Clear, timely, tailored, and collaborative communication, which often mirrors health and risk communication principles, can guide the effective development, engagement with, and sustainability of research teams. The Seven (Cake) Layers to Research Team Development framework developed by Friedman et al. (2024) incorporates aspects of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication (CERC) framework (Reynolds and Lutfy, 2018) and Nyström et al. (2018) Research Partnership Model.

Friedman et al.’s (2024) layers for building (aka ‘baking’) effective research teams involve conceptualization and initial planning steps through evaluation and sustainability. The seven layers are to: (1) find collaborators early on, (2), consider how and when you invite individuals to collaborate, (3) discuss a starting point for the collaboration, (4), establish clear deliverables for each collaborator and partner involved, (5), consider tools for effective team communication, (6) invest in relationships and evaluate the collaboration for improvement and sustainability, and (7) leave toxic collaborations behind.

Interestingly, each of the cake layers regarding the development, engagement with, and sustainability of research teams and partnerships aligns with health and risk communication principles. Specifically, this is apparent with the CDC’s CERC framework and best practices guide for individuals and organizations involved in responding to public health emergencies (Reynolds and Lutfy, 2018). All four main phases of a CERC response involve communication and they are referred to as the communication rhythm: Preparation (precrisis), Initial, Maintenance, and Resolution. Preparation involves establishing strong partnerships with stakeholders and organizations and the development of message content and plans for dissemination. The Initial phase includes clarifying messages, enhancing credibility and trustworthiness, and encouraging specific actions. Maintenance entails ongoing communication and encouraging public support and cooperation. Resolution involves continuing to motivate people, sharing lessons learned, and evaluating the entire communication process and actions. The three overarching objectives of CERC are to engage community, empower decision-making in others, and evaluate and reassess all activities. These objectives are also critical for effective research collaborations.

Nyström et al. (2018) also describe principles of preparation, process, and impact for health and social services partnerships. Their work is based partly on that of Rycroft-Malone et al. (2016) who stress process and practices, and specifically the importance of communication mechanisms for enhanced research impact. Whether relaying critical crisis information, building social service-focused community partnerships, or developing and maintaining research collaborations, the academic literature consistently maintains that effective, strategic communication is crucial for success (Friedman et al., 2014a; Friedman et al., 2014b; Friedman et al., 2014c; Friedman et al., 2016; Friedman et al., 2024).

Across all these frameworks, concepts such as awareness, knowledge, trust, authenticity, and connection are discussed as necessary components when attempting to shape attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors (Friedman et al., 2013; McCracken et al., 2013; Friedman et al., 2014c; Tanner et al., 2015; Tanner et al., 2016; Mathias et al., 2023). Clear, evidence-based communication practices, identified in the results presented here, are key to attaining these goals. By contrast, poor communication leads to confusion, resentment, lack of support, and ineffectiveness.

Much of the research conducted by our team is interdisciplinary. It also involves faculty members, research staff, and students at various ranks and levels of experience, and engages communities and community organizations (Freedman et al., 2012; Friedman et al., 2012b; Freedman et al., 2013; McCracken et al., 2013; Friedman et al., 2014a; Friedman et al., 2014b; Friedman et al., 2014c; Hébert et al., 2018; Friedman et al., 2019; Troy et al., 2022; Mathias et al., 2023). Often, given our team members’ prioritization of fostering and nurturing partnerships, it is also quite common for community members and organizations to reach out to the researchers for collaborative opportunities. In mentorship of faculty and students, it is vital to approach any and all community and organizational partnerships with care and mutual respect in order to ensure effective and sustained success and optimal impact (Tynan and Garbett, 2007; Hebert et al., 2009).

Team Science, which involves collaborations of professionals with diverse skills and knowledge who are often from different disciplines, is a closely related approach recommended for leading and facilitating research teams (National Cancer Institute Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, 2021). Good examples of this are found in collaborations within NCI-funded initiatives. The Community Networks Program entailed collaboration across 23 universities representing virtually every geographical region and all high-risk populations in the United States (Greiner et al., 2014; Adams et al., 2015; Hebert et al., 2015; Bevel et al., 2018). Because projects varied widely in terms of intervention content and measurement methods there was tremendous disciplinary diversity. However, all were focused on conducting research according to the principles of community-based participatory research (CBPR) (Hebert et al., 2009; Braun et al., 2012). Another example of the team science approach is the MeDOC (Metabolic Dysregulation and Cancer Risk Program) Consortium, which focuses on metabolic dysregulation as the fundamental substrate on which most cancer-related mechanisms operate (Lam et al., 2024). This consists of five sites (Universities of Utah, Memphis, Iowa, South Carolina, and Harvard University) and a coordinating center at George Washington University. Each site works on a different part of the cancer problem; for example, different anatomic sites (breast, colon/rectum, liver) and specific mechanisms (e.g., microbiome-related, fatty acid and sphingolipid metabolism, inflammotypes). Despite this heterogeneity, the network has successfully harmonized much of the data collection across centers. Furthermore, the MeDOC consortium stresses both mentoring individuals early on in their career and CBPR/community engagement, with a purposeful intersection between the two.

In follow up to the framework developed by this interdisciplinary research team (Friedman et al., 2024), we surveyed academic-based researchers to better understand how they identify and engage with research collaborators and partners, establish processes for collaborations, sustain research teams and partnerships, and disseminate their work. The survey was administered to faculty within six colleges at the authors’ university.

In order to estimate an overall potential respondent pool, we collected data on total number of faculty members by track in each of the colleges represented so we could get a good sense of the number of faculty conducting and/or expected to be conducting research (i.e., tenured/tenure track and research faculty) by college/ school. Table 2 presents Spring 2024 data on number of faculty members by track in each college who would be expected to conduct research.

With 156 faculty researchers responding to the survey, the response rate was 51.6%, based on the total number of tenure track and research track faculty numbers across colleges (n = 267). The response rate to different survey questions varied as not all questions were required, particularly demographic questions.

Effective collaboration among researchers is essential for productive team science and scientific progress (Steer et al., 2017; Tebes, 2018; Altman et al., 2020; Ezenwa et al., 2024). Such collaborative and interdisciplinary efforts are vital, especially with increasingly prevalent diverse public health concerns, including pandemics, an aging population (Sukoff Rizzo et al., 2023), and climate change (Bruine de Bruin and Morgan, 2019; Herzig Van Wees et al., 2019; Ridde et al., 2019). As interdisciplinary research has become more of a norm for meaningful health impacts (Galway et al., 2016), understanding how to initiate collaborations and address any difficulties with such collaborative efforts can aid conflict management and effective communication (Selker and Wilkins, 2017; Begerowski et al., 2021; Sukoff Rizzo et al., 2023).

The experiences shared in the current study could be helpful to researchers who are seeking to develop research collaborations or seek grant funding. The current sample included a significant portion of experienced researchers (40% of tenured faculty and 36% who were full professors) at a Research 1 University. Initiating a research collaboration was carried out most often with an introduction or brainstorming meeting. In a time during which we have a variety of communication channels, management platforms, etc., basic email was still the primary form of communication for faculty researchers, along with good-old-fashioned face-to-face meetings.

Several approaches for identifying possible team members were shared by respondents in the current study: reach out to known collaborators, create opportunities to meet new collaborators, and the ask-around approach appear to be ways to create research teams. In all cases, it is ideal to start the search early (Consalvey, 2023). Most researchers in our study were mainly working with those they knew and with whom they had a relationship, and they tended to go back to those same individuals for subsequent collaborations. However, networking to find teams of researchers you work well with and enjoy working with is a key strategy for junior faculty members. Content and research expertise was found to be important, but other attributes of collaborators were considered just as critical, and they can indeed make someone valuable to a team. Technical skills are highly sought after, as is someone with a good reputation who is easy to work with and who has a strong work ethic.

Respondents recognized the necessity of planning and strong leadership for research collaborations, as well as the importance of cooperation and trust. Effective leadership involved providing clear and timely guidance, being trustworthy, and mentoring and welcoming students and junior faculty onto teams for different viewpoints and skillsets (Friedman et al., 2024). Mentorship – having mentors and also serving as a mentor – was important to respondents, not just for sharing knowledge of a content area, but particularly to help navigate professionally and provide career advice (Friedman et al., 2021; Johnson et al., 2022). Mentorship can help with networking and establishing oneself on a research team as a student or junior faculty member.

Women were significantly more likely than men to publish with community members and disseminate findings beyond publications or presentations (e.g., reports, media sources). Other studies have found similar results with regard to gender differences in research collaborations (Abramo et al., 2013; Zeng et al., 2016). Abramo et al. (2013) indicated that women in disciplines such as medicine and physics were more likely to collaborate in research than their male counterparts. Zeng et al. (2016) found similar results across disciplines but noted women generally had fewer co-authors on peer-reviewed publications.

While we are often quick to move on to the next project instead of assessing and reflecting on our current initiatives, evaluation of collaborations is important for team cohesion and longevity (Friedman et al., 2012a; Friedman et al., 2014c; Soltani et al., 2017; Johnson et al., 2022; Friedman et al., 2024). Only half of respondents regularly engaged in this type of evaluation, though they did recognize the need to address team conflict even if this was an uncomfortable task (Friedman et al., 2014c; Soltani et al., 2017). Taking the time to reflect on the process of collaboration, including communication strategies and role establishment, can lead to long-term and sustainable partnerships. In addition, reported team-building experiences included collecting pilot data, publishing together, searching for grant opportunities, conducting literature reviews to identify gaps in knowledge, and co-presenting at conferences.

As the current research was a pilot study at one institution, additional research questions concerning research collaborations need to be explored with a larger, more generalizable population. Results clearly indicate the necessity of cooperation, trust, leadership, and establishing roles and communication in any research collaboration. The value of continued mentorship was also evident. Guided by findings from survey results and based on the authors’ published framework (Friedman et al., 2024), the team developed a workshop on effective research team development. This was offered for those who expressed interest when completing the survey and for other interested faculty members and recorded for future use.

Furthermore, increasing research productivity is also a common goal among universities that are not Research 1 institutions. It is important to consider how faculty at other universities may respond to the same survey, especially if the broader goal is to diversify the research pool of investigators. Finally, involving community partners as collaborators was endorsed by a significant number of respondents and future research will examine partners’ perspectives on research team development and sustainability.