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.