Building the team for team science

Building the team for team science E. K. Read,1,2,† M. O’Rourke,3 G. S. Hong,4 P. C. Hanson,4 L. A. Winslow,2,4 S. Crowley,5 C. A. Brewer,6 and K. C. Weathers1 1Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, New York 13545 USA for Integrated Data Analytics, U.S. Geological Survey, Middleton, Wisconsin 53562 USA 3Department of Philosophy and AgBioResearch, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48824 USA 4Center for Limnology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 53706 USA 5Philosophy Department, Boise State University, Boise, Idaho 83725 USA 6Department of Biological Sciences, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana 59812 USA 2Center

Citation: Read, E. K., M. O’Rourke, G. S. Hong, P. C. Hanson, L. A. Winslow, S. Crowley, C. A. Brewer, and K. C. Weathers. 2016. Building the team for team science. Ecosphere 7(3):e01291. 10.1002/ecs2.1291

Abstract. The ability to effectively exchange information and develop trusting, collaborative relation-

ships across disciplinary boundaries is essential for 21st century scientists charged with solving complex and large-scale societal and environmental challenges, yet these communication skills are rarely taught. Here, we describe an adaptable training program designed to increase the capacity of scientists to engage in information exchange and relationship development in team science settings. A pilot of the program, developed by a leader in ecological network science, the Global Lake Ecological Observatory Network (GLEON), indicates that the training program resulted in improvement in early career scientists’ confidence in team-based network science collaborations within and outside of the program. Fellows in the program navigated human-network challenges, expanded communication skills, and improved their ability to build professional relationships, all in the context of producing collaborative scientific outcomes. Here, we describe the rationale for key communication training elements and provide evidence that such training is effective in building essential team science skills.

Key words: ecological observatory network; graduate student training; interdisciplinarity; network science; team science. Received 8 September 2015; revised 20 October 2015; accepted 30 October 2015. Corresponding Editor: D. P. C. Peters. Copyright: © 2016 Read et al. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. † E-mail: [email protected]

Introduction

given rise to graduate education programs that encourage interdisciplinary and cross-cultural collaboration, such as the National Science Foundation Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (Martinez et al. 2006) and the Partnerships in International Research Education programs (Knowlton et al. 2014). Emphasis on collaboration in an interdisciplinary graduate education program situates it under the banner of “team science” as an initiative that is “designed to promote collaborative—and often cross-disciplinary—approaches to analyzing research questions about particular phenomena”

While it is always risky to predict the future, it is a safe bet that collaborative, cross-disciplinary approaches to complex problems are here to stay. Scientific research is exhibiting trends toward greater interdisciplinarity (Van Noorden 2015) and collaboration (Wuchty et al. 2007) in an attempt to meet the challenges that confront contemporary society (Soranno and Schimel 2014, National Research Council 2015). The corresponding need to enhance scientists’ ability to collaborate across boundaries (Cheruvelil et al. 2014) has v www.esajournals.org

1

March 2016 v Volume 7(3) v Article e01291

READ ET AL.

(Stokols et al. 2008). Together with these trends, the expansion of environmental observatory networks that are producing data on unprecedented scales (e.g., NEON, IOOS) constitute the context in which we developed the Global Lake Ecological Observatory Network (GLEON) Fellowship Program. This program prepares scientists-in- training for interdisciplinary network science by enabling them to engage in meaningful collaborations that realize best practices. Collaborative, network science places a premium on communication, and as the National Academies note, “At the heart of interdisciplinarity is communication—the conversations, connections, and combinations that bring new insights to virtually every kind of scientist and engineer” (National Academy of Sciences 2004). To achieve their collective research goals, members of interdisciplinary teams must communicate to construct a set of concepts and terms that bridge the team members’ respective disciplines. The success of this co-construction of meaning is dependent on both information transaction and relationship development (Keyton 1999). Failure to create an effective exchange of research-relevant information across a network can bring research progress to a halt, and failure to build trusting, secure relationships can eliminate the desire to collaborate (O’Rourke et al. 2014). In scientific teams, information exchange and relationship development are typically in tension: groups must balance building group cohesion with accomplishing the tasks at hand (Thompson 2009). Given its central role in the conduct of successful network science, communication is an important topic for any curriculum that aims to support research collaborations (Hall and O’Rourke 2014), but is rarely explicitly taught in graduate training programs (National Research Council 2015). The GLEON Fellowship Program makes communication the central focus of a modular, adaptable training framework that is complementary to traditional disciplinary training. GLEON is a grassroots network whose mission is to conduct innovative science by sharing and interpreting high resolution sensor data to understand, predict and communicate the role and response of lakes in a changing environment (Weathers et al. 2013). The Fellowship Program was developed to meet the technical and interpersonal training needs observed within GLEON, which we v www.esajournals.org

believe apply to any interdisciplinary network science effort. (For additional information, see http://fellowship.gleon.org.) GLEON Fellows attend three workshops to expand their capacity to conduct collaborative, network research through the development of collective communication competence (Thompson 2009). Communication competence is rooted in cognitive and behavioral abilities to construct meaning with others in contextually sensitive ways (Jablin and Sias 2001). In an interdisciplinary context, communication competence is exhibited in self-reflective communication and discussion of worldviews that support the information exchange required for transition from multidisciplinarity to interdisciplinarity (Crowley et al. 2010). Communication competence is also reflected in the relationship development required for interdisciplinarity by building trust through, e.g., shared laughter, spending time together, and reflexive discussion of the team dynamic (Thompson 2009). Collaborative research projects within the Fellowship Program were supported by activities to optimize the effective exchange of project-relevant information; these projects were identified and implemented by working groups over the course of the program and occurred in conjunction with activities designed for relationship building.

Methods Participant recruitment

The Fellowship Program is a 1.5-yr training program for doctoral graduate students in the natural and social sciences, designed to complement graduate training conducted at the students’ home institutions. To assemble the first cohort of GLEON Fellows, during October 2012, the leadership team (two senior princi pal investigators, a program coordinator, a postdoctoral associate, and a senior doctoral dissertation student) solicited applicants from the community via professional organization announcements and scientific network listservs. Student applicants no fewer than 2 yr from completing dissertation research at the time of application were considered. As diversity enhances the efficacy of scientific teams (Bennett et al. 2010), we sought to assemble students crossing disciplines, institutions, geographies, and genders. We received 44 applications from

2


READ ET AL.

Fig. 1. The distribution of workshop training timeline elements related to building communication competence (yellow), technical training (green), and research products (blue), through time. The area of the boxes approximates the amount of time spend on each activity during each 4-d workshop; see detailed workshop agendas (http://fellowship.gleon.org/?page_id=125) for more information. “Free time” refers to unstructured social opportunities. The timing of participant survey assessments, given before and after the program (“Formative survey” and “Summative survey”), before and after each workshop (e.g., “Pre-workshop 1 survey”, “Post-workshop 1 survey”), during Workshop 1 to assess the Toolbox dialog (“Toolbox pre-survey” and “Toolbox post-survey”, and after completion of the program to participants’ advisors (“Advisors survey”), are shown on the bottom of the figure. Bolded text indicates that survey assessment results are included in this study; all survey assessments are shown for clarity on the frequency and type of survey assessment given. Horizontal axis is not to scale.

11 international and 33 U.S. national graduate students; participants were selected based on research record, level of support from primary research advisor’s recommendation letter, alignment of research with those of the training program, demonstrated collaborative ability, and alignment of degree program timing with the timing of the Fellowship Program. The first cohort of the Fellowship Program included 12 students from United States and international institutions. Participants’ disciplinary foci included limnology, ecology, social science, engineering, and ecosystem modeling.

communications between meetings. All in- person workshops were held at locations remote to participants’ home institutions (Fig. 1), and included room and board. The first and second workshops had structured agendas that emphasized traditional training activities (lectures and group assignments), while the third workshop was dedicated to completion of collaborative research objectives (Fig. 1). External participants were included in workshops, representing disciplines that included philosophy, computer science, information technology, engineering, and ecology (see detailed agendas for complete lists of participants and formal presentations given: http://fellowship.gleon. org/?page_id=125). The frequency and timing of team science- related activities are described in detail below. The timing of technical training elements is described online (http://fellowship.gleon.

Training and collaborative timeline

Team science training, technical training, and processes to support collective communication competence were implemented over the course of three 5-d workshops between January 2013 and January 2014, and in tele- and digital v www.esajournals.org

3


READ ET AL.

org/?page_id=125) and included ecosystem modeling, R-programming, Bayesian hierarchical modeling, and data visualization geared toward lake national and global aquatic ecosystem science. To maintain momentum and progress between workshops, web-enabled communication and collaboration began months before the first workshop, and extended for several months beyond the last workshop. Modes of distributed communication between meetings included e-mail, teleconferences, and the transfer of information via file management, project management, and version control systems. The research manuscripts and software products produced by program participants focus on macrosystems ecology: the study of interacting ecological phenomenon covering broad spatial and temporal scales (Heffernan et al. 2014). Participants were encouraged to consider research questions at broad spatial and temporal scales, which requires an interdisciplinary approach because of the many disciplines and subdisciplines required to understand such interacting processes (Cheruvelil et al. 2014). The Fellowship Program team science elements, described below, are generic and adaptable for collaborative team training across disciplines. Some elements were employed more frequently (e.g., reflection and social opportunities), whereas the others were implemented at only once, depending on the needs and desires of participants (Fig. 1, and see http://fellowship. gleon.org/?page_id=125 for detailed workshop agendas).

participants pursued physical or intellectual pursuits on an ad-hoc basis. • Team science “best practices”: The characteristics of and processes used by effective teams were defined to give participants a shared lexicon to describe the experiences and processes of scientific teams, after Bennett et al. (2010). • Discussion of worldviews: Even in highly functional groups, philosophical differences among discipline-specific assumptions have the potential to create challenges to collaboration (Cheruvelil et al. 2014). Eigenbrode et al. (2007) provide a framework within which philosophical differences related to the practice of science were discussed, which enabled the articulation and sharing of research worldviews (Schnapp et al. 2012). • Peer-to-peer teaching: Effective communication and trust within groups of scientists is enhanced by team members alternating in roles as teachers and learners within the group (Bennett et al. 2010); opportunities for this were given in structured and casual settings for all participants. • Simulation: Role-playing work is a low-cost and low-risk opportunity to model team science best practices before authentic collaborations begin (Hackett and Rhoten 2009). Research simulation activities, in which groups explored, visualized, and interpreted data, were used at the outset of the first workshop • Conflict management: The ability to effectively negotiate and resolve conflict is a learned skill for most people (Bennett et al. 2010); developing this skill began with an introduction to a negotiation and conflict resolution method (Fisher et al. 2011). • Facilitation strategies: Recognizing and responding to different needs and concerns while enabling the uptake of new information is a facilitation ability that conduces to greater mutual understanding, and as such, is an important contribution to communication within teams (Means et al. 2002). Training in facilitation skills as described by Kaner et al. (2007) was used to build the facilitative capacity of participants.

• Reflection: Reflexive communication is a hallmark of collective communication competence (Thompson 2009). Several forms of reflection took place at each workshop: whole group and sub-group team reflections at the outset and conclusion of each workshop, often in the form of “highs and lows” round-robin discussions in which individuals reflect on success, failures, and ways to improve the collaborative process; and informal reflexive communication between individuals. • Unstructured social opportunities: Shared laughter and socializing build team cohesion (Thompson 2009, Cheruvelil et al. 2014), and 1–2 h of free time were regularly scheduled (daily, when possible), during which v www.esajournals.org

These practical exercises were intended to build within the cohort key characteristics of effective 4


READ ET AL.

teams: trust, mutual understanding of worldviews, and the ability to manage conflict.

Results and Discussion

When we engage in research, we must rely on others: we rely on those who produced the Several forms of survey assessment were con- arguments we respond to, the works we cite, ducted with Cohort 1 participants and their and the methods and technologies we use. That research advisors; all surveys were administered we rely on others is even clearer in team scivia anonymous web-based instruments. Assess ence, where we adopt a “divide and conquer” ment questions included Likert-scale and free- approach to research labors (Stokols et al. 2008). text responses. Formative (pre-workshop 1) and For our purposes, we followed Rousseau et al. summative (post-workshop 3) survey assess- (1998) in taking trust to be “a psychological ments were made of GLEON Fellowship Program state comprising the intention to accept vulcohort 1 demographics; educational stage; dis- nerability based upon positive expectations of cipline; and research, leadership, and collabo- the intentions or behavior of another” (p. 395). rative efficacy. The formative survey assessment Failure to establish trusting relationships can was administered prior to the start of the first transform collaborators into competitors and workshop, on January 13–14, 2013 and the sum- allies into adversaries, undermining the forward mative survey assessment was administered progress of the research team through diminbetween May 5 and 16, 2014. To assess and ished group outcomes (Keyton 1999). Trust is improve workshop content and logistics, we developed through activities such as reflexive surveyed Fellows within 1–2 weeks after each talk, unstructured social interactions, and opworkshop (see a sample post-workshop feedback portunities for peer-to-peer learning (Thompson survey assessment here: http://fellowship.gleon. 2009, Cheruvelil et al. 2014). Based on changes org/?page_id=913). The “Toolbox” team admin- observed across pre- and post-program survey istered pre- and post-survey assessment to par- assessments, these activities served to increase ticipants during Workshop 1 (the same survey the confidence of participants to manage and instrument was administered before and after participate in diverse, international, and cross- the Toolbox dialog, and can be found within lab network science collaborations (Fig. 2). One Looney et al. 2013). Finally, in May 2014, after student noted, “My professional interactions the conclusion of the Fellowship Program for have changed tremendously. I learned how to the first cohort, participants’ research advisors create collaborative bonds through scientific completed a survey assessment. All students discussions with my advisor, where we don’t (n = 12) completed the GLEON Fellowship share opinions. By practicing this with my reProgram formative and summative survey as- search advisor our communication improved sessment, and the Toolbox survey assessment; and I was able to move forward much faster.” 9 of 12 advisors completed the post-program Trust was one of the most frequently cited survey assessment. elements of successful collaborations by Fellows’

Assessment

Fig. 2. Change in student confidence before and after the Fellowship Program. The distribution of GLEON Fellowship Program student participant confidence in collaborative skills assessed before (pre-workshop 1) and after (post-workshop 3) the training program increased through time. v www.esajournals.org

5


READ ET AL.

advisors, and an advisor noted, “My student has a much broader community of collaborators, friends and supporting mentors as a result of the program, and is much more confident in her professional interactions than before the program.” How project-relevant information is exchanged among collaborators is a key determinant of project success; this is especially true within an interdisciplinary project. The aspects of a complex problem that are foregrounded in thought and the language used to speak about them will vary from discipline to discipline. Philosophical methods can be used to map variation in disciplines and backgrounds, tracing conceptual connections among assumptions about scientific investigation that constitute scientific research worldviews (Eigenbrode et al. 2007). These worldviews frame how investigators operate in the world—what stands out for them as researchable questions and what recedes into the background, what methods seem appropriate for investigating these questions, and what appropriate answers look like (Koltko-Rivera 2004, O’Rourke and Crowley 2013). Articulating and sharing these worldviews with collaborators can enhance collective communication competence by increasing the transparency of the collaborative research process, producing more reasonable expectations, and enabling more effective communication across the project. GLEON Fellows made progress toward identifying and sharing research assumptions through the use of the Toolbox dialog method (Eigenbrode et al. 2007, O’Rourke and Crowley 2013). One participant remarked, “I think one of the key discoveries for me… was that a lot of my viewpoints contradicted each other.” As a consequence of the dialog, many participants stated that they had new insights into their own scientific habits and those of their peers, and over half indicated that they had become aware of the diversity of scientific styles. Cultural, disciplinary, and other aspects of diversity are a characteristic of highly effective teams (Cheruvelil et al. 2014), and participants finished the program with overall greater confidence in their ability to collaborate with individuals from diverse backgrounds (Fig. 2). An especially important facilitative role one can play in a collaborative research project is the role of conflict manager. “Conflict is about differences,” v www.esajournals.org

Bennett et al. (2010) tell us. “[I]t exists when two or more parties disagree, compete, or perceive that their interests are incompatible” (p. 37). Conflicts need not manifest explosively—they can simmer under the surface of a collaboration; however, if they are not addressed, they can escalate and lead to project dissolution. Skillful management of conflict can harness and convert it in some cases into a “constructive force” (Means et al. 2002). Conflict identification and management is clearly related to collective communication competence, and training on this topic proved to increase students’ collaborative efficacy: “Frank discussions about causes and solutions to interpersonal conflicts in science (authorship assignment, etc.) [were valuable]. The Fellowship Program was the healthiest collaborative experience I have had as a researcher, partly because we took the time to discuss tense issues.” The majority of Fellows’ advisors reported the Fellowship Program resulted in improvements to students’ collaborative strategies. One advisor noted “I saw my student struggle with larger issues of diversity and collaboration and reaching out to others in ways that most students, isolated in their own labs, would not. S/he emerged with an appreciation for the broader research enterprise and with a set of lifelong skills that will enhance not only his/her research, but the larger goals of limnology, and science and education overall. S/he has a higher level of maturity about science.” Caution must be used in the interpretation of the quantitative and qualitative results of this study, which does not take into account confounding influences of intervening graduate education and other collaborations on the perceived increase in confidence in collaborative skills. Moreover, participants and advisors may be inclined to report positive experiences because of the time already invested in the program. Additional survey assessment of future cohorts of this training program is necessary to provide a robust evaluation of its methods to practitioners.

Recommendations to network science training programs

While any lessons we draw from this work must be regarded as provisional given the preliminary nature of our findings, we think there are three points worth emphasizing for other training programs in collaborative, interdisciplinary team science: (1) If a training program

6


READ ET AL.

wants to produce interdisciplinary trainees, it should teach the relevant skills explicitly; (2) Interdisciplinary situations are sufficiently varied that training programs should aim to produce the kind of flexibility that enables trainees to take unknowns and surprises in stride; and (3) Make the training practical. We expand on each of these points in what follows. A balance should be struck between teaching team science best practices and enabling those involved in the program to implement them: we recommend providing explicit instruction early and then gradually giving way to implementation, so that by the end, the focus of the program is on implementation (Fig. 1). One student in the May 2014 summative survey assessment emphasized this point: “Skills for facilitators and collaboration, skill sharing should be taught first and be reinforced throughout the Fellowship.” Team science training should be explicitly incorporated into each workshop through formal activities, and implicitly fostered by using processes known to enhance teams (e.g., trust-building activities, simulation, peer-to-peer teaching, and encouraging creativity). Artifacts (e.g., presentations and agendas) of our workshop training in team science and technical skills are available for re-use (http://fellowship.gleon.org). Second, all interdisciplinary collaborations are different and there is no one-size-fits-all approach. Frequent communication among collaborators (in this case, leaders and participants) minimizes breakdowns in group functioning. We recommend two primary mechanisms to seek feedback and respond to participants: anonymous pre-and post-meeting survey assessments, and the self-reflection activities during in-person workshops and conference calls. Workshop agendas should accommodate participant feedback. One student stated, “I appreciated how responsive you were to our feedback, and how you allowed the structure of the workshops to evolve organically.” We recommend taking advantage of the perspective of participants by involving them in decision making as the training unfolds. Finally, we recommend that training programs support meaningful research projects with tangible outcomes by making available the technical, project management, and collaborative resources required to accomplish the goals. To facilitate the exchange of project-relevant information, which v www.esajournals.org

is especially critical for geographically distributed collaborators, the first cohort of the Fellowship Program was supplied with in-person meeting travel and accommodations, technical training, software, tele-communication tools, cloud hosting for project data and files, digital project management applications, and support for publication costs. At the conclusion of the program, one student noted, “Group collaboration skills and tools – this is valuable as it can be challenging to keep momentum going on projects when direct face time is minimal but finding tools and effective ways to foster the collaboration is extremely valuable.” The resources supported the student cohort together with the leadership team to produce research manuscripts (Read et al. 2015; Dugan et al., in press; Hetherington et al., in press) and two software products (Winslow et al. 2014a, b).

Conclusions To make scientific breakthroughs with complex, large-scale problems, society depends on collaborative teams of scientists to effectively exchange information across disciplinary boundaries. The first cohort of GLEON Fellows graduated from the program with enhanced confidence in his/her leadership, collaboration, and scientific abilities; and produced research manuscripts (Read et al. 2015; Dugan et al., in press; Hetherington et al., in press) and software products (Winslow et al. 2014a, b). One advisor noted his/her student brought “a wealth of expertise from science to project management to our lab as a result of the program, and has had a very positive influence on other students as a result.” Explicit training in trust, exchange of worldviews, and conflict management proved valuable not only for the interdisciplinary team science outcomes, but for building and training the scientific team players of the future. The GLEON Fellowship Program provides a model for building the team for team science: a pool of scientists-in-training who are capable and practiced in interdisciplinary team science.

Acknowledgments This research was supported by National Science Foundation Macrosystems Biology Awards #1137353 and 1137327. We are very grateful to the first cohort

7


READ ET AL. fellows for their curiosity and willingness to experiment with us in the program; and to the fellows’ graduate advisors, for supporting the fellows in this endeavor. The manuscript was improved as a result of comments from N. Burkardt and A.P. Appling.

r esearch, and methods. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California, USA. Kaner, S., L. Lind, C. Toldi, S. Fisk, and D. Berger. 2007. Facilitator’s guide to participatory decision-making, First edition. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, California, USA. Keyton, J. 1999. Relational communication in groups. Pages 192–222 in L. R. Frey, D. S. Gouran, and M. S. Poole, editors. The handbook of group communication theory and research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California, USA. Knowlton, J. L., K. E. Halvorsen, R. M. Handler, and M. R. O’Rourke. 2014. Teaching interdisciplinary sustainability science teamwork skills to graduate students using in-person and web-based interactions. Sustainability 6:9428–9440. Koltko-Rivera, M. E. 2004. The psychology of worldviews. Review of General Psychology 8:3–58. Looney, C., S. Donovan, M. R. O’Rourke, S. Crowley, S. D. Eigenbrode, L. Rotschy, N. A. Bosque-Perez, and J. D. Wulfhorst. 2013. Seeing through the eyes of collaborators: using Toolbox workshops to enhance cross-disciplinary communication. Pages 220–243 in M. R. O’Rourke, S. Crowley, S. D. Eigenbrode, and J. D. Wulfhorst, editors. Enhancing communication and collaboration in interdisciplinary research. First edition. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California, USA. Martinez, A., A. Chase, J. Carney, B. Boulay, D. Chawla, L. Layzer, L. Litin, N. Zotov, S. Goldsmith, and D. Haviland. 2006. Contractor annual report and summary of the cross-site monitoring of the NSF Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT) program: final report. ABT Associates, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. Means, K., C. Josayma, E. Nielsen, and V. Viriyasakultorn. 2002. Community-based forest resource conflict management: a training package. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. National Academy of Sciences. 2004. Facilitating interdisciplinary research. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., USA. National Research Council. 2015. Chapter 5: professional develoment and education for team science. Pages 97–124 in Committee on the Science of Team Science, N. J. Cooke, and M. L. Hilton, editors. Board on Behavioral, Cognitive, and Sensory Sciences, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Enhancing the effectiveness of team science. First edition. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., USA. O’Rourke, M., and S. J. Crowley. 2013. Philosophical intervention and cross-disciplinary science: the

Literature Cited Bennett, L. M., H. Gadlin, and S. Levine-Finley. 2010. Collaboration and team science: a field guide. NIH Office of the Ombudsman, Center for Cooperative Resolution, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. Cheruvelil, K. S., P. A. Soranno, K. C. Weathers, P. C. Hanson, S. J. Goring, C. T. Filstrup, and E. K. Read. 2014. Creating and maintaining high-performing collaborative research teams: the importance of diversity and interpersonal skills. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 12:31–38. Crowley, S., S. D. Eigenbrode, M. R. O’Rourke, and J. D. Wulfhorst. 2010. Localization in cross-disciplinary research: a philosophical approach. http://www.multilingual.com/downloads/114LCDR.pdf. Dugan, H., et al. In press. Consequences of gas flux model choice on the interpretation of metabolic balance across 15 lakes. Inland Waters. Eigenbrode, S. D., et al. 2007. Employing philosophical dialogue in collaborative science. BioScience 57:55–64. Fisher, R., W. L. Ury, and B. Patton. 2011. Getting to yes: negotiating agreement without giving in, Third edition. Penguin, New York, New York, USA. Hackett, E. J., and D. R. Rhoten. 2009. The Snowbird Charrette: integrative interdisciplinary collaboration in environmental research design. Minerva 47:407–440. Hall, T. E., and M. O’Rourke. 2014. Responding to communication challenges in transdisciplinary sustainability science. Pages 119–139 in K. Huutoniemi and P. Tapio, editors. Heuristics for transdisciplinary sustainability studies: solution-oriented approaches to complex problems. Routledge, Oxford, UK. Heffernan, J. B., et al. 2014. Macrosystems ecology: understanding ecological patterns and processes at continental scales. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 12:5–14. Hetherington, A. L., et al. In press. GLEON Fellowship Program: training the next generation of macrosystem scientists in freshwater ecology. Inland Waters. Jablin, F. M., and P. M. Sias. 2001. Communication competence. Pages 819–864 in F. M. Jablin and L. L. Putnam, editors. The new handbook of organizational communication: advances in theory,

v www.esajournals.org

8


READ ET AL. Stokols, D., K. L. Hall, B. K. Taylor, and R. P. Moser. 2008. The science of team science: overview of the field and introduction to the supplement. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 35:S77–S89. Thompson, J. L. 2009. Building collective communication competence in interdisciplinary research teams. Journal of Applied Communication Research 37:278–297. Van Noorden, R. 2015. Interdisciplinary research by the numbers. Nature 525:306–307. Weathers, K., et al. 2013. The Global Lake Ecological Observatory Network (GLEON): the evolution of grassroots network science. Limnology and Oceanography Bulletin 22:71–73. Winslow, L. A., J. S. Read, R. I. Woolway, J. Brentrup, T. Leach, and J. A. Zwart. 2014a. rLakeAnalyzer: package for the analysis of lake physics. R. Winslow, L. A., J. A. Zwart, R. D. Batt, J. Corman, H. Dugan, P. C. Hanson, G. Holtgrieve, A. Jaimes, R. I. Woolway, and J. S. Read. 2014b. LakeMetabolizer: tools for the analysis of ecosystem metabolism. R. Wuchty, S., B. F. Jones, and B. Uzzi. 2007. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 316:1036–1039.

story of the Toolbox Project. Synthese 190:1937– 1954. O’Rourke, M. R., S. J. Crowley, S. D. Eigenbrode, and J. D. Wulfhorst. 2014. Introduction. Pages 1–8 in M. R. O’Rourke, S. Crowley, S. D. Eigenbrode, and J. D. Wulfhorst, editors. Enhancing communication and collaboration in interdisciplinary research. First edition. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, California, USA. Read, E. K., et al. 2015. The importance of lake-specific characteristics for water quality across the continental US. Ecological Applications 25:943–955. Rousseau, D. M., S. B. Sitkin, R. S. Burt, and C. Camerer. 1998. Not so different after all: a cross-discipline view of trust. Academy of Management Review 23:393–404. Schnapp, L. M., L. Rotschy, T. E. Hall, S. Crowley, and M. O’Rourke. 2012. How to talk to strangers: facilitating knowledge sharing within translational health teams with the Toolbox dialogue method. Translational Behavioral Medicine 2:469–479. Soranno, P. A., and D. S. Schimel. 2014. Macrosystems ecology: big data, big ecology. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 12:3.

v www.esajournals.org

9
