Diversity and inclusiveness are necessary components of resilient international teams
Diversity and inclusiveness are necessary components of resilient international teams
复制标题
多元化和包容性是有韧性的国际团队的必要组成部分
DOI：
10.1057/s41599-022-01117-4
复制
发表时间：
2022
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Kiker, Greg
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Linkov, Igor;Trump, Benjamin;Kiker, Greg
自SARS-CoV-2大流行开始以来，国际交流受到旅行限制以及相关公共卫生封锁的严重阻碍。国际科学合作也不例外，许多研究机构、大学和公司被迫重新考虑如何进行全球参与和交流。虽然临时过渡到视频会议使那些拥有可靠互联网服务的国家能够继续进行必要的通信，但视频会议保持国际科学合作势头的能力值得怀疑，特别是对于高速互联网接入有限的发展中国家。此外，随着与流行病相关的旅行和合作限制的继续，整个研究业务线可能会以不利于全球团队建设的方式发生重大和永久性的转变。在建立适应性强、适应性强和创新的研究团队以应对COVID后的未来方面，仍然存在重大的知识差距。使问题复杂化的是，如果不能弥补这些差距，可能会延长或永久性地破坏科学传播和发展的国际交流。当通信和旅行线路中断，必要的资源丢失、延误或不可用，或者领导人或团队成员被撤职或丧失能力时，国际研究团队如何坚持并继续实现他们的研究目标？为了回答这个问题，政策制定者和主要利益相关者借鉴了复原力的概念，以阐明如何在COVID后重新调整国际科学（Connelly et al.，2017; Hynes等人，2020年）。一般来说，复杂系统（包括团队）的弹性可以定义为准备，响应，恢复和适应不良事件的能力（NAS，2012; Linkov和Trump，2019; Ganin等人，2016年）。在操作上，弹性是以响应不良事件的功能损失曲线下面积来衡量的（图1）-弹性更强的团队恢复得更快，后果沿着减少，同时具有适应能力，因此与中断前的惯例相比，研究产品继续以相同或更有洞察力的方式生产。然而，在实践中，对个人弹性特征、团队产生的方面和机构维持的品质的相互作用和潜在协同作用存在重大分歧（Arrow等人，2000; Biggs等人，2015;货车Ness和Summers-Effler，2016）。一个狭隘的，以个人为中心的关注弹性特征可能会错过关键的系统功能，而专注于更大规模的组织或社会方面可能会错过一个机会，以加强个人的恢复和适应后的破坏性事件（图1）。集体复原力的两个最未充分研究的决定因素包括多样性和包容性以及相关的体制特征，所有这些因素都以复杂的方式相互作用，影响团队复原力。虽然越来越多的研究集中在种族或性别多样性方面，但在国际参与或合作的背景下，很少讨论或测试文化，认知，经验等多样性要素。这种限制延伸到缺乏方法，parameterizing两个（一）如何促进不同的国际团队背后的生产力效率，以及（二）了解这些团队如何从破坏中恢复和适应，降低或破坏合作机制，改变有关目标要实现的激励措施，或改变一个或多个团队的参与程度。
Introduction From the onset of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, international exchange has been significantly hampered by limitations on travel as well as associated public health lockdowns. International scientific collaboration is no exception, with many research organizations, universities, and companies forced to reconsider how global engagement and exchange is to be conducted. While impromptu transitions to video conferencing have allowed essential communications to continue as a stopgap measure for those with reliable internet services, the ability of video conferencing to maintain the momentum of international scientific collaboration is questionable, particularly for developing countries with limited access to high-speed internet. Further, as pandemic-related travel and collaboration restrictions continue, entire research business lines may significantly and permanently shift in a less conducive manner to global team-building. Significant knowledge gaps remain for building resilient, adaptive, and innovative research teams into the post-COVID future. To complicate the matter, an inability to rectify these gaps may elongate or permanently disrupt the international exchange of scientific communication and development. How can international research teams persist and continue to deliver upon their research objectives when communication and travel lines are disrupted, necessary resources are lost, delayed, or unavailable, or leaders or team members are removed or incapacitated? To answer this question, policymakers and leading stakeholders have borrowed from concepts of resilience to articulate how to realign international science post-COVID (Connelly et al., 2017; Hynes et al., 2020). Generally speaking, resilience of complex systems, including teams, can be defined as the capacity to prepare, respond to, recover from, and adapt to adverse events (NAS, 2012; Linkov and Trump, 2019; Ganin et al., 2016). Operationally, resilience is measured as the area under the curve of lost functionality in response to adverse events (Fig. 1)—more resilient teams recover quickly, with less consequences along with the capability to adapt so that research products continue to be produced in the same or even more insightful ways as compared to pre-disruption conventions. In practice though, there is significant disagreement on the interaction and potential synergies of individual resilience traits, team-generated aspects, and institutionally maintained qualities (Arrow et al., 2000; Biggs et al., 2015; van Ness and Summers-Effler, 2016). A narrow, individually centered focus on resilience characteristics may miss critical system features while preoccupation with larger-scale organizational or societal aspects may miss an opportunity to enhance individual recovery and adaptation after the disruptive event (Fig. 1). Two of the most understudied determinants of collective resilience include diversity and inclusiveness and related institutional characteristics, all of which interact in complex ways to influence team resilience. Though an increasing number of studies are centered on aspects of ethnic or gender diversity, diversity elements of cultural, cognitive, experiential, and others are rarely discussed or tested with integrational tools in the context of international engagement or collaboration (Fig. 1). This limitation extends to a lack of methods that parameterize both (i) how to foster efficiencies in the productivity behind diverse international teams, and (ii) understanding how such teams recover from and adapt to disruption that degrades or destroys mechanisms for collaboration, shifts incentives regarding goals to be achieved, or alters the extent of participation that one or …
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.1016/j.omega.2018.08.012
发表时间：
2019
期刊：
Omega
影响因子：
--
作者：
Matthew D. Wood;Emily M. Wells;Glenn Rice;I. Linkov
通讯作者：
I. Linkov
影响因子：
3.7
作者：
Peterson, G;Allen, CR;Holling, CS
通讯作者：
Holling, CS
团队种族构成、成员态度和绩效：实地研究
影响因子：
2.3
作者：
Anthony M. Townsend;K. Dow Scott
通讯作者：
K. Dow Scott
定义、衡量和增强小团体的复原力
影响因子：
6.1
作者：
Valerie Zemba;Emily M. Wells;Matthew D. Wood;Benjamin D. Trump;Bridget Boyle;Shala N. Blue;Colanda R Cato;I. Linkov
通讯作者：
I. Linkov
包容性领导
DOI：
10.4324/9780429449673
发表时间：
2020
期刊：
Inclusive Leadership
影响因子：
--
作者：
Bernardo M. Ferdman;Jeanine Prime;R. Riggio
通讯作者：
R. Riggio