Search results

The purpose of this study is to investigate the mechanism of shared leadership on team members’ innovative behavior.

Paired questionnaires were collected from 89 scientific research teams in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region of China at two-time points with a time lag of 4 months. Then multilevel structural equation model method was applied to analyze the multiple mediating effects.

This study finds that: the form of shared leadership in scientific research teams of universities; shared leadership has a positive impact on team members’ innovative behavior; there are multiple mediations in the relationship including synchronization and sequence of creative self-efficacy and achievement motivation.

According to the “stimulus-organism-response” model, this paper has constructed a multi-level theoretical model that shared leadership influences individual innovation behavior and reveals the “black box” from the perspective of psychological mechanism. It not only verifies that “can-do” shapes “willing to do” but also makes up for the gap of an empirical test of the effectiveness of shared leadership in scientific research teams of universities. Besides, the formal scale of shared leadership in the Chinese situation is revised, which can provide a reference for future empirical research on shared leadership. The research conclusions provide new ideas for improving the management of scientific research teams in universities.

In today’s digital economy, it is very important to cultivate digital professionals with advanced interdisciplinary skills. The purpose of this paper is that universities play a vital role in this effort, and research teams need to use the synergistic effect of various educational methods to improve the quality and efficiency of personnel training. For these teams, a powerful evaluation mechanism is very important to improve their innovation ability and the overall level of talents they cultivate. The policy of “selecting the best through public bidding” not only meets the multi-dimensional evaluation needs of contemporary research, but also conforms to the current atmosphere of evaluating scientific and technological talents.

Nonetheless, since its adoption, several challenges have emerged, including flawed project management systems, a mismatch between listed needs and actual core technological needs and a low rate of conversion of scientific achievements into practical outcomes. These issues are often traced back to overly simplistic evaluation methods for research teams. This paper reviews the literature on the “Open Bidding for Selecting the Best Candidates” policy and related evaluation mechanisms for research teams, identifying methodological shortcomings, a gap in exploring team collaboration and an oversight in team selection criteria.

It proposes a theoretical framework for the evaluation and selection mechanisms of research teams under the “Open Bidding for Selecting the Best Candidates” model, offering a solid foundation for further in-depth studies in this area.

Research progress on the Evaluation Mechanism of Scientific Research Teams in the Digital Economy Era from the Perspective of “Open Bidding for Selecting the Best Candidates.”

Scientific collaboration is becoming a common pattern in the social organization of knowledge production. The paper tries to figure out the relationship between scientific collaboration team size and scientific output.

Based on ESI database from year 2009–2019, the paper describes changes of collaboration team size from one author to more than 10 authors in 22 disciplines. Kernel density estimation and multidimensional kernel density estimation method are used to calculate optimal collaboration team size and appropriate collaboration team size in 22 disciplines. As bandwidth is one of the major issues in construction of kernel density estimation, the paper uses five different algorithms to calculate bandwidth. The method with the lowest mean absolute percentage error is chosen. Robustness test is conducted based on different sets of data.

The results show that scientific collaboration becomes more widely and deeply. As time goes by, collaboration team size is becoming larger and larger. Natural science disciplines have larger collaboration team size and faster growth rate than social science disciplines. Considering both qualitative and quantitative measures, the paper proves the universality of optimal and appropriate scientific collaboration team size among 22 disciplines and calculates the specific number.

The paper tries to investigate the law of scientific collaboration team size variation and provide a full picture of evolution of collaboration team size among 22 disciplines in 10 years. The paper first applies distribution method to figure out the relationship between scientific collaboration team size and scientific output and provides optimal collaboration team size and appropriate collaboration team size.

The purpose of this paper is to expand the use of ethnography to advance research on team science by revealing the barriers to teamwork as manifesting at institutional, cultural, and interpersonal contextual scales. The analysis suggests strategies to enhance team science's collaborative potential.

This paper considers some of the practical and analytical challenges of team science through the use of ethnographic methods. The authors formed a three-person subteam within a larger multisited, federally-funded, interdisciplinary scientific team. The authors conducted six months of participant observation, semi-structured interviews, and a focus group, using iterative deductive and inductive analyses to investigate the larger team's roles, relationships, dynamics, and tensions.

Integrating ethnography into the study of team science can uncover and mitigate barriers faced by teams at three primary levels: (1) academic culture, (2) institutional structures, and (3) interpersonal dynamics. The authors found that these three contextual factors are often taken for granted and hidden in the team science process as well as that they are interactive and influence teams at multiple scales of analysis. These outcomes are closely related to how team science is funded and implemented in academic and institutional settings.

As US federal funding initiatives continue to require scientific collaboration via inter-, multi-, and transdisciplinary research, there is little work done on how teams grapple with the practical tensions of scientific teamwork. This paper identifies and addresses many practical tensions and contextual factors across institutional and organizational structures that affect and challenge the conduct of collaborative scientific teamwork. The authors also argue that ethnography can be a method to challenge myths, understand contextual factors, and improve the goals of team science.

The purpose of this paper is to present findings from the research of aspects of journal publishing in the field of social sciences in Croatia in changing working conditions caused by the rapid development of information and communication technology.

This paper is based on an online survey of 79 journals in the field of social sciences in Croatia.

Findings indicate a dual publishing nature of the scientific journals as they exist both in the traditional paper based and in the electronic environment. In addition to slow shift towards publishing exclusively in the electronic environment, editorial teams cope with insufficient financial support for the publication of printed versions of their journals, low‐quality of article submissions, badly formatted articles, lack of help to the editor, etc. Researched journals use the internet for the improvement of the interaction with authors, reviewers and readers and digital repositories for long‐term storage of articles. To remain relevant to the scientists in Croatia, researched journals must be led by professional editorial teams whose only job will be management of the journal they work for.

The paper contributes to the growing body of knowledge about current developments in scientific journal publishing under the influence of information and communication technology.

In this article, the authors explore the emotional dimension of the strategies that researchers carry out to foster collaboration within research groups in science.

The authors have carried out fieldwork based on semi-structured interviews with members of high-performance research groups, supported by the analysis of ethnographic observations in the local work contexts of several of these groups.

As a result, the authors start from the representations of the principal investigators interviewed about collaboration, as a dynamic between the individuals involved and the group, to describe two forms of leadership strategies: ego-centered or group. Hence, the authors highlight that the emotional work of IPs consists of combining both strategies by activating and deactivating affection, warmth and spontaneity in interactions. The authors conclude by reviewing the contributions and some potential lines of study.

The main contributions and conclusions must be regarded considering several limitations of our work. First, the authors have focused on high-performance groups, so it would be expected that the research groups that do not have the support of European Research Council (ERC) do not present the observed dynamics. Concerning the analysis, the authors have focused on the link between situational (personal interaction) and organizational scales. Although the authors have attended social factors that imply the structure and changes of the professional sector of science (Whitley, 2000, 2014), future publications will allow the authors to delve into relationships on a broader scale, associating collaboration patterns and discursive positions. The authors will focus on (1) roles and social profiles and (2) features of scientific culture and its recent configuration.

The authors affirm that the emotional field is key to understanding how groups and individuals respond to these profound changes. In their work, scientific professionals do not only act based on rational and instrumental criteria but also driven by habits, affective networks and inertia of their organizational cultures. In this paper, the authors provide theoretical and practical keys to understand the complexity that collaboration creates within research groups as a contradictory reality that consists of a constant movement of individuals and the group.

As many of the interviewees expressed, there are no adequate spaces to learn and reflect on leadership and collaboration in science. The authors are science workers who are responsible for imagining and deciding how the authors want their research groups to function. Institutions must ensure the means so that this task can be carried out. Hopefully, this article will contribute to this irrevocable project.

The authors’ aim is to understand how well-known groups operate in their field, with a high level of resources and productivity, in order to identify and promote cutting-edge strategies in different scientific branches. Moreover, the authors want to recognize the importance of institutional infrastructures. For this reason, giving them a place in the framework of management studies allows to submit this issue to public debate for a wide audience of social scientists. Moreover, this permits to inquire about cross-disciplinary subjects, such as social and organizational psychology, sociology of work, studies about science and management studies.

The composition of author teams is a significant factor affecting the novelty of academic papers. Existing research lacks studies focusing on institutional types and measures of novelty remained at a general level, making it difficult to analyse the types of novelty in papers and to provide a detailed explanation of novelty. This study aims to take the field of natural language processing (NLP) as an example to analyse the relationship between team institutional composition and the fine-grained novelty of academic papers.

Firstly, author teams are categorized into three types: academic institutions, industrial institutions and mixed academic and industrial institutions. Next, the authors extract four types of entities from the full paper: methods, data sets, tools and metric. The novelty of papers is evaluated using entity combination measurement methods. Additionally, pairwise combinations of different types of fine-grained entities are analysed to assess their contributions to novel papers.

The results of the study found that in the field of NLP, for industrial institutions, collaboration with academic institutions has a higher probability of producing novel papers. From the contribution rate of different types of fine-grained knowledge entities, the mixed academic and industrial institutions pay more attention to the novelty of the combination of method indicators, and the industrial institutions pay more attention to the novelty of the combination of method tools.

This paper explores the relationship between the team institutional composition and the novelty of academic papers and reveals the importance of cooperation between industry and academia through fine-grained novelty measurement, which provides key guidance for improving the quality of papers and promoting industry–university–research cooperation.

This study aims to examine the connection between scholars' research performance and the multidisciplinary nature of their collaborative research. Furthermore, in response to mixed results regarding the effects of multidisciplinarity on research performance, this study explores how human resource management (HRM) practices may moderate this link.

The authors built a model based on the theoretical arguments and empirical evidence found in the review of diversity and HRM literature. The authors also performed a quantitative study based on a sample of scholars in the field of management. Different econometric estimations were used to test the proposed model.

The results of this empirical analysis suggest that multidisciplinary research has a non-linear effect on research performance. Certain HRM practices, such as development and collaboration, moderated the curvilinear relationship between multidisciplinarity and performance, displacing the optimum to allow higher performance at higher levels of multidisciplinary research.

The paper provides advances on previous works studying the curvilinear relationship between multidisciplinarity and the researchers' performance, confirming that multidisciplinarity is beneficial up to a threshold beyond which these benefits are attenuated. In addition, the findings shed light on important issues related to team-oriented HRM practices associated with the outcomes of multidisciplinary research.

Primary care (PC) is a strong determinant of overall health care. Children make up around a fifth of the population of the European Union and European Economic Area and have their own needs and uptake of PC. However, there is little research into how well PC services address their needs. There are large differences in childhood mortality and morbidity patterns in the EU and EEA countries, and there has been a major epidemiological shift in the past half century from predominantly communicable disease, to non-communicable diseases presenting and increasingly managed in PC. This increase in multifactorial morbidities, such as obesity and learning disability, has led to the need for PC systems to adapt to accommodate these changes. Europe presents a challenging picture of unexplained variation in health care delivery and style and of children’s different health experiences and health-related behaviour. The Models of Child Health Appraised (MOCHA) project aimed to describe the PC systems in detail, analyse their components and appraise them from a number of different viewpoints, including professional, public, political and economic lenses. It did this through nine work packages supported by a core management team, and a network of national agents, individuals in each MOCHA country who had the expertise in research and knowledge of their national health care system to answer a wide range of questions posed by the MOCHA scientific teams.

The authors explain the conditions under which positive personality traits and work environment factors either interact synergistically or yield diminishing-gains when creative individuals are in a supportive working environment.

Data were obtained using a time-lagged design. The final sample includes 350 researchers from 64 scientific research teams.

The results indicate that the need for cognition is positively associated with individual creativity. Furthermore, this study suggests that perceived organizational support for creativity can complement an individual's need for cognition when it comes to individual creativity. This indicates a synergistic pattern. On the other hand, psychological safety can substitute for an individual's need for cognition when influencing individual creativity. Thus, a diminishing-gains pattern also exists.

The results suggest that when individuals are stuck in environments of low psychological safety, yet perceive higher levels of organizational support for creativity, their levels of creativity can be boosted.

This study is among one of the first to explore a supportive context's complementary or substitution effect on positive personality traits by demonstrating the complementary effect of perceived organizational support for creativity and the substitution effect of psychological safety. This study validates the positive effect of the need for cognition on creativity. This study also enriches the psychological safety literature by showing that psychological safety is not always necessary for individuals with a high need for cognition.