Abstract

Team collaboration theories or the role that organizational design plays in promoting long-term research success are often secondary considerations within ambitious community-wide research initiatives. However, for research project managers or community managers called in to consult on the formation of new projects, research proposals, or collaborative partnerships, understanding and applying this body of knowledge in the early initiating or planning phases of new research can strongly promote innovative, collegial, and productive outcomes. In 2018, the Arctic Research Consortium of the U.S. undertook a strategic planning initiative to identify the strategic goals and objectives that will guide our research community support efforts over the next five years. As part of this effort, we determined ARCUS would be doing more to directly evaluate and understand the Arctic research community and its support needs. We also confirmed that we will be taking part in efforts to build out and new initiatives such as the Arctic System Science Collaboratory and UArctic Analytics Institute. As a first step toward achieving both of these objectives, ARCUS staff undertook an internal study to identify the common organizational design structures of current Arctic research programs and what recommendations we could make to improve on these designs within the new and emerging programs we support. Using document analysis and key informant interviews, we created a typology of the collaborative research program structures supported by ARCUS as well as other Arctic research programs funded through the National Science Foundation. The pros and cons of these support structures were then explored and evaluated through the lens of team collaboration and organizational design theories. Our findings highlight the important role that research project and community managers play in promoting collaborative institutional structures and cultures and that without intentional and without ongoing efforts to build and improve them, the productivity and longevity of research communities is likely to decline.