1. Wuchty, S, Jones, BF, Uzzi, B. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science Translational Medicine 2007; 316: 1036–1039.
2. Stokols, D, et al. The ecology of team science: understanding contextual influences on interdisciplinary collaboration. American Journal of Preventative Medicine 2008; 35: S96–S115.
3. Börner, K, et al. A multi-level systems perspective for the science of team science. Science Translational Medicine 2010; 2: 49.
National Research Council
Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science
. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2015.
5. Falk‐Krzesinski, HJ, et al. Advancing the science of team science. Clinical and Translational Science 2010; 3: 263–266.
6. Griffey, DC, Housner, LD. Differences between experienced and inexperienced teachers’ planning decisions, interactions, student engagement, and instructional climate. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 1991; 62: 196–204.
7. Rahmani Doqaruni, V. Communication strategies in experienced vs. inexperienced teachers’ talk: a sign of transformation in teacher cognition. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 2017; 11: 17–31.
8. Housner, LD, Griffey, DC. Teacher cognition: differences in planning and interactive decision making between experienced and inexperienced teachers. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 1985; 56: 45–53.
9. Fiedler, FE, Chemers, MM. Group Performance Under Experienced and Inexperienced Leaders: A Validation Experiment. Illinois University at Urbana group effectiveness research lab; 1968 Dec.
10. Day, DV, et al. Advances in leader and leadership development: a review of 25 years of research and theory. The Leadership Quarterly 2014; 25: 63–82.
11. Namey, E, Guest, G, McKenna, K, Chen, M. Evaluating bang for the buck: a cost-effectiveness comparison between individual interviews and focus groups based on thematic saturation levels. American Journal of Evaluation 2016; 37: 425–440.
12. ATLAS/ti. [computer program]. Version 8. Berlin: Scientific Software Development, 2018.
13. Braun, VVC. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 2006; 3: 93.
14. Guest, G, MacQueen, KM, Namey, EE. Applied Thematic Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2012.
15. Nembhard, IM, Edmondson, AC. Making it safe: the effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior 2006; 27: 941–966.
16. Lewis, K, Belliveau, M, Herndon, B, Keller, J. Group cognition, membership change, and performance: investigating the benefits and detriments of collective knowledge. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 2007; 103: 159–178.
17. Salazar, MR, Lant, TK, Fiore, SM, Salas, E. Facilitating innovation in diverse science teams through integrative capacity. Small Group Research 2012; 43: 527–558.
18. Drath, WH, et al. Direction, alignment, commitment: toward a more integrative ontology of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly 2008; 19: 635–653.
19. Kayes, AB KD, Kolb, DA. Experiential learning in teams. Simulation & Gaming 2005; 36: 330–354.
20. Marks, MA, Mathieu, JE, Zaccaro, SJ. A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review 2001; 26: 356–376.
21. Mathieu, JE, Tannenbaum, SI, Donsbach, JS, Alliger, GM. A review and integration of team composition models: moving toward a dynamic and temporal framework. Journal of Management 2014; 40: 130–160.
22. Rico, R, Sánchez-Manzanares, M, Antino, M, Lau, D. Bridging team faultlines by combining task role assignment and goal structure strategies. Journal of Applied Psychology 2012; 97: 407.