance of team climate, the value of diverse teams for team climate, and barriers to the full inclusion and support of individuals from underrepresented groups in interdisciplinary science teams.
| S-EPMC6638994 | biostudies-literature