AO: The analysts note that the science of team science is currently in its nascent stage and that definitions are being debated. For example, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary are used interchangeably. They note the plurality of definitions and operationalization of the concepts and argue that greater clarity is needed.
AO: Analysts talk about a readiness framework that is nested and looks at the different levels.
QUOTE: “which types of readiness factors (e.g., psycho- logical, interpersonal, organizational, societal, techno- logic, scientific) exert the greatest influence on the effectiveness of team science projects and initiatives”
AO: The analysts believe that assessments of a network’s productivity are likely to be critical to understanding its value-added contributions (S246). Example being solving complex problems.
AO: The analysts are concerned with examining “ways to categorize and measure collaborative efforts; developing models to conceptualize key aspects of the field; and devising strategies to enhance, support, and sustain team science projects.” (S243)
AO: The intent behind studying team science according to the analysts is to develop findings to be to develop rich conceptual and theoretical models (that can then can be tested in subsequent studies examining team science collaborations).
AO: The analysts are also very worried about funding and long term sustainability of interdisciplinary science.
AO: The analysts assume that strategies of creativity and innovation are needed to move the field forward and further improve public health science and practice (S243).
AO: This analysis looks for “valid” and “stable” metrics to evaluate the “return on investment” of team science.
AO: QUOTE: “Systematically tracking the career development trajectory of transdisciplinary trainees over time and examining the influence of earlier transdisciplinary training on their subsequent productivity will ultimately help to gauge the “returns” on team science investments at both individual and societal levels” (S247).
AO: The analysts call for more flexiblity in incentive structures but not in the ways of opening up and pluralizing but rather in terms of acknowledging, legitimating and supporting transdisciplinary work within the existing systems (not a radical vision but more of solidifying the legitimacy of this new transdisciplinary field).