8 results
Exploring team dynamics during the development of a multi-institutional cross-disciplinary translational team: Implications for potential best practices
- Joseph A. Kotarba, Stephen Molldrem, Elise Smith, Heidi Spratt, Suresh K. Bhavnani, Jeffrey S. Farroni, Kevin Wooten
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Clinical and Translational Science / Volume 7 / Issue 1 / 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 02 October 2023, e220
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Introduction:
A recent literature review revealed no studies that explored teams that used an explicit theoretical framework for multiteam systems in academic settings, such as the increasingly important multi-institutional cross-disciplinary translational team (MCTT) form. We conducted an exploratory 30-interview grounded theory study over two rounds to analyze participants’ experiences from three universities who assembled an MCTT in order to pursue a complex grant proposal related to research on post-acute sequelae of COVID-19, also called “long COVID.” This article considers activities beginning with preliminary discussions among principal investigators through grant writing and submission, and completion of reviews by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, which resulted in the proposal not being scored.
Methods:There were two stages to this interview study with MCTT members: pre-submission, and post-decision. Round one focused on the process of developing structures to collaborate on proposal writing and assembly, whereas round two focused on evaluation of the complete process. A total of 15 participants agreed to be interviewed in each round.
Findings:The first round of interviews was conducted prior to submission and explored issues during proposal writing, including (1) importance of the topic; (2) meaning and perception of “team” within the MCTT context; and (3) leadership at different levels of the team. The second round explored best practices-related issues including (1) leadership and design; (2) specific proposal assembly tasks; (3) communication; and (4) critical events.
Conclusion:We conclude with suggestions for developing best practices for assembling MCTTs involving multi-institutional teams.
439 Research Dynamics within a New Multi-Institutional Cross-Disciplinary Translational Team (MCTT): A Formative Study
- Part of
- Joseph A. Kotarba, Stephen Molldrem, Elise Smith, Heidi Spratt, Suresh K. Bhavnani, Kevin Wooten
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Clinical and Translational Science / Volume 7 / Issue s1 / April 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 24 April 2023, p. 130
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- Export citation
-
OBJECTIVES/GOALS: This report evaluates participants’experiences from three universities who assembled a complex grant proposal related to research on post-acute sequala of COVID-19 (PASC), also called long COVID. Activities reviewed ranged from the assembly of the team to responses to reviews by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS). METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Data were collected by means of semi-structured interviews, conducted and recorded on Zoom, with a sample of 15 scientists and staff both during proposal assembly and following proposal review. The sample comprised 40% of the total team equally selected from the 3 universities, The interview protocol was reviewed by the IRB at UTMB and the interviews were recorded on Zoom, and analyzed by means of the constant comparative strategy in the grounded theory method of qualitative research. Given the relatively small number of interviews in this project, we paid special attention to preserving the confidentiality of respondents. Only the verbal tracks of the interviews were professionally transcribed. Respondents were asked to suggest changes for future inter-organizational proposals. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: FIRST INTERVIEWS *LEADERSHIP: The scope of leadership opportunities was expanded as sub-teams in specific areas such as community engagement were formed. *TEAM: Each university’s community engagement team specializes in a different ethnic clientele, precluding a singular statement for the proposal. SECOND INTERVIEWS *LEADERSHIP: Staff members noted that the team concept too easily evolved into a bureaucratic format, resulting in less negotiation and more direction. *ASSEMBLY TASKS: The Writing Team turned out to be one of the most critical staff teams. *COMMUNICATION: The behavioral scientists in community engagement do not necessarily share paradigms (e.g., public health, psychology, and social work). They had difficulty generating productive communication and a unified statement for the proposal. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The scientists, as a group, suggested that future proposals should focus on one general topic, such as the microbiome, as opposed to attempting to integrate widely divergent interests. The scientists as a group should decide a priori whether to treat innovative ideas such as machine learning science as a science or a service.
30718 Evaluating and advancing the CTSA external advisory board: Best practices
- Joseph A. Kotarba, Lori Wiseman, Kevin Wooten
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Clinical and Translational Science / Volume 5 / Issue s1 / March 2021
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 31 March 2021, p. 69
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- Export citation
-
ABSTRACT IMPACT: The goal of this evaluation study is to enhance the ability of the External Review Board to advise the CTSA at UTMB how to improve translational science activities. OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the work of the External Review Board (EAB) for the Institute for Translational Sciences/CTSA at the University of Texas Medical Branch-Galveston. This evaluation is conducted through the perceptions of professional and community board members. The outcome consists of an inventory of best practices. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We collected data by means of semi-structured interviews with all eight member of the EAB. The interviews were conducted via telephone, lasted approximately 30 minutes each, and were audio-recorded with respondents’ permission. Respondents’ identities were held in confidence. The IRB at UTMB reviewed our study. The interviews were transcribed. The data were analyzed by means of an inductively-oriented, grounded theory approach (Charmaz, 2006). Emergent themes led to the formation of a series of best practices. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Common concerns included the need for more extensive training for new members; circulation of the agenda before the meeting; and the value of more structured main leadership. The members generally agreed that the breakout groups were valuable because they encouraged them to engage in hands-on responses to practical problems. One of the key epistemological findings was the consensus view that the evaluation of the EAB should be an ongoing project, as opposed to a yearly task. This serious approach to evaluation would be conducive to a process analysis of the EAB, since medical, social, economic, and cultural conditions surrounding and influencing translational science are generally in flux (e.g., the COVID-19 pandemic and the various stages in the CTSA grant). Overall, the EAB experience was quite positive for them. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF FINDINGS: The strongest sentiment expressed in the interviews was that the CTSA at UTMB should focus and build on its strength--the science of team science--as opposed to any concerted search for weaknesses that the term “evaluation” occasionally implies.
3531 Evaluation of a Team Leadership Assessment Center Study for Scientists
- Joseph A Kotarba, Kevin Wooten
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Clinical and Translational Science / Volume 3 / Issue s1 / March 2019
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 26 March 2019, p. 132
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- Export citation
-
OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: The objective for the present study is to evaluate qualitatively the Team Leadership Assessment Center (LAC) at UTMB-Galveston. There has been much discussion about the need for leader development within team science (Börner, et al, 2010; Falk-Krzensinski, etal., 2011). The LAC was designed to examine the study participants’ beliefs and perceptions of and competencies in team leadership by means of a multi-trait multi-method approach. Our team competency model involves seven dimensions and twenty-five specific competencies. There were two complementary components to the evaluation: a quantitative survey and a series of qualitative interviews, to be discussed here. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The study population for the qualitative component consisted of seventeen volunteers from the pool of fifty-one LAC participants, including trainees (KL2 scholars, TL1 scholars) as well as assistant professors, and early career associate professors. Each volunteer respondent was engaged in a twenty to thirty-minute, recorded, conversational, telephone interview. They were asked to describe and evaluate their LAC experience in their own words, perceptions, and values. The study was reviewed by the Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects at UTMB. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Major findings from respondents’ overall assessment of their Center experience include:. All respondents stated that the LAC was a worthwhile experience. All respondents stated they would be willing to participate in any follow-up LAC activity. Before the LAC experience, most respondents indicated that they perceived leadership as a condition or feature of a job, appointment, or profession and not an individualistic feature of personality or experience. Ideational or conceptual definitions of leadership were superseded by administrative or managerial tropes. Major categorical indexes were related to occupational status. The generally belief is one is not trained to be a leader, but to perform leadership tasks. Significant differences among respondents tended to cluster around occupational positions and statuses at UTMB, for example:. Surgeons feel they are team oriented and their work is organized according to necessary tasks. Assistant professors and post-docs generally perceive the design of leadership as defined by the demands of their specialized field, not determined institutionally or professionally. A general take-away was the sense that, although some participants did not consider themselves to be “leaders” before the training, most felt that the “pressure” to be or become a leader was relieved a bit by the LAC. One was only expected to develop leadership skills and strategies, not change one’s Self-Identity. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT:. The more complex the job status, the less critical is the need to achieve the Self-Identity of “leader.” Complaints about the LAC were very few and non-modal in occurrence. A general recommendation would be for the facilitators of programs like LAC to take cultural differences more into consideration. The most highly rated feature of the LAC is the personal attention given to participants during the one-on-one evaluation profile.
2316 The extra-territorial translational team: Advances in multi-faceted community engagement
- Sharon A. Croisant, Amber L. Anthony, John Prochaska, Chantele Singleton, Joseph A. Kotarba
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Clinical and Translational Science / Volume 2 / Issue S1 / June 2018
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 21 November 2018, p. 63
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- Export citation
-
OBJECTIVES: We developed the concept of the extra-territorial translational team (ETTT) in 2014 as a more inclusive revision and extension of the team science concept. Translational thinking is largely marked by the perception of the team as a thing-like structure at the center of the scientific activity. Collaboration accordingly involves bringing external others (e.g., scientists, community members, and clinicians) into the team through limited or dependent participation. The ETTT is intended to frame the team as an idea: a schema for assembling and managing relationships among otherwise disparate individuals with vested interests in the problem at hand. Thus, the ETTT can be seen as a process as well as an object. Our initial focus was on the very successful SCI Café program (where Science and Communities Interact) conducted through the Institute for Translational Sciences and the Center for Translational Sciences Award at UTMB. We found that by looking beyond the taken-for-granted features of translational research teams, we are free to discover new ways of organizing research and community engagement that are innovative yet productive. The major area of growth, however, has been the Research, Education, And Community Health Coalition (REACH). The purpose of the current study is to outline strategies for inventorying and evaluating the emerging programs that are the major components of REACH and the SCI Café and to suggest implications for the extra-territorial translational team concept. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The assessment of the extraterritorial team concept in REACH and SCI Café is primary a process of qualitative content analysis. We use semi-structured interviews with project leadership, observations of the actual performance of the REACH teams, and the review of REACH and SCI Café documents, for example, Quantitatively, we have conducted a Community Health Needs Assessment (CHNA) to better understand community health and resource needs. RESULTS: Both the SCI Café program and the REACH initiative follow the principles of the ETTT concept for assembling and managing research and community outreach. The following are several key principles shared by both programs: (1) The importance of creative, applicable, and inclusive mission statements: (a) REACH seeks to facilitate communication, collaborative research, and service efforts between UTMB and Institute for Translational Sciences investigators and Galveston County community leaders; (b) The SCI Café hosts interactive dialogs that serve as a medium for priming, organizing, communicating and strategizing among the individuals involved in team science via community-based research projects. (2) Increasing scientific and health literacy: (a) REACH seeks to increase literacy through both short-term and long-term interactions; (b) The SCI Café focuses on short-term yet intensive interaction through conversations among researchers, clinicians, and the public. (3) Sharing timely scientific public health information with the community: (a) REACH seeks information from community leaders on relevant topics; (b) The SCI Café can mobilize quickly to respond to timely topics by direct communication with a wide range of stakeholders, academic as well as community based. (4) Sharing leadership with the community: (a) REACH establishes formal relationships with 23 UTMB units and 39 broad-based, high impact Galveston County organizations. (b) The SCI Café works primarily with “grass roots” community-level groups and organizations. (5) Creating resources and strategies for expansion: (a) REACH is working to expand its activities to other counties in the Gulf Coast area of Texas (e.g., Brazoria and Matagorda Counties); (b) The SCI Café is expanding its program to comfortable locations accessible to local residents (e.g., schools and libraries). (6) The value of regular and systematic scientific and evaluation: (a) REACH is conducting a Community Health Needs Assessment (CHNA) that has already discovered major issues of relevance to community leaders including mental health, vaccination rates, food security, disaster preparedness, and caregiving. (b) The SCI Café conducts an evaluation survey at the conclusion of every event to stay current with participants interests and needs. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: (1) In order to maintain the ability to operate extra-territorially (i.e., beyond the safe organizational confines of the University), the 2 programs discussed here must maintain a fluid team structure. Different projects require different types of leadership, grass roots participation, university resources, communications/public relations, etc. (2) The strategy of accumulating and disseminating best practices appears to be one of the most valuable products of the extra-territorial team. (a) REACH’s “Offer and Ask” practice by which information of university and community resources (skills and expertise) are shared makes cooperation and shared leadership explicit. (b) The SCI Café’s interactional strategies for encouraging and enabling café participants to join the discussion/conversation are wonderful ways to convert an otherwise unidirectional lecture into a vibrant conversation. (3) Although the scope of these 2 programs is quite different, the message from both is that the principles of extra-territorial translational teams are application to all such endeavors to improve scientific and health literacy.
2117 Integrating ethics support as culture change in a translational science environment
- Bernadette McKinney, Emma Tumilty, Joseph Kotarba
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Clinical and Translational Science / Volume 2 / Issue S1 / June 2018
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 21 November 2018, p. 83
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- Export citation
-
OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: To outline 4 categories of ethics needs identified at a translational science center. To map how research ethics has been further integrated into the center’s culture in response to these needs. To provide insights into how research ethics can be integrated into the translational team science environment. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: The Institute for Translational Sciences (ITS) at the University of Texas Medical Branch is studied on an organizational level using polyphonic organizational theory and the results of an ethics needs assessment completed in 2010. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: The results will be a map indicating how research ethics has been further integrated into the culture of the ITS in response to the needs identified to ensure the responsible practice of translational science. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Successful translational science requires shared understanding of communication and values. Achieving agreement in these areas requires the development of strategies for communicating and reinforcing common goals. Research ethics has often been considered an “add on” rather than a “part of” science. Through integrating ethics into various aspects of translational science, the ITS has taken important steps toward achieving the goal of culture change. The map of how the ITS has integrated ethics into organizational activities and structures will serve as a model for other organizations and institutions.
2124: Three stages of cultural change in translational science
- Joseph A. Kotarba
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Clinical and Translational Science / Volume 1 / Issue S1 / September 2017
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 10 May 2018, p. 44
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- Export citation
-
OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: This report describes the evolution of scientific culture since the NIH/translational science (TS) mandate. The transition of the conduct of science to an increasingly translational model involves 2 dimensions of change. The first dimension consists of change in the structure and process of scientific work, in terms of factors such as funding, administration, application of new knowledge, and so forth. The second dimension consists of change in culture of scientific work. The culture of science is the set of values, assumptions, meanings, and traditions that inform the conduct of science. As part of the comprehensive evaluation of TS at the University of Texas Medical Branch-Galveston, we have monitored the status of the culture of science there through a sociological framework. We focused on the ways the changing culture of science facilitates and/or inhibits creative and effective medical research. We argue that the long-term success of TS is dependent upon the evolution of assumptions, everyday practices, and taken-for-granted ways of conducting research. Culture also provides meanings for who its people are and helps us define who we are to ourselves (ie, self-concept). In terms of the scientific enterprise, self-identity provides the motivation to participate in group activities or to be content with being a “lone ranger” researcher; the orientation to be either a leader or a follower; the security to take creative chances with one’s work or to simply conduct “normal science”; and the sense of esteem for being the best or simply doing one’s job. TS requires a constant “reengineering” of its total enterprise. Consequently, we raised the following research questions: (1) What is the traditional culture of science at UTMB? (2) How has the culture of science at UTMB changed since the introduction of the Clinical and Translational Science Award project? (3) What has been the relationship between the culture of science and the conduct of science at UTMB since CTSA? (4) How have cultural influences on self-concept changed? METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Data have been collected by means of ongoing 1-on-1 interviews with CTSA participants at all levels; observations of lab and classroom interaction; participation in organizational and planning committees; and other everyday organizational activities. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Following the grounded theory method of qualitative analysis and discovery, we found 3 stages of cultural change. Stage 1 is Cultural Invasion of the existing culture at UTMB by the implementation of the CTSA project. Stage 2 is Cultural Accommodation by which internal responses to change follow the normal scientific paradigm. Stage 3 is Cultural Expansion by which the organizational and cultural platform for conducting science has expanded regionally, nationally and cross-disciplinarily. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Whether a distinct fourth stage emerges depends on such factors as funding and programmatic directives from NIH; the tension between research and clinical demands for resources; and the emergence of junior investigators schooled on the principles of TS.
The innovation scorecard for continuous improvement applied to translational science
- Joseph A. Kotarba, Kevin Wooten
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Clinical and Translational Science / Volume 1 / Issue 5 / October 2017
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 16 November 2017, pp. 296-300
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Introduction
This paper reports on the baseline stage of a qualitative evaluation of the application of the Innovative Scorecard (ISC) to the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) at the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) at Galveston. The ISC is adopted from the established Balanced Scorecard system for strategic planning and performance management. In formulating the evaluation, we focused on the organizational identity literature.
MethodsThe initial evaluation consisted of a series of semi-structured interviews with 22 participants of the ISC Boot Camp conducted in July 2015.
ResultsThe logic of grounded theory pointed to the clustering of perceptions of the ISC around respondents’ occupational locations at UTMB. Administrators anticipate the expansion of planning activities to include a wider range of participants under the current CTSA award period (2015–2020) than under our first CTSA approval period (2009–2014). A common viewpoint among the senior scientists was that the scientific value of their work will continue to speak for itself without requiring the language of business. Junior scientists looked forward to the ISC’s emphasis on increasingly horizontal leadership that will give them more access to and more control over their work and resources. Postdocs and senior staff welcomed increased involvement in the total research process at UTMB.
ConclusionThe report concludes with strategies for future follow-up.