Fostering Collaboration in a Scientific Research Team

In the public eye, lab-based research is often perceived as a highly controlled and particularly detached environment, where individual skill and talent is key. While this might be true for the very early days of scientific research, in the modern times, the area has evolved to be a highly collaborative environment, essential for tackling complex, multi-disciplinary tasks (1) which also allows for authors to delve into novel topics based on their collaborations (2).

The benefits of a large, collaborative team feel obvious these days, but they have also been backed by literature:

• Cross-disciplinary teams are able to tackle more complex challenges, due to their varied scientific background, producing significantly more influential work, and receiving more attention from the scientific community, proving that the brainstorming technique is one of the most powerful tools for the scientific community (3).

• The team structure also plays a pivotal role in ensuring a fruitful collaboration, with flat teams yielding more influential, novel work with meaningful contributions from all of the members, when compared to a tall, hierarchical team, which appeared more effective for short-term results (4).

• Diversity, although becoming a controversial topic in today’s political context, is, undoubtably crucial in not only adapting to new scientific challenges but also eliminating bias and fostering creativity or novel ideas through each individual’s unique cultural, personal and educational experiences (5).

• Collaboration also helps develop trust within a team environment, so that all members feel safe to be creative, as well as vulnerable, allowing for a more efficient division of tasks, expectations, and conflict resolution (6).

However, it’s not always smooth sailing when it comes to a larger research group, as researchers highlighted various shortcomings when attempting collaborations, as well as strategies to overcome them:

• One of the most reported issues represents the Ringelmann effect (or social loafing), where individuals of a group become less productive as team grows, either due to a motivational decline or poor coordination (7). The lean six sigma methodologies can provide helpful tools to improve the work process for these larger teams (8).

• Miscommunication is one of the most prevalent roadblocks when considering large research groups. Whether it is due to language barriers or ineffective communication tools being used, it often leads to project delays. Misalignment takes it one step further, and amplifies these shortcomings, as misaligned goals can lead to duplication of work and even conflicting outputs. To overcome this, proposed strategies include cross-checking of work output, clear procedures outlined for all staff, keeping a written record of decisions made and having regular meetings between all team members (9).

• Unaddressed power dynamics can also hinder effective collaboration between team members, as diversity also brings in a great variety in the way members tackle work or communication. Hence, psychological safety needs to be a priority, establishing rules regarding what can and can’t be shared, confidentiality or defining the key parameters of a collaborative project. Moreover, attributing key roles in the team (especially a designated decision maker), that can be rotated, would greatly streamline the progress review of the project and allows for expedited results (10).

All in all, although collaboration is not a guaranteed way to succeed as a research team, it can lead to a more impactful research output, with unique problem-solving solutions, innovative ideas and a more consistent workflow process. A research lab thrives when the team can harness different perspectives, built trust and overcome cultural and psychological barriers, making collaboration a hard to master, but worthwhile process.

By Vlad-Nicolae Lesutan

References

1. Wuchty S, Jones BF, Uzzi B. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science. 2007;316(5827):1036-9.

2. Venturini S, Sikdar S, Rinaldi F, Tudisco F, Fortunato S. Collaboration and topic switches in science. Scientific Reports. 2024;14(1):1258.

3. Ritter SM, Mostert NM. How to facilitate a brainstorming session: The effect of idea generation techniques and of group brainstorm after individual brainstorm. Creative Industries Journal. 2018;11(3):263-77.

4. Xu F, Wu L, Evans J. Flat teams drive scientific innovation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2022;119(23):e2200927119.

5. Perez-Sepulveda BM, Cunningham-Oakes E, Waters EV. Importance of diversity and representation in science: benefits towards strengthening our response to global challenges. npj Antimicrobials and Resistance. 2025;3(1):26.

6. Bennett LM, Gadlin H. Collaboration and team science: from theory to practice. J Investig Med. 2012;60(5):768-75.

7. Simms A, Nichols T. Social loafing: A review of the literature. J Manage. 2014;15.

8. Inal TC, Goruroglu Ozturk O, Kibar F, Cetiner S, Matyar S, Daglioglu G, et al. Lean six sigma methodologies improve clinical laboratory efficiency and reduce turnaround times. J Clin Lab Anal. 2018;32(1).

9. Strand JF. Error tight: Exercises for lab groups to prevent research mistakes. Psychol Methods. 2025;30(2):416-24.

10. Marshall A. 5 Reasons Collaboration fails (and how to avoid them): Collaboration Dynamics; 2025 [Available from: https://www.collaboration-dynamics.com/blog/mgc3d5wqfi2kpu5dwcnvcb5vrigpig?utm.