Team Science in Public Health.

1. Running head: TYPES OF TEAMS PAPER 1
Dr. Obumneke Amadi-Onuoha_scripts: Types of Teams Paper
September 2019

2. Running head: TYPES OF TEAMS 2
Description of the Team
I have engaged in multiple and diverse teams in the field of public health, among them is
my engagement as a community health educator/researcher at the Centre for the Study of
AIDS(CSA) in Pretoria. Amongst the center’s activities include, inter-faculty engagement on
HIV research, community engagement initiatives and, through social research, produce the
development of new social theory to understand the drivers and results of AIDS more
effectively. The center engages different professional background such as nursing, phycology,
leadership professional, medical and clinical professional and many others to organize and
execute their planned project activities.
Multiple Modalities of Interaction and the 3T’s Types of Science Constructs of the Team
CSA team strives for a cross-disciplinary engagement of a transdisciplinary team of
investigators from different disciplines working jointly to generate new conceptual, theoretical,
methodological, and translational innovations that integrate and move past discipline-specific
approaches to address a common problem as previously described (Harvard Chan,2019).
The center teams’ engage in the science of transdisciplinary research approaches, that involves
an integrative and collaborative practical problem solving of both met, unmet and unrecognized
needs in health disparity populations, thereby keeping close relationship with the people or
communities impacted. Also, they maintain partnerships and collaborations that will promote
advancement in research that would benefit the communities (Dankwa-Mullan et al., p. S20,
2010).
Behaviors and Patterns that Support Greater Collaboration and Teaming to my Team
Considering the many behaviors and patterns that supports greater collaboration and
teaming among CSA teams , the one that resonates and are observable are, trust, shared vision,

3. Running head: TYPES OF TEAMS 3
and respect. Even with rigorous and busy tasks, the team sustained a culture of respect through
transparency and accountability that created an environment which encourages team members to
positively and efficiently work and collaborate with one another (masse et al., p. S151, 2008).
These tenets have been identified as productive outcomes for the sustainability of collaborations
over time (Lotrecchiano et al., p.11, 2016). The patterns of behavior that supported the CSA team
ability to collaborate better in an effective manner include
 Personality traits/types: the perception and thoughtfulness of the differences in people’s
social functional capabilities and pattern of life, that gives each team member better
discernment during decision making of team’s contributions, regardless of their skills or
expertness
 Mentorship: each team member served as a mentor to each other, always available and
lending a supportive hand that are very valued to team members on course of identifying
opportunities, and tackling complex scientific situations or challenging questions for easy
breakthrough
 Giving & receiving feedback: the tone of positive and clear response while exchanging
information opened an environment that reduced conflict and discrepancy with fellow
team contributions even while giving constructive criticism during dialogues. Most
importantly the team members were specific so the recipient recognizes exactly what they
did well or can learn how to do better in the future
 Self-reflection: being aware of the other teams’ strengths and weakness, also, team
members always ask questions to understand how others perceive an experience of
project tasks
(Gadline, and Marchand, pp.15- 24)

4. Running head: TYPES OF TEAMS 4
 The team shared common language and goals to operationalize the project mission and
goals
 Team members used a multidirectional communication technique, which recognizes the
contributions of all team members, however, in terms of integration and communication,
the team members committed to collaborate by consulting one another through different
and supportive communication tools. They combine their specific skills with other team
members to focus on accomplishing integrated outcomes.
The behaviors, I found lacking or hampering collaboration of the CSA team collaboration
is the position where team members are more likely to blame and make excuses than take
responsibility or act with accountability. There are certain times team members remain focused
on themselves and their own efforts, otherwise promoting the disbelief that they will be truthful
in their communications and in the conduct of their scientific research.
Impact of Lack or Abundance of Positive Teaming Behaviors on Team’s Ability to Achieve
the Type of Science they Engage In
Lastly, the lack or abundance of positive teaming behaviors may affect the team’s ability
to achieve the type of science they engage in by presenting methodological biases, team
members finding it too hard to agree on a common goal, having difficulty in determining the
appropriate level of cross-disciplinary integration, non-conflict avoidance. In conclusion, there
poses to be difficulty in determining the proper level of collaboration that may be affected by
problems of personal & disciplinary position and directive (Lotrecchiano et al., pp.22-30, 2016).

5. Running head: TYPES OF TEAMS 5
Reference
Bennett, L.M., Gadlin H., Marchand, C. (2018) Collaboration & Team Science: A Field Guide,
Washington: The National Institutes of Health
Dankwa-Mullan, I., Rhee, K. B., Stoff, D. M., Pohlhaus, J. R., Sy, F. S., Stinson, N., Jr, &
Ruffin, J. (2010). Moving toward paradigm-shifting research in health disparities through
translational, transformational, and transdisciplinary approaches. American journal of
public health, 100 Suppl 1(Suppl 1), S19–S24. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2009.189167
Harvard Chan (2019). Harvard Transdisciplinary Research in Energetics and Cancer Center:
Disciplines. Retrieved from https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/trec/about-us/definitions/
Lotrecchiano, G. R., Mallinson, T. R., Leblanc-Beaudoin, T., Schwartz, L. S., Lazar, D., & Falk-
Krzesinski, H. J. (2016). Individual motivation and threat indicators of collaboration
readiness in scientific knowledge producing teams: a scoping review and domain
analysis. Heliyon, 2(5), e00105.
Mâsse, L.C., Moser, R.P., Stokols, D., Taylor, B.K., Marcus, S.E., Morgan, G.D., Hall,
K.L.,Croyle, R.T., and Trochim, W.M. (2008). Measuring collaboration and
transdisciplinary integration in team science. American Journal of Preventive Medicine
35, S151-S160