ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Interpretive ethnographic studies and in-depth qualitative research should be treated as high-quality evidence in the science of team science.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Science of Team Science (SciTS) has an evidence problem. On the one hand, there are few studies demonstrating the effectiveness of evidence-informed team science trainings. On the other hand, SciTS has taken a relatively narrow view of what constitutes high-quality evidence of effectiveness. The field tends to privilege evidence generated from randomized controlled trials (RCTs), surveys of expert opinion, systematic reviews, and other methods of evaluation and assessment that are premised on narrow, experimental, or positivist understandings of what forms of knowledge are permitted to count as high-quality evidence. In this commentary, we suggest that SciTS ought to expand its understanding of what forms of knowledge can count as high-quality evidence. We argue that SciTS should include in-depth qualitative and ethnographic research programs that are not oriented around reproducibility or generalizability but instead focus on the value of specific studies, interpretive methods, and contextualized knowledge.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.