Highlights
- •Team Science is a well founded model for performing methodologically strong research, and developing highly productive research teams with excellent mentorship. The model is a highly preferred method for scientific exploration amongst current early career scientists.
- •While nurses contribute in interdisciplinary scientific teams, this analysis of appointment, promotion and tenure documents from highly funded U.S. based schools of nursing found limited accounting for team science in promotion and tenure decision making.
- •A lack of inclusion of team science principles in appointment, promotion, and tenure documents may discourage early career scientists from participating in teams that can help develop their research skills, increase their productivity, and provide additional mentorship.
- •Schools of Nursing should review and update their appointment, promotion, and tenure documents to be more inclusive of team science principles.
Abstract
Background
Nurse scientists are highly sought after and find satisfaction in serving as members
of interdisciplinary research teams. These teams also tend to be highly productive.
However, nurse scientists in academia also have to reach certain productivity milestones
to be promoted and receive tenure that may be incongruent with team science principles.
Purpose
This study therefore sought to examine whether APT documents in research intensive
nursing schools incorporate team science principles.
Methods
Qualitatively analyzed the appointment, promotion and tenure documents of 18 U.S.
based research intensive schools of nursing with over $2 million in NIH funding in
fiscal year 2014.
Findings
The study found that only 8 of 18 documents included any reference to team science
principles and even these mentions were largely negligible. There were few best practices
to recommend across documents. By not recognizing team science within these documents,
nursing risks marginalization within the larger scientific community by limiting mentorship
and learning opportunities for early career nurse scientists.
Discussion
Schools of nursing should revisit their promotion and tenure criteria and include
a greater commitment to encouragement of team science.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Nursing OutlookAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Defining Scholarship for Academic Nursing Task Force Consensus Position Statement. 2018; (Washington DC)
Atlas.TI (Version 7). (2014). Berlin: Scientific software development.
- Collaboration and Team Science: A Field Guide. 2010; (Retrieved from Bethesda, MD)
- The continued evolution of faculty appointment and tenure policies at U.S. medical schools.Academic Medicine. 2007; 82: 281-289
- The road we must take: Multidisciplinary team science.Science Translational Medicine. 2010; 2: 22-29https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.3000421
- Applied thematic analysis.Sage Publications, Los Angeles2012
- Assessing the value of team science: A study comparing center- and investigator-initiated grants.American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2012; 42: 157-163https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2011.10.011
- Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.Qualitative Health Research. 2005; 15: 1277-1288https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
- Implementation science supports core clinical competencies: An overview and clinical example.Prim Care Companion CNS Disord. 2016; 18: e1-e7https://doi.org/10.4088/PCC.16m02004
- Evaluating academic scientists collaborating in team-based research: a proposed framework.Academic Medicine. 2015; 90: 1302-1308https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000759
- Interprofessional education: a summary of reports and barriers to recommendations.Journal of Nursing Scholarship. 2016; 48: 106-112https://doi.org/10.1111/jnu.12184
- Reforming medical education to enhance the management of chronic disease.Medical Journal of Australia. 2003; 179: 257-259
- Research project success rates by NIH institute for 2016.(Retrieved from)
National Research Council (U.S.). Committee on the Science of Team Science., et al. (2015). Enhancing the effectiveness of team science. Washington, D.C., The National Academies Press.
- Quantifying the impact of weak, strong, and super ties in scientific careers.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2015; 112: E4671-E4680https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1501444112
Physician-Scientist WorkForce Working Group. (2014). Physician-scientist workforce working group report. Retrieved from Bethesda, MD:
- Taking qualitative methods a step further to team science.Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 2016; 9: 739-743https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2016.83
- Mapping the impact of transdisciplinary research: A visual comparison of investigator-initiated and team-based tobacco use research publications.J Transl Med Epidemiol. 2014; 2: 1033
- The ecology of team science: Understanding contextual influences on transdisciplinary collaboration.American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2008; 35: S96-115https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.003
- Atypical combinations and scientific impact.Science. 2013; 342: 468-472https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1240474
- Framework for action on interprofessional education and collaborative practice.(Available at:)
- The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge.Science. 2007; 316: 1036-1039https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1136099
Article info
Publication history
Published online: November 22, 2018
Accepted:
November 18,
2018
Received in revised form:
November 15,
2018
Received:
February 24,
2018
Footnotes
Contributors: The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of Dr. Natalie Ammarell in assisting with the development of the qualitative analysis plan for this manuscript. They would also like to acknowledge the contribution of Drs. Ruth Anderson, Keela Herr, and Heather Young in serving as expert panel reviewers.
Authorship Statement: All four authors were involved in all phases of this manuscript preparation including conceptual work and design, analysis, interpretation, article drafting and revision, and approval of the final submitted manuscript.
Identification
Copyright
Published by Elsevier Inc.
