Holly Falk-Krzesinski | Elsevier - Academia.edu (original) (raw)
Papers by Holly Falk-Krzesinski
This Commentary describes recent research progress and professional developments in the study of ... more This Commentary describes recent research progress and professional developments in the study of scientific teamwork, an area of inquiry termed the “science of team science” (SciTS, pronounced “sahyts”). It proposes a systems perspective that incorporates a mixed-methods approach to SciTS that is commensurate with the conceptual, methodological, and translational complexities addressed within the SciTS field. The theoretically grounded and practically useful framework is intended to integrate existing and future lines of SciTS research to facilitate the field’s evolution as it addresses key challenges spanning macro, meso, and micro levels of analysis.
Most of the work still to be done in science and the useful arts is precisely that which needs kn... more Most of the work still to be done in science and the useful arts is precisely that which needs knowledge and cooperation of many scientists and disciplines. That is why it is necessary for scientists and technologists in different disciplines to meet and work together, even those in branches of knowledge which seem to have least relation and connection with one another. Antoine Lavoisier, 1793 Once science was the nearly exclusive province of the lone researcher. Now scientists from disparate fields glean grains of knowledge that when combined may address important societal problems and complex scientific questions. Individuals still must master their respective fields, but their contributions within teams assembled to transcend disciplines increasingly add to the whole to make it greater than the sum of the parts. Worldwide, scientific research has taken a new approach to discover and apply knowledge from many seemingly unrelated disciplines to create completely new research and pr...
JBI evidence synthesis, 2020
OBJECTIVE The objective of this review is to describe the global evidence of gender inequity amon... more OBJECTIVE The objective of this review is to describe the global evidence of gender inequity among individuals with appointments at academic institutions that conduct health research, and examine how gender intersects with other social identities to influence outcomes. INTRODUCTION The gender demographics of universities have shifted, yet the characteristics of those who lead academic health research institutions have not reflected this change. Synthesized evidence will guide decision-making and policy development to support the progress of gender and other underrepresented social identities in academia. INCLUSION CRITERIA This review will consider any quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods primary research that reports outcome data related to gender equity and other social identities among individuals affiliated with academic or research institutions that conduct health research, originating from any country. METHODS The JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis and the Cochrane Colla...
1 Elsevier values its multi-faceted and synergistic relationship with the NIH and is appreciative... more 1 Elsevier values its multi-faceted and synergistic relationship with the NIH and is appreciative for the opportunity to provide a response to NOT-CA-15-019, Request for Information (RFI): Input on National Cancer Institute Metadata Repository and Services. Submitted on behalf of Elsevier by: Holly J Falk-Krzesinski, PhD Vice President, Global Academic & Research Relations h.falk-krzesinski@elsevier.com Elsevier New York, NY, USA
The journal of research administration, 2015
While Elizabeth Barrett Browning counted 25 ways in which she loves her husband in her poem, &quo... more While Elizabeth Barrett Browning counted 25 ways in which she loves her husband in her poem, "How Do I Love Thee? Let me Count the Ways," we identified only eight ways to evaluate the potential for success of a federal research grant proposal. This may be surprising, as it seems upon initial glance of the review criteria used by various federal funding agencies that each has its own distinct set of "rules" regarding the review of grant proposals for research and scholarship. Much of the grantsmanship process is dependent upon the review criteria, which represent the funders' desired impact of the research. But since most funders that offer research grants share the overarching goals of supporting research that (1) fits within its mission and (2) will bring a strong return on its financial investment, the review criteria used to evaluate research grant proposals are based on a similar set of fundamental questions. In this article, we compare the review criteri...
Strategies for Team Science Success, 2019
Research Development Professionals (RDPs) play an increasingly important role in the development ... more Research Development Professionals (RDPs) play an increasingly important role in the development of successful team science research. Research Development as a professional field in its own right is relatively new; however, the scientific literature has long recognized the role of research administration in building and supporting successful collaborations; and there is a small but growing body of literature that focuses specifically on the role played by RDPs. A variety of research development strategies, programs, and services can help institutions thrive in an increasingly competitive environment. The research development enterprise can also contribute to the growing importance of teamed scientific collaboration that includes representation from the broader community and external nonacademic institutions in order to address increasingly complex scientific questions.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Open Scholarship Initiative Proceedings, Oct 30, 2017
The remit of the Open Scholarship Initiative 2017 Promotion & Tenure Reform workgroup clearly con... more The remit of the Open Scholarship Initiative 2017 Promotion & Tenure Reform workgroup clearly connected researchers' personal publishing choices to the oft-traditionalist system of promotion and tenure in the United States, wherein researchers feel compelled to publish in toll access journals or monographs if they wish to achieve tenure, win grants, receive awards, or otherwise advance professionally. Other professional advancement systems worldwide, such as university hiring, contract renewals and government and foundation grantmaking processes similarly reinforce the primacy of toll access research formats. Hiring practices were of concern for our workgroup, given the increasing "adjunctification" and precarious state of tenured university posts in the United States. Due to these parallels, the Reform workgroup expanded our charge to consider hiring, grants, and other professional advancement scenarios common to researchers' concerns worldwide. In this report, we unpack how professional advancement practices-including and beyond promotion and tenure review standards-can be realigned to encourage researchers' adoption of open access (OA), open research, and open educational practices. Here, we set the scope of the current problem, discuss the reasons why professional advancement scenarios should be realigned to reward open research practices, identify challenges to reforming professional advancement scenarios wholesale and worldwide, recommend concrete actions for beginning the reformation process, and share resources related to professional advancement and open access.
Strategies for Team Science Success
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science
This version may be subject to change during the production process.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Feb 21, 2017
The journal of research administration
While Elizabeth Barrett Browning counted 25 ways in which she loves her husband in her poem, &quo... more While Elizabeth Barrett Browning counted 25 ways in which she loves her husband in her poem, "How Do I Love Thee? Let me Count the Ways," we identified only eight ways to evaluate the potential for success of a federal research grant proposal. This may be surprising, as it seems upon initial glance of the review criteria used by various federal funding agencies that each has its own distinct set of "rules" regarding the review of grant proposals for research and scholarship. Much of the grantsmanship process is dependent upon the review criteria, which represent the funders' desired impact of the research. But since most funders that offer research grants share the overarching goals of supporting research that (1) fits within its mission and (2) will bring a strong return on its financial investment, the review criteria used to evaluate research grant proposals are based on a similar set of fundamental questions. In this article, we compare the review criteri...
Healthcare services and the production of healthcare knowledge are increasingly dependent on high... more Healthcare services and the production of healthcare knowledge are increasingly dependent on highly functioning, multidisciplinary teams, requiring greater awareness of individuals’ readiness to collaborate in translational science teams. Yet, there is no comprehensive tool of individual motivations and threats to collaboration that can guide preparation of individuals for work on well-functioning teams. This prospective pilot study evaluated the preliminary psychometric properties of the Motivation Assessment for Team Readiness, Integration, and Collaboration (MATRICx). We examined 55 items of the MATRICx in a sample of 125 faculty, students and researchers, using contemporary psychometric methods (Rasch analysis). We found that the motivator and threat items formed separate constructs relative to collaboration readiness. Further, respondents who identified themselves as inexperienced at working on collaborative projects defined the motivation construct differently from experienced respondents. These results are consistent with differences in strategic alliances described in the literature—for example, inexperienced respondents reflected features of cooperation and coordination, such as concern with sharing information and compatibility of goals. In contrast, the more experienced respondents were concerned with issues that reflected a collective purpose, more typical of collaborative alliances. While these different types of alliances are usually described as representing varying aspects along a continuum, our findings suggest that collaboration might be better thought of as a qualitatively different state than cooperation or coordination. These results need to be replicated in larger samples, but the findings have implications for the development and design of educational interventions that aim to ready scientists and clinicians for greater interdisciplinary work.
This paper identifies a gap in the team science literature that considers intrapersonal indicator... more This paper identifies a gap in the team science literature that considers intrapersonal indicators of collaboration as motivations and threats to participating in collaborative knowledge producing teams (KPTs). Through a scoping review process, over 150 resources were consulted to organize 6 domains of motivation and threat to collaboration in KPTs: Resource Acquisition, Advancing Science, Building Relationships, Knowledge Transfer, Recognition and Reward, and Maintenance of Beliefs. Findings show how domains vary in their presentation of depth and diversity of motivation and threat indicators as well as their relationship with each other within and across domains. The findings of 51 indicators resulting from the review provide a psychosocial framework for which to establish a hierarchy of collaborative reasoning for individual engagement in KPTs thus allowing for further research into the mechanism of collaborative engagement. The indicators serve as a preliminary step in establishing a protocol for testing of the psychometric properties of intrapersonal measures of collaboration readiness.
This Commentary describes recent research progress and professional developments in the study of ... more This Commentary describes recent research progress and professional developments in the study of scientific teamwork, an area of inquiry termed the “science of team science” (SciTS, pronounced “sahyts”). It proposes a systems perspective that incorporates a mixed-methods approach to SciTS that is commensurate with the conceptual, methodological, and translational complexities addressed within the SciTS field. The theoretically grounded and practically useful framework is intended to integrate existing and future lines of SciTS research to facilitate the field’s evolution as it addresses key challenges spanning macro, meso, and micro levels of analysis.
Most of the work still to be done in science and the useful arts is precisely that which needs kn... more Most of the work still to be done in science and the useful arts is precisely that which needs knowledge and cooperation of many scientists and disciplines. That is why it is necessary for scientists and technologists in different disciplines to meet and work together, even those in branches of knowledge which seem to have least relation and connection with one another. Antoine Lavoisier, 1793 Once science was the nearly exclusive province of the lone researcher. Now scientists from disparate fields glean grains of knowledge that when combined may address important societal problems and complex scientific questions. Individuals still must master their respective fields, but their contributions within teams assembled to transcend disciplines increasingly add to the whole to make it greater than the sum of the parts. Worldwide, scientific research has taken a new approach to discover and apply knowledge from many seemingly unrelated disciplines to create completely new research and pr...
JBI evidence synthesis, 2020
OBJECTIVE The objective of this review is to describe the global evidence of gender inequity amon... more OBJECTIVE The objective of this review is to describe the global evidence of gender inequity among individuals with appointments at academic institutions that conduct health research, and examine how gender intersects with other social identities to influence outcomes. INTRODUCTION The gender demographics of universities have shifted, yet the characteristics of those who lead academic health research institutions have not reflected this change. Synthesized evidence will guide decision-making and policy development to support the progress of gender and other underrepresented social identities in academia. INCLUSION CRITERIA This review will consider any quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods primary research that reports outcome data related to gender equity and other social identities among individuals affiliated with academic or research institutions that conduct health research, originating from any country. METHODS The JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis and the Cochrane Colla...
1 Elsevier values its multi-faceted and synergistic relationship with the NIH and is appreciative... more 1 Elsevier values its multi-faceted and synergistic relationship with the NIH and is appreciative for the opportunity to provide a response to NOT-CA-15-019, Request for Information (RFI): Input on National Cancer Institute Metadata Repository and Services. Submitted on behalf of Elsevier by: Holly J Falk-Krzesinski, PhD Vice President, Global Academic & Research Relations h.falk-krzesinski@elsevier.com Elsevier New York, NY, USA
The journal of research administration, 2015
While Elizabeth Barrett Browning counted 25 ways in which she loves her husband in her poem, &quo... more While Elizabeth Barrett Browning counted 25 ways in which she loves her husband in her poem, "How Do I Love Thee? Let me Count the Ways," we identified only eight ways to evaluate the potential for success of a federal research grant proposal. This may be surprising, as it seems upon initial glance of the review criteria used by various federal funding agencies that each has its own distinct set of "rules" regarding the review of grant proposals for research and scholarship. Much of the grantsmanship process is dependent upon the review criteria, which represent the funders' desired impact of the research. But since most funders that offer research grants share the overarching goals of supporting research that (1) fits within its mission and (2) will bring a strong return on its financial investment, the review criteria used to evaluate research grant proposals are based on a similar set of fundamental questions. In this article, we compare the review criteri...
Strategies for Team Science Success, 2019
Research Development Professionals (RDPs) play an increasingly important role in the development ... more Research Development Professionals (RDPs) play an increasingly important role in the development of successful team science research. Research Development as a professional field in its own right is relatively new; however, the scientific literature has long recognized the role of research administration in building and supporting successful collaborations; and there is a small but growing body of literature that focuses specifically on the role played by RDPs. A variety of research development strategies, programs, and services can help institutions thrive in an increasingly competitive environment. The research development enterprise can also contribute to the growing importance of teamed scientific collaboration that includes representation from the broader community and external nonacademic institutions in order to address increasingly complex scientific questions.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Open Scholarship Initiative Proceedings, Oct 30, 2017
The remit of the Open Scholarship Initiative 2017 Promotion & Tenure Reform workgroup clearly con... more The remit of the Open Scholarship Initiative 2017 Promotion & Tenure Reform workgroup clearly connected researchers' personal publishing choices to the oft-traditionalist system of promotion and tenure in the United States, wherein researchers feel compelled to publish in toll access journals or monographs if they wish to achieve tenure, win grants, receive awards, or otherwise advance professionally. Other professional advancement systems worldwide, such as university hiring, contract renewals and government and foundation grantmaking processes similarly reinforce the primacy of toll access research formats. Hiring practices were of concern for our workgroup, given the increasing "adjunctification" and precarious state of tenured university posts in the United States. Due to these parallels, the Reform workgroup expanded our charge to consider hiring, grants, and other professional advancement scenarios common to researchers' concerns worldwide. In this report, we unpack how professional advancement practices-including and beyond promotion and tenure review standards-can be realigned to encourage researchers' adoption of open access (OA), open research, and open educational practices. Here, we set the scope of the current problem, discuss the reasons why professional advancement scenarios should be realigned to reward open research practices, identify challenges to reforming professional advancement scenarios wholesale and worldwide, recommend concrete actions for beginning the reformation process, and share resources related to professional advancement and open access.
Strategies for Team Science Success
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science
This version may be subject to change during the production process.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Feb 21, 2017
The journal of research administration
While Elizabeth Barrett Browning counted 25 ways in which she loves her husband in her poem, &quo... more While Elizabeth Barrett Browning counted 25 ways in which she loves her husband in her poem, "How Do I Love Thee? Let me Count the Ways," we identified only eight ways to evaluate the potential for success of a federal research grant proposal. This may be surprising, as it seems upon initial glance of the review criteria used by various federal funding agencies that each has its own distinct set of "rules" regarding the review of grant proposals for research and scholarship. Much of the grantsmanship process is dependent upon the review criteria, which represent the funders' desired impact of the research. But since most funders that offer research grants share the overarching goals of supporting research that (1) fits within its mission and (2) will bring a strong return on its financial investment, the review criteria used to evaluate research grant proposals are based on a similar set of fundamental questions. In this article, we compare the review criteri...
Healthcare services and the production of healthcare knowledge are increasingly dependent on high... more Healthcare services and the production of healthcare knowledge are increasingly dependent on highly functioning, multidisciplinary teams, requiring greater awareness of individuals’ readiness to collaborate in translational science teams. Yet, there is no comprehensive tool of individual motivations and threats to collaboration that can guide preparation of individuals for work on well-functioning teams. This prospective pilot study evaluated the preliminary psychometric properties of the Motivation Assessment for Team Readiness, Integration, and Collaboration (MATRICx). We examined 55 items of the MATRICx in a sample of 125 faculty, students and researchers, using contemporary psychometric methods (Rasch analysis). We found that the motivator and threat items formed separate constructs relative to collaboration readiness. Further, respondents who identified themselves as inexperienced at working on collaborative projects defined the motivation construct differently from experienced respondents. These results are consistent with differences in strategic alliances described in the literature—for example, inexperienced respondents reflected features of cooperation and coordination, such as concern with sharing information and compatibility of goals. In contrast, the more experienced respondents were concerned with issues that reflected a collective purpose, more typical of collaborative alliances. While these different types of alliances are usually described as representing varying aspects along a continuum, our findings suggest that collaboration might be better thought of as a qualitatively different state than cooperation or coordination. These results need to be replicated in larger samples, but the findings have implications for the development and design of educational interventions that aim to ready scientists and clinicians for greater interdisciplinary work.
This paper identifies a gap in the team science literature that considers intrapersonal indicator... more This paper identifies a gap in the team science literature that considers intrapersonal indicators of collaboration as motivations and threats to participating in collaborative knowledge producing teams (KPTs). Through a scoping review process, over 150 resources were consulted to organize 6 domains of motivation and threat to collaboration in KPTs: Resource Acquisition, Advancing Science, Building Relationships, Knowledge Transfer, Recognition and Reward, and Maintenance of Beliefs. Findings show how domains vary in their presentation of depth and diversity of motivation and threat indicators as well as their relationship with each other within and across domains. The findings of 51 indicators resulting from the review provide a psychosocial framework for which to establish a hierarchy of collaborative reasoning for individual engagement in KPTs thus allowing for further research into the mechanism of collaborative engagement. The indicators serve as a preliminary step in establishing a protocol for testing of the psychometric properties of intrapersonal measures of collaboration readiness.
Clinical Translational Sciences, 2010
The public health, social, technological, and environmental problems that impact our world are co... more The public health, social, technological, and environmental problems that impact our world are complex, but increasingly we are able to address them through scientific pursuit.1 The sophistication of these challenges necessitates cross‐disciplinary engagement and collaboration, and the longer‐term interaction of groups of investigators—what is termed team science.2-9 Such team‐based research collaborations are also an essential feature of a robust translational research enterprise.10, 11
The emerging field of the Science of Team Science (SciTS) encompasses both conceptual and methodological strategies aimed at understanding and enhancing the processes and outcomes of collaborative, team‐based research.12, 13, 28 SciTS is concerned with understanding and managing circumstances that facilitate or hinder the effectiveness of collaborative cross‐disciplinary science,14-19, 28 and the evaluation of collaborative science outcomes.20-27 Its principal units of analysis are the research, training, and community‐based translational initiatives implemented by both public and private sector organizations. SciTS focuses on understanding and enhancing the antecedent conditions, collaborative processes, and outcomes associated with initiatives rooted in team science, including scientific discoveries, educational outcomes, and translations of research findings into new practices, patents, products, technical advances, and policies.18, 21
In an effort to enhance the understanding of how best to engage in team science to promote collaborative translational research and meet society’s needs, the First Annual International SciTS Conference was convened on April 22–24, 2010 in Chicago, Illinois. The event was produced by Research Team Support (RTS) of the Northwestern University Clinical and Translational Sciences (NUCATS) Institute, in partnership with the NIH National Cancer Institute, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences and the Lambert Family Communication Conference of the School of Communication at Northwestern University. A Program Conference Committee of twelve renowned investigators in SciTS served as advisors.
The 3‐day conference marked the first international, multi‐agency forum dedicated to the emerging empirical field of SciTS, bringing together thought leaders from a broad range of disciplines, including: translational research, evaluation, communications, social and behavioral sciences, complex systems, technology, and management. The goals of the conference were to serve as a point of convergence for team science practitioners and investigators studying science teams, to engage funding agency program staff to provide guidance on developing and managing team science initiatives, and to afford data providers and analytics developers insight into team tracking and analysis needs. Because of the diverse participation, the conference served as an important conduit for translating empirical findings about team science into evidence‐based effective practices for scientific teams and funders of team science—a bridge between the praxis of team science and the science of team science.28
More than 200 team science leaders/practitioners, research development officers, team science researchers, tool developers, and funding agency program officers attended this event, which included a keynote address, six panel discussions, and a research poster session. In addition, the agenda included a workshop on social network analysis (SNA) of teams. Each panel session was followed by a lively question and answer session, and the first 2 days of the conference concluded with an open discussion of the topics and ideas presented by the 24 panelists.