It’s easy to say that you’re into collaboration; a lot harder to do it. Collaboration without openness doesn’t exist, but can we really expect much from collaborative efforts and team science if we can’t be open with one another?
In their column in this month’s Fast Company magazine, Dan and Chip Heath write about the importance of coordination and how it is often neglected in environments where there are multiple actors working together. They are writing primarily of business, but they might as well be writing about health care and public health. In their …
I recently participated in a conference call looking to establish a conference on reducing complexity (and whether it can be done). The answer to that question is dependent upon answering whether we can create the necessary conditions to answer the question in the first place.
How one conceptualizes team science might just depend on the kind of team you have and what kind of outcomes you want. Using a sports analogy and that of multi- inter- and transdisciplinary collaboration, these types of teams are explored.
The recent Science of Team Science conference used a lot of key phrases to describe the challenges and opportunities ahead, but design was not one of them. Can Stanford’s new dschool building and the way it puts itself together serve as a lesson for addressing these problems and challenges?
The second day of the Science of Team science conference wrapped up. This post muses aloud about why team science might be here to stay and how it may serve as the ideal response to practicing research on wicked problems in a complex world.
The Science of Team Science conference in Chicago is on bringing new knowledge and new questions about how researchers can work together to address some of the wicked problems faced by society today.
