Although team science has expanded with far-reaching benefits, universities generally have not established criteria to recognize its value in faculty promotion and tenure. This paper recommends how institutions might weigh a faculty member’s engagement in team science in the promotion and tenure process. Seventeen team science promotion and tenure criteria are recommended based on four sources – an evaluation framework, effectiveness metrics, collaborative influences, and authorship criteria. Suggestions are made for adaptation of the 17 criteria to committee guidelines, faculty team science portfolios, and the roles of individuals and institutions participating in large, cross-disciplinary research projects. Future research recommendations are advanced.

The internal research program of the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) at the National Institutes of Health aims to fundamentally transform the preclinical translational research process to get more treatments to more people more quickly. The program develops and implements innovative scientific and operational approaches that accelerate and enhance translation across many diverse projects. Cross-disciplinary team science is a defining feature of our organization, with scientists at all levels engaged in multiple research teams. Here, we share our systems approach to nurturing cross-disciplinary team science, which leverages organizational policies, structures, and processes. Policies including the organizational mission statement, principles for ethical conduct of research, performance review criteria, and training program objectives and approaches reinforce the value of team science to achieve the program’s scientific goals. Structures including an organizational structure designed around solving translational problems, co-location of employees in a single state-of-the-art scientific facility, and shared-use laboratories, expertise and instrumentation facilitate collaboration. Processes including fluid team assembly, specialized project management, cross-agency partnerships, and decision making based on clear screening criteria and milestones enable effective team assembly and functioning. We share evidence of the impact of these approaches on the science and commercialization of findings and discuss pathways to broad adoption of similar approaches.

Despite the increasing demand to develop cross-disciplinary research projects, designing collaborative research still prove to be difficult due to both scientific specialization and organizational issues. In this paper, we explore how innovative design dynamics can be developed between researchers to collectively build research projects that could become common purposes for collaboration. This work relies on a case study led with the newly formed Eco&Phy research team, who applied an innovative design process to initiate collaboration and design its scientific agenda for the next 5 years. This process was built based on both KCP and matching-building methodologies: it included an initialization phase, during which the team strategically chose topics to be explored, and exploration phases, during which researchers collectively developed new knowledge and concepts to build cross-disciplinary projects. At the end of the design process, the team had developed two new research lines that were integrated in its official agenda. In conclusion, the article discusses the relevance of design approaches to develop original collaborative research through dedicated innovation processes.

Dementia is a growing issue in the United Kingdom (UK) with over 800,000 people affected. Of these people, in excess of 40,000 are aged under 65 years. Thus, a significant number of individuals may be experiencing symptoms of dementia while in employment. In addition, as working lives extend, the potential impact of dementia on the workplace could be substantial. However, to date, there has been little research on experiences of dementia in the workplace. The research that exists highlights the lack of support for workers with dementia. Dementia may be considered to be a disability under the Equality Act 2010. Therefore, the legislation potentially provides a framework for individuals to request that their employer make reasonable adjustments to support their continued employment. International human rights law is potentially another tool that could be utilised to obtain necessary adjustments. This paper argues that in developing the evidence base on workplace experiences of dementia, it is important that the legal framework be considered. This paper reviews the existing literature on dementia in the workplace and embeds this in the legislative framework in order to establish a cross-disciplinary research agenda. While the paper focuses on the UK legal context, the argument presented in the paper is still relevant to other national contexts.

It is argued that core areas of philosophy can benefit from reflection on cross-disciplinary research (CDR). We start by giving a brief account of CDR, describing its variability and some of the ways in which philosophers can interact with it. We then provide an argument in principle for the conclusion that CDR is philosophically fecund, arguing that since CDR highlights fundamental differences among disciplinary research worldviews, it can be used to motivate new philosophical problems and supply new insights into old problems. We close by providing an argument by example that uses the epistemology of peer disagreement to establish the potential of CDR for core philosophical areas. With this argument, we aim to demonstrate how the complex research contexts that CDR affords can point the way toward important avenues of epistemological research by highlighting potential limitations of key epistemological components, such as peerage and uniqueness.