NOTE: End date changed to 11/02/2018 per NSSC information (Ed., 9/27/17)

NOTE: Element change to Human Factors & Behavioral Performance; previously Behavioral Health & Performance (Ed., 1/18/17)

Long duration exploration missions present a unique environment characterized by many stressors (e.g., social isolation, danger, confinement, interpersonal dynamics, periods of over/under stimulation), with little ability to escape. Research has found that within such environments interpersonal dynamics occupy a key role in effective functioning (Forsyth, 2010). While the last few years have witnessed an increase in research examining the composition requirements of high performance teams, little work has examined these issues in light of teams embedded in long duration, exploration missions. Therefore, we describe a program of work which addresses Team Gaps 1, 4, and 8 in NASA’s Human Research Roadmap. We seek to answer the following questions with regard to long duration, exploration missions: (1) what are the key social and team technical (task) roles which influence team function; (2) what are the behavioral and communicative markers which can be used to assess the degree to which key identified social and team technical roles are being fulfilled; (3) what contextual aspects serve to trigger a need for the dynamic shift of social roles; (4) what are the optimal combinations (i.e., profiles, algorithms) of social roles for the maintenance and regulation of team functions; (5) what are the markers that can be used to select for those most likely to fit social profiles and how do these profiles change across the duration of the mission (i.e., the team’s life cycle). In answering these questions we seek to provide a series of scientifically grounded and experimentally validated taxonomies, guidelines, and measurement tools for team selection/composition. In exploring these questions, we take a multi-pronged approach consisting of analysis of archival data (e.g., astronaut diaries, historical accounts of teams operating in isolated, confined environments (ICE), prior collected University of Central Florida astronaut interviews), scientific literatures on group dynamics, personality, team roles, stress, and diversity, interviews, and experimentation in NASA analogs.

Forsyth D. R. (2010). Group dynamics. J. D. Hague (Ed.). Belmont CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

Regarding the nature of team roles, evidence was found for the dynamic nature of team roles and the fact that within the context of spaceflight team roles are most often shared or distributed throughout the team. Results indicated not only a specific team role often shared amongst members of the crew, but correspondingly that crew members often engaged in multiple roles throughout the course of the mission. With respect to the dynamic nature, results also indicated the manner in which contextual factors may impact the appearance and functionality of task and social roles (as a set) as well as specific roles. Contextual factors that were found to differentially relate to the enactment of roles included temporal factors, workload variations, sleep deprivation, boredom, and isolation. Of note is emerging evidence for the increased importance of social roles as mission duration increases and the potential that failures in social roles may remain hidden and take longer to notice than task roles.

Results also began to speak to the notion of person-role fit within this context as is seen in the broader organizational literature on roles, but has rarely been examined with relation to informal team roles nor within the context of long duration spaceflight. In this vein, results suggest that personality may predispose a crew member to occupy particular roles and that there is systematic variance between personality and team role dimensions and frequency of role enactment. However, results from the operational interviews and data collected within the analog that illustrates differential relationships between personality and role enactment over time also speak to moderators on the person-role fit relationship. Research should further investigate those factors that may constrain a crew member’s ability to achieve person-role fit and the degree to which contextual factors may impact the impact of such mismatches. It is possible that mismatches could act as a stressor, chronic or acute stressor depending on the degree of mismatch and the duration.

Finally, two potential new measures were created, team role measure and TRIAD (Tracking Roles in and Across Domains). More specifically, based on all the evidence gathered throughout the project we created a refined team role taxonomy with a corresponding measure. The measure contains behavioral markers expected to be indicative of each role. As the measure was created towards the end of the project it still requires further validation. Additionally, leveraging older work on team roles, the TRIAD measure was created which produces a different view on team roles as it does not examine roles in terms of the types of team-directed behaviors that occur but in terms of a set of underlying dimensions that have been argued to cut across all roles in varying degrees. Future work should continue to map the dimensions within TRIAD against existing team role taxonomies as the intersection can provide future insight into those role shifts which, when required, would be expected to be easiest for crew members. For example, it is expected that crew members would be more likely to shift between two roles that are both high on sociability as compared to two roles that vary greatly on the degree of sociability required. The latter would be expected to be less likely and more stressful on the crew member, if required. As further developed, this tool could be utilized as the basis for a countermeasure to train crews regarding ease of transition between roles or the occupation of simultaneous roles.

NOTE: End date changed to 11/02/2018 per NSSC information (Ed., 9/27/17)

NOTE: Element change to Human Factors & Behavioral Performance; previously Behavioral Health & Performance (Ed., 1/18/17)

Long duration exploration missions present a unique environment characterized by many stressors (e.g., social isolation, danger, confinement, interpersonal dynamics, periods of over/under stimulation), with little ability to escape. Research has found that within such environments interpersonal dynamics occupy a key role in effective functioning (Forsyth, 2010). While the last few years have witnessed an increase in research examining the composition requirements of high performance teams, little work has examined these issues in light of teams embedded in long duration, exploration missions. Therefore, we describe a program of work which addresses Team Gaps 1, 4, and 8 in NASA’s Human Research Roadmap. We seek to answer the following questions with regard to long duration, exploration missions: (1) what are the key social and team technical (task) roles which influence team function; (2) what are the behavioral and communicative markers which can be used to assess the degree to which key identified social and team technical roles are being fulfilled; (3) what contextual aspects serve to trigger a need for the dynamic shift of social roles; (4) what are the optimal combinations (i.e., profiles, algorithms) of social roles for the maintenance and regulation of team functions; (5) what are the markers that can be used to select for those most likely to fit social profiles and how do these profiles change across the duration of the mission (i.e., the team’s life cycle). In answering these questions we seek to provide a series of scientifically grounded and experimentally validated taxonomies, guidelines, and measurement tools for team selection/composition. In exploring these questions, we take a multi-pronged approach consisting of analysis of archival data (e.g., astronaut diaries, historical accounts of teams operating in isolated, confined environments (ICE), prior collected University of Central Florida astronaut interviews), scientific literatures on group dynamics, personality, team roles, stress, and diversity, interviews, and experimentation in NASA analogs.

Forsyth D. R. (2010). Group dynamics. J. D. Hague (ED.). Belmont CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

Interview Data. We have completed interviews with 15 NASA subject matter experts in long duration spaceflight. Those interviewed included astronauts, operational psychologists, flight engineers, and personnel that worked within mission control. Interviews were 30 minutes in length and focused on those team roles that were expected to be needed in long duration spaceflight, the role that personality plays in the enactment of informal team roles, and the contextual factors that may cause roles to shift over time. All of this was done with an eye towards those team roles needed as crews begin to move beyond low-Earth orbit. We are currently in the process of thematically analyzing the results of this data, but have already extracted several high level themes.

Analog Data Collection. At this point in the project’s life cycle, we have been involved in collecting data across three campaigns in the Human Exploration Research Analog (HERA). Each campaign is comprised of four missions which range from 14-45 days depending on the campaign. Currently we have data from 9 crews for a total of 36 individuals. Within this environment our focus has been on team roles and their relationship to key team outcomes and how the manifestation and importance of specific team roles may differ across time and based on stressors embedded within long duration spaceflight (e.g., periods of high and low workload). We have begun to conduct analyses on a subset of this data as well as examining portions of the crew’s communication as another avenue through which to investigate the task and social roles which crew members engage in and the functionality of such roles.

Examination of Archival Data. We have also employed a systematic approach to examining sources that document crew interaction during spaceflight. In this vein, we have investigated biographies and autobiographies, blogs, and journals with an eye towards understanding the task and social roles that have been employed by crew members and, when possible, their relation to key team outcomes.

We are using the information that is being collected through multiple sources (see above) as a way to contextualize a team role taxonomy that will be applicable for use in measure development and countermeasure development within the context of long duration, distance exploration missions – an isolated, confined environment.

Long duration exploration missions present a unique environment characterized by many stressors (e.g., social isolation, danger, confinement, interpersonal dynamics, periods of over/under stimulation), with little ability to escape. Research has found that within such environments interpersonal dynamics occupy a key role in effective functioning (Forsyth, 2010). While the last few years have witnessed an increase in research examining the composition requirements of high performance teams, little work has examined these issues in light of teams embedded in long duration, exploration missions. Therefore, we describe a program of work which addresses Team Gaps 1, 4, and 8 in NASA’s Human Research Roadmap. We seek to answer the following questions with regard to long duration, exploration missions: (1) what are the key social and team technical (task) roles which influence team function; (2) what are the behavioral and communicative markers which can be used to assess the degree to which key identified social and team technical roles are being fulfilled; (3) what contextual aspects serve to trigger a need for the dynamic shift of social roles; (4) what are the optimal combinations (i.e., profiles, algorithms) of social roles for the maintenance and regulation of team functions; (5) what are the markers that can be used to select for those most likely to fit social profiles and how do these profiles change across the duration of the mission (i.e., the team’s life cycle). In answering these questions we seek to provide a series of scientifically grounded and experimentally validated taxonomies, guidelines, and measurement tools for team selection/composition. In exploring these questions, we take a multi-pronged approach consisting of analysis of archival data (e.g., astronaut diaries, historical accounts of teams operating in isolated, confined environments (ICE), prior collected University of Central Florida astronaut interviews), scientific literatures on group dynamics, personality, team roles, stress, and diversity, interviews, and experimentation in NASA analogs.

Forsyth D. R. (2010). Group dynamics. J. D. Hague (ED.). Belmont CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.