Science facilitation: navigating the intersection of intellectual and interpersonal expertise in scientific collaboration

Modern societal challenges demand interdisciplinary scientific collaboration. Team science, involving interdependent researchers, aims for collective intellectual productivity exceeding individual contributions. However, diverse disciplinary cultures and collaboration preferences can hinder progress. Facilitation, a practice-based expertise supporting group thinking, is often overlooked in scientific settings. This essay argues that "science facilitation," a distinct form of interactional expertise, is crucial for successful team science. It combines scientific collaboration expertise (defining research questions, methods, data analysis, and knowledge dissemination) with interpersonal expertise (managing team dynamics, conflict resolution, and fostering psychological safety). The paper will define science facilitation, explore its development through reflective practice and metacognition, and propose three pathways for its wider adoption in research: training team leaders in facilitation, employing general facilitators, and utilizing specialized science facilitators, analyzing the advantages and disadvantages of each.

The authors review existing literature on team science, highlighting the increasing complexity of collaborative research projects and the need for effective teamwork. They discuss the importance of group dynamics and interpersonal relationships in scientific knowledge creation, contrasting traditional individualistic views with emerging perspectives emphasizing social processes. The role of facilitation in various fields is examined, contrasting its focus on decision-making and conflict resolution in non-science contexts with the unique challenges of generating new knowledge in scientific teams. Existing literature highlighting the need for specialized expertise in team-based interdisciplinary research addressing complex societal problems is reviewed, emphasizing the need for skills in integrating diverse perspectives, managing ambiguity, and understanding target audiences. The authors discuss several models of team development, emphasizing the cyclical nature of team dynamics and the importance of psychological safety in collaborative research. They also cite research emphasizing the importance of emotional intelligence in team science.

This essay employs a qualitative methodology, drawing upon existing literature and the authors' combined experience in scientific research and facilitation. It defines science facilitation as the intersection of scientific collaboration expertise and interpersonal expertise, illustrated by a visual representation. The unique aspects of science facilitation are discussed, such as its focus on knowledge creation (rather than simply decision-making), and the importance of bridging diverse scientific cultures. The paper details the development of science facilitation expertise through Schön's concept of reflective practice, encompassing reflection-in-action (real-time adaptation) and reflection-on-action (post-event analysis). The role of metacognition in developing and applying this expertise is explored, describing how facilitators draw upon past experiences (their "recipe box") to inform their actions. Three distinct pathways for integrating science facilitation into research are proposed and analyzed. Each pathway (internal facilitation, general external facilitation, and specialized science facilitation) is evaluated based on its strengths, weaknesses, cost, and suitability for various project characteristics, illustrated with a table summarizing these factors. The paper concludes with recommendations for building capacity in scientific facilitation, emphasizing the need for funding support, timely integration of facilitators into projects, institutional support for training, and strategic placement of facilitation expertise within scientific institutions and programs.

The paper's central argument is that science facilitation, a distinct form of interactional expertise, is crucial for successful team science. This expertise combines scientific collaboration skills with interpersonal and group facilitation skills. The authors propose three pathways for integrating science facilitation into research: 1) training scientists within the team in facilitation, suitable for small teams with existing relationships and limited budgets; 2) employing experienced general facilitators, suitable for larger, more complex teams where interpersonal dynamics are a significant factor; and 3) using specialized science facilitators who possess expertise in both science collaboration and facilitation, suitable for highly complex, interdisciplinary projects. Each pathway is evaluated based on its strengths, weaknesses, and suitability for various project characteristics. A key finding is the importance of reflective practice and metacognition in developing science facilitation expertise. Facilitators draw upon past experiences to adapt their approach to specific team contexts. The authors highlight that the choice of facilitation pathway depends on various factors such as team size, budget, pre-existing relationships, complexity of the project, and availability of skilled facilitators. The paper emphasizes the need for funders to recognize the value of science facilitation and provide resources for training and hiring skilled facilitators. It further recommends that institutions and funding agencies develop training opportunities for scientists to cultivate facilitation skills and consider incorporating science facilitation expertise into career trajectories.

The findings address the research question by defining and characterizing science facilitation as a distinct and valuable skill set for collaborative scientific research. The significance of the results lies in the identification of three distinct pathways for implementing science facilitation, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. This provides a practical framework for scientists to choose the most appropriate approach for their specific projects. The paper's relevance to the field is significant, as it addresses a gap in the literature by explicitly defining and promoting the importance of science facilitation in team science. It offers a concrete framework for improving the effectiveness of collaborative research by enhancing both scientific and interpersonal aspects of teamwork. The discussion highlights the potential for increased efficiency, improved communication, and enhanced knowledge creation through appropriate application of the proposed facilitation pathways. The paper's recommendations can inform the development of training programs, funding strategies, and institutional structures to support the wider adoption of science facilitation.

This paper makes significant contributions by defining science facilitation, exploring its development, and proposing practical pathways for its implementation. It emphasizes the intersection of scientific and interpersonal expertise, the role of reflective practice, and the importance of matching facilitation approaches to project needs. Future research could focus on empirically evaluating the effectiveness of the proposed pathways, developing specific training programs, and investigating the long-term impacts of science facilitation on research outcomes. Further investigation into the optimal balance between internal and external facilitation across different project phases would also be beneficial.

The paper relies heavily on a qualitative analysis of existing literature and the authors' experiences. While this provides valuable insights, future research should incorporate quantitative data to empirically validate the proposed pathways and their effectiveness. The analysis focuses primarily on team science within research settings; further investigation is needed to assess the applicability of science facilitation to other collaborative scientific contexts, such as policy development and practice implementation. The case studies and examples used are mostly drawn from the authors' experience and may not be representative of all scientific collaboration scenarios.