Team science, while increasingly crucial, lacks interventions focusing on individual-level collaborative skills. Current approaches primarily address team dynamics rather than the intra-personal attributes essential for effective teamwork. This paper argues that developing interactional expertise—the ability of individuals to integrate purposefully into a cohesive team—is central to team science expertise. This process involves acknowledging individual motivations, aligning them with team goals, and establishing shared mental models for collaboration. A significant gap exists in addressing individual needs satisfaction within team science. While team readiness is recognized as crucial, the individual steps needed to become a ready teaming expert are largely unexplored. The paper emphasizes the importance of conscious team readiness preparation, addressing both task work and relational needs to create an environment of psychological safety. Effective team science requires individuals to contribute both their scholarly knowledge and personal goals, necessitating self-awareness and understanding by team members. Differences within teams can promote learning and innovation, but building strong relationships is crucial for managing potential tensions. The paper proposes a Reflective-Reflexive Design Method (R2DM) to bridge the gap between individual needs and team effectiveness, merging reflective (individual self-awareness) and reflexive (team dynamics) agencies to build interactional expertise.

The Science of Team Science (SciTS) offers extensive research and best practices for enhancing team effectiveness. However, interventions supporting team science at individual, team, and organizational levels remain insufficient. Existing literature predominantly focuses on team-level capabilities and interactions, overlooking the individual collaborative skills essential for successful teamwork. The authors highlight the need to shift the focus towards interactional expertise, emphasizing team development as a process of evolving from individual contributions to integrated teamwork. Key decisions within this evolution include establishing a shared mindset, norms, and understanding of individual and mutual motivators. The paper reviews relevant models, including the Motivation Assessment for Team, Readiness, Integration, and Collaboration (MATRICX) framework, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, and the Team Effectiveness Model for Science (TEMS). These models are used to inform the development of the R2DM.

The paper utilizes a design thinking approach to develop the R2DM. This approach focuses on individual reflection and group reflexivity as cornerstones of deep team science expertise. The R2DM integrates three existing frameworks: the MATRICX framework for assessing individual motivators in team science; Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs to understand the link between individual motivations and needs satisfaction; and the Team Effectiveness Model for Science (TEMS) to establish a shared team mindset and behaviors. The MATRICX framework identifies motivators across five domains: Advancing Science, Building Relationships, Knowledge Transfer, Maintenance of Beliefs, and Resource Acquisition. This framework enables the measurement of individual motivations on two scales: cooperative and collaborative, providing insights into the level of engagement and challenge in identifying one's motivational hierarchy. Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs provides a theoretical basis for connecting motivations to needs satisfaction, emphasizing the progression from fundamental needs (physiological and safety) to higher-order needs (belonging, esteem, and self-actualization). The Team Effectiveness Model for Science (TEMS) focuses on fostering a mutual learning mindset, embracing values such as transparency, curiosity, informed choice, accountability, and compassion. TEMS guides teams in developing a shared mindset and behaviors for both task work and relationship dynamics. The R2DM incorporates these three models to address both intra-personal (individual reflection) and inter-personal (team reflexivity) dynamics. The R2DM starts with individual assessment of collaboration readiness using the MATRICX inventory. This is followed by activities that encourage individual reflection on motivators, needs, and values within the team context. These activities are designed around Maslow's hierarchy, progressing from basic to higher-level needs, fostering reflection and dialog within the team. The R2DM concludes with establishing shared team values and behaviors aligned with TEMS, solidifying a shared mutual learning approach. The paper provides examples of learning activities and a table illustrating the integration of MATRICX domains, Maslow's levels, TEMS values, behaviors, and team mindset to guide intervention design. A reflective sense-making learning model guides the design of activities that facilitate individual and team reflection, moving from exploration and identification of needs to processing, reasoning, judgment, and integration.

The paper presents the R2DM as a novel framework for developing team science expertise. This framework leverages the strengths of existing models (MATRICX, Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, and TEMS) to address individual and team needs in a systematic way. The integration of individual reflection (using MATRICX and Maslow's framework) with team reflexivity (guided by TEMS) addresses the previously identified gap in team science literature regarding individual needs satisfaction. The R2DM’s proposed learning activities are designed to facilitate individual self-discovery and team-level agreement on shared values and norms. Table 3 details learning activities aligned with each MATRICX domain, Maslow's Hierarchy, and TEMS values to guide the development of a collaborative team culture. The findings suggest that a developmental approach, focusing on individual readiness and the alignment of individual and team goals, is crucial for building and sustaining successful science teams. The model recognizes the dynamic nature of individual motivations and emphasizes continuous improvement through iterative processes.

The R2DM addresses the limitations of existing team science approaches by explicitly incorporating individual motivations and needs into the team development process. This framework provides a more comprehensive approach to team science expertise development, moving beyond simply addressing team-level dynamics. By aligning individual motivations with team goals, the R2DM aims to foster a collaborative environment conducive to innovation and high performance. The R2DM provides a flexible structure that can be adapted to different contexts and team compositions. The findings highlight the significance of individual reflection and shared understanding for team success, suggesting potential improvements in team training and intervention strategies. The focus on mutual learning and shared values promotes a supportive and collaborative team culture, essential for addressing complex research questions and challenges.

The R2DM offers a valuable contribution to the field of team science by integrating individual and team-level considerations for expertise development. The framework’s emphasis on individual reflection, needs satisfaction, and shared values offers a comprehensive approach for building high-performing science teams. Future research should focus on empirical testing of the R2DM to validate its effectiveness and explore its applicability across diverse scientific disciplines and team contexts. Further investigation is needed to refine the activities and explore the long-term effects of the intervention on individual and team performance.

The R2DM is a newly proposed framework, and its effectiveness needs further empirical validation through rigorous testing. While the integrated models provide a strong theoretical foundation, practical implementation may require adjustments based on specific team contexts and individual characteristics. The framework's reliance on self-reflection may pose challenges for individuals who are less comfortable with introspection or self-assessment. Further research is needed to assess the generalizability of the findings across different cultures and research settings.