The purpose of this article is to articulate and provide detailabout an interprofessional research collaboration at a publicuniversity in a rural area of western United States. This inter-professional research collaboration was organized to exploreinfant and maternal reciprocity. As a part of the organizationand process portion of the collaborative effort, the authorsidentify the unique attributes of their collaboration. Addition-ally, barriers to collaborative research are presented, withopportunities and recommendations made to support exist-ing and future interprofessional collaborative efforts for basicscience scholars, clinicians, and educators in health-relatedprofessions. J Allied Health 2017; 46(2):e43–e49.

COMPLEX RESEARCH QUESTIONS require com-plex, often multi-pronged approaches across scientificdisciplines. Thus, much research in basic and appliedscience has begun shifting from a single-laboratorymodel to one of multiple laboratories and principalinvestigators forging an interdisciplinary collaborationto investigate novel and significant empirical questions.Support for multidisciplinary research requires funding,infrastructure, and policy-makers to provide the neces-sary resources for these important endeavors.8

Research collaborations have been defined as a formof interaction among creators of knowledge, allowing

for effective communication and exchange; sharing oftheir skills, competencies, and resources; and working asa group to collect, analyze, and disseminate results fromdata.19 Research indicates that collaborations increasescientific productivity, which has attracted notice fromnational research policy makers, professional organiza-tions, and academic institutions.14 The National Acade-mies describe interprofessional research as occurringwhen “researchers in different disciplines . . . meet at theinterfaces and frontiers of those disciplines and even . . .cross frontiers to form new disciplines.”15(p16)

Literature examining inter/intraprofessional researchcollaboration has focused on productivity at researchcenters, universities partnered with industry (e.g., busi-ness, engineering, development4,12), and collaborationamong university research centers.4 Bozman and Corley5

found that researchers who pursue a “mentor” collabo-ration strategy are likely to be tenured, to collaboratewith women, and to have a favorable view about indus-try and research on industrial applications. Regardingthe number of reported collaborators, those who havelarger grants have more collaborators.

Van Rignsover and Hessels18 investigated interpro-fessional research collaborations and found thatwomen participated more often than their male coun-terparts, and that researchers with more years of expe-rience tended to have both intra- (within discipline) andinterprofessional (between disciplines) collaborations.Researchers within larger organizations tended to par-ticipate more in interprofessional collaborations, whileintraprofessional collaborations contributed to greatercareer development. Further, Abramo, D’Angelo, andDi Costa1 articulated that research collaboration isamong those factors recognized as exerting one of themost significant influences on the performance of indi-vidual faculty, scholars, and institutions, in terms ofboth overall effectiveness, expanding scholarship, andpredicting productivity.14 As a result, this frameworkfor progressing research has become a foundation inacademic policies at national and international levels.Adams and colleagues2 noted that scientific productiv-ity increases as the collaborative team becomes larger,

e43

POTENTIAL PATTERN

The Reciprocity Team: Development of an Interprofessional Research CollaborationBryan M. Gee, PhD, OTR/LNancy Devine, DPTNicki L. Aubuchon-Endsley, PhDMichele Brumley, PhDHeather L. Ramsdell-Hudock, PhDHillary E. Swann, BS

Dr. Gee is Associate Professor, Program Director, and AssistantDepartment Chair, Department of Physical and Occupational Therapy;Dr. Devine is Associate Professor, Department of Physical and Occu-pational Therapy, and Associate Dean/Director, School of Rehabilita-tion and Communication Sciences; Dr. Aubuchon-Endsley is AssistantProfessor and Clinic Director, Department of Psychology; Dr. Brumleyis Associate Professor, Department of Psychology; Dr. Ramsdell-Hudock is Assistant Professor, Department of Communication Sci-ences and Disorders; and Ms. Swann is Research Coordinator, Depart-ment of Psychology, Idaho State University, Pocatello, ID.

The authors report no funding or conflicts of interest related to thisstudy.

RN1808—Received Dec 27, 2016; accepted Apr 26, 2017.

Address correspondence to: Dr. Bryan M. Gee, Dep. of Physical andOccupational Therapy, Idaho State University, Campus Box 8045,Pocatello, ID 83209, USA. Tel 2082823629. geebrya@isu.edu.

© 2017 Association of Schools of Allied Health Professions, Wash., DC.

as a direct result of greater division of labor withinlarger research groups. Collaboration with clinicalresearchers/partners also adds diversity to interprofes-sional teams and supports the development of juniorfaculty, encourages growing clinicians into academia,increases interest and willingness to take part in theresearch process, and reduces bias towards research.12

There is a gap in the literature highlighting the devel-opment and maintenance of interprofessional collabo-rations among health professionals. Therefore, thepurpose of this article is to describe the origins anddevelopment of an interprofessional research teamengaging in a multidisciplinary collaboration at a ruraluniversity, among faculty with varying levels ofresearch expertise, from different disciplines, and withdifferent research foci. Additionally, we provide recom-mendations to other clinicians, faculty, researchers, andadministrations regarding strategies that may createand/or enhance research collaborative efforts amongresearchers and institutions with diverse resources,opportunities, and barriers.

Development of the Reciprocity Team

The interprofessional team at Idaho State Universityconsists of researchers and clinicians from five differenthealth-related professions, or basic sciences: ClinicalPsychology, Experimental Psychology, OccupationalTherapy, Physical Therapy, and Speech-LanguagePathology. This team is referred to as the “ReciprocityTeam,” given that we investigate predictors, mecha-nisms, and developmental outcomes of reciprocal inter-actions between infants and their maternal caregiverslongitudinally during the early postnatal period. To dothis, we examine mutual responsiveness, or synchrony,which defines the joint dyadic component of socialinteractions10 among infants and caregivers in thedomains of social-emotional, cognitive, motor, play,sensory, language, and communication. Given thediversity of the members of the Reciprocity Team, interms of research focus and career level, professionalgoals for the collaboration vary (Table 1). However,each team member indicated increased opportunitiesfor interprofessional collaboration, grantsmanship,scholarly writing, and productivity as an individualprofessional goal.

Another goal of the Reciprocity Team is to providestudents with exposure to, and experience with aninterprofessional collaboration. A number of studentshave been involved in the collaboration (Table 2),including participating in managing and securing data,behavioral coding of maternal-infant interactions, dataanalysis, project organization, disseminating results atsymposia and conferences, and grant writing. Since col-laborations are more common within research teams,the unique skills built as a result of these experiences

may enhance student competitiveness for many gradu-ate training opportunities, postdoctoral fellowships,and research positions.

The Reciprocity Team emerged from a conversationbetween two (intraprofessional: clinical & experimen-tal psychology) team members at a university researchposter session at our home institution. initial conversa-tions lead to bringing in two additional researchers andclinicians from other disciplines (speech-languagepathology & physical therapy), to enhance the breadthand depth of the research questions which could beasked given the additional expertise and resources. Atthat point, several meetings were conducted to refineresearch questions, approaches, and division of labor.An initial project was devised to take advantage ofarchival data. Participants came from a cohort of 16parent-infant dyads, who participated in a longitudinalresearch study (at East Carolina University under thedirection of Ramsdell-Hudock) from 7 to 18 months ofinfant age. The primary purpose for original data col-lection was to examine the development of infant/tod-dler vocalizations, and incorporate caregiver perspec-tive into current knowledge bases about developmentalnorms. For our purposes, this data set provided thefoundation to begin exploring reciprocity betweeninfants and caregivers. It was quickly recognized thatbringing in another researcher from an additional dis-cipline (occupational therapy), and with unique clinicalexpertise, would further enhance the collaborativeeffort. We believe this interprofessional approach willultimately enhance our research project and under-standing of maternal-infant reciprocity.

As work began on re-analyzing the archival data set,the Reciprocity Team applied for and obtained a$46,000 internal seed grant supporting interdisciplinaryresearch collaborations. The grant afforded opportuni-ties to employ student research assistants, purchasematerials and supplies, buy out of courses, reimbursetravel for scholarly presentations, fund research partic-ipants to collect preliminary data, and host a Reciproc-ity Team in-house research symposium. To date therehave been four presentations given and an additionaltwo presentations accepted at the regional, national, orinternational level at psychology, psychobiology, devel-opmental, occupational therapy, and speech-languagepathology conferences, based on preliminary analyses.For the internal symposium, which commenced 1 yearafter the start of the collaboration, each team memberand their research assistants presented preliminaryfindings from their coding of unique, developmentally-relevant behaviors at three infant ages (i.e., 8, 12, and 16months). Symposium attendees were all of the membersof the Reciprocity Team, including undergraduate andgraduate research assistants, as well as interesteddepartment members, university administrators, andrelevant community collaborators. The symposium

e44 GEE ET AL., Interprofessional Research Collaboration

allowed the team to build upon previous discussions ofmore pragmatic concerns (e.g., operationalizing devel-opmental variables of interest, discussing codingschemes and associated reliability, and grant purchas-ing) to integrate findings from across the multiple labo-ratories while including extended members of the team(i.e., research assistants).

As this collaboration has evolved, we continue tofind more efficient ways of achieving our research andprofessional goals. This has been facilitated by monthlyteam meetings, centralization of resources (e.g., having ashared, cloud-based drive for presentations, documents,drafts, data figures, etc.), regular progress updates (i.e.,the symposium and monthly meetings), and having a

project coordinator (a doctoral student in experimentalpsychology) to help manage data sharing among labs.

Our Research Focus at a Glance

Reciprocity is the mutual engagement between infantsand caregivers, involving bidirectional symmetry inactions and psychological states.3 Decades of researchsupport robust reciprocal relationships between care-giver and infant behavior and outcomes. However,more research is needed to examine complex bidirec-tional associations between infant-caregiver engage-ments with regard to multiple interactive domains ofinfant behavior.7,13 Our group is attempting to fill this

Journal of Allied Health, Summer 2017, Vol 46, No 2 e45

TABLE 1. Reciprocity Team Professional Description

Research Previous Goals of Project Experience Funding Interprofessional Role Discipline Degree Level (yrs) Sources Area of Focus Research Collaboration

Primary Clinical psychol- Clinical/research 12 Yes. Internal Perinatal psychobiology, To enhance research productivity investigator ogy; behavioral doctorate and and external infant neurobehavioral and fundability, assist in producing

medicine, research post- grants. development, maternal- collaborative grants, manuscripts,quantitative doctorate infant interactions, and and presentations, and benefit frommethods behavioral health. mentorship from more senior faculty.

Co-primary Experimental Research 20 Yes. Internal Postural and locomotor To broaden research program, investigator psychology; postdoctorate and external development, maternal- work collaboratively with colleagues

behavioral grants. infant (physical) inter- in other disciplines to gain a moreneuroscience, actions, sensorimotor comprehensive understanding of developmental development, and neurobehavioral development, psychobiology neurobehavioral collaborate on grants and scholar-

plasticity. ship, provide interdisciplinary trainingopportunities for students, and collab-orate with junior colleagues and helpmake them more competitive forexternal funding.

Co-primary Speech-language Research 13 Yes. Internal Infant vocal develop- To learn from others and provideinvestigator pathology doctorate grants. ment, phonetics, insight when appropriate, expand

phonology, and the my own line of research through scholarship of teaching collaboration, obtain grant funding,and learning. add to the knowledge base about

infant development, and gain insightfrom researchers in other disciplines.

Co-primary Occupational Clinical doctorate 2 None Co-occupation, play To gain interprofessional research investigator therapy and research participation, motor experience, learn about grant pro-

doctorate development, sensory curement, colaborate on national processing and sensory presentations and publications, andinterventions, and the gain experience with analysis andscholarship of teaching coding of infant/maternal behaviorsand learning.

Consultant Physical therapy/ Clinical doctorate, 24 Yes. National Neuroplasticity, motor To gain interprofessional research experimental MS, PhD in Science behavior and rehabilita- experience, and participate in devel-psychology progress Foundation tion interventions. oping research methods that integrate

the findings from multiple researchlabs to answer a research question.

Research Experimental Bachelor’s, 7 Yes. Internal Motor development, To gain additional research experi-coordinator/ psychology research and external sensory feedback and ence, work closely with investigators graduate MS/PhD student grants experience. from multiple fields, and gain experi-student in progress ence working on a large collaborative

grant/study.

gap by identifying the effect of infant-caregiver reci-procity on infant developmental trajectories acrosssocioemotional, motor, sensory, language, and func-tional behavior domains. Additionally, we aim toexamine modifiable maternal prenatal risk factorswhich predict altered infant developmental trajectoriesand determine whether reciprocity and specific biologi-cal mechanisms mediate these relations. Ultimately,findings from this work should provide clinical impli-cations for devising prevention and intervention strate-gies for children at risk for developmental delay.

Our initial project includes examination of the roleof infant-caregiver reciprocity on infant socioemotionalregulation, vocalizations, sensory processing, co-occu-pation, functional play, and motor behavior from earlyto late infancy. Each Reciprocity Team member hasstarted to examine the aforementioned archival dataset, using analytic tools and techniques from theirrespective disciplines. Variables of interest across disci-plines have been narrowed down to infant affect, care-giver behavior, emotional synchrony, play participa-tion and performance, co-occupation, touch, posture,locomotion, infant gaze direction, caregiver utterances,and infant utterances. Our plan is to combine and ana-lyze data across all findings together. In due course,when applied to infants at risk for developmental dis-abilities, this research effort may aid in caregiver educa-tion, and defining the optimum timing for assessmentand intervention.

Uniqueness of the Collaboration

Several concepts are key to collaborations, includingsharing, partnership, interdependency, power, andprocess.9 Through collaborations, sharing can be seenin the division of labor, decision making, philosophy,values, data, perspective, and planning and interven-tion. Partnerships suggest a constructive nature, colle-giality, openness, honesty, authenticity, and commongoals to the collaborative relationship. Interdepend-ency implies a mutually beneficial dependency acrossmembers of a collaboration. The concept of power maybe better described as an empowerment of the individu-als working together through this interactive process,surpassing individual limitations by embarking upon a

collaboration. And finally, the collaboration processoften constantly evolves through negotiation and com-promise among participants.

Beyond these concepts, several unique aspects of col-laboration can be highlighted with the ReciprocityTeam. First, there are five different disciplines involvedin the project, several of which are relatively new tointerdisciplinary research collaborations. Second, thecollaboration between researchers and clinicians acrossdifferent disciplines adds to the expansive viewpointexplored. Third, the diverse group supports a compre-hensive approach focused on developing methodology,and the application of those methods, to discover andaddress a significant public health problem (i.e., under-diagnosis and undertreatment of developmental diffi-culties). Fourth, the number of undergraduate and grad-uate research training opportunities within each of thedisciplines, as well as in interdisciplinary research, isextensive. Fifth, the facilitation of numerous opportu-nities for presentations, papers, and grants in differentareas/domains enhances research productivity and dis-semination of ideas/findings. Lastly, the five differentdisciplines working with the same data set, and extract-ing a high volume of differing information from it, putsforth a broad perspective related to results.

Potential Challenges to the CollaborativeProcess

The very same concepts that can be unique to support-ing flourishing collaborations listed above (e.g., sharingand partnership), can compound the success of a col-laboration. Establishing a new collaboration betweenfive disciplines has provided many opportunities, butalso some challenges. The collaborators experience dif-ferences in discipline-specific vocabulary, researchmethods, and interpretation of data. The language usedto describe items of interest often need to be discussedand explained by individual team members. At timesterminology may be unclear, as when different terms areused by different disciplines to refer to the same con-struct. Through frequent, open discussion, the Reci-procity Team has been able to resolve and select termi-nology that seems most suitable for the project aims.These discussions add depth of understanding to thedifferent disciplines participating on the team and thevalue of interprofessional perspectives. Selection ofvariables and research design also has been a challengefor the team. Again, frequent discussion and use ofexamples has provided opportunities to ensure that thedifferent research labs converge on these importantresearch elements. The willingness of some labs torecode data when the team learned a better method wasbeneficial to the collaborative process. Labs have useddifferent coding software, however, the outcomes willbe shared across labs. Due to the sheer volume of data

e46 GEE ET AL., Interprofessional Research Collaboration

TABLE 2. Student Representation

No. of Students___________________________________Under-

Discipline Graduate graduate Female Male

Clinical psychology 3 4 6 1Experimental psychology 2 2 3 1Speech-language pathology 5 2 7 0Occupational therapy 8 0 7 1Physical therapy – – – –

collected, the Reciprocity Team is still seeking the bestforms of data analysis to answer questions of interest.

Opportunities for Long-Term Efforts

The collaboration has been very enriching for all of theteam members, to understand what other disciplinesemphasize and how they approach answering theirresearch questions. By developing a better understand-ing of these different disciplines through this process ofworking together, it is apparent that the team appreci-ates that each member brings useful and unique experi-ences, perspectives, skills, and expertise to the project. Itis intended that the group continue to work together onthe Reciprocity Project, but that the team members mayalso develop new side projects together, as a result ofrecognizing the unique contributions we make toapproaching research problems. For example, one sideproject may address simultaneous data analysis usingvarying behavioral coding schemes that may be highlyspecific from a basic science standpoint versus that of afunctional (therapeutic) standpoint with clinical impli-cations. After two years of the team working together,numerous direct and indirect outcomes are a result ofthe collaborative tasks, efforts, and relationships(Figure 1). Specific growth is noted in the area of schol-arly artifacts, student training, community partner-ships, and service opportunities within the institution.

The team has aspirations to expand collaborations andprocedures to clinical partners within the institution aswell as in the community, with a focus on using newprocedures for early identification and diagnosis ofdevelopmental delays and conditions.

Recommendations

Developing Interprofessional Research Teams

It has been documented that researchers who embodythe following practices typically experience increasedresearch productivity: researchers who have a qualitydoctoral education; find and use research mentors, andlink with colleagues who have similar research inter-ests; learn to take risks and accept criticism; prioritizeand manage workloads; and learn about the systemsthat support research within specific academic environ-ments.6 Conversely, junior faculty who consider, orwho do terminate research careers as junior faculty, typ-ically do so as a result of lower confidence in one’sresearch skills, reduced overall job satisfaction, andhigher perceptions of burnout due to workload/work-load distribution.14 Some health care professionals (e.g.,occupational therapists), compared to others (e.g., nurs-ing, psychology, physical therapy), are also less likely toengage, or collaborate in research due to low confidenceor anxiety.16 Stoykov and colleagues17 recommended

Journal of Allied Health, Summer 2017, Vol 46, No 2 e47

FIGURE 1. Direct and indirect outcomes of collaboration.

that in order to support junior researchers, faculty,administration, and institutions should emphasizedevelopment of interprofessional teams, implementmentoring (such as traditional mentorship, sponsor-ship, and coaching), cultivate leadership skills in pres-ent and future program/departmental leaders, andtrain junior faculty to be resilient. It is our contentionthat interprofessional collaborative teams may createopportunities that mentor junior faculty, facilitateincreased productivity, and assist faculty in meetingtheir research related goals.

Facilitating Interprofessional Collaborations

Below are additional recommendations related to thedevelopment and enhancement of interprofessionalresearch teams per members of our collaboration. Therecommendations are provided for individual researchersand collaborative research teams; they expand uponthose provided by others.4–6,12,17 However, it is our con-tention that strategies to foster interprofessional collab-orative teams can also be enabled and supportedthrough institutional structures and opportunities.

Researchers/Research Teams. As a member of aresearch team, there are several things which can behelpful to keep in mind. First of all, taking part in aresearch collaboration will require changing roles. Thiscan be facilitated by being open-minded and flexible todifferent approaches, research questions, methods, dataanalysis techniques, presentation, and manuscriptopportunities. This is a key part of any collaboration,but especially one based around research. Along thesame thread, it will be important to be constructive,respectful, and willing to accept that your influence orapproach may not always be the team’s top priority.Instead, it is helpful to appreciate and effectively useeach team member’s relative strengths to maximize thegroup’s productivity. For example, select a team leaderwho has excellent organizational and time-managementskills. Time investment and funding, to name a few, willnot always be equal across team members, nor shouldthey be. To include all team members, a successful col-laboration poses questions or problems that lend them-selves to multiple perspectives and funding opportuni-ties, such as social- or health-related problems. However,sometimes for one grant application or paper it maymake more sense to highlight one aspect of a projectover another, to make the submission more competitive.Despite fluctuating demands on time as different focusareas present themselves, collaboration does not meanan excuse for social loafing. Sometimes it can be morework as you learn how to cooperate, blend your resultstogether, and write with other members of the researchteams. It is important to be willing to put in the effort.

In organizing, successful collaborators will generate atimeline or plan of action that everyone can follow in

working toward joint achievement of goals, and pro-gressing with professional activities between meetings.Team members should also have regular contact witheach other to foster the collaboration and ensure thateveryone has a common understanding of researchgoals, procedures, and anticipated outcomes. Duringmeetings, it will be beneficial to keep minutes, notes,and lists to reference at a later time. Further, the groupwill benefit from providing each collaborator access toproject resources (e.g., team presentations, data, drafts,etc.). Think about your goals and contributions withina collaboration and choose your collaborators based onwhat you would like to achieve and contribute. Collab-orations should be maximally mutually beneficial. Thiscan be partially accomplished through addressing mis-interpretations, miscommunications, and disagree-ments promptly as they may quickly ruin a complex col-laboration with many contributors.

Institutions. Institutions can help foster collabora-tions by supporting interdisciplinary and interprofes-sional on-campus activities on a regular basis. For exam-ple, university programs (graduate college, office ofresearch) and departments can sponsor interdisciplinaryevents such as research forums, symposia, and invitedcolloquia from presenters external to the university ordepartment. Scholarly artifacts that are shared at thecollege or university level as a part of research colloquiacould be valued or incentivized as scholarly activityand/or service, as these settings are likely where collab-orations can begin. Additionally, external reinforcersfor attendance could be developed, such as countingparticipation as service to support tenure, etc. Univer-sity leadership (including department chairs and deans)can try to facilitate interactions among faculty fromassociated disciplines, especially for junior faculty. Forexample, in recommending university service opportu-nities to junior faculty, they can prioritize opportunitiesand appointments that have the potential to lead toworthwhile interprofessional activities and collabora-tions. Furthermore, administrators should appraisethemselves of the research interests and goals of tenure-track faculty in order to advocate for and respond topotential opportunities of collaboration.

Institutions can also provide funding opportunitiesfor faculty and students that will help to supportprogress of interprofessional research collaborations.For faculty, these opportunities should be available atevery career stage (junior and senior), to support theconsistent development of interdisciplinary researchprograms. Moreover, priority could be placed uponfunding submissions that utilize interprofessional col-laborations over other submissions. All institutionalunits (e.g., departments, colleges, schools) can valuescholarly artifacts (e.g., presentations and publications)in associated-discipline outlets for their faculty and stu-dents. For example, units should not discount a publi-

e48 GEE ET AL., Interprofessional Research Collaboration

cation just because the work is published in another dis-cipline’s journal or follows another disciplines format(e.g., a case study).

Conclusions

Interprofessional research collaborations are encour-aged by academic institutions, funding sources, andbrokers of research dissemination. Such collaborationshave increased productivity needed to gain fundingwith the generation of scholarly artifacts (e.g., presenta-tions, publications, patents, etc.). In light of the oppor-tunities, many research collaborative efforts facediverse barriers that can impede developing or main-taining progress and project dissemination. Yet, manyof the barriers experienced in collaborations createunique prospects that may transform professional tra-jectories for researchers and their colleagues.

References

1. Abramo G, D’Angelo CA, Di Costa F. Research collaborationand productivity: is there correlation? High Educ. 2009; 57(2):155–171.

2. Adams SJD, Black GC, Clemmons JR, et al. Scientific teams andinstitutional collaborations: evidence from U.S. universities,1981–1999. Res Policy. 2005; 34(3):259–285.

3. Apicella F, Chericoni N, Costanzo V, et al. Reciprocity in inter-action: a window on the first year of life in autism. Autism ResTreat. 2013; 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/705895

4. Boardman PC, Corley EA. University research centers and thecomposition of research collaborations. Res Policy. 2008; 37(5):900–913.

5. Bozeman B, Corley E. Scientists’ collaboration strategies: impli-cations for scientific and technical human capital. Res Policy.2004; 33(4):599–616.

6. Case-Smith J. Developing a research career: advice from occu-pational therapy researchers. Am J Occup Ther. 1999; 53(1):44–50.

7. Clearfield MW, Osborne CN, Mullen M. Learning by looking:infants’ social looking behavior across the transition fromcrawling to walking. J Exp Child Psychol. 2008; 100:297–307.

8. Corley EA, Boardman PC, Bozeman B. Design and the manage-ment of multi-institutional research collaborations: theoretical

implications from two case studies. Res Policy. 2006; 35(7):975–993.

9. D’Amour D, Ferrada-Videla M, Rodriguez LSM, Beaulieu M-D.The conceptual basis for interprofessional collaboration: coreconcepts and theoretical frameworks. J Interprof Care. 2005; 9(suppl 1):116–131.

10. Feldman R. Mutual influences between child emotion regulationand parent-child reciprocity support development across thefirst 10 years of life: implications for developmental psy-chopathology. Dev Psychopathol. 2015; 27:1007–1023.

11. Feldman R, Bamberger E, Kanat-Maymon Y. Parent-specific rec-iprocity from infancy to adolescence shapes children’s socialcompetence and dialogical skills. Attach Hum Dev. 2013; 15:407–423.

12. Finlayson M, Shevil E, Mathiowetz V, Matuska K. Reflectionsof occupational therapists working as members of a researchteam. Aust Occup Ther J. 2005; 52(2):101–108.

13. Iverson JM. Developing language in a developing body: the rela-tionship between motor development and language develop-ment. J Child Lang. 2010; 37:229–261.

14. Lee S, Bozeman B. The effects of scientific collaboration on pro-ductivity. Soc Stud Sci. 2005; 35(5):673–702.

15. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineer-ing, Institute of Medicine. Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research.Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2005. doi:https://doi.org/10.17226/11153.

16. Pighills AC, Plummer D, Harvey D, Pain T. Positioning occupa-tional therapy as a discipline on the research continuum: Resultsof a cross�sectional survey of research experience. Aust OccupTher J. 2013; 60(4):241–251

17. Stoykov ME, Skarupski KA, Foucher K, Chubinskaya S. Juniorinvestigators thinking about quitting research: a survey. Am JOccup Ther. 2017; 71(2):1–7.

18. Van Rijnsoever FJ, Hessels LK. Factors associated with discipli-nary and interdisciplinary research collaboration. Res Policy.2011; 40(3):463–472.

19. Ynalvez MA, Shrum WM. Professional networks, scientific col-laboration, and publication productivity in resource-con-strained research institutions in a developing country. Res Policy.2011; 40(2):204–216.

Published online 1 June 2017.www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asahp/jah© 2017 ASAHP, Washington, DC.

Journal of Allied Health, Summer 2017, Vol 46, No 2 e49