Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:48:51.910Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - Realizing the Promise of Diverse and Interdisciplinary Team Science

from Part I - Before You Dive In

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 December 2024

By
Stephanie J. Tepper  and
Neil A. Lewis
Edited by
Harry T. Reis ,
Tessa West  and
Charles M. Judd
Harry T. Reis
Affiliation:
University of Rochester, New York
Tessa West
Affiliation:
New York University
Charles M. Judd
Affiliation:
University of Colorado Boulder
Get access

Summary

Recent research endeavors have demonstrated the immense promise of team science to move the field of social and personality psychology forward. In this chapter, we introduce readers to the concept of team science as a model in which diverse teams collaborate on larger-scale research projects. These teams can bring people together from multiple labs, academic disciplines, or sectors to answer a shared question. Working in teams offers a number of benefits, allowing us to increase access and representation in our research, implement different methods and tools, answer more complex questions, and have greater social impact. We offer an overview of different models of team science and how researchers can expand their own teams, adhering to the principles of open communication, commitment to diversity and inclusion, clear roles and expectations, and cooperative decision-making. We also address some of the challenges inherent to team science and how to overcome them in order to make our science as efficient, fair, and impactful as possible.

Keywords

team sciencediversitycollaborationinterdisciplinaryappliedfield studiescommunityopen science
Type
Chapter
Information
Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology , pp. 68 - 84
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, L., O’Connell, A., and Kiermer, V. (2019). How can we ensure visibility and diversity in research contributions? How the Contributor Role Taxonomy (CRediT) is helping the shift from authorship to contributorship. Learned Publishing, 32(1), 71–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheryan, S., Ziegler, S. A., Montoya, A. K., and Jiang, L. (2017). Why are some STEM fields more gender balanced than others? Psychological Bulletin, 143(1), 1–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chetty, R., Jackson, M. O., Kuchler, T., Stroebel, J., Hendren, N., Fluegge, R. B., Gong, S., Gonzalez, F., Grondin, A., Jacob, M., Johnston, D., Koenen, M., Laguna-Muggenburg, E., Mudekereza, F., Rutter, T., Thor, N., Townsend, W., Zhang, R., Bailey, M., … Wernerfelt, N. (2022). Social capital I: Measurement and associations with economic mobility. Nature, 608(7921), 108–121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Christopher, S., Watts, V., McCormick, A. K. H. G., and Young, S. (2008). Building and maintaining trust in a community-based participatory research partnership. American Journal of Public Health, 98(8), 1398–1406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cikara, M., Martinez, J. E., and Lewis, N. A., Jr. (2022). Moving beyond social categories by incorporating context in social psychological theory. Nature Reviews Psychology.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, S. E., Clifasefi, S. L., Stanton, J., Straits, K. J. E., Espinosa, P. R., Andrasik, M. P., Miller, K. A., Orfaly, V. E., Gil-Kashiwabara, E., Nicasio, A. V., Hawes, S. M., Nelson, L. A., Duran, B. M., and Wallerstein, N. (2018). Community-based participatory research (CBPR): Towards equitable involvement of community in psychology research. American Psychologist, 73(7), 884–898.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooke, S. J., Young, N., Donaldson, M. R., Nyboer, E. A., Roche, D. G., Madliger, C. L., Lennox, R. J., Chapman, J. M., Faulkes, Z., and Bennett, J. R. (2021). Ten strategies for avoiding and overcoming authorship conflicts in academic publishing. FACETS, 6, 1753–1770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dupree, C. H., and Kraus, M. W. (2022). Psychological science is not race neutral. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 270–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eaton, A. A., Grzanka, P. R., Schlehofer, M. M., and Silka, L. (2021). Public psychology: Introduction to the special issue. American Psychologist, 76(8), 1209–1216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eggert, L. (2011). Best practices for allocating appropriate credit and responsibility to authors of multi-authored articles. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, www.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Forscher, P. S., Wagenmakers, E.-J., Coles, N. A., Silan, M. A., Dutra, N., Basnight-Brown, D. M., and IJzerman, H. (in press). The benefits, barriers, and risks of big team science. Perspectives on Psychological Science.Google Scholar
Greenwald, A. G., and Schuh, E. S. (1994). An ethnic bias in scientific citations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24(6), 623–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gruber, J., Mendle, J., Lindquist, K. A., Schmader, T., Clark, L. A., Bliss-Moreau, E., Akinola, M., Atlas, L., Barch, D. M., Barrett, L. F., Borelli, J. L., Brannon, T. N., Bunge, S. A., Campos, B., Cantlon, J., Carter, R., Carter-Sowell, A. R., Chen, S., Craske, M. G., … Williams, L. A. (2021). The future of women in psychological science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(3), 483–516.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grzanka, P. R., and Cole, E. R. (2021). An argument for bad psychology: Disciplinary disruption, public engagement, and social transformation. American Psychologist, 76(8), 1334–1345.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hall, K., Vogel, A., Huang, G., Serrano, K., Rice, E., Tsakraklides, S., and Fiore, S. (2018). The science of team science: A review of the empirical evidence and research gaps on collaboration in science. American Psychologist, 73, 532–548.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., and Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
IJzerman, H., Lewis, N. A., Jr., Przybylski, A. K., Weinstein, N., DeBruine, L., Ritchie, S. J., Vazire, S., Forscher, P. S., Morey, R. D., Ivory, J. D., and Anvari, F. (2020). Use caution when applying behavioural science to policy. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(11), 1092–1094.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jachimowicz, J. M. (2022). Embracing field studies as a tool for learning. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1(5), 249–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, B. C., DeBruine, L. M., Flake, J. K., Liuzza, M. T., Antfolk, J., Arinze, N. C., Ndukaihe, I. L. G., Bloxsom, N. G., Lewis, S. C., Foroni, F., Willis, M. L., Cubillas, C. P., Vadillo, M. A., Turiegano, E., Gilead, M., Simchon, A., Saribay, S. A., Owsley, N. C., Jang, C., … Coles, N. A. (2021). To which world regions does the valence–dominance model of social perception apply? Nature Human Behaviour, 5(1), 159–169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klein, G. (2007). Performing a project premortem. Harvard Business Review, 85, 18–19.Google Scholar
Klein, R. A., Cook, C. L., Ebersole, C. R., Vitiello, C., Nosek, B. A., Hilgard, J., Ahn, P. H., Brady, A. J., Chartier, C. R., Christopherson, C. D., Clay, S., Collisson, B., Crawford, J. T., Cromar, R., Gardiner, G., Gosnell, C. L., Grahe, J., Hall, C., Howard, I., … Ratliff, K. A. (2022). Many labs 4: Failure to replicate mortality salience effect with and without original author involvement. Collabra: Psychology, 8(1), 35271, https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.35271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, R. A., Vianello, M., Hasselman, F., Adams, B. G., Adams, R. B., Alper, S., Aveyard, M., Axt, J. R., Babalola, M. T., Bahník, Š. , Batra, R., Berkics, M., Bernstein, M. J., Berry, D. R., Bialobrzeska, O., Binan, E. D., Bocian, K., Brandt, M. J., Busching, R., … Nosek, B. A. (2018). Many labs 2: Investigating variation in replicability across samples and settings. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(4), 443–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurdi, B., Seitchik, A. E., Axt, J. R., Carroll, T. J., Karapetyan, A., Kaushik, N., Tomezsko, D., Greenwald, A. G., and Banaji, M. R. (2019). Relationship between the implicit association test and intergroup behavior: A meta-analysis. American Psychologist, 74(5), 569–586.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Larrick, R. P., Mannes, A. E., and Soll, J. B. (2012). The social psychology of the wisdom of crowds. In Joachim I. Krueger (ed.) Social Judgment and Decision Making. Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Ledgerwood, A., Hudson, S. T. J., Lewis, N. A., Jr., Maddox, K. B., Pickett, C. L., Remedios, J. D., Cheryan, S., Diekman, A. B., Dutra, N. B., Goh, J. X., Goodwin, S. A., Munakata, Y., Navarro, D. J., Onyeador, I. N., Srivastava, S., and Wilkins, C. L. (2022). The pandemic as a portal: Reimagining psychological science as truly open and inclusive. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17456916211036654, https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916211036654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledgerwood, A., Pickett, C., Navarro, D., Remedios, J. D., and Lewis, N. A., Jr. (2022). The unbearable limitations of solo science: Team science as a path for more rigorous and relevant research. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 45, e81, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X21000844.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewis, N. A., Jr. (2021a). Can we achieve “equality” when we have different understandings of its meaning? How contexts and identities shape the pursuit of egalitarian goals. Psychological Inquiry, 32(3), 155–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, N. A., Jr. (2021b). What counts as good science? How the battle for methodological legitimacy affects public psychology. American Psychologist, 76(8), 1323–1333.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewis, N. A., Jr. (2022). What universities say versus do about diversity, equity and inclusion. Nature Human Behaviour, 6(5), 610–610.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lin, Z., and Li, N. (2022). Global diversity of authors, editors, and journal ownership across subdisciplines of psychology: Current state and policy implications. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17456916221091832, https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916221091831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., and Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McShane, B. B., Tackett, J. L., Böckenholt, U., and Gelman, A. (2019). Large-scale replication projects in contemporary psychological research. American Statistician, 73(sup1), 99–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, M. N., Heck, P. R., Holtzman, G. S., Anderson, S. M., Cai, W., Watts, D. J., and Chabris, C. F. (2019). Objecting to experiments that compare two unobjectionable policies or treatments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(22), 10723–10728.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Milkman, K. L., Gromet, D., Ho, H., Kay, J. S., Lee, T. W., Pandiloski, P., Park, Y., Rai, A., Bazerman, M., Beshears, J., Bonacorsi, L., Camerer, C., Chang, E., Chapman, G., Cialdini, R., Dai, H., Eskreis-Winkler, L., Fishbach, A., Gross, J. J., … Duckworth, A. L. (2021). Megastudies improve the impact of applied behavioural science. Nature, 600(7889), 478–483.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mitchell, J., Boettcher-Sheard, N., Duque, C., and Lashewicz, B. (2018). Who do we think we are? Disrupting notions of quality in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 28(4), 673–680.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moshontz, H., Campbell, L., Ebersole, C. R., IJzerman, H., Urry, H. L., Forscher, P. S., Grahe, J. E., McCarthy, R. J., Musser, E. D., Antfolk, J., Castille, C. M., Evans, T. R., Fiedler, S., Flake, J. K., Forero, D. A., Janssen, S. M. J., Keene, J. R., Protzko, J., Aczel, B., … Chartier, C. R. (2018). The Psychological Science Accelerator: Advancing psychology through a distributed collaborative network. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(4), 501–515.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newman, M. E. J. (2001). The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98(2), 404–409.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Oyserman, D. (2015). Culture as situated cognition. In Robert A. Scott and Marlis C. Buchmann (gen. eds) and Stephen M. Kosslyn (consulting ed.) Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences: An Interdisciplinary, Searchable, and Linkable Resource. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0067.Google Scholar
Page, S. E. (2019). The Diversity Bonus: How Great Teams Pay Off in the Knowledge Economy. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Paluck, E. L., and Cialdini, R. B. (2013). Field research methods. In Reis, H. T. and Judd, C. M. (eds) Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pearson, A. R., White, K. E., Nogueira, L., Lewis, N. A., Jr., Green, D. J., Schuldt, J. P., and Edmondson, D. (in press). Climate change and health equity: A research agenda for psychological science. American Psychologist.Google Scholar
Posselt, J. R. (2016). Inside Graduate Admissions: Merit, Diversity, and Faculty Gatekeeping. Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reece, A., Cooney, G., Bull, P., Chung, C., Dawson, B., Fitzpatrick, C., Glazer, T., Knox, D., Liebscher, A., and Marin, S. (2022). Advancing an interdisciplinary science of conversation: Insights from a large multimodal corpus of human speech (arXiv:2203.00674). arXiv, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2203.00674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, S. O., Bareket-Shavit, C., Dollins, F. A., Goldie, P. D., and Mortenson, E. (2020). Racial inequality in psychological research: Trends of the past and recommendations for the future. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(6), 1295–1309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sears, D. O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology’s view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(3), 515–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Settles, I. H., Jones, M. K., Buchanan, N. T., and Dotson, K. (2021). Epistemic exclusion: Scholar(ly) devaluation that marginalizes faculty of color. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 14(4), 493–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starck, J. G., Sinclair, S., and Shelton, J. N. (2021). How university diversity rationales inform student preferences and outcomes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(16), e2013833118, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2013833118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Syed, M. (2021). It’s 2 × 2 designs all the way down: Social psychology’s over-reliance on experiments restricts diversity in the field (conference presentation), https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/u89e2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Bavel, J. J., Baicker, K., Boggio, P. S., Capraro, V., Cichocka, A., Cikara, M., Crockett, M. J., Crum, A. J., Douglas, K. M., Druckman, J. N., Drury, J., Dube, O., Ellemers, N., Finkel, E. J., Fowler, J. H., Gelfand, M., Han, S., Haslam, S. A., Jetten, J., … Willer, R. (2020). Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(5), 460–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yudkin, D. A., Stolier, R. M., and Lewis, N. A., Jr. (2021). Changing perceptions around nontraditional career trajectories in psychological science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 25(6), 417–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuberi, T., and Bonilla-Silva, E. (eds.). (2008). White Logic, White Methods: Racism and Methodology. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×