Search results

The purpose of this paper is to identify, through an exploratory meta-analysis, which process- and outcome-related antecedents have the strongest relationship to overall team performance. The secondary objective is to create an understanding of the extent to which relative research interest in each construct to date has aligned with its reported effects.

This study uses a random-effects meta-analysis on studies that have measured the relationship between at least one process or outcome factor and overall team performance. The number of studies, effect size and between-study variances are captured and analyzed for each process/outcome factor. Prior literature has explored relationships between various process/outcome factors and overall team performance. This study expands on previous literature by examining a comprehensive set of process/outcome factors and their relative impact on overall team performance.

A meta-analysis of 190 effect sizes extracted from 52 empirical studies over the past two decades (1999–2020) showed the specific process and outcome factors that most strongly contributed to overall team performance were efficiency, schedule and innovation. In addition, only a weak correlation was found between process and outcome factors’ relationships with overall team performance and how often they are studied in the research community.

This study contributes to the body of knowledge on team performance by examining prior research to identify the relevant impact of various process and outcome factors on overall team performance. In addition, this study also assesses the extent to which research interest in these factors has appeared to match their relative impact. Analyzing the relative impact of various process and outcome factors allows researchers and practitioners to better identify methods to create improvement in overall team performance. Based on the findings, prioritizing efficiency, schedule and innovation may promote overall team performance.

The purpose of this paper is to attempt to theorise difference as encountered by a team of six diverse researchers interested in addressing cultural and religious diversity in sexuality education. Drawing Todd's (2003, 2011a, b) concepts of “the crossroads”, “becoming present” and “relationality” in conversation with Barad's (2003, 2007, 2012) ideas around relationality and intra-activity, the paper explores how “difference” in team research might be re-conceptualised. The aim is to theorise difference, differently from Other methodological literature around collaborative research. Typically, this work highlights markers of difference based on researcher identity (such as gender and ethnicity) as the source of difference in research teams, and examines how these differences are worked through. The aim of this paper is not to resolve difference, but understand it as occurring in the relational process of researchers becoming present to each other. Difference that is not understood as the product of the individual (Barad, 2012), may engender an orientation to ethical relationality, whereby research teams might hold in tension a conversation between the individual and the collective.

This paper is philosophical and methodological. It draws on conceptual understandings from feminist educational philosophy and new materialisms. Findings are based on empirical experiences of a team of researchers exploring cultural and religious difference in sexuality education. Its aim is to re-think the ontology of “difference” as conventionally understood in qualitative methodological literature around team research.

The contribution to conceptualising difference in research teams is to apply Todd's (2011a) theoretical work around “becoming”, “relationality” and the “crossroads” and further delineate it with Barad's (2012) concept of intra-activity. Combining these theorist's ideas the paper offers a conceptualisation of difference that is not the product of individual researcher identities that manifests at the point of collision with (an)other identity. Rather, difference becomes intra-actively in meeting at the crossroads where the “who” is formed. The author argues it is a configuration that cannot be known in advance, and that blurs individuals (and contingent identities) in its uniqueness.

Although conceptual in nature, this paper can be seen as having implications for working with difference in research teams. Drawing on Todd (2003, 2011a) what becomes important in attending to difference in research teams is being openly receptive to the Other. For instance, that the differences of perspective in relation to a research project are not melted into consensus, but that the singularities are always held in relation to each-other.

This paper takes new and emerging ideas in educational philosophy and new materialisms around relationality and applies them to a re-thinking of “difference” in qualitative methodological literature. The result is to offer a new ontology of “difference” as experienced by members of a qualitative research team. It also brings the work of Barad and Todd into conversation for the first time, in order to think ethically about how researchers might work with difference.

Teamwork has long featured in social science research. Further, with research increasingly “cross-national,” communication becomes more complex, for instance, involving different cultures, languages and modes of communication. Yet, studies examining team communicative processes that can facilitate or constrain collaboration are rare. As a cross-national European team representing varied disciplines, experiences, languages and ethnicities, we undertook to examine our communication processes with the aim to promote better qualitative research practices.

Viewing reflection as a tool for enhancing workplace practices, we undertook a structured reflection. We developed an empirically derived framework about team communication, then used it to analyse our interaction practices and their relative effectiveness.

The results highlighted two under-examined influences, the use of different modes of communication for different purposes and the need for face-to-face communication to address a particularly challenging aspect of research, negotiating a shared coding scheme to analyse diverse cultural and linguistic qualitative data.

The study offers a procedure and concepts that others could use to examine their team communication.

The communicative processes that can constrain and facilitate effective cross-national research team collaboration are rarely examined. The results emphasise the need for careful negotiations around language, epistemologies, cultures and goals from the moment collaboration begins in formulating a project, through applying for grant funds, to when the last paper is published – timely in a context in which such work is increasingly expected.

This aim of the current research is to provide empirical evidence for the relationships among several organizational factors affecting team performance improvement, including the learning organization and employee engagement. In addition, the mediating effect of employee engagement was assessed to explain team performance improvement within the supportive learning organization. The target sample consisted of major Korean for-profit firms, and a total of 309 cases were used for data analyses. Structural equation modeling was used along with basic descriptive and multivariate research assumption tests. Results support that cultural aspects of the learning organization in Korean for-profit firms positively and directly affect the employee engagement, whereas cultural aspects of the learning organization positively affect team performance positively and indirectly only through employee engagement, and employee engagement plays a full mediating role in explaining the relationship between the learning organization and team performance. Conclusions are discussed, followed by implications for organizational development, limitations and future research suggestions.

The target sample consisted of major Korean for-profit firms, and a total of 309 cases were used for data analyses. Structural equation modeling was used along with basic descriptive and multivariate research assumption tests.

Results support that cultural aspects of the learning organization in Korean for-profit firms positively and directly affect the employee engagement, while cultural aspects of the learning organization positively affect team performance positively and indirectly only through the employee engagement, and the employee engagement plays a full mediating role in explaining the relationship between the learning organization and team performance.

This research has not been conducted in the Korean context, and this research will provide not only scholarly evidences on the importance of the learning organization for performance improvement, but also the practical guideline for the practitioners to make effort to make their organizations as the learning organization for performance improvement.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the challenges and opportunities of collaboration in interpretive consumer research.

The paper reviews literature on research teamwork, particularly on qualitative and international projects. It also provides an account of research collaboration on an interpretive research project across four countries, involving eight researchers.

Despite the cult of individualism in academic life, most articles in leading marketing journals are now written by multi‐author teams. The process and implications of research collaboration, particularly on qualitative and international projects, have received little attention within the marketing literature. Qualitative collaborations call for another layer of reflexivity and attention to the politics and emotions of teamwork. They also require the negotiation of a social contract acceptable to the group and conducive to the emergence of different perspectives throughout the research process.

While issues surrounding the researcher‐research participant relationship are well explored in the field, this paper tackles an issue that often remains tacit in the marketing literature, namely the impact of the relationships between researchers. The paper draws on accounts of other research collaborations as well as authors' experiences, and discusses how interpersonal and cross‐cultural dynamics influence the work of interpretive research teams.

Increased demand, limited resources, knowledge gaps, and seemingly less time to produce results are the challenges facing researchers and others in higher education today. Working together across disciplines is almost a requirement to stay afloat in the competitive arena most principal investigators are finding themselves in. This study sought to synthesize existing research on leadership behaviors of these investigators in the agricultural discipline. The sections specifically addressed include team science, discipline structure, boundary work, challenges of interdisciplinary research, the direction of research, and leadership in interdisciplinary teams. After analyzing 32 articles, researchers determined that research should continue to investigate the role of leadership behaviors in primary investigators to continue to improve effectiveness.

The authors, with disparate organisational affiliations and in different geographic locations, worked together on a qualitative multiple-case study of ad hoc supervisory encounters between general practice (GP) supervisors and GP-registrars. The purpose of this paper is to share our experiences and learning to highlight how valuable pilot work can be when conducting team-based qualitative research.

This paper outlines the value of pilot work in consolidating whole team understanding of the research plan, using our experiences as an example. We first offer a synthesis of published literature relating to pilot work, especially in qualitative research approaches. Next, we outline and justify the pilot work undertaken for the ad hoc supervision study. Lastly, we use each researcher’s voice to describe our experiences and then share the lessons we learned undertaking pilot work in qualitative research.

We found that while pilot work can be useful in refining strategies, data collection processes and analytic instruments. There are further benefits in galvanising whole team understanding of the research plan, in encouraging reflexivity, in ensuring transparency of the research process, and for ethical considerations.

There are few published papers or books which offer researchers guidance regarding pilot work, especially within a qualitative paradigm. Our experience shows there is value in planning and conducting pilot work. We believe others may benefit from our experience as they embark on team-based research.

The use of a multi‐disciplinary research team can often enhance the investigation of IS phenomena ‐ particularly when the construct under study is multi‐dimensional. This paper explores the challenges and benefits of carrying out IS research with a multi‐disciplinary team. By way of illustration a study is described which purposefully pulled together researchers from different (but related) disciplines to carry out an IS research project. The challenges confronting the team included miscommunication, initial disagreement concerning research constructs, and the amount of time required for meetings. The benefits far outweighed the difficulties. Benefits accrued to the study itself and to the research participants. The study was more holistic and included better construct definition. The participating researchers benefited from critically examining their own views and outlooks whilst being exposed to viewpoints from other disciplines.

The purpose of this mapping study has been performed to identify, critically analyze and synthesize research performed in the area of software engineering teams. Teams, in a general sense, have been studied extensively. But the distinctive processes that need to be executed effectively and efficiently in software engineering require a better understanding of current software engineering team research.

In this work, software engineering team publications were analyzed and the key findings of each paper that met our search inclusion criteria were synthesized. In addition, a keyword content analysis was performed to create a taxonomy to categorize each paper and evaluate the state of software engineering team research.

In software engineering team research, the resulting areas that are the most active are teamwork/collaboration, process/design and coordination. Clear themes of analysis have been determined to help understand how team members collaborate, factors affecting their success and interactions among all project stakeholders. In addition, themes related to tools to support team collaboration, improve the effectiveness of software engineering processes and support team coordination have been found. However, the research gaps determined from the content analysis point toward a need for more research in the area of communication and tools.

The goal of this work is to define the span of previous research in this area, create a taxonomy to categorize such research and identify open research areas to provide a clear road map for future research in the area of software engineering teams. These results, along with the key finding themes presented, will help guide future research in an area that touches all parts of the software engineering and development processes.

This study aims to explore key factors influencing the work of interdisciplinary university research teams of small size.

This is a multiple-case study of four interdisciplinary university research teams of small size in which science and/or engineering was an important component.

Data analysis revealed 17 critical factors classified into five groups. Although some factors were more influential than others, it was rather multiple factors at various levels of analysis, and not a single factor, that influenced the work of research teams. Another important finding was the identified need to develop project management capacity of university researchers. The study also revealed two strategies, conditioned on the availability of funds, that small university research teams use as a way to adapt to situational demands and research opportunities.

Although previous research examined various aspects pertinent to the work of industry research teams and large research groups, empirical research into interdisciplinary university research teams of small size has been limited.