No abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to expand the use of ethnography to advance research on team science by revealing the barriers to teamwork as manifesting at institutional, cultural, and interpersonal contextual scales. The analysis suggests strategies to enhance team science's collaborative potential.Design/methodology/approachThis paper considers some of the practical and analytical challenges of team science through the use of ethnographic methods. The authors formed a three-person subteam within a larger multisited, federally-funded, interdisciplinary scientific team. The authors conducted six months of participant observation, semi-structured interviews, and a focus group, using iterative deductive and inductive analyses to investigate the larger team's roles, relationships, dynamics, and tensions.FindingsIntegrating ethnography into the study of team science can uncover and mitigate barriers faced by teams at three primary levels: (1) academic culture, (2) institutional structures, and (3) interpersonal dynamics. The authors found that these three contextual factors are often taken for granted and hidden in the team science process as well as that they are interactive and influence teams at multiple scales of analysis. These outcomes are closely related to how team science is funded and implemented in academic and institutional settings.Originality/valueAs US federal funding initiatives continue to require scientific collaboration via inter-, multi-, and transdisciplinary research, there is little work done on how teams grapple with the practical tensions of scientific teamwork. This paper identifies and addresses many practical tensions and contextual factors across institutional and organizational structures that affect and challenge the conduct of collaborative scientific teamwork. The authors also argue that ethnography can be a method to challenge myths, understand contextual factors, and improve the goals of team science.

No abstract

No abstract

This research investigates medium‐scale disruptive events to understand how these events influence communication and coordination between two interdependent systems (i.e., the water system and the public health system). Medium‐scale events are events that are often overlooked as routine as they occur with more frequency than large‐scale events, yet they have the potential to provide important information about the state and vulnerability of systems, and, if not managed appropriately, can cascade into larger‐scale crises. A survey of US public drinking water systems (N = 471) shows that medium‐scale events promote coordination, especially when those events have a public dimension. Findings also reveal that several features of water systems including surface water sources, system size, and ownership types are associated with higher levels of interaction with the public health systems. Additionally, a network analysis identifies three distinct subnetworks that engage in emergency response activities. The strength of the working relationship was strongly associated with coordinated emergency responses, coordinated public responses, planning, and technical assistance. Findings have implications for both theory and crisis management.