Table 2 Key qualities of the three science facilitation pathways.
Facilitator type | Facilitation by scientist within team trained in facilitation (Path 1) | External general facilitators (Path 2) | External science facilitators (Path 3) |
|---|---|---|---|
Strengths | • Lower cost, assuming facilitator is already a team member | • Professional facilitation expertise | • Combined professional facilitation and scientific expertise |
• Familiar with scientific content and processes | • Presumed neutrality as a project “outsider” | • Presumed neutrality as a project “outsider” | |
• Expedited orientation to the team and project | • Can support team members’ metacognitive development around team functioning and process | • Can support team members’ metacognitive development around team functioning and process | |
• Facilitator and team by definition are on same timeline | |||
Risks | • Likely to have limited facilitation experience compared to professional facilitators | • Potentially higher cost than an internal facilitator | • Potentially higher cost than an internal facilitator |
• May need additional training, requiring time and other resources | • Requires time to orient to the team and project | • Requires time to orient to the team and project | |
• May be tension between facilitator role and ability to contribute as scientist | • Limited understanding of scientific or disciplinary processes | • Specialised skill set may be difficult to find or right people may have limited availability | |
• Subject to internal power dynamics | • May have less credibility with team members due to lack of understanding of scientific or disciplinary processes | • Unnecessary additional expense for simpler projects | |
• Unnecessary additional expense if unable to navigate problems specific to the scientific process | |||
No facilitation or suboptimal facilitation could lead to time wasted, a failure to produce necessary knowledge products, loss of trust in facilitation process, or a lack of quality science | |||
Project characteristics that might be most successful with this approach | • Small teams (<5–10) | • Big teams (>10) | • Big teams (>10) |
• Small budgets | • New teams | • New teams, especially those with diverse scientific composition | |
• Internal facilitation expertise already exists in the team | • Occasional important planning meetings or proposal development | • Occasional important planning meetings or proposal development | |
• Teams with existing relationships or healthy interpersonal dynamics | • Projects whose complexity comes from interpersonal aspects (e.g., history of conflicts, many institutions, etc.) | • Projects whose complexity comes from knowledge convergence, knowledge integration, or cross-cutting research goals | |
• One or more team members are eager to develop facilitation skills | • By default, in situations that are too complex for Path 1 and Path 3 facilitators are not available | ||
