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: Not available
| S-EPMC6284825 | biostudies-literature
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:BackgroundClinical and Translational Research (CTR) requires a team-based approach, with successful teams engaging in skilled management and use of information. Yet we know little about the ways that Translational Teams (TTs) engage with information across the lifecycle of CTR projects. This qualitative study explored the challenges that information management imposes on the conduct of team-based CTR.MethodsWe conducted interviews with ten members of TTs at University of Wisconsin. Interviews were transcribed and thematic analysis was conducted.ResultsTTs' piecemeal and reactive approaches to information management created conflict within the team and slowed scientific progress. The lack of cohesive information management strategies made it more difficult for teams to develop strong team processes like communication, scientific coordination, and project management. While TTs' research was hindered by the institutional challenges of interdisciplinary team information sharing, TTs who had developed shared approaches to information management that foregrounded transparency, accountability, and trust, described substantial benefits to their teamwork.ConclusionWe propose a new model for the Science of Team Science field - a Translational Team Science Hierarchy of Needs - that suggests interventions should be targeted at the appropriate stage of team development in order to maximize a team's scientific potential.
| S-EPMC10603362 | biostudies-literature
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:PurposeMentoring 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.MethodA 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.ResultsResponses 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.ConclusionsThese 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: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: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:Optimal care in nursing home (NH) settings requires effective team communication. Certified nursing assistants (CNAs) interact with nursing home residents frequently, but the extent to which CNAs feel their input is valued by other team members is not known. We conducted a cross-sectional study in which we administered a communication survey within 20 Utah nursing home facilities to 650 team members, including 124 nurses and 264 CNAs. Respondents used a 4-point scale to indicate the extent to which their input is valued by other team members when reporting their concerns about nursing home residents. We used a one-way ANOVA with a Bonferroni correction. When compared to nurses, CNAs felt less valued (CNA mean = 2.14, nurse mean = 3.24; p < 0.001) when reporting to physicians, and less valued (CNA mean = 1.66, nurse mean = 2.71; p < 0.001) when reporting to pharmacists. CNAs did not feel less valued than nurses (CNA mean = 3.43, nurse mean = 3.37; p = 0.25) when reporting to other nurses. Our findings demonstrate that CNAs feel their input is not valued outside of nursing, which could impact resident care. Additional research is needed to understand the reasons for this perception and to design educational interventions to improve the culture of communication in nursing home settings.
| S-EPMC9141434 | biostudies-literature