Layout 1 [Qualitative Research in Medicine & Healthcare 2021; 5:9724] [page 55] Introduction Research is increasingly being conducted by teams in nearly all disciplines.1 Multi-university collaborations, among the most complicated, are growing the fastest.2 Yet, there is a dearth of qualitative studies focused on in- terdisciplinary team scientists’ perceptions of collabora- tion effectiveness within federally funded research center partnerships. For this study, a “center” is defined as part- nership between two or more universities that include a minority-serving institution (MSI) and predominately White institutions (PWIs). Collaboration is broadly viewed as the ability and willingness to share resources, knowledge, and outcomes in a manner that benefits par- ticipating institutions so that it augments existing services and builds the capacity for nascent or unavailable services and contributes to longer-term societal outcomes associ- ated with these programs. With the aid of a person-centered approach, and use of surveys or interviews, participant perceptions of col- laboration effectiveness can be ascertained. Alternatively, collaboration effectiveness can be assessed by analyzing the extent of shared publications, using bibliometrics or media products with a system-centered approach. Engag- ing interdisciplinary researchers, biomedical and social scientists, clinicians, and community health educators in team science across geographically situated institutions and academic departments whose values for teaching, Assessing collaboration among team scientists within a triadic research center partnership Linda S. Behar-Horenstein,1 Joyce M. Richey,2 Ukamaka Diké Smith3 1School of Human Development and Organizational Studies in Education, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida; 2Department of Clinical Physiology and Neuroscience, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California; 3Department of Pharmacy Practice, Florida Agricultural and Mining University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA ABSTRACT Few studies have utilized qualitative methods to assess the perceived effectiveness of collaboration among research center interdisciplinary team scientists. Stages of team development served as the theoretical framework to characterize minority serv- ing institution (MSI) and predominantly White institutions (PWI) participants’ challenges and successes during a National Institutes of Health (NIH) sponsored cancer health disparities training and research program. We present the finding of an inductive analysis of four open-ended survey questions across two years. Fostering an awareness of the inherently taxing, yet centrality of group (team) development may advance an understanding of team dy- namics and lead to increased team cohesion and productivity. In conclusion, we provide recommendations to assist multiple prin- cipal investigators who embark on team development. Correspondence: Linda S. Behar-Horenstein, School of Human Development and Organizational Studies in Education, University of Florida, 7916 Monarch Ct. Delray Beach, 33446 FL. E-mail: Lsbhoren@ufl.edu Key words: Interdisciplinary research teams; collaboration; team development; cancer health disparities training and research; eval- uation; MSI-PWI partnerships; team science; inductive analysis. Contributions: LB-H made substantial contributions to 1) the con- ception and design of the work, 2) the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data for the work, 3) drafting the work and revis- ing it critically for important intellectual content, and 4) final ap- proval of the version to be published. JR made substantial contributions to 1) the analysis, and interpretation of data for the work, 2) drafting the work and revising it critically for important intellectual content, and 3) final approval of the version to be pub- lished. UDS made substantial contributions to 1) the analysis, and interpretation of data for the work, 2) drafting the work and revis- ing it critically for important intellectual content, and 3) final ap- proval of the version to be published. All authors agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are ap- propriately investigated and resolved. Conflict of interest: The authors declare no potential conflict of in- terest. Funding: Research reported in this publication was supported by the NIH/ National Cancer Institute Awards U54CA233444, U54CA233465, and U54CA233396. The content is solely the re- sponsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. Availability of data and materials: Not applicable. Ethics approval and consent to participate: The Ethics Committee of the University of Florida approved this study (IRB201903425). The study was deemed exempt. The study conformed with the Helsinki Declaration of 1964, as revised in 2013, concerning human and animal rights. Completion of the online survey was a proxy for a signed written informed consent. Informed consent: Not applicable. Received for publication: 3 March 2021. Accepted for publication: 23 July 2021. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non- Commercial 4.0 License (CC BY-NC 4.0). ©Copyright: the Author(s), 2021 Licensee PAGEPress, Italy Qualitative Research in Medicine & Healthcare 2021; 5:9724 doi:10.4081/qrmh.2021.9724 Qualitative Research in Medicine & Healthcare 2021; volume 5:9724 No n- co mm er cia l u se on ly scholarship, and research may vary widely will likely in- fluence a center’s capacity to achieve grant outcomes/benchmarks. Working across universities, re- searchers are often expected to collaborate in teams, with one or more representatives from each institution. Few field studies have explored the team science de- velopment processes among interdisciplinary researchers at the onset of funded projects. The costs associated with studies that do not rely on survey methodology can be pro- hibitively labor intensive. Further complicating qualitative inquiry is team science where there is a lack of consensual conceptual agreement regarding the characteristics of each developmental stage. While others have used psychometric measures to assess collaboration, qualitative studies are in- frequent.3 The importance of qualitative inquiry cannot be understated as it has the potential to elucidate the complex interacting factors in real-world environments. Engaging social scientists in research on the emergent state of team science can enrich inquiry via the development of theoret- ical models to inform researchers of its unique dynamic and contextual factors.4 Herein, we employed the long-standing typology of group development (akin to team development) proposed by the Tuckman and Tuckman and Jensen to assess col- laborative team science dynamics.5,6 Tuckman and Tuck- man and Jensen categorized the stages as: i) forming, ii) storming, iii) norming, and iv) performing. During form- ing, participants are typically engaged in establishing norms to guide interactions and work as they become ac- quainted with processes and goals. Characteristics of storming include responding to conflict, identifying dif- fering views about the center’s mission, determining how work should be organized, and negotiating how much in- fluence one member may hold over others. While in norming, participant energy is often dedicated towards building consensus and developing cohesion, identifying the mission, and establishing operational practices to guide work. As participants develop a sense of mutual re- spect and camaraderie, they enter the stage of performing where shared leadership roles among members and as- signing roles and tasks based on group member’s skill and expertise is often observed.5,6 This framework is widely accepted in psychological studies of group dynamics.7 Groups are typically com- prised of people who come together to resolve and remedy issues that influence the quality of their day-to day-living or impact relationships. In these settings, individuals are often afforded opportunities to draw upon the insights that the therapist and other individuals offer. Though the mo- tivation for working in this type of group is different from that which brings team scientists together, the dynamics that characterize interpersonal group interactions are sim- ilar. Team scientists, like groups, tend to organize them- selves by adopting rules or norms that regulate behavior. Member often align themselves with allies according to shared values and what is in their best interests. All groups naturally create a division of labor. The degree to which team members collaborate is likely influenced by i) per- ceived norms, ii) institutional demands, iii) perceptions of mutual benefits, iv) the degree to which a member feels validated by other members, v) the level of trust, safety, and cohesion a member feels, and vi) individual percep- tions of the equitable distribution of power, control, and contributions. Assessing collaboration may broaden our understanding regarding how each person’s actions and contributions fit within a larger context of the aims of the grant. After all, effective teams are not accidental. They must be meticulously formed by bringing together highly skilled, highly motivated individuals who have a clear pic- ture of their goals and can recognize tangible evidence of their achievements.7 Researchers have argued that the degree to which PWI and MSI team scientists perceive their collaboration is not well understood. Warren, Behar-Horenstein, and Heard, and Davis, Warren and Behar-Horenstein suggest that these relationships, typically, are not true partnerships.8,9 In a 20-year review of MSIs and PWIs, Davis et al. (in press) reported a pattern of inequitable partnerships and mechanisms that averted or prevented MSIs from maxi- mizing their research scholarship, faculty productivity, and funding capacities.9 They recommended studying MSI-PWI partnerships while they are evolving rather than at the conclusion of grant funding. In this study, we as- sessed the MSI-PWI team scientists’ perceptions of inter- disciplinary collaboration effectiveness within the context of group development theoretical framework. To the best of our knowledge, qualitative studies such as this have not been undertaken while the partnership is evolving. Studies of interdisciplinary team science A growing interest in enhancing cross-disciplinary collaboration among health scientists has prompted sev- eral federal agencies, including the NIH, to establish large, multicenter initiatives to foster collaborative re- search and training. Yet, few studies have focused on the impact or effectiveness of interdisciplinary collaboration in science teams. Unique factors create an imperative to study these teams in context by assessing the processes related to working in transdisciplinary teams. Providing such opportunities can advance our understanding of var- ied forms of collaboration.10 In a review of quantitative studies, Hall et al. provide a comprehensive overview of team science characteristics including its values, team for- mation and composition, processes central to effective team functioning, and organizational and institutions fac- tors that impact the success of effectiveness of their col- laborations.10 New strategies for evaluating research processes and products as well as the longer-term societal outcomes (i.e., public health improvements) associated with these programs are essential to assessing the effec- tiveness of collaborative scientific initiatives.11-14 In this [page 56] [Qualitative Research in Medicine & Healthcare 2021; 5:9724] Article No n- co mm er cia l u se on ly paper, we describe a qualitative approach that was used to assess the effectiveness of collaboration among MSI- PWI multi-disciplinary science teams. Previous evaluation studies have assessed collabora- tive processes and outcomes during the mid-term or later stages of an initiative, while Hall et al. assessed an- tecedent factors present at the outset of an initiative using indexes of collaborative readiness, along with additional measures of near-term collaborative processes that may influence the effectiveness of team collaboration over the duration of the program.12 Studies of teams, groups, or- ganizations, and management in industry and the military provide a body of evidence for effective teaming.12 Previ- ous studies of teams, undertaken in laboratories, aviation and military settings, and complex organizational envi- ronments,13-15 were guided by the input-process-outcome model of teamwork.16 Facets of collaboration such as in- dividual attitudes, information sharing, solution identifi- cation, and relationships among concepts were assessed to determine how they impact team effectiveness. In re- cent years, multilevel analyses have offered a more holis- tic understanding of collaboration.17,18 However, the increased demand for scientific collaborations has out- paced an understanding of the factors that are needed to support teams in science, such as institutional structures, policies, and culture. Therefore, assessing the effective- ness of collaboration among team science researchers across their disciplinary, organizational, and cultural boundaries is vital to address increasingly complex chal- lenges and opportunities in science and society.10 Background information about this MSI-PWI partnership The center (hereafter, “Center” or “CARE2”) where we conducted this study is comprised of one MSI—the Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University (FAMU)—and two PWIs—the University of Florida (UF) and the Univer- sity of Southern California National Comprehensive Can- cer Center (USC-NCCC). The goals of our grant are to reduce cancer disparities in Blacks and Latinos, train and increase the pool of underrepresented Black and Latino sci- entists conducting health disparity research, increase re- search capacity at a minority serving institutions (e.g., FAMU); and increase cancer disparity research at UF and USC-NCCC. Two full projects (funded across the entire grant period) and a pilot project (funded for years one to three of the grant) included investigators from the Center institutions to augment the number of specimens collected from Blacks and Latinos, representing a wide range of sub- populations within these minority groups. The Center con- ducted prostate cancer and pancreatic cancer studies to reveal unprecedented findings about their impact on under- studied Black and Latino populations. The aims of these projects were to transfer cutting edge and innovative tech- nologies to FAMU and to provide research training oppor- tunities across the partnership to 120 trainees which include doctoral, graduate and postbaccalaureate students, post- doctoral fellows, and Early-Stage Investigators (ESI). Overall, the aim of the Center was to expand the research focus at UF and USC-NCCC and address health disparities in prostate and pancreatic cancers. The research projects were supported by six shared workgroups (Administrative, Biostatistics and Methods, Community Outreach, Research Education, Planning and Evaluation, and Tissue Model- ling). Each institution site hired its own coordinator to over- see the administrative tasks of the grant. As many as 48 individuals including key investigators, site coordinators, and internal advisory committee members comprised Cen- ter personnel. The Center was funded by the National Cancer Insti- tute U54 Comprehensive Partnership for Advancing Can- cer Equity Health (CPACHE) program. The premises for this funding mechanism are to i) reduce the burden of can- cer disparities while building capacity for biomedical re- search and training at MSIs, ii) increase the diversity of underrepresented minorities (URMs) in biomedical sci- ences, and iii) foster formal collaborations between re- search-intensive universities and minority serving institutions (MSI). Partnerships among research intensive and MSIs in cancer disparities research were initiated to ensure the: i) identification of biomarkers of cancer inci- dence, ii) reduce cancer occurrence, iii) provide resources to community health advocates, and iv) empower com- munity members whose lives are impacted by cancer. Currently, 16 CPACHE centers are funded across the US. As required by the National Institute of Health (NIH), annual self-evaluation is conducted through the submission of progress reports from the individual projects under the program funding mechanism. Each program monitors and reports the degree to which they have attained proposed ob- jectives. Researchers may assess the quality of programs using outcome measures or evidence of impact. Program outcome measures may include i) reporting the number of publications that trainees and mentors co-author, ii) report- ing the number of trainees who matriculate, continue in ac- ademic cancer-related research careers, or co-author publications, iii) specifying the number and list of presen- tations/meetings that include trainees, iv) reporting the number of program graduates who receive R01 or career development awards, v) documenting the number who hold positions as professors or leadership roles on NCI commit- tees, or vi) describing the quality of mentoring, among oth- ers. However, beyond annual self-reporting, there are no requirements for assessing the effectiveness of internal team scientists’ dynamics or collaborative engagement. Materials and Methods We used a person-centered approach to data collection by surveying participants. The resource and labor inten- sity of interviewing rendered survey use more feasible. [Qualitative Research in Medicine & Healthcare 2021; 5:9724] [page 57] Article No n- co mm er cia l u se on ly During the summers of 2019 and 2020, we asked Center key investigators to respond to four open-ended questions in a Qualtrics survey. The survey was exclusive of demo- graphic questions or personal links; all responses were anonymous. The questions were designed to assess the Center’s communications and interactions (Table 1). Dur- ing Summer 2019 (Year 1), 38 were invited; 21 (55%) completed the survey. In Summer 2020 (Year 2), 48 were invited, and 33 (69%) participated. The number of partic- ipants in Year 2 was based, in part by an increased number of internal advisory committee members. The total num- ber of participants at each institution ranged from 10 to 15 during Year 1 and from 14 to 17 during Year 2. The number of invited participants per institution included 10 from FAMU, 13 from UF, and 15 from USC during Year 1. During Year 2, there were 14 invited participants from FAMU and 17 from both UF and USC. Drawing upon their diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds, participants included basic and social scientists, clinicians, and com- munity health educators who were tenured, tenure-, and non-tenure accruing. For purposes of this study, the overall number of par- ticipants was considered the unit of analysis. Participant data was analyzed as an entity. As the authors, we are the principal investigators (PIs) of the Planning and Evalua- tion Core (PEC), a group of researchers assigned to pro- vide an objective assessment of the Center’s outcomes. After de-identified data was downloaded into Excel, we analyzed that dataset inductively and identified emergent themes/subthemes characteristic of respondents’ replies and developed conceptual definitions. Inductive analysis, also referred to as “in vivo coding” is actual language in the qualitative data that has been used by the participants themselves.19 We used the participants’ written responses in our analysis. In vivo coding is appropriate to studies that highlight and give priority to participants’ voices.20 Data analysis As researchers, we are a senior professor with expert- ise in qualitative research, a senior basic scientist with a wealth of experience in creating, implementing, and eval- uating pipeline/pathways program, and an early-stage in- vestigator (ESI) in pharmacy practice with experience in community health initiatives. Prior to the analysis, we read participants’ responses to each of the four survey questions as separate entities. We met to discuss our in- dependent notions of the emergent themes. Then, we used open coding while reading line by line. We compared open coding to ensure that a systematic approach to analy- sis was occurring before moving on to develop categories and emergent themes. To ensure validity checking, one of us analyzed the con- tent of two of the four questions. Another author checked the thematic interpretation of the first author’s analysis. This process was repeated for the other two questions across both datasets. We discussed the emergent themes and conceptual definitions and reached consensus. Themes for each survey question for Years 1 and 2 are shown in Table [page 58] [Qualitative Research in Medicine & Healthcare 2021; 5:9724] Article Table 1. Themes/subthemes and conceptual definitions associated with survey questions. Survey questions Themes/subthemes: Year 1 Themes/subthemes: Year 2 Conceptual definitions 1. What is working well within your • Collaboration • Regular meetings Processes, practices, and behaviors core/project team? • Respect • Communication frequency characteristic of teamwork • Communication frequency • Point person • Meeting agendas/protocols 2. Do you have any recommendations • Reduce administrative tasks • Lack of centralized workspace Protocols and practices perceived as to improve productivity? • Efficient/user-friendly • Lack of procedural governance linked to successful trainee and research data/information management • Inefficient work allocation outcomes • Equity in workload • Effective and efficient communication 3. What evidence can you provide that • Shared responsibility/leadership • ↑Productivity Practices and processes aligned with demonstrates active collaboration • Collaboration /Infrastructure • Training activities teamwork with CaRE2 partners? resources/Research project/ Please provide examples. scholarship/Actualizing new projects • Cross institutional training 4. How can collaborations be • Enhance workflow efficiency/ • Strengthen collaboration/Promote Practices and processes perceived as strengthened? Provide advanced notice and cross core- research project integral to successful benchmark clarity for grant needs/Require contributions/Increase attainment timely email response/Post intra-institutional collaboration center wide resource documents networks and authorships/Increase in center-wide folder intra-institutional engagement of • Forge partnership identity MSI student trainees • Strengthen Collaborations • Address conflict resolution No n- co mm er cia l u se on ly 1. We reached consensus on the identification of the cate- gories as well as the themes that emerged in this study. The use of two independent coders aided us in reducing the po- tential for bias. Reading line-by-line and coding segments assisted us in making supporting quotations more accessi- ble to support the categories that were identified. This rigorous and systematic approach allowed us to feel confident that what we report is representative of par- ticipants’ perspectives. Attention to credibility and con- firmability facilitated establishing trustworthiness. Credibility, or confidence in the truth of the findings, was achieved through triangulation and peer debriefing. Tri- angulation was accomplished by i) using three analysts, ii) reviewing multiple responses to each survey question, iii) using qualitative line-by-line coding, and iv) peer de- briefing to ensure the accuracy of interpretations. Con- firmability was achieved by engaging more than one person in analyzing the data.21 We also report the Center benchmark attainment at the inception of funding by providing evidence of baseline data for publications, presentations, funded projects, grant sub- missions and awards, the number of URMs student trainees and ESIs, and other awards at the close of Year 2. Results In this section, we provide an overview of the themes and subthemes along with anecdotal support for each sur- vey question by Years 1 and 2. Next, we provide a com- parative analysis of the findings and describe the association between findings and the stages of group de- velopment. We conclude this section with a summary of baseline and Year 2 outcomes, referred to as “benchmark attainment.” Working well within cores/project teams Year 1 Five themes emerged from the analysis of what is working well within the core/project teams: collaboration, respect, communication frequency, point person, and meeting agendas/protocols. These themes were identified as processes, practices, and behaviors characteristic of teamwork. Collaboration Regarding collaboration, participants described the impact of “teamwork” and characterized it as a “good di- vision of labor.” During the first year of the grant, they reported that, “collaboratively we established and later re- vised a protocol to guide policies and practices (effort, documentation/record keeping, communications, guide- lines for sending and receiving communications, and workflow).” Respect Respect was exemplified by the perception of a sense of “strong camaraderie” as well as “mutual respect and commitment of the core members” devoted to “reducing cancer health disparities.” Communication frequency Communication frequency, experienced via email, phone, regularly scheduled meetings and Zoom, video- conferencing/recordings was exemplified by the prac- tice of “regular meetings” and the use of a “basic video-conferencing systems” that supported what par- ticipants described as “efficient and effective” commu- nication. Point person The assignment of a point person—someone who schedules and keeps the group on task—was appreciated for his role in “Having someone [to] arrange conferences and remind us of deadlines for progress report.” Remark- ing about core leadership, one participant pointed out that having this type of leadership provides “glue” to the com- munication that facilitated honest and forthright commu- nication and served to keep “the group on task and held accountable.” Meeting agendas/protocols Advanced preparation and notification of meeting agendas/protocols ensured the implementation of “com- prehensive [and planful] agendas” as well as “protocols [that provided guidelines for implementing] policies and practices.” Year 2 During the 2nd year of the funding, only two themes were noted: regular meetings and communication fre- quency. Regular meetings Participants reported that “regular meetings and hav- ing joint activities that we plan together” were evidence of the role that communication plays in successful Center initiatives. Communication frequency Many respondents noted “communicating and coop- erating with each other via emails and virtual meetings” were “critical to come together as a more cohesive unit.” One participant remarked that “communication [was] held to a high standard which keeps us on track.” An- other stated that, “the professional relationship is strong, effective and pleasant.” Others pointed out the meeting frequency promoted working together and “fluid,” co- operative communication. [Qualitative Research in Medicine & Healthcare 2021; 5:9724] [page 59] Article No n- co mm er cia l u se on ly Comparison between Years 1 and 2 In Year 1, collaboration, respect, communication fre- quency, point person, and meeting agendas/protocols, characteristic of the stage of forming, were described as what is working well. Interestingly, collaboration and re- spect were not evident in Year 2. This subsequent empha- sis on frequency of meetings and communication may have resulted from the firm establishment of practices set in Year 1, suggesting that participants had begun norming. Recommendations to improve productivity Year 1 Four themes emerged from an analysis of recommen- dations to improve productivity: reduce administrative tasks, equity in workload, effective and efficient commu- nication/action-driven meetings, and efficient/user- friendly data/information management. The focus of these themes was on implementing protocols and practices that were perceived as linked to successful trainee and re- search outcomes Reduce administrative tasks Participants reported a need to reduce administrative tasks. For example, participants stated that there needed to be a stronger focus on the “success of our trainees [by] providing [and supporting] training. Excessive adminis- trative demands such as reports” were viewed as a dis- traction to that goal. Equity in workload Participants expressed considerable concern about eq- uity in workload. Although they observed a practice of shared leadership, several reported that not everyone was “pulling their weight.” This was exemplified by relevant core members who did attend scheduled conference calls or complete assigned tasks, and neglected to notify group members beforehand. Others remarked that “productivity would be improved by greater focus on action items dur- ing meetings—what will be done, by whom [specifying the] due date and improved follow-through.” Notably, “in- equity in workload completion, is beginning to affect the team outcomes and needs to be resolved.” Unsurprisingly, there is a greater “focus on process and less on outcomes” which is likely to “affect the sustainability of the Center [and] needs to change if we want to be successful.” Some participants suggested that “meeting agenda items [needed to focus] on short-term goals as well as longer-term goals [to] support productivity that is proac- tive rather than reactive.” One participant pointed out that [we] “have been in crisis mode for too long and need to get more proactive.” This participant recommended align- ing meeting agendas with the work-plan presented in the grant timeline, creating a “check-in” regarding progress made for each aim, and establishing “due dates for all cores and projects would improve proactive productivity.” Along the same line, participants pointed out that “most of the submissions [such as required reports] are being done last minute, which reduces the quality of as- sessment.” To remedy this, a participant suggested prepar- ing documents “at least a week prior to the deadline so that other group members [could] provide their feedback.” Effective and efficient communication/action-driven meetings Participants pointed out gaps in communication and as- serted the need for effective and efficient communication guided by action-driven meetings. They asked for “better and more in time communication and [increased] reminders of grant requirements.” There was broad disagreement about the frequency of meetings. Some called for “increasing the number of meetings so productivity could improve, since many topics cannot be covered in a single meeting and need follow-up meetings.” Others suggested reducing “the num- ber of meetings and rely[ing] more on email exchange.” Collectively, participants pointed out there was an ab- sence of awareness regarding the role and functions of core and projects. To remedy this, they suggested distrib- uting “a monthly newsletter/update ... to feature progress as well as impediments and to share information” about the role and accomplishments of each core and project in a brief communication. Similarly, some requested increas- ing clarity about the scientific projects and providing more guidance on “eligibility criteria for tissue [procure- ment] in order to carry out their scientific aims.” Another suggestion pertained to identifying “who is responsible for tracking samples provided to investigators,” while one individual asked if this process was going to be “central- ized or [assigned] per study.” Another participant pointed out that, “we have little or no interaction with other cores and teams. We don’t know what kind of resources and services are available. If each core can provide a simple list of services and expertise, that will help.” Along the same lines, another suggestion was to develop a “central contact liaison from each core, master calendar, [and] find an alternative solution to Dropbox.” Others opined that there seemed to be a lack of prepa- ration for monthly meetings. Excessively long agendas and lengthy discussions of each item were also regarded as impediments to productivity. Sometimes I feel as if our core is not always pre- pared for monthly meetings. By that, I mean, it feels as though they are each considering agenda items for the first time and spend a lot of time discussing the pros and cons of the smallest decision in exquisite detail, when really by the time we are at the meeting this issue should be down to a couple of points in favor or against and the group should be making a decision one way or the other. Sometimes important decisions don’t get finalized in the interest of time, [page 60] [Qualitative Research in Medicine & Healthcare 2021; 5:9724] Article No n- co mm er cia l u se on ly but I don’t know if that course of action really is in the interest of making the most of our time. Efficient/user-friendly data/information management Several participants expressed a need for an efficient- user-friendly data/information management. They identi- fied the major issue as “file/data management” and reported the “difficultly managing documents, especially when multiple people need to review and edit the same document.” One recommendation was to “find an alter- native solution to Dropbox” and switch over to Basecamp, regarded as a “more efficient platform for sharing tasks and for everyday communication.” Year 2 During year two, three themes emerged from analysis of recommendations to improve the Center’s productivity: lack of centralized workspace, lack of procedural gover- nance, and inefficient work allocation. These themes re- ferred to practices linked to effective project management practices, organizational governance, and effective inter- nal communication as essential to improve productivity. Lack of centralized workspace Participants suggested developing a centralized work- space. They asserted that this platform would enable shared meeting minutes and facilitate better management of assigned tasks to track progress. For example, partici- pants suggested documenting and circulating “action items” to ensure “that individuals are held responsible.” Another participant proffered “building a task list with deadlines to keep track of outstanding/ongoing projects.” Database management platforms such as a “productivity- based platform” or “platform designed for teams… such as Slack or Basecamp” were recommended as mecha- nisms to remedy this challenge. Others suggested such an investment would enhance Center productivity by “mak- ing it easier to find threads, exchanges, and documents.” Lack of procedural governance A few participants indicated a lack of procedural gover- nance and adherence to standard operating procedures (SOPs) hindered productivity. Not adhering to meeting agendas was cited as an impediment to productivity. A desire to fix matters without necessary planning such as setting up processes “in the heat of the moment when faced with im- pending deadlines resulted in, things becom[ing] chaotic.” Participants urged developing protocols “agree[d] upon be- forehand … to ensure all are comfortable with them,” fol- lowed by “adherence.” Inefficient work allocation Several participants commented on the lack of effi- cient work allocations. Central concerns were an incon- gruence between the percentage of time allotted to work on projects versus the actual time needed to complete tasks. Some pointed out that “hiring of additional [per- sonnel] to complete the work [which] would increase productivity.” Another suggestion was “to engage more members for the core.” Along the same lines, one sug- gestion was to utilize “students that are assigned to the core who want to be engaged in publications and [work] on projects … as it would also help alleviate the workload”. Some participants reported that the frequency of re- dundant email communications and the number of emer- gency emails that “necessitate a 24-hour turn-around” was excessive and diminished their availability to spend time on “actual core or project scientific tasks.” One par- ticipant pointed out that a lack of or unspecified subject in an email thread coupled with “... different topics [that] are discussed in one same email, or a topic is discussed in an email trail that has a different subject,” made it chal- lenging “to find exchanges [which then resulted in] repeated emails.” Another participant sug- gested reducing the frequency of emergency emails and migrating “from email correspon- dence to a productivity-based platform like Slack, Basecamp ... so that communications can be or- ganized by topic.” Comparison between Years 1 and 2 Themes related to providing formative feedback and processes (characteristic of forming) for managing sci- entific projects were absent during Year 2 suggesting that these activities had become normative. While ex- emplifying storming, participants often expressed dis- satisfaction with administrative tasks such as the number of reports requested during Year 1 while this was not ap- parent in Year 2. While participants observed that Year 1 efforts focused on the developing processes and pro- tocols, typical of norming, a lack of procedural gover- nance and adherence to SOPs, notable during Year 2 suggested that participants had entered the stage of storming. Participants’ comments over Years 1 and 2 were sim- ilar. For example, Year 1 suggestions to shift to a more efficient and user-friendly data information management system became more frequent in Year 2. During this time, participants emphasized a need for more central- ized workspaces to effectively manage tasks, share doc- uments, and review communication exchanges. This concern was characteristic of norming. Participants’ ex- pression of increased concern about inefficient commu- nication practices, unnecessarily frequent, redundant emails, and emergency meetings, are characteristic of storming. Workload equity was a common theme during both Year 1 and Year 2. [Qualitative Research in Medicine & Healthcare 2021; 5:9724] [page 61] Article No n- co mm er cia l u se on ly Evidence of active collaboration Year 1 Three themes emerged from an analysis of the evi- dence that demonstrated active collaboration among the CaRE2 partners: shared responsibility/leadership, collab- oration (4 subthemes: infrastructure resources, research projects, scholarship, and actualizing new projects) and cross institutional training. Conceptually, themes denoted practices and processes aligned with teamwork. Shared responsibility/leadership This theme was exemplified by a collaborative agree- ment among key investigators to rotate institutional leader- ship responsibility every four months. Synergistic activities were exemplified by PEC’s distribution of draft evaluation plans for all cores and research projects and their provision of formative feedback. Others described the presence of teamwork as evidenced by “key investigators’ active col- laboration in writing and submitting annual reports” and a willingness to engage beyond the initial scheduled meeting times, by “following-up in our next meetings or via e-mail.” Collaboration Evidence of this theme was demonstrated by sharing infrastructure resources, research projects, scholarship, and actualizing new projects. Infrastructure resources was described as sharing tech- nology across the universities and convening cross-insti- tutional trainings, meetings, and meeting presentation submissions. Key investigators’ cooperative “preparation of [the annual report], reviews, and submission” as well as “engagement in frequent phone calls, face-to-face- meetings, communication via emails and Zoom meetings” exemplified collaboration. Research Project. Participants describe the nature of their shared research efforts as Center projects working to- gether to ensure the completion of “sequencing, determining the sample size, and sequencing coverage depth.” Others ensured that they obtained cells from UF and acquired a “modified version of a drug from FAMU.” Research project leads guaranteed the timely receipt of “samples to FAMU to characterize and provide FFPE tissue blocks.” Scholarship. Collaboration in scholarship was evi- denced by the dissemination through “conference presen- tations [and] publishing papers together,” submitting grant supplements and manuscripts while including members of different cores and projects as co-authors. Actualizing New Projects. This subtheme was de- scribed as the “potential for new collaborations” and an intention to identify new areas of research through cross university communication. Participants mentioned that the Center offered support for new lines of investigation by “submitting Developmental Research Program (DRP) applications.” Cross institutional training Evidenced of this practice was observed by “exchanging students across Center institutions.” Specifically, the Center provided support for “FAMU students and faculty [to travel and] participate in research projects at UF and USC.” Year 2 Two themes emerged during the second year: increase in productivity and increase in training activities. Increase in productivity Participants were nearly uniform in sharing Center successes. They highlighted the noticeable increase in the number of publications, grant submissions, and presenta- tions as evidence of burgeoning productivity. “Continued collaboration among core and project teams” led “to grants, presentations and publications.” Additionally, “we hosted a virtual summit to promote research collabora- tions Center-wide.” Participants also noted the surge in “joint publications, poster presentations, group discus- sions, [and] seminar presentations by core leaders.” An- other key indicator of increased productivity was the generation of “new manuscript collaborations underway for various cores and research projects.” Increase in training activities Trainee engagement also increased in Year 2 as more “trainees participated in community activities.” All of the project PIs served as mentors to undergraduate and grad- uate students as well as to ESIs. Additionally, training “in- cluded advisory planning committees, patient advocates, and organizations” that fostered program expansion. Comparison between Years 1 and 2 As expected during the first year of group team devel- opment and the stage of forming, participants focused on understanding available resources. Consistent with the stage of norming, they identified requisite infrastructure to actualize collaborations. Once these factors were iden- tified, by Year 2, team development rapidly segued to per- forming and producing outcomes, marked by increased publications, presentations, and grants. Considering that change processes generally take three to five years, real- izing an uptick in productivity within a bi-coastal institu- tional partnership is remarkable. Strengthening collaborations Year 1 Three themes emerged from an analysis of how col- laborations could be strengthened including calls: enhance workflow efficiency, forge a partnership identity, and strengthen collaborations. Conceptually, these themes re- [page 62] [Qualitative Research in Medicine & Healthcare 2021; 5:9724] Article No n- co mm er cia l u se on ly ferred to practices and processes perceived as integral to successful benchmark attainment. Enhance workflow efficiency To enhance workflow efficiency, subthemes were sug- gestions to: provide advanced notice and clarity for grant needs, require timely email response, and post Center- wide resource documents. Advanced notice and clarity for grant needs Participants asked for timely communication and re- minders about grant report preparation requirements (i.e., how to format reports and present clearer expectations and details about when something should be completed). One suggestion was to ask PEC liaisons to meet with each core/research project team at least once per quarter to identify requisite data/documents needed to evaluate progress towards benchmark attainment. Timely Email Response. Participants stressed the need to ensure timely responses. Some called for a standing practice to “respond to emails within 24 hours (one busi- ness day).” Others pointed out how failure to respond ad- versely impacted “evaluation processes” that resulted in lost opportunities for data collection from trainees and de- layed or averted the “potential for scholarly dissemina- tion.” Garnering grant funding in a highly competitive field is often viewed as a stellar accomplishment. Since our Center received grant funding following submission of its initial proposal, this places us among few CPACHE centers to achieve such an accolade. Post Center Wide Resource Documents. Many of the participants requested making documents readily acces- sible and easy to locate by posting Center-wide resource documents in a designated folder. Among documents re- quested were: i) a master contact list with the phone num- bers of all key investigators, ii) quarterly updates to a master list of project collaborators and potential mentors for trainees, iii) a list of the expectations for each core and for the overall Center, iv) institutional IRB approval let- ters for each partnership site, and v) a list of all evaluation activities and outcomes alongside CaRE2 benchmarks. Maintaining a running record of Center outcomes was suggested to facilitate quarterly and annual reporting. Forge a partnership identity Others recommended forging a partnership identity by attributing outcomes to the Center rather than by giving accolades to individual institutions. Increasing efforts to document and publish educational outcomes that accrued from trainee to ESI assessment of their program and men- toring experiences were mentioned to strengthen the part- nership’s notoriety. Several participants called for expanding the Center’s research repertoire beyond its ini- tial support for the prostate cancer and pancreatic cancer projects. One participant suggested applying experience from pancreatic cancer to prostate cancer to access fresh prostate cancer cells/tissue and seeking some additional funding to make our program projects stronger. Others recommended increasing the “collection of samples,” “identifying topics of interest among researchers,” or “specific projects that have value to all involved.” Another suggestion was that lead core members “become better acquainted with investigators at the other two sites.” Strengthen collaborations Suggestions aimed at strengthening collaborations pertained to infrastructure concerns, resolving Center problems, and data collection. Participants asserted that there was a need to foster equality in partnership activi- ties. They recommended establishing a process to ensure equitable contributions and implementing action plans to resolve circumstances when this is not happening. They advised strengthening the infrastructure by scheduling meetings to “ensure findings are shared with the admin- istrative core and other cores as needed” and holding more “face to face interactions” and “brainstorming sessions.” Others recommended “fostering authentic conversations to address valid concerns when things are not working” to ensure that problems impacting Center work would be addressed in a timely manner. Setting aside time for “sep- arate meeting time to address problematic concerns” was recommended to ensure that special circumstances re- ceived appropriate attention to avert distractions from the business that needed to be discussed during regularly scheduled meeting. They offered suggestions to reduce participant survey burden by ensuring that trainee baseline measures were completed during onboarding. Year 2 During Year 2, two themes emerged from analysis of how to strengthen collaborations, strengthen collaboration and address conflict resolution. Subthemes for strengthen collaboration included promote cross core-research project contributions, increase intra-institutional collaborations net- works and authorships, and establishing opportunities for the intra-institutional engagement of MSI trainees. Strengthen collaboration “Strengthen collaborations” refers to identifying prac- tices that would promote, encourage, and support contin- uous integration and collaboration throughout the Center. Promote cross core-research project contributions. Participants suggested increasing the frequency of inter- actions between cores and research projects to augment contributions to each other. Additionally, participants noted that adopting effective collaboration principles and practices such as fostering “mutual respect”, working as a “Center-based team rather than individuals” and imple- menting team-based strategies would encourage “cross- team collaboration”. One participant stated that [Qualitative Research in Medicine & Healthcare 2021; 5:9724] [page 63] Article No n- co mm er cia l u se on ly Collaborations can be strengthened by effective communication, building trust, ensuring account- ability, understanding each other’s role, and out- lining expectations in the beginning. I believe sharing experiences and expertise can also assist in strengthening collaborations as everyone has something to bring to the table. Having “more discussions amongst projects” [beyond] “a single meeting was recommended to strengthen collab- oration” and as a mechanism that would encourage “brain-storming.” One recommendation was “to schedule a Center-wide meeting in addition to [the] annual inves- tigator meeting . . . exchange and discuss findings” through a half-day retreat. These suggestions were grounded by a hope that such meetings would facilitate the emergence of new and innovative ideas and foster new collaborations. Other suggestions to strengthen collabo- rations were to “[write] grants together [that would] ben- efit our partners [and to develop] a mini grants program [to provide] funding to partners that would extend [the cores’] activities.” Increase intra-institutional collaborations networks and authorships. Participants also suggested increasing intra-institutional collaborations networks and author- ships. Participants remarked that there was an interest in developing future grant proposals and publications. Ad- ditionally, one participant suggested having “more oppor- tunities for research summits or symposium.” Increase intra-institutional engagement of MSI trainees. Participants offered suggestions for expanding the pipeline of future cancer health disparities researchers. To address this goal and further strengthen collaboration across the Center, one participant felt it was important to establish opportunities focused on developing a more “structured mechanism [for MSI trainees] to engage with cancer researchers” at the partner institutions. Address conflict resolution Regarding the theme of addressing conflict resolution, participants suggested reinforcing SOPs to ensure orga- nizational governance. They also commented that SOP adherence could indirectly foster Center benchmark achievement. Some participants emphasized the impor- tance of conflict resolution and pointed out the essential role of SOP adherence. One participant recommended that conflict resolution could be achieved by “a more detailed path for resolving conflicts” articulated within SOPs. An- other participant suggested that “continuous improvement principles need to be followed in every activity.” This par- ticipant suggested listening to concerns expressed and then taking steps to make improvements. This individual emphasized the importance of acknowledging others’ ob- servations stating that, “If one expresses a challenge, ad- dress and discuss it with the team members, and adopt the appropriate solution to make it better.” Comparison between Years 1 and 2 The theme of enhancing workflow efficiency identified during Year 1 was not mentioned during Year 2. Represen- tative of norming, participants expressed the importance of collaborative interactions within cores and research proj- ects. Similarly, they also suggested increasing intra-insti- tutional networks and authorships. This observation underscored researchers’ understanding that strengthening collaborations is valuable to the successful benchmark achievement. During Years 1 and 2, while exemplifying norming, participants continued to stress the importance of expanding the Center’s research repertoire. Engaging MSI student trainees and addressing conflict resolution to strengthen collaborations were new themes that arose in Year 2, perhaps signifying participant recognition of their integral connection to the continuation of performing. Benchmark attainment At the inception of funding for this Center, researchers had two publications. By the end of Year 2, the Center had produced 14 publications and 103 presentations, funded three projects, submitted 13 grant proposals, and received nine grant awards, had trained 63 URMs students and ESIs, and had received 10 other awards. The summary of benchmark attainment of this Center provides a context for understanding how collaboration among interdiscipli- nary science teams may impact its productivity. Discussion In this study, we used qualitative inquiry to provide a unique and nuanced level of insight that cannot be af- forded by the sole use of statistical analysis. We codified team scientists’ written responses to open-ended survey questions to assess their perceptions of collaboration ef- fectiveness within an MSI-PWI triadic research Center partnership. The findings offer discernment into their feel- ings, beliefs, and actions relative to interdisciplinary, multi-university collaborative research endeavors. Build- ing a contextualized real-time understanding for how and why team scientists perceive collaboration effectiveness and subsequent responses may augment the rate and pace of future Center productivity as we use these findings to reify and normalize team development processes.8 After all, we cannot improve that which cannot assess or under- stand. Specifically, the findings helped identify practices that are working optimally and those which are not sup- porting grant outcome attainment and illuminated how well protocol and policy supported the Center’s aims. Optimal practices Many of the procedural processes, such as shared leadership responsibility, scheduled meetings, and fre- [page 64] [Qualitative Research in Medicine & Healthcare 2021; 5:9724] Article No n- co mm er cia l u se on ly quent communication effectively served participants’ needs for sharing information. The use of Zoom technol- ogy, the primary mode of communication, may be useful for some project outcomes, such as developing new tools or methods, yet for other initiatives, this venue may not be advantageous for team scientists.22,23 A sense of teamwork, camaraderie and mutual respect was described as characteristic of Center interactions in Year 1, but not during Year 2. In Year 1, participants re- ported that shared leadership was evidenced in the Cen- ter’s infrastructure, across research projects via triadic scholarship, and cross institutional training. By Year 2, their responses seemed more nuanced. Evidence of in- creased publications and presentations, grant submissions, training activities, and internal documentation of bench- mark attainment supported their perceptions. Consistent with the literature, our finding showed that scientific col- laborations that span organizational (i.e., academic depart- ments), geographic,2,24-26and institutional boundaries 2,24-28 generally enhance research impact. Our findings also sup- port previous evidence that diversity (i.e., disciplinary ex- pertise, gender, rank, race, and ethnicity) among members of a science team has certain advantages.25 However, we did not directly assess or find as other have reported, i.e., that ethnic homophily was associated with increased like- lihood of coauthorship.29-30 Practices that necessitate improvement During the first year, participants remarked that there was a need to ensure equitable individual contributions among all core/research project investigators. By the sec- ond year, this issue was not mentioned, suggesting that per- haps resolution had been achieved. Also, during the first year, participants recommended aligning meeting agendas with the work plans in the grant proposal and checking to ensure that proposed activities were accomplished. During the second year, their responses concerning the challenges impacting Center-wide work were more specific. They reported a lack of access to shared documents and pro- cedural governance. Others have reported the positive effect of knowledge sharing, information acquisition, and infor- mation dissemination on team learning and team perform- ance.31 Participant concern about a lack of access to Center-wide information is supported by previous findings. Coordination, communication, trust, conflict, shared goals, and the availability of resources play crucial roles in team effectiveness and may be central to mediating team science productivity and impact.31-32 A lack of face- to-face meetings and conference attendance opportunities within the Center may have limited the success of longer distance collaborations. Such venues may be critical for inspiring new collaborations.33-34 Participants described the burdens associated with too many meetings and emergency emails. Conversations with the multiple PIs revealed that unforeseen funding agency requests unwittingly to contributed to the partici- pants’ perceptions of feeling overloaded by persistent and untimed requests. During partnership meetings, the multiple PIs stressed the importance of supporting MSI faculty through co-au- thorship and asserted that this was critical to fortifying the Center’s identity as an entity rather than three separate in- stitutions. The Center’s competition for full and pilot re- search awards forged collaborative research projects across the partner institutions. To ensure the sharing of Center-wide announcements in a timely manner, institu- tional coordinators now send important reminders using the calendar function. As Cummings et al. noted multi- university research centers that use fewer coordination mechanisms yield poorer outcomes.32 They may en- counter an initial lag in productivity compared with other research groups.35 Coordination behaviors such as estab- lishing the division of responsibility for tasks and knowl- edge transfer among researchers and institutions are predictive of project outcomes (i.e., new knowledge pro- duction, new tools, and training student outcomes).32 From a theoretical perspective, the findings mirror many characteristics associated with the stages of group de- velopment. Most of the interactions reported in Year 1 are characteristic of forming and norming. Year 2 interactions align more with storming, norming, and performing. The movement between these stages was variable, yet typical of group development, while participants moved in and out, and back again to various stages. It takes time for team sci- entists from various training paradigms and disciplinary ex- pertise to find commonalities, and to engender mechanisms that support collaborative work. There can be little doubt that bringing together team science researchers who have varied personalities, preferred work habits and modes of communication, and work in settings characterized by di- verse institutional missions would instantaneously find har- mony in interdisciplinary teams. Benchmark attainment across the Center was expected to ensure continuous NIH funding. Meeting annual pro- ductivity objectives depended on the totality across the Center rather than expecting each of the shared work- groups to produce the same number of each. The avail- ability of site-based, lab-related resources and personnel to generate data as well as faculty and trainee commitment to the Center likely impacted the development of prod- ucts, publications, presentations, funded projects, grant submissions and awards, the number of URMs student trainees and ESIs, and other awards. Faculty/trainee effort was influenced by institutional willingness and ability to provide faculty release time from other academic respon- sibilities, such as teaching, to dedicate time to Center re- search projects, manuscript development and conference presentations, and towards providing mentored assistance to trainees. In that this Center has moved from two pub- lications at the start of the grant to achieving noticeable benchmark attainment of 14 publications by the close of [Qualitative Research in Medicine & Healthcare 2021; 5:9724] [page 65] Article No n- co mm er cia l u se on ly Year 2 is testimony to their diligent efforts as they con- tinue towards building more cohesive teams. These findings may assist newly created U54 CPACHE centers, by informing them of issues that may hinder col- laboration and productivity and by suggesting processes that can be implemented to ensure mutual benefits to MSIs and PWIs alike. A concise set of strategies for multiple prin- cipal investigators is provided (see Table 2). Over time, team science members are likely to de- velop a shared culture grounded by a negotiated set of norms and values that support and constrain members’ be- havior.4 We recommend that funded center researchers im- plement repeated evaluation to assess team scientists’ perceptions of collaboration effectiveness via qualitative or quantitative methods. Specifically, for this Center, we recommend repeating data collection near the end of Years 3, 4 and 5 funding to determine if these findings were representative of the initial stages of partnership building. Study replication may allow participants and team scientists to see if offering an awareness of temporal findings leads to change in communication practices. Ide- ally, evaluative measures should be administered over the entire course of multi-year initiatives and across multiple sites simultaneously, including at the beginning, their near-term, and later phases. For prospective studies, we recommend offering participants a primer on team science competencies and assessing the relationships between their knowledge of team science competencies, collabo- ration, and productivity. In recognition of a paucity of lit- erature on science team diversity, particularly when there is considerable cultural, national, and racial/ethnic diver- sity, we recommend future investigation.10 As shown here, how individuals perceive teamwork effectiveness is likely to impact their productivity. Assess- ing the perceived effectiveness of collaboration of team- based science research, while challenging and labor-intensive, is crucial to ensuring that the investments proffered by grant funding result in research centers achieving their programmatic goals. More importantly, it has the potential to advance our understanding regarding how well an investment in training has resulted in the an- ticipated outcomes.10-12 An in-depth analysis of individu- als’ collective experiences can advance knowledge re- garding how science teams across a full range of profiles and contexts can be maximized. Assessing the presence, or lack thereof, of team com- petencies was a not a focus of our research initiative. More- over, this study includes only two years of data. Thus, we invite readers to interpret the findings while bearing this in mind. Determining if requisite team competencies are en- acted or if participants’ normative institutional cultures are aligned with team science characteristics are variables that future researchers may wish to investigate.10 We note that the findings are temporal and limited solely to those who participated in the online survey. We cannot determine if the findings are representative of the views of individuals who declined participation. Moreover, we cannot determine reasons for their non-participation. The use of convenience samples in a study of a single pro- gram is another limitation of this study. Pre-definitions of the terms “productivity” or “collaboration” were not pro- vided in the survey. However, expectations for “productiv- ity” and examples of “collaboration” were discussed in every written and verbal communication. We have ample reason to believe that the Center participants understood these terms. Nonetheless, we recognize that our assumption represents a potential limitation of this study. Conclusions The first two years of any partnership are inherently im- pacted by unforeseen challenges that are made more com- plex by institutional cultural differences and diverse personalities among team scientists (biomedical and social scientists, clinicians, and community health educators) whose background, experience, and training are often in- fluenced by dissimilar paradigms. Expending effort to qual- itatively assess collaboration effectiveness, while perhaps laborious, offers an opportunity to take corrective action, to foster productivity by building an understanding of is- sues arise, and to strategically minimize the deleterious im- [page 66] [Qualitative Research in Medicine & Healthcare 2021; 5:9724] Article Table 2. Guiding principles for MSI-PWI partnership development. 1. Ensure transparency across the MSI and PWI by making accessible, via cloud application, all documents. 2. Require equitable institutional commitment and accountability. Hold regularly scheduled meetings, create and review checklist of tasks. Identify and hold team members accountable for task completion. Hold Center-wide meetings quarterly to generate collaborations, share information, and address challenges. 3. Establish transparency during communications. Invite all leadership team members to articulate their needs, challenges experienced while working together, and encourage conflict resolution in real time. 4. Develop mutually agreed upon benchmarks of attainment for scholarly products and dissemination and share on the Center website. Ensure this information is shared in a Center-wide webinar and during regularly scheduled core and research project meetings. 5. Communicate time sensitive deadlines using the calendar function. 6. Frame the challenges and successes associated with team development as normative. 7. Use the stages of group development as analytical framework to assess interactions and to guide formative changes. No n- co mm er cia l u se on ly pact of team dynamics and relationships that do not serve grant aims or that might otherwise may sabotage them. The need to assess and cultivate an understanding of collabora- tive effectiveness through a qualitative lens of team devel- opment is not widely recognized, yet the findings in this study support the merits of its application. It is unsurprising that participants suggested the Center’s initial efforts were concentrated on processes and protocol. Raising an aware- ness about what is working satisfactorily and identifying ensuing challenges might be helpful to investigators who suffer weariness when they do not recognize the inherently taxing impact of group (team) development. Such insight may assist advancement towards increased team science cohesion and motivate investigator effort in garnering ad- ditional grants and publications. References 1. Wuchty S, Jones BF, Uzzi B. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 2007;316:1036– 9. 2. Jones BF, Wuchty S, Uzzi B. Multi-university research teams: Shifting impact, geography, and stratification in science. Sci- ence 2008;322:1259 –62. 3. Farrell M, Schmitt M, Heinemann G. Informal roles and the stages of interdisciplinary team development. J Interprof Care 2001;15:281-95. 4. Fiore SM, Carter DR, Asencio R. Conflict, trust, and cohesion: Examining affective and attitudinal factors in science teams. In Salas E, Vessey WB, Estrada AX (Eds.). Team cohesion: Advances in psychological theory, methods and practice. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley; 2015:271–301. 5. Tuckman BW. Developmental sequence in small groups. Psych Bull 1965;63:384–99. 6. Tuckman BW, Jensen MA. Stages of small group development revisited. Group and Organ Studies 1977;2:419–27. 7. Johns G. Social behaviour and organizational processes. In Johns G. (ed). Organizational behaviour: understanding and managing life at work. Harper Collins College Publishers, 1996. 8. Warren RC, Behar-Horenstein LS, Heard TV. Individual Per- spectives of majority/minority partnerships: who really bene- fits and how? J Healthcare Poor Underserved 2019;30:102-15. 9. Davis AA, Warren RC, Behar-Horenstein LS. Review of HBCU and PWI partnership studies (1998-2018). J Negro Ed. (in press). 10. Hall K, Vogel AL, Huang GC, et al. The science of team sci- ence: A review of the empirical evidence and research gaps on collaboration in science. Am Psych 2018;73:532–48. 11. Masse LC, Moser RP, Stokols D, et al. Measuring collabora- tion and transdisciplinary integration in team science. Am J Preventive Med 2008;35:S151-60. 12. Hall KL, Stokols D, Moser RP, et al. The collaboration readi- ness of transdisciplinary research teams and centers: findings from the National Cancer Institute's TREC year-one evaluation study. Am J Prev Med 2008;35:S161-72. 13. Bell BS, Tannenbaum SI, Ford JK, et al. 100 years of training and development research: what we know and where we should go. J Appl Psych 2017;102:305–23. 14. Guzzo RA, Dickson MW. Teams in organizations: recent re- search on performance and effectiveness. Ann Rev Psych 1996;47:307–38. 15. Ilgen DR, Hollenbeck JR, Johnson M, Jundt D. Teams in or- ganizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI mod- els. Annu Rev Psych 2005;56:517–43. 16. Klein KJ, Kozlowski SW. Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations, extensions, and new directions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2000. 17. Kozlowski SW, Ilgen DR. Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psych Sci Public Interest 2006;7:77–124. 18. Mathieu JE, Hollenbeck JR, van Knippenberg D, Ilgen DR. A century of work teams in the Journal of Applied Psychology. J Appl Psych 2017;102:452– 67. 19. Strauss AL. Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press; 1987: 3. 20. Saldaña J. The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.) Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2021. 21. Creswell JW, Guetterman TC. Educational research: planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative re- search (6th ed.). MA: Pearson; 2018. 22. Cummings JN, Kiesler S. Collaborative research across disci- plinary and organizational boundaries. Soc Studies Sci 2005:35:703–22. 23. Vasileiadou E, Vliegenthart R. Research productivity in the era of the internet revisited. Res Pol 2009;38:1260–8. 24. Abbasi A, Jaafari A. Research impact and scholars’ geograph- ical diversity. J Informetrics 2013;7:683– 92. 25. Bales ME, Dine DC, Merrill JA, et al. Associating co-author- ship patterns with publications in high-impact journals. J Bio- med Inform 2014:52;311–8. 26. Birnholtz J, Guha S, Yuan YC, et al C. Cross-campus collab- oration: A scientometric and network case study of publication activity across two campuses of a single institution. J Assoc Infor Sci Tech 2013:64:162–72. 27. Jeong S, Choi JY. Collaborative research for academic knowl- edge creation: How team characteristics, motivation, and processes influence research impact. Sci Pub Pol 2015; 42:460–73. 28. Mayrose I, Freilich S. The interplay between scientific overlap and cooperation and the resulting gain in co-authorship inter- actions. PLoS ONE 2015;10:e0137856. 29. Dahlander L, McFarland DA. Ties that last: Tie formation and persistence in research collaborations over time. Admin Sci Qtrly 2013;58:69–110. 30. Freeman RB, Huang W. Collaborating with people like me: Ethnic coauthorship within the United States. J Labor Econ 2015;33:S289 –318. 31. Xia L, Ya S. Study on knowledge sharing behavior engineer- ing. Systems Engineering Procedia 2012;4:468–76. 32. Cummings JN, Kiesler, S. Coordination costs and project out- comes in multi-university collaborations. Res Pol 2007;36:1620–34. 33. Binz-Scharf MC, Kalish Y, Paik L. Making science: New gen- erations of collaborative knowledge production. Am Behav Sci 2015;59:531–47. 34. Freeman RB, Ganguli I, Murciano-Goroff R. Why and where- fore of increased scientific collaboration. NBER Working Paper 2014; No. 19819. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Available from: https://www.nber.org/ system/files/working_papers/w19819/w19819.pdf 35. Hall KL, Stokols D, Stipelman BA, et al. Assessing the value of team science: A study comparing center- and investigator- initiated grants. Am J Pre Med 2012;42:157–63. [Qualitative Research in Medicine & Healthcare 2021; 5:9724] [page 67] Article No n- co mm er cia l u se on ly