Training Interdisciplinary Data Science Collaborators: A Comparative Case Study

Figures & data

Table 1 Rubric Scores for Structure and Communication in Collaboration Meetings Scored from 1 (low) – 4 (high).

Element	Definition	Student	Experienced
		Collaborator	Collaborator
		Scores	Scores
Structure
Prepare	The collaborator has clearly prepared for the meeting as evidenced by some knowledge of the project and/or domain expert as well as practical preparation such as a shared notes document.	2	3
Opening	Meeting is opened with a friendly tone. Time is spent discussing everyone’s wants for the meeting.	4	4
Work	Collaborator shapes the meeting in a way that specifically responds to the wants agreed upon during the opening conversation.	4	4
Ending	Time is reserved at the end of the meeting for summarizing outcomes and next steps.	3	3
Reflection	Collaborator allows space for and invites reflection regarding the meeting with the domain expert.	2	4
Communication ${}^{\mathrm{a}}$
Questioning	Collaborator effectively uses questioning throughout the meeting to provide clarity for both self and the domain expert Asks “great” questions that both elicit useful information and strengthen the relationship.	3	3
Listening	The collaborator listens attentively throughout the meeting. When the collaborator speaks, it is in direct response to the previous comment by the domain expert.	4	4
Paraphrasing	Collaborator paraphrases regularly throughout the meeting to clarify both their own language and the language of the domain expert.	3	4
Summarizing	Collaborator summarizes regularly throughout the meeting to solidify discussion topics and decisions made.	3	4

^aNote that since this was an initial meeting during which we typically expect for the domain expert to do the majority of the talking to describe the project, we did not expect to observe or code for collaborators to explain statistical concepts as is defined under Communication in the ASCCR frame.

Table A1 Rubric for structure and communication.

Structure
	4 Mastery	3 Competent	2 Developing	1 Minimal
Preparation	The collaborator has clearly prepared for the meeting as evidenced by general knowledge about the project as well as some thoughts about the project beyond what the domain expert shared in the project request.	It is clear that the collaborator has reviewed the collaboration request and has done some preparation for the meeting. They appear generally familiar with the project but have perhaps not done any other preparation for the meeting.	Collaborator does not do anything that specifically reveals they have spent time thinking about the project ahead of time. However, this does not appear to detract from the meeting’s success.	No evidence of preparing for the meeting evident. Collaborator appears to have no prior knowledge of the project. Collaborator is ill-prepared to engage in the project.
Open	Meeting is opened with a friendly tone. Time is spent discussing everyone’s wants for the meeting.	Meeting is opened with a friendly tone. Time is spent discussing everyone’s wants for the meeting, but may be hurried, rushed, or incomplete.	Collaborator may or may not take time for friendly interaction at the beginning of the meeting. If goals/an agenda are shared, the collaborator tells the domain expert rather than including them in the process.	Collaborator doesn’t take time for friendly interaction at the beginning of the meeting. Goals and/or an agenda are not shared at the beginning of the meeting.
Work	Collaborator shapes the bulk of the meeting in a way that specifically responds to the wants agreed upon during the opening conversation.	Collaborator attempts to address the wants agreed upon during the opening conversation but is sometimes unsuccessful.	Collaborator does little to address domain expert wants and focuses more on own ideas for addressing the project goals.	Collaborator ignores domain expert wants and jumps into project statistics with no consideration for project context of domain expert wants.
End	10%–20% of meeting time is reserved for the closing conversation. All applicable elements of “end” are present.	Time is reserved for the closing conversation, but it may be insufficient. Some elements of “end” are missed.	Collaborator attempts to cover some elements of ending a meeting via the POWER structure, but time was not reserved. The conversation is rushed and incomplete.	No time is reserved for meeting closure activities. Collaborator does not attempt to cover elements of ending a meeting via POWER structure.
Reflection	Collaborator allows space for and invites reflection with the domain expert.	Collaborators reflect on the meeting after the domain expert leaves.	Collaborator asks for or provides space for reflection but does not reserve sufficient time for the conversation.	Collaborator does not provide space for meeting reflection.
Communication
Questioning	Collaborator effectively uses questioning throughout to provide clarity for both self and the domain expert. Asks “great” questions that elicit useful information and strengthen the relationship.	Questioning is attempted frequently during the meeting but is sometimes insufficient for gaining clarity for collaborator or domain expert.	Collaborator asks questions to help clarify for self or the domain expert but not both regularly throughout the meeting.	Questioning is not evident in the meeting.
Listening	The collaborator listens attentively throughout the meeting. When the collaborator speaks, it is in direct response to the previous comment by the domain expert.	The collaborator listens attentively throughout the meeting. When the collaborator speaks, it is in direct response to the domain expert. However, sometimes the collaborator does not fully respond to domain expert comments.	The collaborator occasionally jumps ahead of the domain expert to talk about their own desired topics. Responses sometimes do not make sense after domain expert comments.	The collaborator regularly jumps ahead of the domain expert to talk about their own desired topics. Responses do not make sense after domain expert comments.
Paraphrasing	Collaborator paraphrases regularly throughout the meeting to clarify both their own language and the language of the domain expert.	Collaborator paraphrases regularly throughout the meeting for clarity but may only do this for the domain expert or themselves.	Collaborator occasionally paraphrases during the meeting to add clarity for either themselves or the domain expert.	Collaborator rarely, if ever, paraphrases during the meeting.
Summarizing	Collaborator summarizes regularly throughout the meeting to solidify discussion topics and decisions made.	Collaborator summarizes regularly throughout the meeting but may miss some key moments that would have benefited from summarizing.	Collaborator occasionally summarizes, but individuals will leave with lack of clear understanding of the discussions and decisions.	Collaborator rarely, if ever, summarizes during the meeting.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/c95jd/.