The internal dynamics and structure of collaborations affect the performance of its members and, ultimately, the success of the collaborative enterprise. This is tested under conditions of disruption, stressing team dynamics and their ability to succeed. Teams may adapt, employing social innovations which facilitate their ability to adjust to uncertain and changing circumstances. We examine these innovations within the context of international collaborative teams, specifically in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The study employs a mixed-methods, multi-country case study research design to identify successful teams’ characteristics and develop a typology of social innovations that can promote team resilience. The analysis focuses on individual, group, and organizational factors that contribute to teams’ adaptability, including adjustments in behaviors, expectations, work and resource allocation, and social interactions. Our study sheds light on how teams’ resilience capacity helps teams innovate their social dynamics and navigate external shocks and succeed in dynamic environments.

The U.S. academy has long been accused of elitism. Evidence of high proportions of faculty with PhD parents suggest generational effects on inclusion and access to the profession. Conversely, increased attention to first generation university graduates has not extended to those who succeed in breaking through the potential barriers of generational elitism, completing their doctoral degrees and entering the professoriate. Using a nationwide sample of academic scientists in the United States from across four STEM disciplines and across institutions, we examine the extent to which socioeconomic status offers advantage (or disadvantage) to faculty as they advance in their careers. We find that faculty with PhD parents are one and a half times more likely to work at higher-ranked and more competitive universities, while first-generation faculty are three times more likely to work in lower-ranked and non-doctoral-serving institutions. We find that first-generation scholars are especially disadvantaged in navigating the competitive work environment of research-intensive institutions.

The proportion of faculty in the U.S. who are foreign-born has increased significantly in recent decades. These faculty make considerable contributions to the U.S. science system, consistently shown to be more productive in research. Yet, multiple studies have found foreign-born faculty to be less satisfied with their work environments than their U.S.-born counterparts. One possible explanation for some of this dissatisfaction may lie in work-family balance and related conflicts, yet this has been unexplored specifically to foreign-born faculty. Using the U.S. NSF-funded NETWISE II survey of academic scientists, we examine how and why work-family functions differently for foreign-born and U.S.-born faculty in U.S. doctoral-serving institutions. Findings show that foreign-born are generally more likely to experience work-family conflict than U.S.-born faculty, though the effects of work and family demands are mixed. Overall, further research on the multiple roles of foreign-born faculty is needed for a deeper understanding of their experiences in the U.S. academe.

The increasing importance of social media metrics, such as altmetrics, in evaluating the social impact of research and as a source of data for scholarly research has raised concerns about their representativeness with respect to the academic community. This paper addresses this issue by investigating the adoption of LinkedIn among a representative sample of over 12,000 UK academics, using both Scopus publication data and LinkedIn data. The paper offers two main contributions. Firstly, it identifies the types of researchers visible on LinkedIn, providing valuable insights into the profiles of academics who use this platform. Secondly, it enhances our understanding of the usefulness of LinkedIn as a data source and measure for science and innovation studies. Overall, this paper provides significant insights into the use of LinkedIn by academics and its potential as a data source for research evaluation and scholarly studies.