Open Collections

The management of polydisciplinary teams

University of British Columbia

The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of personality specialization on the research and work attitudes of disciplinarians in socio-medical related fields. The study involved the development and testing of specialist characteristics and attitudes relevant to the management of polydisciplinary research in academic settings. Personality specialization of the individual disciplinarian was hypothesized to be associated with specific attitudes toward research and styles of organizing work in team situations. Specifically, hypotheses tested the relationships of Person and Thing orientation and attitudes toward a) Analytic or Holistic approaches to research methodology b) and Mechanistic (Type I) or Organic (Type II) approaches to work organization. In addition, information was collected on a number of demographic and career variables to test for confounding and moderating influences on the study's hypotheses. In order to test the four Hypotheses, an analytic field survey was conducted and data was collected from academic specialists in 32 fields of specialization employed at the University of British Columbia. The measuring instrument of the study was a structured mailed questionnaire. A previously constructed Person and Thing Construct Scale (Frost & Barnowe 1976) was employed to measure the independent variable of personality specialization. Scales measuring the dependent variables of Research Mode and Organizational Style were constructed based on correlational and factor analytic techniques. A descriptive profile of the study sample was compiled. The effects of personality variables were assessed in two ways. For the Research Mode, correlational relationships and differences in mean scores among sub-populations of specialists were explored. For the organizational data, correlational relationships and differences in the frequencies of specialist types falling into categories of the criterion variable were examined. In addition to the hypothesized relationships concerning Person and Thing specialists, two other specialist types were examined in relation to the dependent variables. In the general study population Person and Thing specialists did not associate differently with either the Analytic or Holistic research approaches or with the Organic (Type II) or Mechanistic (Type I) organizing styles. Person and Non-Specialist types were found to significantly differ in their attitudes toward interpretive strategies for research. Thing specialists and Generalist personality types were found to vary considerably in their attitudes toward 3 out of 4 research mode factors. Within the female portion of the study sample, Person specialists were found to prefer a Type II organizing approach while Thing specialists preferred a Type I approach. This was as predicted in Hypotheses III and IV of the study. The study found significant differences in Person and Thing orientation between males and females and High and Low Academic Rank groups. Females had a higher mean Person score than Males and the Low Rank group a higher mean Person score than the High Rank group. Significant differences were also found in male and female attitudes toward the Analytic approach to Research, women being more Analytic than men. There were notable differences in research orientation between those having past non-university employment experience since receiving their terminal degree compared with those who had gone right into academia. Those with other employment experience being more Holistic in their research orientation. Individuals of Low and High Academic ranks had significantly different preferences for organizing. The Low Rank group preferring the Type I approach compared to the High Rank group who slightly prefer Type II. Another organizational finding of significance was the difference between those having experienced collaborative research compared with those who hadn't. Those without collaborative experience preferring Type I and those with experience preferring Type II. The study Findings are discussed in relation to their generalizability, requirements for future work and alternative hypotheses. The study results are interpreted in relationship to the management issues of assembling and coordinating polydisciplinary teams. Specific recommendations for member selection and team composition are made.

Text

2010-03-19

For non-commercial purposes only, such as research, private study and education. Additional conditions apply, see Terms of Use https://open.library.ubc.ca/terms_of_use.

http://hdl.handle.net/2429/22140

Health Care and Epidemiology

University of British Columbia

Graduate