Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42908569›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in psychology2026

Beyond the agenda: meetings as foundational to team entitativity, innovation, and effectiveness in scientific contexts.

Deborah DiazGranados, Joseph A Allen, Anita Blanchard

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Deborah DiazGranadosDepartment of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, United States.
Joseph A AllenDivision of Occupational and Environmental Health, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, UT, United States.
Anita BlanchardDepartment of Psychological Science, University of North Carolina, Charlotte, NC, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Effective scientific collaboration is essential for addressing society's most dynamic and interconnected problems, yet the interpersonal and structural processes that foster such collaboration are often undermined by fragmentation and knowledge heterogeneity. While the science of team science has identified the structural barriers to collaboration, less attention has been paid to the primary mechanism where these barriers are negotiated: the team meeting. Although frequently dismissed as an administrative tax on productivity, we argue that the meeting must be re-conceptualized as the essential structuring episode where a collection of experts transforms into a coherent entity. Drawing on structuration theory and the concept of entitativity-the perception of a social unit as a unified group-we propose a conceptual model positioning the meeting as the central arena for identity construction and knowledge integration. We then translate the model into actionable guidance for science meetings. Furthermore, we challenge the view of team development as an episodic activity, arguing instead that meetings function as continuous, embedded Team Development Interventions (TDIs). By enforcing a temporal rhythm of interaction, well-designed meetings serve as the critical counter-measure to team decay, preventing the erosion of shared mental models and trust that occurs when members retreat to disciplinary silos. We integrate insights from meeting science, team dynamics, and knowledge integration research to translate this theory into practical strategies. We conclude by offering future research directions to empirically study the mechanisms that can ultimately demonstrate how strategic meeting design can unlock the full integrative capacity of scientific teams.

Indexed as

entitativityknowledge integrationmeeting sciencescience of team science (SciTS)team decayTeam Development Interventions (TDIs)

Identifiers

PMID42908569
PMCPMC13683055

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.