EAGER: International Type II: Classifying the Causes, Consequences, and Lessons of Resilience Within International Scientific Collaboration

第一部分：非技术性描述新冠肺炎疫情清楚地表明了国际科学合作的重要性及其脆弱性。鉴于所观察到的对国际科学团队和合作努力的破坏，以及未来可能发生破坏的风险，迫切需要了解如何在面临破坏的情况下建立具有弹性和可持续性的国际科学合作。这个项目解决了以下问题：影响长期合作的国际团队的特征是什么？这些特征如何让参与国际科学交流的团队从他们合作努力的中断中恢复过来，而其他特征往往会导致紧张甚至失败？为了回答这些问题，该项目旨在创建一种比较方法，使我们能够理解、衡量并为改善未来的国际科学合作做出贡献。分析新冠肺炎大流行病对国际科学合作的影响将有助于我们理解：i)国际科学合作的潜在好处及其实现方式；ii)在发生系统性破坏的情况下继续合作的障碍；iii)某些合作比其他合作更具弹性的原因；以及iv)减轻合作风险的方法。为了回答这些问题，调查人员将开发和测试一种方法，该方法使用i)关于国际研究资金、管理和使用的公开可用定量和定性数据，以及ii)对因其在科学网络可持续性和复原力分析方面的专业知识而被选中的关键信息者的原始访谈。利用这些信息，我们将比较国际科学合作在政治上的不同地位，以及不同的科学合作政策方法。这一方法的发现将在两个层面上有用：获得信息者对科学合作和复原力的理解；以及通过比较不同系统中阐述的框架、政策和想法，了解不同的政府和政策方法。这一努力的结果将为国际科学活动和团队提供一个关键的基础，以发展和提高他们对当前和未来中断的应变能力--确保国际参与和科学创新将继续下去，尽管这些团队和组织在各个领域的互动、合作和追求尖端科学思想的方式存在任何异常。第二部分：技术描述本项目旨在开发一种科学上可靠的方法，以比较评估国际科学关系及其在全球危机面前的韧性。坊间传闻，新冠肺炎疫情极大地改变了国际科学合作的格局，在许多方面挑战合作，同时展示了它在解决共同问题方面的价值。但目前对国际科学参与的复原力研究不足，迫切需要制定复原力结构和做法，以防止永久性破坏。为了制定侧重于国际协作团队复原力的科学和政策方法，该项目将通过对选定国家的研究资助者、管理人员和研究人员进行有目的的分层抽样，通过半结构化访谈产生定性数据。对公开可用的政策文件、法律、研究成果和资金数额的审查将补充访谈数据。一个由来自选定国家(英国、新加坡、欧盟)的资深科学家组成的专家咨询小组将为该小组提供建议，以确定和构建受访者的初步分层样本。调查人员将利用访谈数据、公开数据的审查和专家咨询小组的建议来确定与国际研究合作的弹性有关的定性教训和定量指标。这种方法将以两种方式发展知识。首先，通过让科学政策受访者讨论他们弹性合作的操作理论，他们从新冠肺炎的破坏中吸取的教训，以及如何建立弹性国际合作，我们将把专家的实践专业知识和理论引入关于弹性的讨论。其次，通过对不同的科学政策体系样本采取明确混合的方法和比较方法，我们可以开发一个框架，比较不同的科学政策方法对合作及其对复原力的影响。这一奖项反映了NSF的法定使命，并通过使用基金会的智力价值和更广泛的影响审查标准进行评估，被认为值得支持。

Part I: Nontechnical descriptionThe COVID-19 pandemic has made clear both the importance of international scientific collaboration and its fragility. Given the observed disruption to international scientific teams and collaborative efforts, as well as the risk of future potential disruptions, there is a critical need to understand how to build international scientific collaborations that are resilient and sustainable in the face of disruption. This project addresses the following questions: what are the characteristics of international teams that influence long-term collaboration? How do such characteristics allow teams engaging within international scientific exchange to recover from disruption to their collaborative efforts, while other characteristics tend to contribute to strain and even failure? To answer such questions, this project aims to create a comparative methodology that will allow us to understand, gauge, and contribute to improving future international scientific collaboration. Analyzing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on international scientific collaborations will drive our understanding of i) the potential benefits of international scientific collaboration and how they are realized, ii) the barriers to continued collaboration in the event of systemic disruption, iii) the reasons why some collaborations are more resilient than others, and iv) the ways in which risks to collaboration can be mitigated. To answer these questions, the investigators will develop and test a method that uses i) publicly available quantitative and qualitative data on international research funding, administration, and use and ii) original interviews with key informants selected for their expertise in analysis of scientific network sustainability and resiliency. Using this information, we will compare international scientific collaboration in polities chosen for their different positions in world science and different policy approaches to scientific collaboration. The findings from this method will be useful on two levels: to gain informants' understanding of scientific collaboration and resilience; and to gain an understanding of different governmental and policy approaches from comparing the frameworks, policies, and ideas that are enunciated in different systems. Results from this effort will provide international scientific engagements and teams with a critical foundation to develop and enhance their resilience against current and future disruptions – ensuring that international engagement and scientific innovation shall continue despite any aberration in how such teams and organizations interact, collaborate, and pursue cutting-edge scientific ideas in various fields.Part II: Technical descriptionThis project aims to develop a scientifically robust methodology to comparatively evaluate international scientific relationships and their resilience in the face of global crises. Anecdotally, the COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically changed the dynamics of international scientific collaboration, challenging collaboration in many ways while demonstrating its value in addressing shared problems. But the resilience of international scientific engagement is under-researched at present, and there is urgent need to develop resilience structures and practices to prevent permanent disruption. To develop a scientific and policy approach focused on the resilience of international collaborative teams, this project will generate qualitative data through semi-structured interviews with a purposeful, stratified sample of research funders, administrators and researchers in selected countries. A review of publicly available policy documentation, laws, research outputs and funding amounts will supplement the interview data. An Expert Advisory Group of senior scientists drawn from selected countries (UK, Singapore, EU) will advise the team in identifying and constructing the initial stratified sample of interviewees. The interview data, review of publicly available data, and advice from the Expert Advisory Group will be used by the investigators to identify both qualitative lessons and quantitative metrics relating to the resilience of international research collaborations.This method would develop knowledge in two ways. First, by having interviewees in science policy discuss their operative theories of resilient collaboration, the lessons they drew from the disruption of COVID-19, and how to build resilient international collaboration, we would bring the practical expertise and theories of experts into the discussion of resilience. Second, by taking an explicitly mixed methods, comparative approach to a diverse sample of science policy systems, we can develop a framework for comparing different science policy approaches to collaboration and their effects on resilience.This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.