A model reducing researchers’ challenges in projects: build trust first for better mental health

Figures & data

Table 1. Models of collaboration, challenges and remedies.

Research	Context of collaboration	Stages of collaboration
Tuckman & Jensen, 2010	Therapy groups, human relations training and training groups	Four: Forming, storming, norming and performing
Froese & Mevissen, 2020	Innovation and adoption of new technologies	Four: Creating imaginary (shared vision), sharing imaginary, conflicting imaginaries and crisis, division because of no new shared imaginary
Project Management Institute, 2013	Projects including construction and software development	Five: Initiate project, project definition and planning, project launch or execution, project performance and control, project close

Table 2. Challenges mapped across stages.

Research	Challenges
	Forming	Storming	Norming	Adjourning
Project Management Institute, 2013	Risk, uncertainty, different priorities, different terminology, different cultures, technology adoption, limited trust.		Conflict	Conflict
Wheelan et al. 2020	Lack of loyalty and trust, safety concerns, unclear structure and leadership, and member dependencies.	Conflict
Cheng et al. 2016	Trust in each other.
Müller et al., 2017	Ethical dilemmas.
Froese & Mevissen, 2020	Different perspectives on participation and vision including differences in culture, norms, values justice and activism.			No new shared vision.
Dibble & Gibson, 2013	Conflict, no shared understanding, culture, values, organizational embeddedness and loyalty. Few or no permanent members.	Disengagement, bad communication, bad coordination, loss of process knowledge, no common place to record knowledge, uncertainty over value of work.		No expectation of continuing to work together.
Yao et al., 2020	Geographic divides, social distance, technological challenges.

Table 3. Demographic information of the participants surveyed.

Measure	Item	Participants
Gender	Female	179
	Male	152
Age	21–30	153
	31–40	105
	41–60	65
	61 or older	8
Highest Education	University master’s degree	146
	University doctoral degree	185
Income (Euro per month)	500–1500	46
	1501–3000	112
	3001–5000	147
	> 5000	26

Table 4. Recommended model of the challenges of research projects mapped across stages.

Challenges of research projects across five stages
Forming	Storming	Norming	Adjourning	Post-project collaboration
Limited trust in leader
Limited trust in process
	Limited trust in evaluation method
Limited trust in being credited in published work
Uncertainty, unclear structure
Different cultures, norms, values, and ethics
Technological challenges
				No expectation of continuing to work together
			No new vision
		Demotivation and disengagement
Communication and knowledge sharing
Conflict
High pressure on mental health

Table 5. Results of the measurement model analysis for the Forming stage.

Items		Loadings	CR	AVE	Latent Variable Correlations
					FCKS	FDC	FHPM	FLTC	FLTL	FLTP	FTC	FUUS	FDC
FCKS	1	0.914	0.933	0.822	0.907
	2	0.902
	3	0.903
FCON	1	0.914	0.932	0.821	0.834	0.906
	2	0.907
	3	0.897
FDC	1	0.871	0.918	0.789	0.794	0.784	0.888
	2	0.886
	3	0.908
FHPM	1	0.916	0.932	0.821	0.768	0.810	0.783	0.906
	2	0.905
	3	0.897
FLTC	1	0.839	0.909	0.769	0.541	0.497	0.491	0.513	0.877
	2	0.884
	3	0.905
FLTL	1	0.947	0.949	0.862	0.823	0.802	0.816	0.785	0.550	0.928
	2	0.914
	3	0.923
FLTP	1	0.931	0.948	0.859	0.772	0.785	0.816	0.780	0.485	0.849	0.927
	2	0.923
	3	0.926
FTC	1	0.908	0.933	0.822	0.810	0.839	0.801	0.816	0.483	0.789	0.834	0.907
	2	0.889
	3	0.923
FUUS	1	0.879	0.920	0.792	0.843	0.869	0.849	0.819	0.507	0.843	0.844	0.881	0.890
	2	0.907
	3	0.883

Table 6. Results of the measurement model analysis for the Storming stage.

Items		Loadings	CR	AVE	Latent Variable Correlations
					SCKS	SCON	SDC	SHPM	SLTC	SLTE	SLTP	STC
SCKS	1	0.906	0.952	0.869	0.888
	2	0.870
	3	0.888
SCON	1	0.939	0.946	0.854	0.624	0.924
	2	0.898
	3	0.935
SDC	1	0.916	0.931	0.818	0.790	0.613	0.905
	2	0.892
	3	0.906
SHPM	1	0.902	0.905	0.761	0.787	0.618	0.804	0.873
	2	0.884
	3	0.830
SLTC	1	0.909	0.933	0.822	0.776	0.656	0.767	0.810	0.906
	2	0.894
	3	0.917
SLTE	1	0.936	0.947	0.856	0.785	0.640	0.776	0.823	0.846	0.925
	2	0.919
	3	0.921
SLTP	1	0.918	0.936	0.831	0.805	0.652	0.790	0.776	0.820	0.779	0.911
	2	0.900
	3	0.916
STC	1	0.895	0.917	0.786	0.772	0.621	0.833	0.845	0.822	0.814	0.798	0.886
	2	0.860
	3	0.903

Table 7. Results of the measurement model analysis for the Norming stage.

Items		Loadings	CR	AVE	Latent Variable Correlations
					NCKS	NCON	NDC	NDD	NHPM	NLTC	NLTE	NTC
NCKS	1	0.928	0.946	0.854	0.924
	2	0.895
	3	0.948
NCON	1	0.913	0.929	0.813	0.717	0.902
	2	0.874
	3	0.917
NDC	1	0.933	0.935	0.828	0.794	0.777	0.910
	2	0.867
	3	0.928
NDD	1	0.891	0.926	0.806	0.746	0.684	0.699	0.898
	2	0.883
	3	0.919
NHPM	1	0.923	0.938	0.836	0.785	0.737	0.778	0.644	0.914
	2	0.914
	3	0.906
NLTC	1	0.912	0.926	0.807	0.828	0.690	0.802	0.743	0.795	0.898
	2	0.876
	3	0.906
NLTE	1	0.929	0.941	0.841	0.779	0.797	0.838	0.718	0.786	0.799	0.917
	2	0.904
	3	0.918
NTC	1	0.901	0.912	0.775	0.706	0.692	0.706	0.661	0.659	0.678	0.742	0.880
	2	0.820
	3	0.917

Table 8. Results of the measurement model analysis for the Adjourning stage.

Items		Loadings	CR	AVE	Latent Variable Correlations
					ACKS	ACON	ADC	ADD	AHPM	ALTC	ALTE	ANNV	ATC
ACKS	1	0.933	0.941	0.841	0.917
	2	0.925
	3	0.893
ACON	1	0.913	0.926	0.806	0.855	0.898
	2	0.906
	3	0.875
ADC	1	0.951	0.958	0.884	0.869	0.863	0.940
	2	0.904
	3	0.964
ADD	1	0.905	0.943	0.845	0.823	0.780	0.795	0.919
	2	0.922
	3	0.931
AHPM	1	0.948	0.961	0.893	0.882	0.905	0.884	0.834	0.945
	2	0.950
	3	0.937
ALTC	1	0.938	0.920	0.793	0.862	0.863	0.872	0.795	0.864	0.890
	2	0.851
	3	0.880
ALTE	1	0.938	0.953	0.870	0.817	0.861	0.858	0.749	0.841	0.851	0.933
	2	0.943
	3	0.917
ANNV	1	0.949	0.946	0.854	0.841	0.827	0.839	0.818	0.831	0.854	0.786	0.924
	2	0.912
	3	0.911
ATC	1	0.768	0.836	0.629	0.397	0.458	0.445	0.423	0.438	0.423	0.437	0.469	0.793
	2	0.827
	3	0.783

Table 9. Results of the measurement model analysis for the Post-Project Collaboration stage.

Items		Loadings	CR	AVE	Latent Variable Correlations
					PCKS	PCON	PDC	PDD	PHPM	PLTC	PNEC	PNNV	PTC
PCKS	1	0.952	0.968	0.909	0.953
	2	0.960
	3	0.948
PCON	1	0.924	0.931	0.817	0.816	0.904
	2	0.876
	3	0.911
PDC	1	0.924	0.944	0.849	0.833	0.829	0.921
	2	0.923
	3	0.917
PDD	1	0.929	0.939	0.838	0.809	0.806	0.789	0.915
	2	0.883
	3	0.933
PHPM	1	0.912	0.945	0.852	0.765	0.804	0.734	0.803	0.923
	2	0.914
	3	0.942
PLTC	1	0.926	0.946	0.854	0.741	0.749	0.752	0.731	0.767	0.924
	2	0.919
	3	0.927
PNEC	1	0.912	0.932	0.820	0.809	0.772	0.807	0.808	0.785	0.706	0.906
	2	0.883
	3	0.921
PNNV	1	0.926	0.965	0.901	0.859	0.802	0.830	0.845	0.791	0.717	0.843	0.949
	2	0.958
	3	0.963
PTC	1	0.812	0.872	0.695	0.399	0.364	0.366	0.396	0.376	0.239	0.390	0.406	0.833
	2	0.826
	3	0.862

Table 10. Results of the structural model for Forming.

Path	Sample Mean	Standard Deviation	T Statistics	p-value
FLTL→Forming	0.169	0.071	2.279	0.023
FLTP→Forming	0.261	0.057	4.638	0.000
FLTC→Forming	0.039	0.019	2.051	0.041
FUUS→Forming	0.144	0.057	2.615	0.009
FDC→Forming	0.073	0.037	2.074	0.039
FTC→Forming	0.124	0.050	2.372	0.018
FCKS→Forming	0.097	0.042	2.280	0.023
FCON→Forming	0.076	0.038	1.902	0.058
FHPM→Forming	0.071	0.032	2.252	0.025

Table 11. Results of the structural model for Storming.

Path	Sample Mean	Standard Deviation	T Statistics	p-value
SLTP→ Storming	0.129	0.064	1.983	0.048
SLTE→ Storming	0.157	0.073	2.069	0.039
SLTC→ Storming	0.165	0.070	2.371	0.018
SDC→ Storming	0.150	0.071	2.131	0.034
STC→ Storming	0.178	0.081	2.198	0.028
SCKS→ Storming	0.132	0.065	2.067	0.039
SCON→ Storming	0.079	0.045	1.747	0.081
SHPM→ Storming	0.144	0.063	2.321	0.021

Table 12. Results of the structural model for Norming.

Path	Sample Mean	Standard Deviation	T Statistics	p-value
NLTE→ Norming	0.256	0.060	4.268	0.001
NLTC→ Norming	0.125	0.056	2.212	0.027
NDC→ Norming	0.145	0.069	2.100	0.036
NTC→ Norming	0.061	0.038	1.643	0.100
NDD→ Norming	0.118	0.035	3.389	0.001
NCKS→ Norming	0.118	0.053	2.233	0.026
NCON→ Norming	0.150	0.050	3.006	0.003
NHPM→ Norming	0.139	0.061	2.323	0.020

Table 13. Results of the structural model of Adjourning.

Path	Sample Mean	Standard Deviation	T Statistics	p-value
ALTE → Adjourning	0.218	0.047	4.738	0.001
ALTC → Adjourning	0.121	0.041	2.897	0.004
ADC → Adjourning	0.120	0.044	2.731	0.006
ATC → Adjourning	0.005	0.019	0.266	0.790
ANNV → Adjourning	0.069	0.032	2.136	0.033
ADD → Adjourning	0.078	0.028	2.794	0.005
ACKS → Adjourning	0.109	0.042	2.627	0.009
ACON → Adjourning	0.155	0.050	3.054	0.002
AHPM → Adjourning	0.166	0.051	3.232	0.001

Table 14. Results of the structural model for post-project collaboration.

Path	Sample Mean	Standard Deviation	T Statistics	p-value
PLTC→Post P.C.	0.114	0.041	2.756	0.006
PDC→ Post P.C.	0.124	0.045	2.808	0.005
PTC→ Post P.C.	0.024	0.023	1.046	0.295
PNEC→ Post P.C.	0.095	0.045	2.158	0.031
PNNV→ Post P.C.	0.161	0.051	3.182	0.001
PDD→ Post P.C.	0.133	0.048	2.801	0.005
PCKS→ Post P.C.	0.163	0.054	2.946	0.003
PCON→ Post P.C.	0.077	0.043	1.790	0.074
PHPM→ Post P.C.	0.140	0.045	3.110	0.002

Figure 1. A model for reducing the challenges for researchers in projects across five stages.

Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (2010). Stages of small-group development revisited group facilitation. Group Facilitation: A Research and Applications Journal, 10, 43–48.

 Google Scholar

Froese, A., & Mevissen, N. (2020). Failure through success: Co-construction processes of imaginaries (of participation) and group development. Science Technology and Human Values, 45(3), 455–487. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243919864711

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Project Management Institute. (2013). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide) (5th ed.). Project Management Institute Inc.

 Google Scholar

Wheelan, S. A., Akerlund, M., & Jacobsson, C. (2020). Creating effective team: A guide for members and leaders (6th ed.). SAGE Publications.

 Google Scholar

Cheng, X., Fu, S., Sun, J., Han, Y., Shen, J., & Zarifis, A. (2016). Investigating individual trust in semi-virtual collaboration of multicultural and unicultural teams. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 267–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.093

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Müller, R., Turner, J. R., Andersen, E. S., Shao, J., & Kvalnes, Ø. (2017). Governance and ethics in temporary organizations: The mediating role of corporate governance. Project Management Journal, 47(6), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697281604700602

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Dibble, R., & Gibson, C. (2013). Collaboration for the common good: An examination of challenges and adjustment processes in multicultural collaborations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(6), 764–790. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1872

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Yao, X., Zhang, C., Qu, Z., & Tan, B. C. Y. (2020). Global village or virtual balkans? evolution and performance of scientific collaboration in the information age. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 71(4), 395–408. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24251

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar