新文科建设中科研团队有效性研究*——基于IMO模型的模糊集定性比较分析

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

科研团队作为人文社科领域推动有组织科研的重要组织形式,面临创新内生动力不足、形式大于实质等有效性不足的问题。基于IMO模型,通过模糊集定性比较分析,从团队投入、团队过程、突生状态三个层面,团队异质性、组织环境、团队冲突、团队沟通和交互记忆系统五个条件变量检验科研团队有效性的组态效应。研究发现,单一因素不构成高有效性或非高有效性科研团队的必要条件;存在异质成熟型和支持沟通型两类高有效性科研团队组态,以及同质零散型、各自为战型和组织制约型三类非高有效性科研团队组态;组织环境和交互记忆系统具有重要基础性作用。基于此,新文科建设中科研团队有效性的提升应从两方面入手:加强对科研团队组织环境的支持;构建开放式的科研团队组建和管理模式。

关键词: 新文科建设, 科研团队, 团队有效性, 模糊集定性比较分析, IMO模型

Abstract:

As an important organizational form for promoting organized research in the field of humanities and social sciences, research teams face issues of insufficient internal innovation dynamics and effectiveness shortcomings, where form often supersedes substance. Based on the IMO model, through fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis, this study examines the configuration effects of research team effectiveness from three dimensions: team input, team process, and emergent states, as well as five condition variables: team heterogeneity, organizational environment, team conflict, team communication, and interactive memory systems. The research findings include: a single factor does not constitute a necessary condition for high or non-high effectiveness of research teams; there are two types of highly effective research team configurations: heterogeneous and mature type, and supportive communication type, as well as three types of non-highly effective research team configurations: homogeneous and scattered type, individualistic type, and organization-constrained type; and organizational environment and interactive memory systems play important foundational roles. Therefore, the enhancement of research team effectiveness in the construction of New Liberal Arts should start from two aspects: strengthening support for the organizational environment of research teams and constructing an open-ended model for the formation and management of research teams.

Key words: construction of New Liberal Arts, research team, team effectiveness, fsQCA, IMO Model

中图分类号:

G644

张学敏, 殷铭泽. 新文科建设中科研团队有效性研究^*——基于IMO模型的模糊集定性比较分析[J]. 教育科学, 2024, 40(2): 81-89.

Zhang Xuemin, Yin Mingze. Study on the Research Team Effectiveness in the Construction of New Liberal Arts—A Fuzzy Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis based on the IMO Model[J]. Education Science, 2024, 40(2): 81-89.

图/表 5

图1

表1

表2

表3

表4

参考文献 40

[1]	蓝晔, 刘莉. “双一流”建设高校教师科研合作现状和意愿:基于2019年上海市10所高校的问卷调查[J]. 中国高校科技, 2020(5):26-29.
[2]	[39] 吴艳, 陶军. 高校人文社会科学学术团队现状调查与分析:基于武汉大学的调查报告[J]. 湖北社会科学, 2016(7):156-165.
[3]	宋鸿雁, 闫亚林. 我国高校人文社会科学科研团队建构研究[J]. 重庆高教研究, 2017, 5(4):58-63.
[4]	肖余春. 团队行为学[M]. 杭州: 浙江大学出版社, 2006:6.
[5]	季小天, 彭小宝, 刘继安, 等. 高校及科研院所一流科研创新团队的发展机制探析:基于物理学领域顶尖团队的多案例分析[J]. 中国高教研究, 2023(6):63-71.
[6]	罗伯特·K. 威索基. 创建有效的项目团队[M].曹维武,译. 北京: 电子工业出版社, 2003:51.
[7]	COHEN S G, BAILEY D E. What makes teams work: group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite[J]. Journal of management, 1997, 23(3): 239-290.
[8]	常涛, 廖建桥. 国外团队有效性研究新进展述评[J]. 科学学与科学技术管理, 2007(9):163-169.
[9]	GUZZO R A, DICKSON M W. Teams in organizations: recent research on performance and effectiveness[J]. Annual review of psychology, 1996, 47(1): 307-338.
[10]	ILGEN D R, HOLLENBECK J R, JOHNSON M, et al. Teams in organizations: from input-process-output models to IMOI models[J]. Annual review of psychology, 2005, 56(1):517-543.
[11]	MATHIEU J, MAYNARD M T, RAPP T, et al. Team effectiveness 1997—2007: a review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future[J]. Journal of management, 2008, 34(3): 410-476.
[12]	唐旭丽, 李信. 科研团队多样性对学术颠覆性创新的影响研究:以人工智能领域为例[J]. 情报学报, 2023, 42(1):43-58.
[13]	ROBBINS S P, JUDGE T A. 组织行为学[M]. 孙健敏,朱曦济,李原,译. 北京: 中国人民大学出版社, 2021:277.
[14]	罗鲲, 张兴旺, 吕竹筠. 高校科研团队建设存在的问题及对策:基于博弈论的视角[J]. 教育探索, 2012(3):88-90.
[15]	MARKS M A, MATHIEU J E, ZACCARO S J. A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes[J]. Academy of management review, 2001, 26(3): 356-376.
[16]	SIDDIQUEI A N, FISHER C D, HRIVNAK G A. Temporal leadership, team processes, and project team task performance[J]. International journal of project management, 2022, 40(7): 715-724.
[17]	DE DREU C K W, WEINGART L R. Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: a meta-analysis[J]. The journal of applied psychology, 2003, 88(4): 741-749.
[18]	BONG C S, BAEK J K, WAN K S. What hinders team innovation performance? Three-way interaction of destructive leadership, intra-team conflict, and organizational diversity[J]. Frontiers in psychology, 2022, 13: 879412.
[19]	陈建勋, 郑雪强, 王涛. “对事不对人”抑或“对人不对事”:高管团队冲突对组织探索式学习行为的影响[J]. 南开管理评论, 2016, 19(5):91-103.
[20]	张学敏, 周杰. 团队异质性如何影响学校教研团队绩效:基于团队冲突中介作用的实证分析[J]. 教育研究与实验, 2020(3):84-90.
[21]	[35] LU L, LI F, LEUNG K, et al. When can culturally diverse teams be more creative? The role of leaders’ benevolent paternalism[J]. Journal of organizational behavior, 2018, 39(4): 402-415.
[22]	郝金磊, 尹萌. 团队冲突、团队沟通与团队绩效关系的实证研究[J]. 西安财经学院学报, 2018, 31(06):43-49.
[23]	RAPP T, MAYNARD T, DOMINGO M, et al. Team emergent states: what has emerged in the literature over 20 years[J]. Small group research, 2021, 52(1): 68-102.
[24]	[26] 曲刚, 路鑫, 王琦. 信任不对称与网络嵌入对团队创新机制的影响[J]. 科研管理, 2022, 43(4):177-184.
[25]	[37] 李豪, 王艺, 薛宪方, 等. 创业团队中交互记忆系统对团队决策绩效的影响机制研究[J]. 科技与管理, 2022, 24(1):28-35.
[27]	SCHNEIDER C Q, WAGEMANN C. Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and fuzzy-sets: agenda for a research approach and a data analysis technique[J]. Comparative sociology, 2010, 9(3):376-396.
[28]	[34] PAPPAS I O, WOODSIDE A G. Fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA): guidelines for research practice in Information Systems and marketing[J]. International journal of information management, 2021, 58:102310.
[29]	TJOSVOLD D. Cooperative and competitive interdependence[J]. Group & organization studies, 1988, 13(3): 274-289.
[30]	JEHN K A, NORTHCRAFT G B, NEALE M A. Why differences make a difference: a field study of diversity, conflict and performance in workgroups[J]. Administrative science quarterly, 1999, 44(4): 741-763.
[31]	JEHN K A. A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict[J]. Administrative science quarterly, 1995, 40(2): 256-282.
[32]	LEWIS K. Measuring transactive memory systems in the field: scale development and validation[J]. The journal of applied psychology, 2003, 88(4): 587-604.
[33]	HAYES A F. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach[M]. New York: The Guilford Press, 2013:345-358.
[36]	任相伟, 孙丽文, 邢丽云. 高管团队异质性、团队冲突与企业绿色绩效:差异化CEO领导风格调节下的整合分析框架[J]. 科技进步与对策, 2021, 38(20):136-145.
[38]	陈怀超, 梁晨, 范建红, 等. 组织特征和制度距离对在华外资企业社会责任绩效的影响:基于fsQCA和NCA方法的研究[J]. 管理评论, 2023, 35(2):280-293.
[40]	张明, 陈伟宏, 蓝海林. 中国企业“凭什么”完全并购境外高新技术企业:基于94个案例的模糊集定性比较分析(fsQCA)[J]. 中国工业经济, 2019(4):117-135.

变量类型	变量名称		变量代码		完全隶属点		交叉点		完全不隶属点
条件变量	团队异质性	Fhet		3.486		3.148		2.811
	组织环境	Fenv		3.921		3.340		2.759
	团队冲突	Fcon		2.515		2.115		1.715
	团队沟通	Fcom		4.186		3.840		3.494
	交互记忆系统	Ftra		4.057		3.782		3.506
结果变量	团队有效性		Feff		4.231		3.897		3.563

条件变量	团队有效性		~团队有效性
条件变量	一致性	覆盖度	一致性	覆盖度
团队异质性	0.651	0.695	0.523	0.540
~团队异质性	0.568	0.552	0.704	0.661
组织环境	0.787	0.799	0.441	0.433
~组织环境	0.441	0.449	0.795	0.783
团队冲突	0.545	0.563	0.668	0.667
~团队冲突	0.677	0.678	0.562	0.544
团队沟通	0.715	0.705	0.536	0.511
~团队沟通	0.503	0.529	0.690	0.701
交互记忆系统	0.755	0.813	0.387	0.403
~交互记忆系统	0.446	0.430	0.821	0.764