Holly J. Falk-Krzesinski, PhD Vice President, Global Academic & Research Relations

TEAM SCIENCE REWARDS: A Collaborative Study on Promotion &

Tenure Policy

6th Annual International Science of Team Science (SciTS) Conference June 2, 2015

4

REWARDING TEAM SCIENCE “We will need to find better ways to do team science and reward it if we are to solve large overarching problems. Everybody on the team needs to get the same big gaudy championship ring…”

– AG Gilman. Silver Spoons and Other Personal Reflections. Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol, 2012

5

Go, Hawks, Go!

“Blackhawks' Stanley Cup rings will be handed out to players, coaches, equipment managers, trainers and medical staff…during a private ceremony.”

7

Individual vs. Contributory Assessment Emphasis on individual accomplishments

1st/last author positions PI status H-index Nobel Prize, Field’s Medal, Election to the Nat’l Academies

Collaborative factors generally not considered Individual/group production Extent to which an individual enables a team Team size

Petersen, A.M., Riccaboni, M., Stanley, H.E., and Pammolli, F. (2011). Persistence and Uncertainty in the Academic Career.

9

Focus on Promotion & Tenure Policy NAS Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research Report, 2004

Academic survey respondents indicated that P&T criteria were the greatest impediment to interdisciplinary research in their campus

Council of Environmental Deans and Directors Report, 2005 “Lured into the collaborative research needed for progress in an interdisciplinary field,

scholars are later held to the standards of specific disciplines” Need to develop new [recruitment, retention, promotion & tenure] procedures for

handling interdisciplinary scholars University of Chicago Academic Medical Center Study, 2008

“Recognize all forms of scholarship as equally legitimate bases of academic tenure” Subsequent change of P&T policy language that specifically addresses collaboration

scholarship Creating interdisciplinary campus cultures: A model for strength and

sustainability, J. T. Klein, 2010 Interdisciplinary career life cycle Hiring, P&T Ongoing faculty development

10

The University of Chicago

“...scholarship is becoming increasingly collaborative or team-based. We ask that you accord individual and collaborative/team scholarship equal weight -- as long as the individual's contribution to collaborative/ team scholarship can be established. Please disregard the position of authorship as an indication of contribution to collaborative works unless YOU know it to be an accurate reflection.”

13

Comprehensive Qualitative Analysis 60 NIH-funded CTSA Institutions

“Enhancing Consortium-Wide Collaborations” mandate In 30 states + DC 21 Institutions ranked in the Top 50 by USNWR Institutions with ~75% of all the NIH-funded researchers in the US,

and about 60% of all the funded biomedical research in the world 6 Independent Medical Schools/Academic Medical Centers 1 Independent Research Institute 32 AAU Institutions 59 AAMC Institutions 9 CIC Institutions

14

Data Collection June 2012 via personalized email survey to Faculty

Affairs Leadership Almost all P&T policies are behind firewalls and not publically available

Central Admin Assistant Dean for Faculty Development Senior Associate Dean for Faculty and Academic Affairs Senior Vice Provost for Academic Affairs Deputy Provost and Vice President for Faculty Affairs

Medical Schools Senior Associate Dean for Faculty and Academic Affairs Executive Associate Dean for Faculty Affairs and Professional

Development Associate Provost, Faculty Affairs Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs

15

The Request

“I am interested to know if your institution’s current APT policies or guidelines include any specific language regarding collaborations/collaborative activity, multi/interdisciplinary research and scholarship, and/or team science.”

Offered to share all responses with all respondents, in raw form Deposit collected APT policy language to the NIH’s Team Science

Toolkit Use the policy information to guide the development of a

publishable analysis aimed at understanding the relationship between codified policy relevant to collaboration, multi/interdisciplinary research and teaching, and team science and the implementation and realization of policy through processes, practices, and perceptions

16

The Responses Responses from 43 institutions Central Admin and/or Medical School 33 institutions shared policy excerpts Other responses

No response Not applicable Responded, but no such policy language exists And one that may surprise you…

17

Still Resistance

“I would hesitate putting language like that in the [Arkansas and] Chicago descriptions in the tenure-track, clinical scholar and clinician tracks as doing so would lower our bar for promotion.”

Institution shall remain nameless…

18

The Analysis Qualitative document analysis of the 33

policy excerpts Grounded theory approach, data marked with

codes (open coding) Codes were compared, contrasted, and sorted

into larger themes (axial coding) Overarching Emergent Themes

Recognition of Team Science Criteria for Evaluating Team Science Process of Evaluating Team Science

19

Recognition of Team Science

18 of 33 institutions Highlighted the significance and

prevalence of collaborative and/or cross-disciplinary scholarship in advancing science, and the need to consider such scholarship in P&T decision-making

20

Recognition of Team Science

“While the evaluation of research accomplishment has traditionally focused on the faculty member’s individual achievements, including first and senior authorships and funding as principal investigator, the present and future of science will place increasing emphasis on interdisciplinary research team science. Where relevant, therefore, a faculty member’s contributions to interdisciplinary research team science shall also be considered.”

Case Western Reserve University

21

Recognition of Team Science Significance/prevalence of Team Science in advancing

science (13) Recognition of the need to consider Team Science in

P&T (10) Minor/indirect language about Team Science (6) Encouragement for faculty to pursue Team Science (5) Proposed/informal/tentative language in P&T about

Team Science (4) Inclusion of Team Science in definition of

scholarship/excellence (2) Qualified language of Team Science (2)

22

Criteria for Evaluating Team Science 27 of 33 institutions Criteria for evaluating participation in Team

Science Included definitions and/or described

demonstrations of contributions to team-based work, e.g., demonstrations of leadership in and impact of team-based work

How to recognize these contributions in P&T evaluations

Expectations and requirements regarding authorship, publications and grants

23

Criteria for Evaluating Team Science Demonstration of contributions (25)

Demonstration of unique/original/independent contributions (14)

Discussion of authorship/credit (11) Guidelines for “counting” collaborative work (3)

Demonstration of leadership in collaborative work (6)

Demonstration of impact of collaborative work (6) General consideration of Team Science in

evaluation (2) Team Science as a sign of reputation (1)

24

Criteria for Evaluating Team Science “Participation in collaborative, multidisciplinary research and team science is highly valued even though it may result in ‘middle’ authorship, as long as the faculty member’s unique contribution can be discerned.”

Ohio State University

“Collaborative research is explicitly encouraged, and the relative contribution of the faculty member should be judged using reports from collaborating investigators.”

Duke University

25

Process of Evaluating Team Science 16 of 33 institutions Included guidelines for faculty on how to prepare

their dossiers to demonstrate the value of their contributions to science teams

Some policies provided models of CVs, candidate statements, and letters from collaborators while others provided explicit guidelines to committee members on how to review the dossier materials

Others provided general guidelines on the importance of reviewing these sources of evidence for contributions to science teams

26

Process of Evaluating Team Science Source of evidence

Candidate (12) Collaborators (12) Superiors (8) External referees/leaders in the field (7) Published acknowledgments (1)

Guidelines for documentation of candidate’s contributions/roles/effort (16)

Guidelines for the review process/committee (2) General guidelines for evaluating Team Science (4) Sample materials (e.g., letter templates) available (3)

27

Process of Evaluating Team Science

“Faculty members preparing their dossiers for promotion or tenure reviews are instructed in annual workshops about how to present collaborative scholarship in their dossiers. … The goal is to present their work so that evaluators can recognize the unique scholarly contributions of the faculty member to collaborative and interdisciplinary work.”

Penn State University

29

What’s Next

Post the policy excerpts on the NIH’s Team Science Toolkit

Publish the results as a research paper Publish comprehensive literature review Further assessment

Policy Process Practice Perception

30

The Team Kara L. Hall, NCI, NIH Julie Thompson Klein, Wayne State University Manwai C. (Candy) Ku, Stanford (now Apple) L. Michelle Bennett, NHLBI, NIH Amanda Banacki, NHLBI, NIH Howard Gadlin, Office of the Ombudsman, NIH Amanda L. Vogel, SAIC-Frederick, Inc (NCI, NIH

contractor) Holly Falk-Krzesinski, Northwestern (now

Elsevier)

34

CONNECT WITH ME

Holly J. Falk-Krzesinski, PhD

Vice President, Global Academic & Research Relations Elsevier ♦ Chicago, IL, USA

h.falk-krzesinski@elsevier.com

http://www.linkedin.com/in/hollyfk +1 847-848-2953

44

Copyright Information

You are free to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work Under the following conditions:

Attribution — You must attribute the work to me, the author (but not in any way that suggests that I endorse you or your use of the work).

Noncommercial — You may not use this work for commercial purposes. No Derivative Works — You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.

Waiver — Any of the above conditions can be waived with my permission as the copyright holder.

Public Domain — Where the work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.

This work by Holly J. Falk-Krzesinski, PhD is licensed to the Science of Team Science Conference under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 Unported License. Not for commercial use. Approved for redistribution. Attribution required.