Scientific collaboration influences research practice and knowledge production. Communication is a key point for a collaborative team. When communication is ineffective, unproductivity and personal conflict thrive. Research organizations should seek to promote good communication practices because of their positive impact on research teams.
To better understand this issue, we must be aware of three crucial factors: trust, norms, and communication channels.
1. Trust
Encouraging open and honest discussion is essential for teamwork, but this process is infeasible without trust. Trust drives high team performance and can be divided into technical and emotional trust. Technical trust is relatively quick to build based on the perception that our peers are competent in their work. It is built by managing tasks and processes well in teamwork. On the other hand, emotional trust requires more time and consists of the perception that our peers care about us, share similar values, and belong to our group. To build emotional trust, the team needs to create space for personal connection inside and outside of the research environment.
2. Norms of communication
Communication norms are a shared understanding of how team members should communicate. These expectations should be widely shared and made available in written format for everyone. Regarding expected behavioral norms, it is not enough only to document their importance: it’s also crucial to give examples of proper conduct. The leader must be a model for the team and recognize good behavior by providing constant feedback.
Examples of these norms application are, for example, the sign of how to proceed when finding an error in the team’s work. Who should be informed first? Another example applies to meetings where a member exposes her/his vision; the team must listen before judging. Or even the norm of agreeing or disagreeing with the idea and not the person, making the conflict of proposals impersonal.
3. Communication channels
Another essential factor is the channel used for communication. A common channel facilitates efficient communication, particularly for teams working under stress, like teams on complex scientific projects. For international research and distant collaborations, face-to-face communication is just one option. Digital platforms are increasingly prevalent as a communication channel.
To identify the best channel for communication (in person, by video, a call, or an e-mail), consider the complexity of the message and the possibility of different interpretations. The more complex the topic, the more appropriate the use of a more complete channel (for verbal and non-verbal communication), such as in-person or video calls. Because context is necessary, we must continually re-evaluate the message’s content and align this content with the best channel for its delivery.
Efficient communication can separate a productive environment from a dysfunctional one. Scientific research is increasingly international and carried out by dispersed teams, reinforcing the importance of a collaborative structure that promotes trust and maintains clear behaviors and communication channels.
This short piece is based on my article published in the latest Genetics Society of America’s Early Career Scientist Weekly. Subscribe to the GSA newsletter
Jadson Jall, PhD 