Potter Michael B, Mansur Saji, Rutman Shira P, Brindis Claire D
Clinical and Translational Science Institute, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
J Clin Transl Sci. 2024 Jan 18;8(1):e28. doi: 10.1017/cts.2024.7. eCollection 2024.
Traditionally, research institutions have valued individual achievements such as principal investigator and lead authorship status as primary indicators in the academic promotions process. However, the scientific process increasingly requires collaboration by teams of researchers across multiple disciplines, sometimes including experts outside academia, often referred to as "team science." We sought to determine whether there is agreement about what constitutes team science at our academic institution and whether current promotion processes sufficiently incentivize faculty participation in team science.
We conducted 20 qualitative interviews with academic leaders ( = 24) at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) who supervise faculty promotions processes. Participants were asked to share their definitions of team science and the extent to which faculty receive credit for engaging in these activities during the promotions process. A subset of participants also completed a brief survey in which they ranked the importance of participation in team science relative to other factors that are traditionally valued in the promotions process. Interview data were examined by two analysts using structural coding. Descriptive analyses were conducted of survey responses.
Though team science is valued at UCSF, definitions of team science and the approach to assigning credit for team science in academic promotions processes varied widely. Participants suggested opportunities to bolster support for team science.
Efforts to define and provide transparent faculty incentives for team science should be prioritized at institutions, like UCSF, seeking to advance faculty engagement in collaborative research.
传统上,研究机构将个人成就(如首席研究员和第一作者身份)视为学术晋升过程中的主要指标。然而,科学研究过程越来越需要多学科研究团队的协作,有时还包括学术界以外的专家,这通常被称为“团队科学”。我们试图确定在我们的学术机构中,对于什么构成团队科学是否存在共识,以及当前的晋升过程是否充分激励教师参与团队科学。
我们对加州大学旧金山分校(UCSF)负责教师晋升过程监督的学术领导(n = 24)进行了20次定性访谈。参与者被要求分享他们对团队科学的定义,以及在晋升过程中教师参与这些活动能获得认可的程度。一部分参与者还完成了一项简短的调查,在调查中他们对参与团队科学相对于晋升过程中传统重视的其他因素的重要性进行了排序。两位分析师使用结构编码对访谈数据进行了分析。对调查回复进行了描述性分析。
尽管团队科学在UCSF受到重视,但团队科学的定义以及在学术晋升过程中为团队科学分配认可的方式差异很大。参与者提出了加强对团队科学支持的机会。
对于像UCSF这样寻求促进教师参与合作研究的机构,应优先努力定义团队科学并为教师提供透明的激励措施。