{"paper_id":"065c6d5e-448b-4895-be2c-ffd666aa2adc","body_text":"Collaboration and conflict: structural causes and researcher responses in university STEM labs | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Article Collaboration and conflict: structural causes and researcher responses in university STEM labs Sunyoung Shin, SeungAh Park, Minsu Ha This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-6676661/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract University STEM laboratories are spaces where collaboration is essential, yet structural tensions frequently arise. This study analyzes the structural causes of conflict that emerge during collaborative processes in university STEM labs and explores how researchers respond to these tensions. Grounded in conflict theory and conflict management models, the study developed analytical categories and systematically coded interview data from 13 researchers. The analysis was structured through the theoretical lens of contingency theory, with the aim of identifying how five structural categories—role ambiguity, resource scarcity, hierarchical power imbalances, goal misalignment, and insufficient communication—manifest as conflict within the specific institutional contexts of university STEM labs. Researchers adopted a range of strategies to address these conflicts, including avoidance, accommodation, compromise, and competition, depending on their positionality and institutional circumstances. This study conceptualizes collaborative conflict not as a matter of interpersonal misunderstanding but as a phenomenon rooted in structural contexts, and it proposes institutional and organizational reforms to support fairer and more sustainable collaboration in academic research environments. Social science/Education Social science/Science technology and society Social science/Sociology scientific collaboration research conflict structural factors university laboratories conflict responses team science 1. Introduction Contemporary scientific research is marked by increasing complexity and interdisciplinarity, making collaborative approaches essential. Particularly in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) fields, many research problems exceed the capacity of individual investigators, positioning collaboration not as an optional endeavor but as a necessary strategy for knowledge production (Kezar & Holcombe, 2020 ; Lazzarotti et al., 2016 ; Ledford, 2015 ; Mazzocchi, 2019 ). Collaborative research enables the generation of novel insights, fosters innovation beyond the limits of existing methods and theories, and functions as a crucial mechanism for integrating intellectual resources to address multifaceted, cross-disciplinary challenges (Bennett & Gadlin, 2012 ; NRC, 2012; NRC, 2015). In the context of this study, collaboration encompasses all forms of joint research practices between scientists and laboratories. This includes not only the execution of formal projects, but also activities such as co-designing research, sharing data, co-authoring publications, and jointly using experimental infrastructure. These practices are grounded in the circulation and exchange of academic resources. Collaboration, as conceptualized here, is not simply about performing tasks together; it is a complex social process through which expertise, autonomy, authority, and responsibility are continuously negotiated. This view highlights collaboration not as a neutral technical means for producing scientific outputs, but as an institutionalized practice embedded within organizational structures and power dynamics (Katz & Martin, 1997 ; Love et al., 2021 ). The growing importance of collaboration has been substantiated by empirical research (Kezar & Holcombe, 2020 ; Kurniati et al., 2022 ). Wuchty, Jones, and Uzzi ( 2007 ), in their analysis of decades of publication and patent records, demonstrated that collaborative research tends to garner higher citation counts and exert greater academic impact than single-authored work. In STEM disciplines, collaboration has become the dominant mode for conducting large-scale research, encompassing not merely task division but the complex integration of participants’ expertise and resources through organizational coordination (Jones et al., 2008 ; NRC, 2015). This evolution reinforces perspectives from the sociology of science, which view scientific knowledge as fundamentally social and shaped through dynamic, interactional processes (Czikszentmihalyi, 2020; Latour, 1987 ; Love et al., 2021 ; Sawyer, 2014 ). During the COVID-19 pandemic, research collaborations tended to shift toward smaller team structures. Cunningham et al. ( 2021 ) suggest that this was not merely a consequence of pandemic-related constraints, but potentially a strategic adaptation to enable more rapid response and streamlined decision-making. While small, interdisciplinary teams may offer advantages in experimenting with new ideas and traversing disciplinary boundaries, they also introduce structural vulnerabilities—including role conflicts and increased coordination demands—that can give rise to collaborative tensions (Cunningham et al., 2021 ). Collaboration does not always unfold in idealized ways. Within the highly structured context of STEM research laboratories, collaborative processes are often marked by tensions and conflicts. Disputes frequently arise over research funding distribution, authorship credit, access to experimental equipment, data sharing, and the design of experiments—each of which can significantly compromise the effectiveness and sustainability of collaborative work (Salazar et al., 2012 ; Tomáška, 2020). Crucially, dynamics of power, hierarchy, and resource control produce structural asymmetries among collaborators, transforming what might appear as interpersonal disagreements into deeper organizational issues (Klein, 2001 ). Such conflict not only undermines collaborative efforts but also has adverse effects on participants’ job satisfaction, sense of belonging, and commitment to sustaining a research career (Casad et al., 2021 ; Callister, 2006 ). In STEM disciplines, the collaborative environment can present a particularly “chilly climate” for women, early-career scholars, and members of underrepresented groups, often leading to exclusion, alienation, and disengagement (Britton et al., 2017; Griffin et al., 2011 ). The emotional and social climate in which collaboration occurs thus emerges as a critical factor—shaping not only the technical and methodological outcomes of research, but also researchers’ lived experiences, career pathways, and psychological well-being. Huffman et al. ( 2025 ), in their analysis of a large interdisciplinary collaboration center funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), demonstrate that collaboration is not merely a matter of individual agency or motivation, but is significantly structured by institutional design and systemic conditions. Through social network analysis, they explored researcher centrality, inter-team collaboration asymmetries, and pathways of knowledge flow, offering design-based recommendations for improving the effectiveness and fairness of collaborative practices. However, their study remains situated within a survey-based methodological frame and does not qualitatively examine the lived experience of collaboration—particularly the tensions and conflicts researchers encounter in practice. Recent discussions have highlighted the growing importance of scientific facilitation as a key capability for successful collaboration in research settings (Cravens et al., 2022 ). This concept encompasses a set of refined social competencies that extend beyond conventional project management or coordination—such as mediating interpersonal dynamics, mitigating tensions, and fostering interdisciplinary integration. Despite its significance, this capacity remains underdeveloped, with limited institutionalized training or support. In many cases, collaborative research unfolds without any deliberate facilitative mechanisms. This suggests that collaboration should be understood not as a technically implementable task, but as a socially constructed process that requires intentional strategies and sustained educational investment (Love et al., 2022 ). Despite the growing body of theoretical work, few studies have qualitatively examined how conflict emerges and becomes structurally reproduced within the unique and complex collaborative environments of STEM research laboratories. Creswell and Poth ( 2016 ) underscore the value of qualitative inquiry for uncovering the layered experiences embedded in individuals’ lives, particularly when addressing sensitive topics such as conflict. They advocate for approaches that preserve participants’ voices in their original form. In this context, a phenomenological approach provides an appropriate framework for investigating structural conditions through researchers’ lived emotions, judgments, and actions in collaborative settings. This study draws on in-depth interviews with researchers working in STEM laboratories to examine the structural causes of conflict in collaborative research and to analyze how researchers navigate and respond to such challenges. In doing so, it offers a critical perspective on the dominant discourse that idealizes collaboration, instead foregrounding the lived realities of collaborative practice in scientific settings. The study further argues that conflict in collaboration should not be viewed merely as a sign of failure, but as a meaningful site of practice where scientists actively negotiate the tensions between autonomy and community. Ultimately, this study aims to offer a practical foundation for improving the quality of collaboration and informing institutional reform by analyzing the dynamics of conflict within the structural context of university STEM laboratories. It conceptualizes collaboration not as a mere technical procedure, but as a complex social practice, and seeks to establish a basis for integrating the processes of conflict, negotiation, and resolution into educational and policy frameworks. This study seeks to provide a multidimensional understanding of collaboration in STEM laboratories by examining the structural causes of conflict and the strategies researchers employ in response, while also analyzing the operational structures and situational factors that shape these dynamics. It focuses on how structural elements—such as power relations, competition for research funding, and the division of roles—shape both the emergence of conflict and its resolution. By uncovering the conditions that either enable or constrain collaborative practices, this research aims to illuminate how collaboration unfolds in situated and unequal research contexts. Through qualitative inquiry grounded in the lived experiences of researchers, the study offers practical insights for building a more sustainable and equitable culture of collaboration in academic science. This study addresses the following research questions: 1) What structural factors give rise to conflict during collaboration in university STEM laboratories? 2) How do researchers navigate and attempt to resolve conflicts that emerge in collaborative settings? 3) What contextual conditions influence the emergence and resolution of conflict in STEM lab collaborations? 2. FRAMEWORKS This study aims to offer a nuanced understanding of collaborative conflict within the structural dynamics of university STEM laboratories. To achieve this, it develops a theoretical framework to account for the emergence, progression, and researcher responses to conflict. While much of the existing literature has treated conflict as a byproduct of interpersonal misunderstandings or communication breakdowns, this study approaches conflict as a structurally embedded phenomenon—not reducible to individual disposition or isolated events. University STEM labs, in particular, represent unique organizational environments: while built on collaboration, they are marked by concentrated resources, pronounced hierarchies, and persistent tensions, making them sites where structural conflict is both frequent and inherent. Guided by this line of inquiry, the study establishes an analytical framework based on three theoretical perspectives: conflict theory, conflict handling modes theory, and contingency theory. Conflict theory provides a critical lens for examining the structural tensions inherent in collaborative settings. Conflict handling modes theory offers a practical basis for categorizing and interpreting the strategies researchers employ in response to conflict. Contingency theory further enables an exploration of how organizational and institutional conditions shape both the emergence and management of conflict, emphasizing the role of specific laboratory contexts. The following section outlines the core concepts of each theory and details their application within the study. 2.1 Conflict Theory To examine the causes of conflict emerging in collaborative processes within the distinct organizational setting of university STEM laboratories, this study draws on conflict theory as its primary analytical lens. Conflict theory conceptualizes society as structured by enduring tensions among groups competing for limited resources, power, and status. It frames conflict not as an anomaly but as a structural and inevitable feature of social systems (Dahrendorf, 2019 ). In organizational contexts, the theory underscores how resource scarcity, asymmetrical power dynamics, and ambiguous role structures function as core drivers of conflict. Conflict theory reframes collaboration not simply as the act of working together, but as a contested terrain where outcomes, responsibilities, authority, and recognition are negotiated and competed over. STEM research environments institutionalize collaboration as a routine practice, yet they are also marked by hierarchical power relations, intense competition for resources, and performance-driven evaluation systems. As such, collaboration often unfolds under conditions that generate and reproduce structural tensions and conflict. Within the broader scope of conflict theory, this study draws on theoretical perspectives that account for the emergence and regulation of conflict within complex, multi-layered organizations. Dahrendorf ( 2019 ) contends that the concentration of power and resources intensifies structural tensions, making conflict among organizational members inevitable. Engeström (1987) identifies role ambiguity in collaborative work as a key catalyst for conflict, suggesting that unclear role and responsibility definitions lead to recurring disputes and erosion of interpersonal trust. Pondy ( 1967 ), meanwhile, conceptualizes conflict as a dynamic social process—rather than a discrete event—unfolding through cognitive, emotional, and behavioral stages. He highlights information asymmetry and exclusion from decision-making as key factors that exacerbate conflict. Conflicts in collaborative settings are not simply the result of personality clashes or communication failures; rather, they often stem from deeper issues of organizational structure and institutional design. In STEM laboratories, conflicts frequently center on research funding, access to experimental resources, authorship order, and responsibility allocation—factors that tend to disadvantage early-career researchers. This study therefore constructs a coding scheme around five key structural sources of conflict in collaboration: role ambiguity, resource scarcity, power imbalance, goal misalignment, and communication breakdowns(Table 2 ). These categories provide the basis for analyzing the organizational roots of conflict. Conflict within organizations should not be seen merely as an issue to be eliminated, but as a key mechanism for organizational change and adaptation (Coser, 1998 ). Blake and Mouton (1962) and Thomas and Kilmann ( 1975 ) emphasize that the way conflict is managed fundamentally shapes the quality and sustainability of collaboration. Drawing on Thomas and Kilmann’s conflict handling modes theory, this study analyzes the conflict resolution strategies employed by researchers in real-world collaborative settings, and investigates how these choices are influenced by the structural conditions of the organization and individuals’ positionality within it. 2.2 Conflict Handling Modes The Conflict Handling Modes model proposed by Thomas and Kilmann ( 1975 ) offers a foundational framework for analyzing individual approaches to conflict resolution in organizational settings. It categorizes conflict handling into five modes based on two dimensions: assertiveness—the extent to which an individual pursues their own goals—and cooperativeness—the extent to which they seek to work with others. The model identifies five conflict handling modes: competing, avoiding, compromising, collaborating, and accommodating. Competing involves pursuing one's own goals at the expense of others. This mode may be effective for urgent decision-making but risks undermining relationships over time. Avoiding refers to withdrawing from or ignoring conflict rather than actively engaging with it. It can be appropriate when the issue is minor or when involvement is unnecessary, though it may result in unresolved tensions. Compromising entails mutual concession and seeks a middle ground. While useful for prompt resolution, it may fall short of providing optimal solutions. Collaborating emphasizes joint problem-solving to maximize mutual gain. This approach supports trust and long-term cooperation but often requires considerable time and effort. Accommodating prioritizes the other party's needs over one's own. Though it may ease tension, repeated accommodation can foster latent dissatisfaction. The model offers a systematic classification of conflict resolution strategies and serves as a practical tool for identifying individual response patterns. It is especially useful for analyzing and comparing how members respond to conflict across different collaborative contexts. However, because the model is grounded in individual traits and choices, it has limited capacity to account for broader contextual factors such as organizational structures, power asymmetries, role and resource allocation systems, and cultural expectations. Accordingly, this study employs Thomas and Kilmann’s model as a framework for classifying conflict handling strategies, while placing analytical emphasis on how each strategy relates to structural factors such as organizational position, power dynamics, and role ambiguity. In hierarchical, performance-oriented environments like STEM research laboratories, strategies such as accommodating or avoiding may emerge from institutional constraints embedded in the organizational structure. These should not be reduced to individual coping styles. With this perspective, the study conceptualizes conflict handling not only as behavioral tendencies but also as strategies of structural adaptation, and seeks to examine the contextual conditions that give rise to the repeated use of particular modes. 2.3 Contingency Theory Contingency theory posits that there is no universally optimal way to organize; rather, effective structures and strategies must align with the specific environmental conditions facing the organization (Van De Ven et al., 2013 ). It conceptualizes the organization as a constrained optimization problem, wherein structures are adapted to internal and external constraints to enhance performance (Achterberg et al., 2010; Fiedler, 2006 ; Fiedler, 1967 ). This study employs contingency theory as an analytical framework for interpreting the contextual nature of collaboration conflicts in STEM research laboratories. STEM environments are shaped by complex situational variables—such as task specialization, hierarchical structures, researcher diversity, and resource allocation—that influence the dynamics of conflict and resolution. The nature and management of conflict vary according to institutional and cultural conditions specific to each lab. For instance, the level and distribution of resources—such as funding, equipment, and space—can significantly shape the scope and form of collaboration. While abundant resources may foster expansive collaboration, scarcity or unequal distribution may lead to heightened competition and tension. Additionally, disciplinary differences and methodological divergences among researchers often generate friction during collaboration. A typical example is a life scientist and an engineer working on a joint project, where experimental and modeling-centered approaches may clash. Such disciplinary backgrounds constitute important contextual factors in understanding collaboration dynamics (Scott, 1981 ; Van De Ven et al., 2013 ). Organizational structure also shapes how collaboration and conflict unfold. In vertically hierarchical settings, authority is often concentrated in professors or principal investigators, resulting in collaboration characterized by top-down directives and task assignments rather than autonomous coordination. In contrast, flatter structures tend to support more flexible negotiation and shared responsibility among researchers. When the roles of research leads—such as postdoctoral fellows or doctoral students—are not clearly defined, conflicts may emerge from overlapping responsibilities, avoidance of accountability, or power struggles. These structural characteristics are closely tied to the notion of “fit” between organizational design and environmental context, a central concern in contingency theory (Fiedler, 1967 ). Grounded in contingency theory, this study qualitatively investigates how conflict arises within the structural and environmental conditions of university research organizations, and how individual researchers respond through specific strategies. By interpreting collaborative conflict not as interpersonal friction but as a contextually shaped manifestation of structural tension, this research aims to generate practical insights for improving collaborative practices. 3. Methods 3.1 Author’s Positionalites Our identities are not singular; rather, they are shaped within and across multiple social categories such as race, gender, class, ability, and bodily conditions (Collins, 1986 ). This positionality influences how researchers interpret social phenomena and carries significant implications for the direction and focus of analysis in qualitative research. Accordingly, this study explicitly acknowledges the researcher’s positionality and considers its implications for the analytic process. The first author is a female scientist who completed a master’s degree in a molecular cell biology laboratory and has also worked as a high school science teacher. Her experiences navigating the rigid hierarchies and apprenticeship-based culture of university laboratories shaped her understanding of collaborative difficulties as not merely technical challenges, but as issues intertwined with interpersonal dynamics, emotion, and identity. The emotional atmosphere of the lab, uneven distributions of responsibility, and implicit hierarchies and expectations shaped her positionality and became central to her ability to interpret and empathize with participants’ narratives. This positionality also proved meaningful during the interview process. Participants—especially female scientists—were more willing to articulate tensions and fatigue associated with laboratory collaboration, grounded in a sense of shared experience. Recognizing the researcher as someone with similar disciplinary and practical backgrounds fostered trust and candor, thereby enriching the depth and authenticity of their accounts. This dynamic expanded the interpretive possibilities of “shared experience” within phenomenological inquiry. The first author did not merely act as a data collector but functioned as an embodied interpreter of the emotional and structural dimensions constituting collaborative settings. Her background as a practicing scientist allowed her to grasp the tacit norms, everyday language, and procedural routines of laboratory life, enabling her to discern nuanced meanings and contextual subtleties that might elude an external observer. Her positionality served not as a simple insider alignment, but as a layered interpretive stance—one that facilitated epistemological, ontological, and axiological engagement with the phenomenon of STEM collaboration. This dual grounding in theoretical sensitivity and experiential familiarity contributed to a more situated and reflexive mode of analysis. The second author maintained personal relationships with several research participants. Given the study’s focus on conflict in collaborative settings, this relational context contributed to establishing a natural and open interview environment—even when navigating sensitive or potentially uncomfortable topics. Participants exhibited lower psychological defensiveness and shared their experiences with notable candor, thereby enriching the depth and diversity of the qualitative data. As a graduate student with experience as a science teacher, the second author occupied a position closely aligned with that of the participants. This positional similarity mitigated hierarchical barriers and fostered a sense of emotional safety, enabling participants to articulate their emotions and reconstruct specific episodes of conflict in everyday collaborative contexts. Additionally, Seung-Ah has consistently engaged in efforts to reinterpret collaborative conflict in STEM research environments through the lens of science education. These efforts informed an analytical perspective that moves beyond interpersonal explanations to consider the structural conditions underpinning collaboration. The corresponding author is a researcher who has studied various forms of cognitive bias since 2009. Since 2015, his work has focused on how such biases manifest in learning, inquiry, and research, and how they shape scientific judgment and reasoning. Through extensive engagement in large-scale collaborative projects—such as automated assessment systems and multimodal learning analytics—he has repeatedly encountered how tensions, ambiguity, and the diffusion of responsibility within collaborative structures impact not only scientific outcomes but also participants’ emotional and cognitive states. These experiences have informed a critical orientation that resists reducing conflict to interpersonal friction, instead emphasizing the intersection of cognitive bias and structural dynamics. His view of collaboration as a complex process shaped by intertwined emotional and structural factors, rather than as a simple matter of task division or technical interaction, aligns with his prior research and provides a theoretical foundation for this study’s effort to systematically and contextually understand the dynamics of collaborative breakdown. 3.2 Participants To recruit participants with over three years of diverse collaborative experience in university-based STEM laboratories, the study initially employed criterion-based convenience sampling, selecting eligible individuals from the researcher’s accessible network. This was followed by snowball sampling, through which additional participants were recruited via referrals from the initial cohort. Eighteen participants were initially enrolled; however, three withdrew during the course of the study, and interviews were ultimately conducted with fifteen. Of these, data from thirteen participants (eight women and five men) were included in the final analysis, selected for the completeness and relevance of their interview responses. To ensure ethical compliance, the study received approval from Institutional Review Board of [Blinded for Review] (No. 2304/003–006). Interviews lasted between 60 and 90 minutes on average, with some participants interviewed up to three times as needed. Table 1 presents the general characteristics of the participants. Table 1 General characteristics of research participants Code Status Major (Field) Gender Age group Total research experience S01 Senior Researcher Agricultural Life Sciences (Plant Immunology) Female 40s 10 years S02 Senior Researcher Agricultural Life Sciences (Horticultural Science) Female 30s 15 years S03 Researcher Life Sciences (Genetic Engineering) Male 30s 12 years S04 Researcher Computer Engineering, Medicine (Immunomicrobiology) Female 30s 10 years S05 Researcher Agricultural Life Sciences (Horticultural Crop Breeding) Male 30s 12 years S09 Researcher Life Sciences (Microbiology) Female 30s 15 years S11 Researcher Chemistry (Organic Chemistry) Male 30s 10 years PS01 PhD Student Life Sciences (Molecular Cell Biology) Male 20s 5 years PS02 PhD Student Physical Chemistry (Materials Science & Engineering) Female 30s 3 years PS03 PhD Student Medicine (Immunology) Female 20s 5 years PS04 PhD Student Medicine (Immunology) Female 20s 5 years PS05 PhD Student Life Sciences (Molecular Cell Biology) Female 20s 4 years PS06 PhD Student Mathematics (Applied Mathematics) Male 20s 8 years 3.3 Interview Structure The study employed a three-phase semi-structured interview protocol. Interview questions were iteratively refined through consultation with a qualitative research expert, and prior training was conducted on techniques for addressing sensitive topics and effective interviewing practices. During the introduction and preparation phase, the researcher and participants engaged in brief ice-breaking conversations, sharing their laboratory research experiences to build trust and rapport. Participants were then asked to provide background information, including their academic discipline and research history, and to recall three particularly memorable instances of collaboration from recent years. This approach was designed to facilitate participants’ recollection of concrete collaborative episodes. Additionally, a role-selection item was included to help participants reflect on their typical involvement in collaborative contexts and to encourage open, natural discussion of potentially weighty experiences. In the first phase, participants described the “most difficult collaboration experience” among the episodes they had previously recalled. To support clear reflection on interpersonal dynamics, they constructed a relationship map showing the roles and connections among those involved. This visual tool clarified participants’ accounts, especially in collaborations involving disciplinary, hierarchical, and gender diversity. Participants used anonymized identifiers such as “PhD1,” “Professor2,” or “Researcher3” to refer to specific individuals. Follow-up questions examined the collaboration’s topic, role distribution, and the nature of tensions or difficulties that arose. The relationship map remained open to revision during the interview and served as a prompt for detailed accounts of interactions and emotions linked to specific individuals. After this exploration, participants responded to a creative prompt: “If you had access to one superpower during that collaboration, what ability would have helped you?” This question encouraged participants to synthesize their experience in a personal and focused way, often surfacing insights or emotions not previously articulated. It contributed to a clearer understanding of the emotional and experiential dimensions of collaboration. In the second phase, participants reflected on their “most positive collaboration experience” using the same method. Using a relationship map, they described member roles, the course of collaboration, and factors that contributed to its success. The phase ended with the question, “If you had to describe collaboration in a single word, what would it be?” This prompt invited participants to state their view and emotional stance toward collaboration. It sometimes led to new episodes and clarified the context of earlier cases. These accounts served as contrasts to the difficult experiences and supported the analysis. 3.4 Data analysis We coded participants’ utterances using a coding scheme developed to systematically analyze structural causes of conflict in collaborative processes(Table 2 ). Throughout the analysis, we kept reflective memos to document interpretive decisions and analytical judgments. These memos functioned as a key tool for adjusting coding procedures, refining research questions, and facilitating researcher discussions in identifying patterns and themes. The systematic documentation of reflective memos enhanced the confirmability and credibility of the findings (Anney, 2014 ). Two researchers independently coded all data. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion, and repeated review led to analytic consensus, supporting the overall validity and rigor of the analysis. Not all participant utterances were directly related to collaboration. Statements with no clear connection to collaborative contexts were excluded from coding. For instance, remarks like “The experiment was very difficult. The conditions in SPF…” described physical or technical challenges but lacked relevance to collaborative dynamics such as conflict or role allocation. These utterances were not included in the main analysis but were documented separately as memos, considering their potential use in discussing how research environments indirectly affect collaboration. This memoing served as a reference for identifying contextual influences on collaborative conflict. Some utterances were excluded from coding due to a lack of objective evidence. For instance, when participants speculated about the roles or hierarchical structure of other teams based on personal experience, such statements were not included in the analysis, as they did not reflect verifiable information about those teams. This decision was made to ensure clarity in identifying conflict causes, as defined in the coding scheme. However, when a participant’s subjective perception offered insight into the research context, the utterance was documented as a memo or classified as an interpretive code for supplementary analysis. For example, the statement “I remember they just did what the professor told them to do” was based on the participant’s memory of their master’s program and inferred the roles of others. While lacking objective grounding, it contributed to exploring subjective understandings of role dynamics. This approach maintained analytical objectivity while capturing the interpretive significance of participant perspectives. To enhance the validity of qualitative analysis and ensure interpretive coherence, we employed multiple verification strategies. In addition to repeated discussions among the research team, member checking was conducted to confirm the appropriateness of utterance interpretation. Weekly data meetings supported ongoing dialogue about coding criteria and analytic direction (Anney, 2014 ). We also engaged in peer debriefing with colleagues and academic experts familiar with qualitative methods. This allowed for critical reflection on our interpretations and the integration of alternative perspectives. Guba ( 1981 ) describes peer debriefing as a procedure that enables researchers to examine their insights and subject them to rigorous questioning, while Bitsch ( 2005 ) highlights the importance of incorporating peer perspectives into the development of research conclusions. Presenting our findings at academic conferences and departmental seminars further enabled critical feedback from peers with varied disciplinary backgrounds. These practices helped mitigate interpretive bias and reinforced the transparency and credibility of the analysis. Table 2 Coding framework integrating structural conflict theory and conflict management model Code Description Sample quotes Structural Causes Role-related issues Ambiguity, overlap, or mismatch of expected roles; problems caused by a lack of clear role definition “It wasn’t like, ‘You do this and that’—there was no assignment, and PhD student 4 just did everything on their own.” Resource issues Imbalance in research personnel, funding, equipment, space, or data analysis skills “The only lab with unrestricted BL3 access was the PI’s own lab.” Power issues Unequal distribution of decision-making authority, abuse of power, hierarchical barriers, or unequal representation of opinions “Once the professor thinks something ‘might be the case,’ he rarely changes his mind.” Goal incongruence Lack of opportunity to share goals, or differences in perception of the research objective’s value “In this project, we were pursuing different goals.” Communication issues Inadequate information sharing, indirect communication, distorted messages, lack of interaction, or inefficient channels “PhD 1 and 2 didn’t talk to each other. Since they never said what experiments they were doing or what they were observing, no one really knew what the other was working on.” Conflict Handling Styles Competing Prioritizing one’s own goals while dismissing or forcing the other’s needs “I said, ‘There’s no time—just send it by 4 PM no matter what.’” Accommodating Yielding one’s position to prioritize the other’s needs “Once I took it on, I felt responsible and just ended up doing it all myself.” Compromising Both sides making concessions to find a middle ground “We tried to find a compromise point and built the data around that.” Collaborating Jointly seeking a solution that maximizes mutual benefit “We adjusted things so that both of us could be satisfied.” Avoiding Withdrawing from or ignoring the conflict situation “I think I just tried to ignore it.” 4. Finding This study investigates conflicts experienced by researchers during collaboration in university STEM laboratories and aims to empirically examine their structural causes and resolution patterns. The findings are presented under two main themes. First, the analysis reveals that collaboration-related conflicts are rooted in structural conditions. These conditions were categorized into five types: goal incongruence; resource constraints (including shortages of personnel, administrative burdens, staff turnover, and limitations in material or technical resources); role ambiguity; hierarchical and power asymmetries; and communication breakdowns. The study examines how these factors operate within the organizational and environmental contexts of STEM labs to give rise to conflict. Second, the analysis focuses on the conflict management strategies employed by researchers. These included accommodating, avoiding, compromising, and competing. Such responses were shaped by the specific situational dynamics of the lab, including power relations, individual positionality, and local research environments. 4.1 Structural Mechanisms and Types of Collaboration Conflict in University STEM Laboratories 4.1.1 Goal Incongruence in Collaborative Processes Collaboration in university STEM laboratories is not always initiated through formal proposals or scholarly dialogue. As reflected in statements such as, “Our professor met another professor through a sports club and proposed working together” (S11), and “It was just a personal connection—we were planning to write a paper together…” (PS01), collaborations often emerge through informal faculty networks. Moreover, statements like, “Regional universities don’t receive much funding... honestly, it’s about securing research money” (S09), “It was really just to get the money” (PS03), and “They offered funding and said they’d share the research grant if we worked together” (PS03) highlight how the pursuit of research funding can act as a central motivation. Because research assignments are frequently determined by faculty rather than initiated by the researchers themselves, such arrangements can create a context in which goal incongruence arises for those carrying out the work. The following case (PS01) illustrates how this misalignment played out in practice. “There was conflict with the collaborating team. This was not a collaboration based on a shared commitment to the project’s goals, but rather one initiated at the request of our PI. It was built on personal connections, with the purpose of co-authoring a paper, and offered no financial compensation. The relationship between teams felt more like, ‘We’ll include your name if you agree to work with us.’ Our team was focused on therapeutic development, while the collaborating team was involved on the condition of receiving first authorship. In practice, however, only the professor showed genuine interest in the project, while the students appeared largely disengaged.” (PS01) PS01 highlighted that the collaboration was not grounded in a shared research goal but was initiated unilaterally, driven by one team’s needs and informal connections. The two teams pursued divergent objectives, and discrepancies in commitment were evident even within the collaborating team. Although framed as a collaboration, the arrangement was largely transactional, lacking mutual understanding. The low engagement of student researchers within the collaborating team became a key point of tension. “They had their own experiments to run and didn’t seem particularly interested in our project. Our team was in need and reached out for collaboration, but their existing research commitments made it difficult for them to contribute. This may explain their delays or their expressed difficulty in participating due to scheduling conflicts. Ultimately, they were unable to engage actively in our research because their focus remained on their own experiments.” (PS01) This statement illustrates how differing perceptions of goals and priorities between collaborating teams can manifest as conflict during the research process. The team approached for collaboration prioritized their own experimental timeline and perceived the external project as secondary. As a result, friction emerged during the implementation phase, marked by unmet commitments and limited engagement. PS06 and PS03 likewise described comparable situations: “The collaborating lab was large and ran multiple experiments, so they didn’t prioritize our project, and data delivery was often delayed.” (PS06) “Although this was technically our largest collaboration, it wasn’t the main project for either me or my junior colleague, so we couldn’t fully commit to it.” (PS03) In university research settings, it is common for researchers to manage multiple projects concurrently rather than dedicating themselves to a single topic. As a result, collaborative research is often treated as a lower priority. Such goal misalignment frequently leads to conflicting priorities, contributing to delays in collaboration and interpersonal tensions among researchers. S02 described a case in which team members shared common goals and emphasized that goal alignment was critical to the success of the collaboration. “To complete a project efficiently, it is crucial that everyone shares a similar understanding of its importance—when that happens, the work proceeds smoothly, and roles are fulfilled without delay. But if even one person perceives the task as less urgent, progress slows. As I mentioned, the most difficult part of collaboration is when team members hold differing views about the significance of the work, which consistently causes delays.” (S02) In this case, shared goals motivated each team member to carry out their responsibilities effectively, allowing for smooth and timely collaboration. In contrast, when members held differing views on the task’s importance, some postponed their work or engaged only minimally, potentially disrupting the project’s overall progress. 4.1.2 Structural Constraints of Research Resources and Collaboration Conflict Research resources encompass the essential components required to carry out scientific work, including human resources (researchers and technical staff), financial support (funding), physical infrastructure (equipment and space), technical and digital capacity for data collection and analysis, and administrative or institutional support for effective project management (NRC, 2012; OECD, 2015 ). These resources are inherently limited, and their scarcity or unequal distribution can serve as a key source of conflict in collaborative research settings. Human Resource Constraints A recurring issue across laboratories was a critical shortage of personnel available to carry out research tasks. This was particularly evident in large-scale projects where substantial workloads were concentrated among a small number of individuals. For example, participants noted, “There weren’t that many research staff, so each person had to handle the equivalent of 100 units of work” (PS03), “Manpower was limited, so it was physically exhausting” (PS01), “Only two graduate students were doing the practical work” (PS04), “I was doing all the experiments and analysis alone” (S04), and “Although many people were listed on the project, only Master’s student 2 actually performed the experiments” (PS09). These statements highlight the pervasive problem of understaffing in research collaborations. Under staffing constraints, researchers are often burdened with administrative responsibilities in addition to their core research duties, including grant applications, budgeting, and laboratory management. These forms of labor are frequently treated as distinct from scientific activity and are often rendered invisible despite their critical role. As Fujimura ( 1987 ) argues, such administrative work constitutes a central form of articulation work—aligning organizational, material, and temporal elements to make scientific problems “do-able” in practice. The problem arises when such invisible and repetitive administrative tasks are concentrated on specific researchers or carried out without clear role allocation, potentially leading to conflict in collaborative settings. When researchers lack sufficient time for scientific work and administrative overload results in role imbalances, these conditions can become structural barriers to effective collaboration. In university STEM laboratories, students and researchers were frequently tasked with administrative responsibilities beyond their primary research duties, such as grant applications, budgeting, and lab management. Even when administrative personnel were present, limited capacity often led to the redistribution of these tasks back onto researchers. This tendency was particularly evident in labs managing multiple projects, where graduate students and postdoctoral researchers routinely took on administrative work in addition to conducting experiments and writing manuscripts. The case of PS02 vividly illustrates this issue: The administrative staff was supposed to upload the project proposal, but she had no idea how to do it. She didn’t know how to calculate the research budget and said Excel was too difficult. It was incredibly stressful—I ended up doing everything myself, from uploading the application to managing all administrative and financial processes. She said she was on vacation. The deadline was that same week, and I found out on Tuesday—with only three days left. What could I possibly do? “As a result, I couldn’t conduct any research. I lost four to five months dealing solely with administrative work for this project.” (PS02) This case illustrates how the inadequacy of administrative support can place disproportionate burdens on individual researchers, disrupting the continuity and efficiency of research. Occurring during a period that coincided with coursework and final exams, the incident led to emotional exhaustion, highlighting the affective dimension of conflict in collaborative settings. Another human resource issue that undermined collaborative continuity was the cyclical turnover of personnel. Given the structure of university laboratories, master's students typically graduate and leave within two years, resulting in frequent personnel changes during long-term projects. This turnover disrupted experimental continuity, and when handovers were incomplete, it led to reduced reproducibility and inefficiencies such as redundant work. S03 and S09 highlighted the consequences of frequent personnel turnover in long-term projects: “I began this project working with a master's student, but after that person graduated, others came and went. The project extended over a long period, and the collaborators kept changing.” (S03) “The problem is this. I started the project as an undergraduate and worked on it through the first and second years. But when the senior members left, there was little handover. Reproducibility is key in research, but we couldn't replicate results consistently—and that became a significant issue.” (S09) These accounts underscore that the generation and interpretation of experimental data are not purely technical tasks, but social and organizational practices that demand contextual understanding and sustained engagement. Personnel turnover and role discontinuity, therefore, can result in collaborative breakdowns and should be understood not as administrative oversights but as structural flaws inherent in the organization of research work. Funding Constraints Research in university STEM laboratories demands substantial financial resources, and the high cost of experimental materials means that funding shortages can directly disrupt lab operations. In underfunded labs, pressures to maximize resource efficiency are high, affecting research practices, interpersonal dynamics, and the allocation of experimental opportunities. In research environments with ample funding, material losses or researcher errors during experiments are generally met with tolerance. However, in settings with limited resources, the outcome of an experiment is closely linked to the continuity of funding, resulting in a lower tolerance for failure. These contrasting conditions shape how experimental failure is interpreted and managed, ultimately influencing the formation of a laboratory’s research culture. S01 reflected on the contrast between their doctoral lab and their current environment, highlighting how funding conditions shape research culture: “Back then, we lacked funding. One PhD student and one postdoc worked for three years on a single grant. We made everything ourselves, and it was rare to purchase materials. Under those conditions, mistakes felt much more consequential. In my current lab, where funding is sufficient, mistakes are generally accepted as part of the learning process.” (S01) This account demonstrates how the interpretation of experimental failure is shaped by resource conditions. In well-funded environments, the ability to repeat experiments fosters a culture that treats mistakes as part of learning. In contrast, in resource-limited settings, errors often translate directly into financial losses, becoming a source of tension and conflict among team members. S01 further emphasized that funding conditions influence researchers’ psychological orientation, behavioral patterns, and modes of adaptation, offering the following analogy. “It’s like when someone grows up in a wealthy household and suddenly moves to a poor one—they really struggle. One of the graduate students from our lab went to the U.S. for an internship-like position and found it extremely difficult for a year and a half. She had to get the professor’s approval for every single purchase. That must have been incredibly frustrating. But for me, because I used to make everything from scratch, the current environment feels very comfortable.” (S01) This account highlights how funding shortages can create psychological barriers to resource use among team members, while simultaneously reinforcing hierarchical, professor-centered decision-making structures. S04 similarly highlighted how the high cost of experimental materials restricted practice opportunities: “Many of the reagents are extremely expensive—some cost over one million won. That’s why our professor discourages practice. A small bottle of reagent can cost 600,000 won, and it’s used up after just two attempts.” (S04) This statement illustrates how resource scarcity can not only limit the frequency of experiments, but also cultivate a culture in which practice itself is discouraged. The reduction in experimental opportunities constrains skill development and can intensify researchers’ fear of failure. By contrast, in laboratories with relatively abundant resources, researchers had greater autonomy to plan and adjust their experiments. S05 reflected on their experience in such an environment as follows. “Our lab never experienced a significant lack of funding. At one point, I had my own project as well, so I could conduct experiments without much pressure. Genome analyses, for example, cost around six million won each time, so the professor was always aware of them. But if an experiment failed, we simply discarded the results—it wasn’t a big deal. Sometimes we even conducted experiments without the professor’s knowledge. Having sufficient funding made that possible. If the results looked promising, we would inform the professor and proceed.” (S05) This account demonstrates that in resource-rich environments, researchers experience reduced psychological pressure around experimental failure and greater autonomy in designing and conducting experiments. Resource availability extends beyond material conditions, functioning as a structural factor that shapes scientific agency, tolerance for failure, and the broader culture of collaboration within the laboratory. Material and Technical Resource Constraints When a specific laboratory holds concentrated access to material and technical resources—such as experimental equipment, advanced analytical tools, or specialized facilities—partner teams are often placed in a position of dependence. This dynamic introduces structural asymmetries into the collaboration and heightens the potential for conflict. PS03 reflected on such conditions, describing challenges in conducting experiments due to exclusive access to high-level equipment (BL3) by one lab. “When conducting our experiments, we needed access to various mouse systems, but borrowing equipment from other teams wasn’t an option. The only lab with unrestricted access to the BL3 facility was the one run by the principal investigator.” (PS03) Restricted access to essential equipment can cause significant delays in experimental timelines and constitutes a structural bottleneck arising from centralized resource allocation. PS02 reported that their research was delayed by nearly a year due to the collaborating team’s lack of analytical equipment, during which they faced growing pressure to deliver results and experienced shifting responsibility for the project’s stagnation. “My responsibility was to synthesize the materials required for the experiment, while another team was in charge of conducting the analysis. After handing over the synthesized materials, we needed to wait for the results and validation before proceeding to the next stage. However, equipment issues on the part of Researcher B caused repeated delays, and the project was ultimately set back by nearly a year. During this period, Professor A continually pressured me with questions like, ‘When will this be finished?’ and ‘When is the paper coming out?’” (PS02) As delays persisted, PS02 described a gradual erosion of trust in the collaborating team, stating, “I started to wonder, do they actually intend to follow through with this?” PS06 similarly described reaching a threshold of patience due to the prolonged delays caused by the collaborating team, and ultimately resorted to alternative measures to move the project forward. “One of the ongoing delays involves a project the other research team has been conducting for four to five years without producing clear results. Given how long it's taken, we couldn't keep waiting indefinitely, so we developed a hypothetical discussion model to generate alternative outcomes.” (PS06) S09 described the structural vulnerability of sequential collaboration, where delays in one team’s workflow stalled the entire project. They expressed feelings of helplessness and difficulty in holding collaborators accountable: “Our microbiology team had to complete its experiments before the molecular team could proceed. But microbiological work takes time—often a year or two. During that period, the molecular team continued receiving funding and salaries while claiming they couldn’t move forward because we hadn’t provided data. When we finally did, they used only their part and passed the final report writing back to us. After this happened repeatedly, I began to question whether this could even be called collaboration.” (S09) Such dependencies and delays are not limited to scheduling concerns; they can also produce emotional distance and psychological unease among collaborators. PS01 reflected on feelings of informal hierarchy and a lack of belonging that emerged when relying on another team’s resources: “Since we had never conducted animal experiments before, we had to learn everything from scratch. I got the sense that the other team didn’t really like that. There’s no hard evidence—it was just my impression—but I did feel a kind of territorial attitude from them.” (PS01) In inter-laboratory collaborations within STEM fields, asymmetries in material and technical resources often lead to delays and operational constraints, which in turn can produce hierarchical dynamics, erode trust, and generate emotional tensions among collaborators. 4.1.3 Role Conflict and the Distribution of Responsibility Among Researchers Role-related issues in collaborative processes serve as a central source of conflict within research teams. This study identifies three primary types of role conflict in STEM laboratories: (1) the absence of clear role allocation; (2) conflicts resulting from overlapping roles and hierarchical norms; and (3) tensions arising from a mismatch between expected and actual responsibilities, particularly under performance-driven cultures. Absence of Role Allocation In instances where roles were not clearly defined, collaboration often collapsed into individualized labor. PS05 pointed out a case in which, due to the absence of role clarification, one researcher (PhD4) was left to manage all of the core tasks alone. “It felt like everyone was just doing whatever they wanted. There were no clear directives like, ‘You take care of this and that,’ and no actual division of roles. In the end, PhD4 handled everything alone.” (PS05) In small-scale laboratories with limited personnel, the lack of clear role boundaries often complicates the evaluation of individual contributions. As PS04 explained: “With so few people, it was difficult to divide up roles… (omitted) When only two people are doing the actual work, the lines of responsibility become very blurred. Even though both of us worked hard, when it came time to decide whose name would go first on the paper, we had to determine who had contributed more.” (PS04) This statement demonstrated that the absence of clearly defined or recorded roles in collaborative environments often led to disputes over authorship and contribution. In small teams operating with joint task execution, unclear boundaries of responsibility frequently necessitated post hoc justification of individual contributions. Conflict Arising from Role Overlap and Hierarchical Culture Role overlap often exacerbated interpersonal tensions when entangled with Korea’s seniority-based organizational culture. In some cases, the absence of clearly designated leadership in research projects enabled seniority-based hierarchies to shape the dynamics of collaboration and decision-making. “Our professor assigned me to lead the project and said, ‘I’ll bring in someone who can assist you.’ But the person he brought in was significantly more senior than I was, and that led to considerable conflict over our respective roles.” (S02) This case demonstrates how the absence of clearly established leadership, when intersecting with seniority-based hierarchies, can destabilize role expectations and create tension over authority. While formal responsibility was assigned to a junior researcher, the presence of a more senior colleague blurred the locus of leadership and gave rise to conflicts over control and legitimacy. “The main issue, as I mentioned, was that I had been assigned to lead the project, but I was a newly minted postdoc at the time. The colleague brought in to assist had completed their PhD seven or eight years earlier and was a highly experienced senior postdoc. From their perspective, my leadership may not have seemed entirely credible, and they often asserted their views strongly. When their input was not adopted, they expressed significant dissatisfaction, which led to frequent clashes.” (S02) This case illustrates how formal leadership can be destabilized when it clashes with informal hierarchies grounded in seniority and experience. The junior researcher’s authority was repeatedly questioned by the more senior colleague, resulting in tension over decision-making processes and emotional strain rooted in contested legitimacy. Conflict Arising from Mismatches Between Expected and Actual Roles Within Performance-Oriented Research Cultures Mismatches between researchers’ anticipated and actual roles often triggered conflict within the performance-driven culture of university STEM laboratories. In these environments, scholarly output—especially publications—functions as a key measure of achievement, and for postdoctoral researchers, such metrics are critical to career advancement. When administrative tasks unrelated to direct research outcomes are informally delegated, affected researchers may face disproportionate workloads and psychological burnout. Upon returning from maternity leave, S01 was tasked with managing the launch and operations of a research center, in addition to her experimental work. She reflected on the strain of balancing both roles in the absence of any formal recognition: “Our professor told me, ‘Don’t stay too busy with experiments—you’ve just had a baby. Help with the center operations instead.’ But I knew that stepping away from experiments wouldn’t be compensated in any way. As a postdoc, your performance is measured by publications... and I had to do both. It felt like I was being torn apart.” (S01) This case demonstrates how the informal delegation of administrative responsibilities—often unlinked to formal performance metrics—can result in role conflict and emotional fatigue. When postdoctoral researchers are pulled away from their core research activities, the disjunction between performance evaluation systems and actual task distribution becomes evident, exposing the structural inequities embedded in role definitions within collaborative research settings. S01 also recounted a case in which a researcher voiced frustration at being assigned tasks unrelated to their core research role: “PhD1 said, ‘Why are you assigning this to me? I came here to do research—not to deal with these kinds of things.’” (S01) Such dissatisfaction was amplified when researchers perceived a lack of recognition for their expertise or were compelled to perform tasks outside their anticipated roles. Discrepancies between expected and actual responsibilities diminished motivation and undermined both research productivity and the formation of trust within collaborative teams. In contrast, collaboration proceeded more smoothly when roles were clearly defined and voluntarily assumed in the early stages of a project. PS06 described a case in which postdoctoral researchers self-selected data analysis tasks, followed by sustained inter-lab discussions: “When the data arrived, they asked, ‘Who would like to take this on?’ The postdocs raised their hands—‘I’ll give it a try’—and from there, all the labs continued to engage in joint discussions.” (PS06) This example illustrates how early-stage role clarity combined with voluntary task selection and collective discussion can improve both collaboration efficiency and individual accountability. 4.1.4 Hierarchy and Power in STEM Lab Collaboration In STEM laboratories, hierarchical structures are not only common but often seen as necessary. Roles and responsibilities are typically stratified according to academic status—professors, postdoctoral researchers, doctoral students, and master’s students—within an apprenticeship-based system. This model facilitates the transfer of knowledge and skills from senior to junior researchers, contributing to professional development, but it may also restrict the autonomy and agency of junior members. Hierarchy is often justified by the principal investigator’s responsibility for project direction and resource acquisition, serving as a mechanism for distributing tasks and ensuring decision-making efficiency. However, conflict may arise when hierarchical power is exercised in disproportionate or unacknowledged ways within collaborative settings. \"It wasn’t an equal relationship. I began collaborating in my first semester of the master’s program, just as I was starting to adjust, but the PhD student felt too intimidating for me to express any opinions. The lab had a mentor-apprentice system, so it was difficult to speak freely, and I lacked knowledge, making it hard to present any opinions or ideas. Usually, the PhD student and the professor would decide on the direction through discussion, and I would receive instructions on the experiments to perform, ending up in a role similar to a technician.\" (PS01) \"PhD student 1 tends to be quite stubborn and doesn’t really listen when I suggest an idea. I think it’s because I’m seen as a junior or still just a student. But PhD student 2 is very open. When I present an idea, they say, 'That could be possible,' and we have some discussion. So, in that sense, there was more interaction.\" (PS05) This case illustrates a structural problem in STEM laboratories, where the intersection of the apprenticeship model and hierarchical organization constrains the actual voice and contributions of junior researchers within formal collaborations. Power is legitimized not only through status but also through internalized psychological intimidation and self-censorship. When power derived from hierarchy functioned as a unilateral command structure, it often led to role overload, inequitable task distribution, and unrecognized contributions, which in turn triggered conflict. “PhD student 1 assigned me to complete the review paper. I already knew from prior experience that writing reviews involved tedious tasks… I was aware that I needed to write it for research output, but I didn’t want to. So I tried to express this indirectly, but he said, ‘If you don’t want to write, just say so. But output? It’s better to have something. And once you’re in the real world, you’ll face more than what you're dealing with here.’ That made it difficult to refuse, so I just agreed.” (PS02) The PhD researcher’s emphasis on output was accompanied by subtle social pressure rather than acceptance of refusal. As a result, the junior researcher’s autonomy was constrained, and the lab’s hierarchical structure directly shaped task allocation and psychological burden. As exemplified by PS02, cases in which hierarchical power was exercised through language—hierarchy-based verbal domination—appeared frequently. PS02 described how academic prestige and performance-driven evaluation criteria were linguistically imposed on lab members. He recalled a postdoctoral researcher saying, “Things always work out if you're from S University. Do you think it was easy for someone from a regional university to get this far?” Such remarks, combined with statements like “You need 20 papers to be considered equal to someone from S University,” functioned as tools to rank members by institutional background and research output, induce feelings of inferiority, and legitimize a burdensome and inescapable hierarchy. This form of verbal coercion extended beyond discomfort, contributing to actual cases of member withdrawal. “When students didn’t listen, she said things like, ‘Are you ignoring me on purpose?’ and went to the professor saying, ‘Students at this university have no manners,’ and ‘They just want to choose who they work with.’” (S01) “‘You’re much younger and don’t know anything yet. I have to teach you, so you need to do as I say’—that was the baseline.” (S02) “There was an air of, ‘I’ve been in this field for 15 years.’” (S04) These statements illustrate how superiors invoked language to assert authority, constrain the voice and autonomy of junior members, and reinforce hierarchical order. Such verbal domination is not merely a matter of communication, but a mechanism through which power is performed and reproduced in everyday interactions. “One PhD student gathered all the combined master’s-PhD program students from labs a, b, c, and d for a meeting. Without the professors. He tried to use his position—being someone who had already completed his PhD—to kind of do something on his own. He didn’t consult with the professors.” (PS03) Hierarchy-based verbal domination operates not only through the content of speech but also as a form of organizational power enacted through summoning, directing, and decision-making. In the cited case, the PhD student went beyond language use to mobilize organizational actions, attempting to bypass or substitute formal procedures and authority. This illustrates that the hierarchical structure of STEM laboratories is not limited to vertical role division but is materially enacted and reproduced through everyday language and behavior. In contrast, there were also cases where collaboration occurred in a horizontal manner despite the presence of formal hierarchies. Recalling a project with an external organization during the PhD program, PS01 described a qualitatively different experience from the top-down, task-oriented collaboration of an apprenticeship-based lab: “I would say that the collaboration was carried out on an equal footing. Our company’s CEO served as the overall project lead, and we were more on the client side. It was technically a form of collaboration, but we were in charge of the project and took the lead in allocating roles. In that sense, unlike the apprenticeship-based lab I experienced during my master’s, this was a project where each person fulfilled their role equally and collaboratively.” (PS01) This account reflects a collaborative structure in which roles and responsibilities were clearly delineated and carried out through mutual respect and autonomy, without unilateral direction or authoritative control. While a project lead existed, participants exercised agency in decision-making and role distribution, performing function-based tasks. This case illustrates that hierarchical distinctions do not necessarily translate into power but can result in collaborative efficiency and mutual respect. The speaker highlights, through contrast with a prior apprenticeship-based setting, that their role was not limited to passive execution but involved active leadership in managing the project. Collaborative relationships grounded in mutual respect and equality were also found in external partnerships. S02 described how an external professor, despite holding a higher formal position and greater career experience, made a conscious effort to avoid asserting authority and consistently respected the expertise of those involved: “In fact, even when this external professor asked me to run an experiment, he said things like, ‘I’ve never done experiments myself, so I’ll just trust your timeline. Just tell me what you want to do.’ He really tried not to act unilaterally.” (S02) This case shows that the existence of hierarchy and authority does not inevitably lead to dominant linguistic practices. The senior member, while aware of their formal position, actively transformed their authority into communication grounded in autonomy and trust. As S02 stated, the professor “made an effort not to act unilaterally,” indicating a conscious practice of restraint to prevent their authority from turning into dominance. This stands in contrast to the top-down instructions, suppressed voice, and hierarchy-based discourse commonly observed in apprenticeship-oriented lab structures. It highlights how collaborative relationships among researchers can be restructured horizontally through intentional relational attitudes and language use. 4.1.5 Communication Issues In university STEM laboratories, modes and pathways of communication emerged as structural sources of conflict in collaborative processes. Core issues included differences in disciplinary backgrounds, spatial and organizational separation, hierarchical communication structures, and the instability of informal communication channels. In STEM laboratories, differences in disciplinary backgrounds and research approaches among researchers often gave rise to conflict in scientific decision-making. When researchers from distinct fields applied divergent interpretations and evaluative criteria to the same phenomenon, disagreements emerged over how to proceed with research tasks. PS01 described ongoing tensions in collaboration stemming from disciplinary differences between herself, trained in biology, and a chemistry professor. Similarly, S05 recounted recurring conflicts with her advisor, whose experimental orientation often clashed with her own genomic analysis approach. “Biologically, it is natural for cellular results to vary due to environmental influences. But in chemistry, reproducibility is key—if a reacts with b, c should always result. My data showed high variability, which was difficult for the chemist to accept. I had to gather additional data and conduct extensive background research to explain it. Even then, the data were not understood, and discussions occasionally escalated.” (PS01) “I don’t think the professor had any experience in genome analysis. While we based our work on standards from other crops, he approached the data experimentally. A 500Mb discrepancy in genome sequences is quite common genomically, but from an experimental viewpoint, it seemed implausible. Many meetings ended in frustration and anger.” (S05) Both participants described feeling that their data were not trusted—PS01 stating, “I felt like my data was being dismissed,” and S05 noting, “The professor doesn’t really trust my data.” These instances reflect more than interpretive disagreement; they illustrate how conflicts can threaten researchers’ sense of credibility and scholarly identity. Differences in disciplinary backgrounds also created challenges in interpreting data, giving feedback, and preparing experimental materials. “When collaborating with the molecular team, the microbiology team had little understanding of molecular biology, and vice versa. While mutual respect existed, we often lacked the time to study each other’s fields, so results were shared without being fully understood.” (S09) “Because the hospital staff were unfamiliar with my field, they had limited understanding of sample handling and research application. The sample information files were also poorly formatted, making interpretation difficult. These gaps in communication caused practical challenges.” (PS04) These examples highlight how, in multidisciplinary STEM environments, collaboration quality and working relationships can deteriorate when there is insufficient mutual understanding or effort to share interpretive frameworks across fields. In contrast, when collaborators had a strong understanding of each other’s disciplinary backgrounds, research tended to proceed more smoothly, with notable gains in efficiency and outcome quality. PS06, a mathematics major, shared a positive experience working with a PhD-level researcher trained in both mathematics and life sciences: “This PhD researcher, with a background in life sciences and mathematics, knew exactly what kind of data was needed for the experiments. They focused on extracting that data, which enabled us to write the paper quickly. The project progressed very efficiently.” (PS06) With insight into both experimental design and the structure of scientific writing, the researcher was able to anticipate data requirements and respond accordingly. PS06’s remarks—“they focused on the necessary data” and “we were able to write the paper quickly”—underscore how disciplinary understanding enhanced not only communication but also research productivity. The hierarchical structure of university STEM laboratories also shaped communication in a top-down manner, and when this structure led to unilateral decision-making, it often caused conflict. “The professor preferred a top-down style of communication—such as directing who should help whom. But I was under pressure to identify genes quickly and prepare for graduation, so I couldn’t afford to wait for such procedures. For example, if I needed help from someone in another lab, I first had to report it and wait for the professor’s approval. There was a vertical structure like that in the lab. Eventually, I tried to resolve things by meeting people informally, but even that felt burdensome.” (S05) S05 noted that vertical communication protocols, shaped by hierarchical lab structures, delayed problem-solving that could have otherwise been addressed more efficiently, resulting in significant frustration. Communication breakdowns also emerged as a structural barrier to effective collaboration. In external partnerships, real-time communication was hindered not only by physical distance but also by differences in expertise and workload. PS04 remarked, “Email responses were very delayed, and we haven’t had a single meeting,” pointing to how the absence of timely consultation created direct challenges in sample use and data organization. Within the lab, limited communication about experiment progress or task distribution also led to confusion and delays. As PS05 explained, “We didn’t really know what each other was doing until the professor asked, and then we’d briefly talk about it,” indicating that the absence of consistent communication undermined both the continuity of collaboration and researchers’ sense of ownership. These cases suggest that without structurally supported communication—internally and externally—collaborative work risks becoming little more than a nominal division of labor. Physical separation among researchers limited interpersonal interaction and contributed to misunderstandings or distrust concerning individual contributions. S02 noted that PhD and master’s students worked on the upper floor while others worked on the first, which reduced opportunities for communication and made it difficult to assess one another’s engagement. She added that this spatial divide exacerbated communication breakdowns and intensified conflict by obscuring perceptions of contribution. In contrast, sustained practices of feedback and communication within teams that supported collaboration in diverse ways served as counterexamples to these structural problems. S02 described a case in which, rather than simply accepting results from a master's student with limited experimental experience, she engaged in active questioning and review, enhancing data reliability and fostering learning: “When a master’s student brings results, I don’t just say, ‘Okay’ and accept them. I ask, ‘How did you do this? What sample did you use? This part looks a bit odd.’ Through this kind of discussion, we sometimes catch mistakes. Then I might suggest, ‘Try adjusting this part and repeating the experiment.’ They end up learning a lot through that repetition.” (S02) This account highlights collaboration as a dynamic process involving communication, verification, and shared learning, rather than mere task division. Iterative feedback and data review enabled early correction of errors, increasing the credibility of research outcomes. Simultaneously, it supported the junior researcher’s growth and skill development. This case demonstrates that communication can serve not only as a means of coordination, but as a pedagogical process and a site for collaborative learning. S02 further noted that sustained communication and progress monitoring by an external professor contributed to the stability of the collaborative process: “The external professor kept the project from stalling by maintaining regular contact and checking on progress. I think that’s what made the collaboration work well.” (S02) This case illustrates that active coordination and oversight by a lead researcher or supervisor are key to stabilizing project development and fostering communication among team members. When research goals and timelines are clearly communicated, problems can be identified and addressed early, and researchers are more likely to participate proactively. 4.2 Conflict Handling Style in University STEM Lab Collaboration To examine how participants addressed conflicts encountered during the research process, this study applied the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Handling Model (Thomas, 2008 ; Thomas & Kilmann, 1975 ). Conflict episodes were categorized into five handling styles—Competing, Avoiding, Compromising, Collaborating, and Accommodating—along with cases in which no clear style was evident (Not apparent). The coding focused on the specific conflict-handling style actually adopted by the participant in each situation. In some cases, contrasting styles appeared simultaneously—for example, one party adopted a competing stance while the other responded with accommodation. In such instances, coding was based on the participant’s actual response. For instance, if the participant accepted the counterpart’s demand, the episode was coded as Accommodating. The frequency of each conflict-handling style observed among participants is presented in Table 3 (see Supplementary Materials for episode-level coding). According to Table 3 , the most frequently used conflict-handling style was Accommodating, observed in 23 cases (57.5%). This was followed by Avoiding and Compromising, each appearing in 4 cases (10.0%). In contrast, Collaborating was not observed in any instance (0.0%), and Competing was identified in only one case (2.5%). In 8 cases (20.0%), the conflict-handling style was not clearly identifiable and thus was left uncoded. Table 3 Frequencies of conflict-handling style employed by researchers in university STEM laboratories Style Competing Avoding Compromising Collaborating Accommodating Not apparent Frequency 1 4 4 0 23 8 The findings indicate that researchers in university STEM laboratories most frequently adopted the Accommodating style when facing conflict. In the following sections, specific examples will be analyzed to illustrate how each conflict-handling style manifested in practice, and how these responses were shaped by the situational contexts of university STEM research environments. 4.2.1 Choosing the Accommodating Style Between Relational Maintenance and Structural Constraint Participants tended to adopt the accommodating strategy, as maintaining relationships with the principal investigator and senior researchers was essential, and expressing conflict could lead to personal disadvantages. “I did feel like running away. I could have stopped at any time. But I was worried about how it would affect my image. I knew I had worked hard, but I couldn’t stand the thought of being seen as someone who just gave up. So I forced myself to push through and did everything I could.” (PS02) PS02 recognized that their approach to performing research could influence both how they were evaluated within the lab and the trajectory of their future career, prompting them to maintain an accommodating stance. The statement “I feel like the professor trusts me” reflects an awareness that one’s research conduct is subject to evaluation by the principal investigator and other senior members. PS02 considered not only research output but also relational dynamics. Despite being overburdened due to a shortage of personnel in the team, they chose to endure the workload out of a sense of responsibility rather than challenge the situation. Expressions such as “It was a situation where I couldn’t refuse,” “I just pushed through and uploaded everything,” and “I just agreed” exemplify a pattern of accepting conflict rather than addressing it. This stance reveals a broader dynamic in which conflicts within the lab are rarely resolved through formal processes and instead are adjusted by individual researchers absorbing the burden themselves. Participants’ accommodating responses were often shaped by the performance-driven nature of the lab environment. Conflicts were frequently managed by suppressing emotions and prioritizing project completion. “The most important thing was to bring the project to a successful close, so I didn’t want to escalate the conflict with this person. In the end… from the outside, it probably looked like there wasn’t a serious issue. I did try hard not to let it surface, though there were ongoing minor tensions.” (S02) This account illustrates a tendency to minimize and internalize conflict for the sake of maintaining project momentum. It reflects a broader lab culture in which individuals silently absorb tensions arising from power imbalances and ambiguous roles. While accommodation appears to function as a primary conflict handling strategy, it often fails to resolve underlying issues and results in emotional strain and psychological fatigue among researchers. 4.2.2 Conflict Avoidance in the Context of Relational Fatigue and Structural Dysfunction Avoidance strategies were often employed as a way to circumvent direct confrontation. Researchers tended to ignore or sidestep conflict. S11, who had experienced conflict with a colleague due to ambiguous role definitions, witnessed the colleague taking credit for work they had not done but refrained from raising the issue. “Later on, I caught them, and they just laughed awkwardly and said they had written their name down as if they had done it. But at that point, our relationship had already deteriorated so much that I didn’t say anything further.” (S11) In this instance, S11 chose not to escalate the situation further, opting instead to tolerate the issue within the context of a strained relationship. This reflects how relational fatigue can contribute to the adoption of avoidance. “I think I tried to ignore it. Just the fact that someone was behaving like that was so stressful that I didn’t want to respond. I told myself it was enough that others knew what was happening on the surface, and that I could take pride in the effort I put in. So I endured it. But looking back, I don’t think that was the right thing to do.” (PS04) Both S11 and PS04 adopted avoidance strategies to reduce the emotional burden and personal stress they were experiencing. Even in situations where research projects were disrupted or proper transitions failed to occur due to staffing shortages, researchers often avoided addressing the issues directly, opting instead to leave the lab. “This just gets passed down. I wasn’t happy either, so when they called, I didn’t answer. They probably wanted to ask where the report was, and I just said, ‘It’s all filed there.’ I did the handover and left.” (S09) This example shows a researcher who, despite recognizing structural problems within the lab, chose not to address them but instead distanced themselves after leaving. The recurrence of unresolved conflicts reflects deeper structural dysfunctions within the research environment and reveals why researchers are often driven to adopt avoidance as a coping strategy. 4.2.3 Competition and Compromise in Collaborative Tensions “I got upset with another staff member. I was nearly in tears, saying, ‘Why is no one helping me?’ I explained that something really urgent had to be done this week, and that I was overwhelmed because I had received so many documents, only to have to start over from scratch. I asked why it was so difficult to just send one official letter. Eventually, they did send it.” (PS02) This example reflects the characteristics of a competitive approach to conflict handling. Although PS02, a doctoral student, typically exhibited an accommodating stance in the hierarchical setting of the STEM lab, they displayed a different response when confronted with an urgent, non-negotiable task. In an interaction with someone outside the lab’s formal power structure and without a direct stake in the task, PS02 asserted their needs, using emotional expression and strong demands to achieve the desired outcome. Researchers also adopted compromise as a strategy for managing conflicts within the lab. This approach, which involved adjusting mutual interests to mitigate tensions and sustain collaboration, was observed in situations such as coordinating equipment usage, negotiating the allocation of research funds, and reconciling different approaches to data interpretation. For instance, PS01 faced conflict over data interpretation due to disciplinary differences and employed a strategy of collecting additional data to persuade the other party. “They weren’t convinced, so I increased the sample size. After doing so, I presented the results using both the mean and the minimum values. When I showed the minimum, it aligned to some extent with the previous results, and that allowed me to persuade them.” (PS01) In this case, the researcher sought compromise by navigating between the counterpart’s expectations and their own position. Although direct resolution of the disagreement was difficult, the researcher facilitated agreement by supplementing the analysis with additional data. PS02 sought to resolve the conflict by consulting directly with their principal investigator. “I went to the professor and said, ‘I’m struggling too, and honestly, I’m not obligated to do this work. But despite the disorganized state of lab administration, I pushed through and secured the research grant.’ The professor acknowledged my efforts, noting that it’s common for graduate students to be responsible for both proposal writing and administrative tasks. He responded by promising to hire additional administrative staff and advised me to step away from administrative duties. He also told me not to concern myself with PhD Student 1’s responsibilities and to assign Researcher 1 as the new point of contact for those tasks.” (PS02) The professor responded by proposing a structural solution, promising to hire new administrative staff to address the underlying issue. They also instructed that PS02 no longer handle the tasks delegated by PhD Student 1, effectively reducing their workload. PS02 engaged in direct communication with the professor, articulating their concerns and difficulties, to which the professor responded with understanding and concrete measures. As both parties actively participated in the resolution process and adopted a mutually receptive stance, this case exemplifies conflict resolution through compromise. What stands out in this case is that the conflict was resolved through a hierarchical dynamic between the advisor and the student. As a graduate student, PS02 was inevitably subject to the professor’s academic authority and supervisory control within the STEM lab. Thus, their attempt to resolve the issue through consultation with the professor can be seen not only as a collaborative gesture but also as a strategic move leveraging the professor’s position of authority. In coding and analyzing conflict resolution strategies, we found that hierarchical authority often played a central role when conflicts emerged in lab settings. This reliance on faculty authority in conflict resolution will be discussed further in the discussion section. 5. Discussion Collaboration is widely recognized as a central mechanism for fostering productivity and innovation in contemporary scientific research (Bennett & Gadlin, 2012 ; Bozeman & Boardman, 2014 ). In university STEM laboratories, where research is often multidisciplinary and highly specialized, collaboration constitutes an indispensable mode of scientific practice. Yet collaboration is not merely a cooperative endeavor oriented toward shared goals; it is a complex arena of interaction shaped by a range of organizational and social dynamics (Frodeman et al., 2017 ; Shrum et al., 2007 ). While prior research has primarily focused on research productivity and the structural features of collaborative networks (Cummings & Kiesler, 2005 ; Lee & Bozeman, 2005 ), relatively little attention has been paid to how internal organizational dynamics—such as hierarchies, resource distribution, and role assignment—contextually shape conflicts within collaborative research environments. To address this gap in the literature, this study conducted a qualitative analysis of the structural causes of collaborative conflict and the modes of conflict resolution, drawing on the experiences of researchers working in university STEM laboratories. The analysis reveals that conflicts in collaboration are not simply the result of interpersonal tensions, but are shaped by the interaction of structural conditions and situational contexts. Rather than actively resolving these conflicts, researchers often respond by accommodating or avoiding them, reflecting the constraints embedded in their working environments. 5.1 Reframing Conflict: From Individual Fault to Structural Conditions Collaboration conflicts in STEM research laboratories have traditionally been attributed to individual traits, capabilities, or communication failures (Jehn, 1997 ; Kuhn & Poole, 2000 ). However, more recent scholarship highlights how such interpretations overlook the structural nature of conflict, pointing instead to institutional conditions and power dynamics as central to its formation. In STEM labs characterized by strong hierarchies, conflict is shaped less by individual behavior than by the organization of research practices and underlying structures of authority (Mallinson et al., 2016 ), which in turn exert a significant influence on the quality and sustainability of collaboration. Langley et al. ( 2022 ), examining an interdisciplinary collaboration involving doctoral researchers, identified hierarchical structures of knowledge production and ambiguity in role definition as key structural sources of conflict. Early-career researchers are often positioned not as autonomous peers but as precarious actors subject to external power dynamics and shifting institutional conditions. This highlights why collaborative conflict should not be reduced to interpersonal disagreement alone (Addison et al., 2025 ). Such structural dynamics are consistent with prior findings that elements like information sharing, mutual respect, and strategic alignment within collaborative interactions significantly shape team outcomes (Yang et al., 2025 ). Misalignment of goals within organizations has long been recognized as a major impediment to effective collaboration (DeChurch & Mesmer-Magnus, 2010 ). In STEM research laboratories, research agendas and directions are frequently driven by the principal investigator’s academic network and grant acquisition strategies, placing researchers in a structure that limits their ability to independently initiate or steer research efforts (Knorr-Cetina, 1999 ). Conflict is also evident under material constraints such as limited research funding. In STEM laboratory settings, tensions over the use of experimental materials or equipment can be interpreted through the lens of resource competition (Jehn, 1997 ), particularly as access to funding is closely tied to the feasibility and continuity of experimentation. In such contexts, competitive dynamics may overshadow collaborative intentions (Katz & Martin, 1997 ). Participants in this study reported experiencing disputes over material access and equipment scheduling under funding pressure. While Lewis et al. (2012) suggested that collaboration can be sustained even amid financial scarcity, our findings indicate that a lack of funding may undermine researchers’ psychological stability, heighten fear of failure, and promote competition for survival rather than cooperative engagement. Role and responsibility ambiguity constitutes another key structural factor. When research duties are not clearly delineated within collaborative structures, researcher interactions tend to become inefficient and strained (Jackson & Schuler, 1985 ). This is particularly pronounced in contexts where the involvement style of the principal investigator causes roles among lab members to shift fluidly. Such conditions produce recurring tensions during role negotiation. Crucially, this is not merely a matter of task allocation—it reflects deeper asymmetries in authority and control over knowledge production, often leading to confusion and marginalization among early-career researchers (Langley et al., 2022 ). Despite structural factors at play, researchers often attribute the source of conflict to personal traits, such as the communication style or disposition of others. Comments like “they acted territorially” or “PhD Student 1 was too authoritarian” exemplify the tendency to locate conflict in individual behavior rather than in structural or contextual conditions. Such attributions risk misrepresenting the underlying nature of the conflict and may obstruct efforts toward structural change (Martinko et al., 2007 ; Mills, 2023 ). Importantly, factors such as emotional distancing, responsibility deflection, and ambiguous authority are frequently shaped by the invisible hierarchies embedded in academic settings—an aspect that must not be overlooked in analyses of collaborative conflict (Greer et al., 2018 ; Ylijoki, 2022 ). Although conflict is often framed as stemming from individual personalities or behaviors, the recurrence of similar disputes across research labs suggests that the underlying causes are often structural. Role-related tensions, for instance, are frequently the result of inadequate systems for coordinating responsibilities, rather than the authoritarian tendencies of specific individuals. When research duties are ambiguously defined, researchers face structural pressure to assert their positions, increasing the likelihood of conflict. Similarly, competition over research funding does not simply reflect a desire for personal gain but emerges in an environment where securing grants is central to the lab’s operation. These findings indicate that collaboration conflicts in STEM laboratories are frequently rooted in structural rather than personal factors. Efforts to enhance the quality of collaboration will fall short if the causes of conflict are understood solely in interpersonal terms. Conversely, when lab structures—such as research management systems, power distribution, and funding mechanisms—are designed to be collaborative and transparent, conflicts are less likely to escalate into barriers to cooperation. Therefore, building a sustainable collaborative environment in STEM research demands not only individual behavioral change, but also systemic and institutional reforms. A shift in perspective—from “a problem of people” to “a problem of structure”—is an essential first step toward improving collaborative practice. 5.2 The Structural Foundations and Limitations of the Accommodating Strategy This study demonstrates that conflict resolution in STEM research laboratories is frequently shaped less by autonomous coordination among members and more by reliance on the authority of the principal investigator. Graduate researchers, particularly doctoral students, often responded to conflict by awaiting the intervention or judgment of the advisor, rather than addressing the issue independently. This pattern is not attributable to individual disposition alone, but reflects the structural influence of the apprenticeship model, in which the professor’s authority encompasses not only epistemic leadership but also administrative and interpersonal governance (Bozeman & Corley, 2004 ; Song et al., 2025 ). In many cases, the capacity to resolve conflict is determined less by problem-solving skill than by positional authority—echoing prior findings on the impact of hierarchical power structures in collaborative contexts (Jehn, 1997 ; Kotter, 2016 ; Kuhn & Poole, 2000 ). Such structures undermine horizontal communication and trust-based collaboration, and they restrict early-career researchers from developing the agency to negotiate or mediate conflict. This study found that the accommodating strategy did not lead to the fundamental resolution of conflict, but rather served to temporarily patch over issues or manage emotional strain. In cases like the one below, conflict was rationalized as a necessary “rite of passage” for academic growth, leaving the researcher with little room to consider alternatives and compelling them to internalize the emotional burden. “It was framed like this: ‘It might be mentally and physically difficult, but this will be very beneficial for you.’ I emphasized that if the student could endure it, it could lead to significant benefits—such as publishing in a good journal, applying for scholarships, or securing PhD funding later. They would also gain experience with advanced experimental techniques that most master’s students wouldn’t have access to. And the person they were working with had strong research abilities, so there was much to learn through discussion. So I told them to push through. The student agreed and worked very hard, but still experienced ongoing conflict and significant emotional distress.” (S02) This reflects the dual nature of university STEM laboratories as spaces where education and research intersect, and where the cultural emphasis is often placed not on addressing conflict, but on enduring it as a path to growth. In apprenticeship-driven environments, members are inclined to interpret challenges as rites of passage to be endured and overcome (Collins, 1986 ; Fuller & Unwin, 2003 ). Such a cultural framing provides the structural foundation for the repeated adoption of accommodating strategies. However, this mode of conflict resolution often privileges short-term stability at the expense of addressing underlying structural causes. In some cases, the principal investigator, acting as a mediator, did not engage with the substance of the conflict but instead adopted a stance of balanced neutrality, effectively deferring resolution. Such authority-centered interventions may sustain relational tensions among members and heighten the risk of conflict recurrence (Bendersky & Hays, 2012 ). The performance-driven structure of academic research further shapes how researchers respond to conflict. Rather than confronting issues directly, researchers often prioritize the continuity of their work—factoring in publication goals, scholarships, and career trajectories—and thus tend to adopt accommodating or avoidance strategies. This pattern is closely linked to a broader lab culture in which researchers are encouraged to adapt to the expectations of their principal investigator rather than exercise independent decision-making (Baruch & Hall, 2004 ). “When tensions arose between people in the lab, I tried to listen. Even when someone was extremely upset, they tended to feel a bit more at ease after talking it through with me.” (S02) As this case illustrates, conflicts within research laboratories are frequently handled through informal emotional mediation in the absence of formal conflict resolution mechanisms. Existing literature has noted that while informal mediators may be effective in reducing emotional tension, they are limited in their ability to resolve the underlying sources of conflict (Jehn, 1997 ). Ultimately, the adoption of the accommodating strategy reflects structural conditions shaped by hierarchical power relations, growth-oriented academic culture, the apprenticeship-based nature of scientific research, and performance-driven expectations. This suggests that research laboratories must be reimagined not merely as sites where conflict is endured, but as environments that actively foster high-quality collaboration and sustainable working relationships. Creating conditions that enable members to autonomously address and negotiate conflict, and encouraging a shift in the professor’s role from unilateral authority figure to collaborative facilitator, are essential steps toward this goal. 5.3 Reframing Leadership and Implementing Training to Foster a Collaborative Research Lab Culture This study highlights that collaborative conflict in university STEM laboratories is driven less by interpersonal tensions and more by underlying structural conditions. In particular, the frequent adoption of an accommodating strategy by researchers reflects the effects of internal power asymmetries and the lack of clearly established norms for collaboration. To address the limitations of current conflict resolution practices, it is essential to equip researchers with opportunities to learn actionable principles of collaboration and conflict management that can be applied in practice. In this study, some participants described having received collaboration training, during which they learned and implemented principles such as “prioritizing a collaborator’s request” in the course of their research activities. “When I received training, I was taught that in any collaboration, you should always prioritize your collaborator’s work. So I’ve always done that first. And if I didn’t feel confident I could do that, I just wouldn’t take on the collaboration. That approach worked really well for me.” (S02) S02’s strategy contributed positively to building trust with collaborators, preventing conflict, and enhancing the overall efficiency of the collaborative process. By setting a clear principle—either to prioritize the collaborator’s needs or not to enter into the collaboration at all—S02 was able to maintain high standards of collaborative quality while avoiding unnecessary friction or inefficiency. This case highlights the importance of ensuring that early-career researchers have access to training in collaborative principles and conflict negotiation strategies. Recent research has shown that mentoring and institutional support positively influence postdoctoral researchers’ mental health, employability, and perceived career success—effects mediated by factors such as work engagement and academic identity (Addison et al., 2025 ). Collaboration training and mentoring programs can function not merely as mechanisms for skill acquisition, but as critical resources for improving the quality of collaboration and proactively preventing conflict. Moreover, when collaborative conflict is viewed as a structural rather than interpersonal issue, the concept of the “science facilitator” (Carvens et al., 2022) points to the need for institutionalized roles dedicated to coordination and mediation within research teams. Training programs that foster researchers’ interactive expertise offer a viable strategy for conflict prevention and improved research productivity. In a related study, Love et al. ( 2022 ) found that effective collaboration is not determined by the aggregate skills of individuals, but by the internal dynamics of the team—specifically, the structure of interaction, equity of voice, and inclusivity. Their findings suggest that balanced speaking opportunities and inclusive team composition are directly correlated with collaborative quality. Despite its importance, structured collaboration training remains largely absent in most research laboratories. Researchers are often left to navigate collaborative work without clear guidelines, relying instead on personal trial-and-error. To address this gap, it is crucial to both institutionalize formal conflict mediation systems and expand collaboration training initiatives that equip researchers with explicit principles and practical strategies for managing collaborative dynamics (Fantini, 2024 ; Lindvig et al., 2025 ; Llorca et al., 2025 ; Zhu et al., 2024 ). Such measures are essential for cultivating a research environment grounded in cooperation and for advancing more sustainable modes of lab governance. Finally, the cultivation of a collaborative research culture requires a rethinking of the principal investigator’s role (Song et al., 2025 ). At present, professors often hold dual responsibilities—defining research directions and evaluating lab members—which can constrain researchers’ capacity for independent inquiry and conflict resolution (Stefanowski, 2019 ). To enable more effective collaboration, it is essential that faculty strengthen their role not only as research leaders but also as facilitators of cooperative work. This entails reconfiguring lab governance to soften vertical hierarchies and to empower researchers to make autonomous decisions within the research process. Such shifts can support both individual scholarly agency and the development of a more communicative, collaborative lab environment. 6. Limitations and Future Research This study employed qualitative analysis to investigate the ways in which collaborative conflict in university STEM laboratories is shaped not by interpersonal dynamics alone, but by specific organizational structures, institutional conditions, and contextual contingencies. During the course of analysis, however, certain complex elements emerged that were not fully accounted for within the study’s analytical framework or fell outside the primary focus. These gaps point to the need for more nuanced investigation in future research. In the following section, we propose potential directions for such continued inquiry. First, while this study identified five categories of structural causes, it became evident that conflicts in practice are rarely attributable to a single factor. Rather, they often emerge through the complex interplay of multiple structural elements. For instance, disputes over authorship order reflected not only power asymmetries, but also role ambiguity, performance pressure, and inadequate communication. However, the current analysis approached these causes discretely, without fully examining their interaction. Future research should adopt a more integrative approach by centering specific conflict episodes and tracing how these emerge from the intersection of multiple structural forces, thereby offering a more nuanced understanding of how collaboration-related conflict unfolds in STEM research environments. Second, although this study framed power dynamics largely in terms of formal hierarchies, power within research laboratories was found to be exercised through a range of resource-based mechanisms—such as control over funding, access to data, decision-making authority on research topics, and use of experimental infrastructure. Future research should undertake a more multi-dimensional and refined examination of how various manifestations of power—including resource allocation, informal authority, and evaluative metrics—shape both the development and resolution of collaborative conflicts. Third, there is a need for future research to examine how researchers’ intersecting identities—such as gender, caregiving responsibilities, and parental status—influence both the conduct of collaboration and the sustainability of academic work. Although this study surfaced some challenges experienced by male and female researchers managing childcare during collaborative projects, such issues were not explored in depth due to the study’s primary focus. In STEM labs, those with caregiving roles may be particularly vulnerable to role overload, informal exclusion, and difficulties in coordinating research schedules, all of which can affect long-term career trajectories. As collaboration is embedded in the lived realities of researchers’ social and personal roles, future work should investigate how caregiving researchers navigate constraints and possibilities in areas such as collaborative participation, research assessment, and lab governance. Fourth, while this study included participants from a range of academic ranks—from doctoral students to senior researchers—its analytical focus was confined to individual experiences at discrete points in time. Yet the findings revealed that perceptions of and responses to collaborative conflict varied markedly by career stage and positionality. This indicates that collaboration and conflict resolution are not fixed practices but are shaped and reshaped through temporal processes and evolving roles. Future research would benefit from longitudinal approaches that trace researchers’ career development to better understand how collaborative conflict is negotiated, reconfigured, and reinterpreted over time. Finally, this study employed qualitative methods, drawing on interviews with 13 researchers engaged in collaborative work within university STEM laboratories. The findings are thus interpretive in nature, rooted in the specific structural contexts of the research sites and the lived experiences of participants, and may not be generalizable to all STEM environments. Rather than seeking universal laws, the study aimed to offer an in-depth exploration of how collaborative conflict emerges and is made sense of within particular structural and contextual conditions. Future research would benefit from comparative analyses across a broader range of institutional and cultural settings to illuminate the structural patterns of collaboration conflict in more diverse contexts. 7. Conclusion This study examined the structural conditions that give rise to collaborative conflict in university STEM laboratories and investigated how researchers navigate and respond to such tensions. The findings suggest that conflict is not simply a product of individual personality or isolated communication breakdowns, but is shaped by intersecting structural constraints and contextual dynamics. Specifically, factors such as ambiguous roles, unequal resource allocation, hierarchical concentrations of power, misaligned objectives, and fractured communication were shown to erode the trust and mutual respect necessary for effective collaboration, contributing to recurring tensions among lab members. These findings challenge idealized narratives of scientific collaboration that emphasize creativity, collective intelligence, and mutual benefit, illustrating how such ideals can be undermined by structural realities within research environments. Collaboration is not simply a function of goodwill or individual intent; it is a social practice shaped by institutional design, organizational logics, and the allocation of authority and responsibility. As such, effective collaboration requires more than conflict avoidance—it demands structural interventions that acknowledge the conditions under which conflict arises and facilitate institutional mechanisms for its management. While this study examined the sources of and responses to conflict through qualitative analysis, it did not fully address issues such as laboratory culture, the gendered nature of lab work, or the positionality of non-tenure-track researchers. Future research should undertake a more integrated exploration of how intersecting identities and institutional arrangements influence collaboration-related conflict, with the aim of informing more inclusive and equitable models of collaborative practice in academic science. Declarations Acknowledgements This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean government (MSIT) (No. NRF-2023R1A2C1003475). It was also supported by the BK21 FOUR Program through the Center for Science Education in the Infosphere. Author Contributions Sunyoung Shin: Project administration, Interviews, Data analysis, Writing – original draft, Review and editing of the manuscript; Seungah Park: Interviews, Data analysis, Coding validation, Review and editing of the manuscript; Minsoo Ha: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Supervision, Review and editing of the manuscript Ethics declarations Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Informed consent Before the interviews, all participants were informed that the purpose of this study was to explore conflicts experienced during collaboration in STEM research environments. Subsequently, each participant read and signed a written informed consent form between June 14 and September 28, 2024. The informed consent stated that all data would be used solely for research purposes, stored and processed anonymously, and would have no adverse consequences for the participants. Ethical approval To ensure compliance with ethical standards, the researcher obtained approval from the Seoul National University Institutional Review Board (IRB No. 2304/003-006) on 12 April 2023. References Achterberg J, Vriens D, Achterbergh J, Vriens D (2009) Introducing organizations as social systems conducting experiments. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 1–29 Addison C, Guo Y, Wang M (2025) How does mentor support contribute to sustainable careers? Evidence from postdoctoral researchers in China. Humanities and Social Sciences Communication s, 12, Article number: 489. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04835-7 Anney VN (2014) Ensuring the quality of the findings of qualitative research: Looking at trustworthiness criteria. J Emerg Trends Educational Res Policy Stud 5(2):272–281 Baruch Y, Hall DT (2004) The academic career: a model for future careers in other sectors? J Vocat Behav 64(2):241–262 Bendersky C, Hays NA (2012) Status conflict in groups. Organ Sci 23(2):323–340 Bennett LM, Gadlin H (2012) Collaboration and team science: from theory to practice Bitsch V (2005) Qualitative research: A grounded theory example and evaluation criteria. J agribusiness 23(1):75–91 Blake RR, Mouton JS, Bidwell AC (1962) Managerial grid. Advanced Management-Office Executive Bozeman B, Boardman C (2014) Research collaboration and team science: A state-of-the-art review and agenda Bozeman B, Corley E (2004) Scientists’ collaboration strategies: implications for scientific and technical human capital. Res Policy 33(4):599–616 Britton DM (2017) Beyond the chilly climate: The salience of gender in women’s academic careers. Gend Soc 31(1):5–27 Callister RR (2006) The impact of gender and department climate on job satisfaction and intentions to quit for faculty in science and engineering fields. J Technol Transf 31:367–375 Casad BJ, Franks JE, Garasky CE, Kittleman MM, Roesler AC, Hall DY, Petzel ZW (2021) Gender inequality in academia: Problems and solutions for women faculty in STEM. J Neurosci Res 99(1):13–23 Cravens AE, Jones MS, Ngai C, Zarestky J, Love HB (2022) Science facilitation: navigating the intersection of intellectual and interpersonal expertise in scientific collaboration. Humanit Social Sci Commun 9(1):1–13 Collins PH (1986) Learning From the Outsider Within: The Sociological Significance of Black Feminist Thought. Soc Probl 33(6):S14–S32. https://doi.org/10.2307/800672 Coser LA (1998) The functions of social conflict, vol 9. Routledge Creswell JW, Poth CN (2016) Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage Csikszentmihalhi M (2020) Finding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life . Hachette UK Cummings JN, Kiesler S (2005) Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Soc Stud Sci 35(5):703–722 Cunningham E, Smyth B, Greene D (2021) Collaboration in the time of COVID: A scientometric analysis of multidisciplinary SARS-CoV-2 research. Humanit Social Sci Commun 8., Article 194. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00922-7 Dahrendorf R (2019) Class and class conflict in industrial society. In Social Stratification, Class, Race, and Gender in Sociological Perspective , Second Edition (pp. 105–111). Routledge DeChurch LA, Mesmer-Magnus JR (2010) The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork: A meta-analysis. J Appl Psychol 95(1):32–53. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017328 Engeström Y (2014) Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Cambridge University Press Fantini E (2024) Podcasting for interdisciplinary education: active listening, negotiation, reflexivity, and communication skills. Humanit Social Sci Commun 11(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04119-6 Fiedler FE (1967) A THEORY OF LEADERSHIP EFFECTIVENESS. MCGRAW-HILL SERIES IN MANAGEMENT Fiedler FE (2006) The contingency model: A theory of leadership effectiveness. Small groups: Key readings 12(4):369–382 Frodeman R, Klein JT, Pacheco RCDS (eds) (2017) The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity. Oxford University Press Fujimura JH (1987) Constructingdo-Able'problems in Cancer research: Articulating alignment. Soc Stud Sci 17(2):257–293 Fuller A, Unwin L (2003) Learning as Apprentices in the Contemporary UK Workplace: creating and managing expansive and restrictive participation. J Educ Work 16(4):407–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/1363908032000093012 Greer LL, de Jong BA, Schouten ME, Dannals JE (2018) Why and when hierarchy impacts team effectiveness: A meta-analytic integration. J Appl Psychol 103(6):591 Griffin KA, Pifer MJ, Humphrey JR, Hazelwood AM (2011) (Re) defining departure: Exploring Black professors’ experiences with and responses to racism and racial climate. Am J Educ 117(4):495–526 Guba EG (1981) Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Communication Technol J 29(2):75–91. 10.1007/bf02766777 Huffman DR, Bruns CJ, Neff PD, Roop HA (2025) Social network analysis to understand participant engagement in transdisciplinary team science: a large US Science and Technology Center case study. Humanit Social Sci Commun 12(1):1–14 Jackson SE, Schuler RS (1985) A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 36(1):16–78 Jehn KA (1997) A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Adm Sci Q, 530–557 Jones BF, Wuchty S, Uzzi B (2008) Multi-university research teams: Shifting impact, geography, and stratification in science. Science 322(5905):1259–1262 Katz JS, Martin BR (1997) What is research collaboration? Res Policy 26(1):1–18 Kezar A, Holcombe E (2020) The role of collaboration in integrated programs aimed at supporting underrepresented student success in STEM. Am Behav Sci 64(3):325–348 Klein JT (ed) (2001) Transdisciplinarity: Joint problem solving among science, technology, and society: An effective way for managing complexity. Springer Science & Business Media Knorr-Cetina K (1999) Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Harvard University Press Kotter JP (2016) Power, dependence, and effective management. Organizational influence processes. Routledge, pp 127–141 Kuhn TIM, Poole MS (2000) Do conflict management styles affect group decision making? Evidence from a longitudinal field study. Hum Commun Res 26(4):558–590 Kurniati E, Suwono H, Ibrohim I, Suryadi A, Saefi M (2022) International Scientific Collaboration and Research Topics on STEM Education: A Systematic Review. Eurasia J Math Science Technol Education, 18 (4) Langley D, Martin L, Kythreotis AP, Wood R (2022) Critical reflections of postgraduate researchers on a collaborative interdisciplinary research project. Humanit Social Sci Commun 9:317. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01494-w Latour B (1987) Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard University Press Lazzarotti V, Manzini R, Nosella A, Pellegrini L (2016) Collaborations with scientific partners: The mediating role of the social context in fostering innovation performance. Creativity Innov Manage 25(1):142–156 Ledford H (2015) How to solve the world’s biggest problems. Nature 525:308–311. https://doi.org/10.1038/525308a Lee S, Bozeman B (2005) The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Soc Stud Sci 35(5):673–702 Lindvig KE, Sexton S, Earle D, Hillersdal L (2025) Building collaborative infrastructures for an interdisciplinary higher education master’s program. Humanit Social Sci Commun 12:321. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04575-8 Llorca J, Royuela V, Evans C, Pavlova I, Tzovla E, Magro E, Suckow M (2025) Fostering interdisciplinarity and collaboration: The role of challenge-driven research in European University Alliances through the CHARM-EU experience. Humanit Social Sci Commun 12:479. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04410-0 Love HB, Cross JE, Fosdick B, Crooks KR, VandeWoude S, Fisher ER (2021) Interpersonal relationships drive successful team science: An exemplary case-based study. Humanit Social Sci Commun 8:106. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00789-8 Love HB, Fosdick BK, Cross JE, Suter M, Egan D, Tofany E, Fisher ER (2022) Towards understanding the characteristics of successful and unsuccessful collaborations: a case-based team science study. Humanit Social Sci Commun 9(1):1–11 Mallinson T, Lotrecchiano GR, Schwartz LS, Furniss J, Leblanc-Beaudoin T, Lazar D, Falk-Krzesinski HJ (2016) Pilot analysis of the motivation assessment for team readiness, integration, and collaboration (MATRICx) using Rasch analysis. J Investig Med 64(7):1186–1193 Martinko MJ, Harvey P, Douglas SC (2007) The role, function, and contribution of attribution theory to leadership: A review. Leadersh Q 18(6):561–585 Mazzocchi F (2019) Scientific research across and beyond disciplines: Challenges and opportunities of interdisciplinarity. EMBO Rep, 20(6), e47682 Mills CW (2023) The sociological imagination. Social Work. Routledge, pp 105–108 National Research Council (2012) Research universities and the future of America: Ten breakthrough actions vital to our nation’s prosperity and security. National Academies. https://doi.org/10.17226/13396 National Research Council (2015) Enhancing the effectiveness of team science. National Academies, Washington, DC OECD (2015) Making Open Science a Reality, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers , No. 25, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jrs2f963zs1-en Pondy LR (1967) Organizational conflict: Concepts and models. Administrative Sci quarterly, 296–320 Salazar MR, Lant TK, Fiore SM, Salas E (2012) Facilitating innovation in diverse science teams through integrative capacity. Small Group Res 43(5):527–558 Sawyer RK (2014) Group creativity: Music, theater, collaboration. Psychology Scott WR (1981) Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems. Prentice Hall Inc, Englewood Cliffs, NJ Shrum W, Genuth J, Chompalov I (2007) Structures of scientific collaboration. MIT Press Song H, Hu A, Li X (2025) Mentor support and postdoctoral sustainable careers: evidence from China. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 12:505. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04835-7 Stefanowski J (2019) Who is in the position to proclaim a supervision conflict? Elephant Lab. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3271196 Thomas KW, Kilmann RH (1975) The social desirability variable in organizational research: An alternative explanation for reported findings. Acad Manag J 18(4):741–752 Thomas KW (2008) Thomas-kilmann conflict mode. TKI Profile Interpretive Rep, 1 (11) Tomáška Ľ, Cesare AJ, AlTurki TM, Griffith JD (2020) Twenty years of t-loops: a case study for the importance of collaboration in molecular biology. DNA Repair 94:102901 Van De Ven AH, Ganco M, Hinings CR (2013) Returning to the frontier of contingency theory of organizational and institutional designs. Acad Manage Annals 7(1):393–440 Walsh JP, Maloney NG (2007) Collaboration structure, communication media, and problems in scientific work teams. J computer-mediated communication 12(2):712–732 Wuchty S, Jones BF, Uzzi B (2007) The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 316(5827):1036–1039 Yang W, Muñoz Martín R, Wang X (2025) Individual metacognition in technology-assisted collaborative translation: comparing higher- and lower-achieving teams. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications , 12 , Article number: 453. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04756-5 Ylijoki OH (2022) Invisible hierarchies in academic work and career-building in an interdisciplinary landscape. Eur J High Educ 12(4):356–372 Zhu M, Su C, Hao J, Liu L, Kyllonen P, von Davier A (2024) Who benefits from virtual collaboration? The interplay of team member expertness and Big Five personality traits. Humanit Social Sci Commun 11(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03678-y Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files SupplemetaryMaterial.pdf Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {\"props\":{\"pageProps\":{\"initialData\":{\"identity\":\"rs-6676661\",\"acceptedTermsAndConditions\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":true,\"archivedVersions\":[],\"articleType\":\"Article\",\"associatedPublications\":[],\"authors\":[{\"id\":470191306,\"identity\":\"c8ce70bf-5aad-498b-98e1-181f01abc0d8\",\"order_by\":0,\"name\":\"Sunyoung Shin\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Seoul National University\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Sunyoung\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Shin\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":470191307,\"identity\":\"d7f5d30f-6f1c-4b17-9275-84f68cf6773d\",\"order_by\":1,\"name\":\"SeungAh Park\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Seoul National University\",\"correspondingAuthor\":false,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"SeungAh\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Park\",\"suffix\":\"\"},{\"id\":470191308,\"identity\":\"4e0504cc-c2e0-4743-8a8e-5531df021bdd\",\"order_by\":2,\"name\":\"Minsu Ha\",\"email\":\"\",\"orcid\":\"\",\"institution\":\"Seoul National University\",\"correspondingAuthor\":true,\"prefix\":\"\",\"firstName\":\"Minsu\",\"middleName\":\"\",\"lastName\":\"Ha\",\"suffix\":\"\"}],\"badges\":[],\"createdAt\":\"2025-05-16 03:23:05\",\"currentVersionCode\":1,\"declarations\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6676661/v1\",\"doiUrl\":\"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6676661/v1\",\"draftVersion\":[],\"editorialEvents\":[],\"editorialNote\":\"\",\"failedWorkflow\":false,\"files\":[{\"id\":91449889,\"identity\":\"68efdc6a-8eb3-4b34-b577-a42ab7f6b2c3\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2025-09-16 15:17:07\",\"extension\":\"pdf\",\"order_by\":0,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"manuscript-pdf\",\"size\":1586469,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"manuscript.pdf\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6676661/v1/c597e4ea-ef30-413f-8d52-012088c6e01f.pdf\"},{\"id\":84603336,\"identity\":\"ce62bc47-ee2d-46c2-9202-a7406fed8832\",\"added_by\":\"auto\",\"created_at\":\"2025-06-14 10:24:19\",\"extension\":\"pdf\",\"order_by\":0,\"title\":\"\",\"display\":\"\",\"copyAsset\":false,\"role\":\"supplement\",\"size\":41930,\"visible\":true,\"origin\":\"\",\"legend\":\"\",\"description\":\"\",\"filename\":\"SupplemetaryMaterial.pdf\",\"url\":\"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-6676661/v1/6629e998454f3bd7c5ad18c9.pdf\"}],\"financialInterests\":\"No competing interests reported.\",\"formattedTitle\":\"Collaboration and conflict: structural causes and researcher responses in university STEM labs\",\"fulltext\":[{\"header\":\"1. Introduction\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eContemporary scientific research is marked by increasing complexity and interdisciplinarity, making collaborative approaches essential. Particularly in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) fields, many research problems exceed the capacity of individual investigators, positioning collaboration not as an optional endeavor but as a necessary strategy for knowledge production (Kezar \\u0026amp; Holcombe, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR38\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2020\\u003c/span\\u003e; Lazzarotti et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR46\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2016\\u003c/span\\u003e; Ledford, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR47\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2015\\u003c/span\\u003e; Mazzocchi, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR55\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2019\\u003c/span\\u003e). Collaborative research enables the generation of novel insights, fosters innovation beyond the limits of existing methods and theories, and functions as a crucial mechanism for integrating intellectual resources to address multifaceted, cross-disciplinary challenges (Bennett \\u0026amp; Gadlin, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR6\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2012\\u003c/span\\u003e; NRC, 2012; NRC, 2015).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIn the context of this study, collaboration encompasses all forms of joint research practices between scientists and laboratories. This includes not only the execution of formal projects, but also activities such as co-designing research, sharing data, co-authoring publications, and jointly using experimental infrastructure. These practices are grounded in the circulation and exchange of academic resources. Collaboration, as conceptualized here, is not simply about performing tasks together; it is a complex social process through which expertise, autonomy, authority, and responsibility are continuously negotiated. This view highlights collaboration not as a neutral technical means for producing scientific outputs, but as an institutionalized practice embedded within organizational structures and power dynamics (Katz \\u0026amp; Martin, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR37\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1997\\u003c/span\\u003e; Love et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR51\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2021\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe growing importance of collaboration has been substantiated by empirical research (Kezar \\u0026amp; Holcombe, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR38\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2020\\u003c/span\\u003e; Kurniati et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR43\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2022\\u003c/span\\u003e). Wuchty, Jones, and Uzzi (\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR72\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2007\\u003c/span\\u003e), in their analysis of decades of publication and patent records, demonstrated that collaborative research tends to garner higher citation counts and exert greater academic impact than single-authored work. In STEM disciplines, collaboration has become the dominant mode for conducting large-scale research, encompassing not merely task division but the complex integration of participants\\u0026rsquo; expertise and resources through organizational coordination (Jones et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR36\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2008\\u003c/span\\u003e; NRC, 2015). This evolution reinforces perspectives from the sociology of science, which view scientific knowledge as fundamentally social and shaped through dynamic, interactional processes (Czikszentmihalyi, 2020; Latour, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR45\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1987\\u003c/span\\u003e; Love et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR51\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2021\\u003c/span\\u003e; Sawyer, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR62\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2014\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, research collaborations tended to shift toward smaller team structures. Cunningham et al. (\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR20\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2021\\u003c/span\\u003e) suggest that this was not merely a consequence of pandemic-related constraints, but potentially a strategic adaptation to enable more rapid response and streamlined decision-making. While small, interdisciplinary teams may offer advantages in experimenting with new ideas and traversing disciplinary boundaries, they also introduce structural vulnerabilities\\u0026mdash;including role conflicts and increased coordination demands\\u0026mdash;that can give rise to collaborative tensions (Cunningham et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR20\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2021\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCollaboration does not always unfold in idealized ways. Within the highly structured context of STEM research laboratories, collaborative processes are often marked by tensions and conflicts. Disputes frequently arise over research funding distribution, authorship credit, access to experimental equipment, data sharing, and the design of experiments\\u0026mdash;each of which can significantly compromise the effectiveness and sustainability of collaborative work (Salazar et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR61\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2012\\u003c/span\\u003e; Tom\\u0026aacute;ška, 2020). Crucially, dynamics of power, hierarchy, and resource control produce structural asymmetries among collaborators, transforming what might appear as interpersonal disagreements into deeper organizational issues (Klein, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR39\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2001\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSuch conflict not only undermines collaborative efforts but also has adverse effects on participants\\u0026rsquo; job satisfaction, sense of belonging, and commitment to sustaining a research career (Casad et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR13\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2021\\u003c/span\\u003e; Callister, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR12\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2006\\u003c/span\\u003e). In STEM disciplines, the collaborative environment can present a particularly \\u0026ldquo;chilly climate\\u0026rdquo; for women, early-career scholars, and members of underrepresented groups, often leading to exclusion, alienation, and disengagement (Britton et al., 2017; Griffin et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR31\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2011\\u003c/span\\u003e). The emotional and social climate in which collaboration occurs thus emerges as a critical factor\\u0026mdash;shaping not only the technical and methodological outcomes of research, but also researchers\\u0026rsquo; lived experiences, career pathways, and psychological well-being.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eHuffman et al. (\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR33\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2025\\u003c/span\\u003e), in their analysis of a large interdisciplinary collaboration center funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), demonstrate that collaboration is not merely a matter of individual agency or motivation, but is significantly structured by institutional design and systemic conditions. Through social network analysis, they explored researcher centrality, inter-team collaboration asymmetries, and pathways of knowledge flow, offering design-based recommendations for improving the effectiveness and fairness of collaborative practices. However, their study remains situated within a survey-based methodological frame and does not qualitatively examine the lived experience of collaboration\\u0026mdash;particularly the tensions and conflicts researchers encounter in practice.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eRecent discussions have highlighted the growing importance of scientific facilitation as a key capability for successful collaboration in research settings (Cravens et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR14\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2022\\u003c/span\\u003e). This concept encompasses a set of refined social competencies that extend beyond conventional project management or coordination\\u0026mdash;such as mediating interpersonal dynamics, mitigating tensions, and fostering interdisciplinary integration. Despite its significance, this capacity remains underdeveloped, with limited institutionalized training or support. In many cases, collaborative research unfolds without any deliberate facilitative mechanisms. This suggests that collaboration should be understood not as a technically implementable task, but as a socially constructed process that requires intentional strategies and sustained educational investment (Love et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR52\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2022\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eDespite the growing body of theoretical work, few studies have qualitatively examined how conflict emerges and becomes structurally reproduced within the unique and complex collaborative environments of STEM research laboratories. Creswell and Poth (\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR17\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2016\\u003c/span\\u003e) underscore the value of qualitative inquiry for uncovering the layered experiences embedded in individuals\\u0026rsquo; lives, particularly when addressing sensitive topics such as conflict. They advocate for approaches that preserve participants\\u0026rsquo; voices in their original form. In this context, a phenomenological approach provides an appropriate framework for investigating structural conditions through researchers\\u0026rsquo; lived emotions, judgments, and actions in collaborative settings.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThis study draws on in-depth interviews with researchers working in STEM laboratories to examine the structural causes of conflict in collaborative research and to analyze how researchers navigate and respond to such challenges. In doing so, it offers a critical perspective on the dominant discourse that idealizes collaboration, instead foregrounding the lived realities of collaborative practice in scientific settings. The study further argues that conflict in collaboration should not be viewed merely as a sign of failure, but as a meaningful site of practice where scientists actively negotiate the tensions between autonomy and community.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eUltimately, this study aims to offer a practical foundation for improving the quality of collaboration and informing institutional reform by analyzing the dynamics of conflict within the structural context of university STEM laboratories. It conceptualizes collaboration not as a mere technical procedure, but as a complex social practice, and seeks to establish a basis for integrating the processes of conflict, negotiation, and resolution into educational and policy frameworks.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThis study seeks to provide a multidimensional understanding of collaboration in STEM laboratories by examining the structural causes of conflict and the strategies researchers employ in response, while also analyzing the operational structures and situational factors that shape these dynamics. It focuses on how structural elements\\u0026mdash;such as power relations, competition for research funding, and the division of roles\\u0026mdash;shape both the emergence of conflict and its resolution. By uncovering the conditions that either enable or constrain collaborative practices, this research aims to illuminate how collaboration unfolds in situated and unequal research contexts. Through qualitative inquiry grounded in the lived experiences of researchers, the study offers practical insights for building a more sustainable and equitable culture of collaboration in academic science.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThis study addresses the following research questions:\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003ch3\\u003e1) What structural factors give rise to conflict during collaboration in university STEM laboratories?\\u003c/h3\\u003e\\n\\n\\u003ch3\\u003e2) How do researchers navigate and attempt to resolve conflicts that emerge in collaborative settings?\\u003c/h3\\u003e\\n\\n\\u003ch3\\u003e3) What contextual conditions influence the emergence and resolution of conflict in STEM lab collaborations?\\u003c/h3\\u003e\\n\"},{\"header\":\"2. FRAMEWORKS\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eThis study aims to offer a nuanced understanding of collaborative conflict within the structural dynamics of university STEM laboratories. To achieve this, it develops a theoretical framework to account for the emergence, progression, and researcher responses to conflict. While much of the existing literature has treated conflict as a byproduct of interpersonal misunderstandings or communication breakdowns, this study approaches conflict as a structurally embedded phenomenon\\u0026mdash;not reducible to individual disposition or isolated events. University STEM labs, in particular, represent unique organizational environments: while built on collaboration, they are marked by concentrated resources, pronounced hierarchies, and persistent tensions, making them sites where structural conflict is both frequent and inherent.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eGuided by this line of inquiry, the study establishes an analytical framework based on three theoretical perspectives: conflict theory, conflict handling modes theory, and contingency theory. Conflict theory provides a critical lens for examining the structural tensions inherent in collaborative settings. Conflict handling modes theory offers a practical basis for categorizing and interpreting the strategies researchers employ in response to conflict. Contingency theory further enables an exploration of how organizational and institutional conditions shape both the emergence and management of conflict, emphasizing the role of specific laboratory contexts. The following section outlines the core concepts of each theory and details their application within the study.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec6\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e2.1 Conflict Theory\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTo examine the causes of conflict emerging in collaborative processes within the distinct organizational setting of university STEM laboratories, this study draws on conflict theory as its primary analytical lens. Conflict theory conceptualizes society as structured by enduring tensions among groups competing for limited resources, power, and status. It frames conflict not as an anomaly but as a structural and inevitable feature of social systems (Dahrendorf, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR21\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2019\\u003c/span\\u003e). In organizational contexts, the theory underscores how resource scarcity, asymmetrical power dynamics, and ambiguous role structures function as core drivers of conflict.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003eConflict\\u003c/strong\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003etheory reframes collaboration not simply as the act of working together, but as a contested terrain where outcomes, responsibilities, authority, and recognition are negotiated and competed over. STEM research environments institutionalize collaboration as a routine practice, yet they are also marked by hierarchical power relations, intense competition for resources, and performance-driven evaluation systems. As such, collaboration often unfolds under conditions that generate and reproduce structural tensions and conflict.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eWithin the broader scope of conflict theory, this study draws on theoretical perspectives that account for the emergence and regulation of conflict within complex, multi-layered organizations. Dahrendorf (\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR21\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2019\\u003c/span\\u003e) contends that the concentration of power and resources intensifies structural tensions, making conflict among organizational members inevitable. Engestr\\u0026ouml;m (1987) identifies role ambiguity in collaborative work as a key catalyst for conflict, suggesting that unclear role and responsibility definitions lead to recurring disputes and erosion of interpersonal trust. Pondy (\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR60\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1967\\u003c/span\\u003e), meanwhile, conceptualizes conflict as a dynamic social process\\u0026mdash;rather than a discrete event\\u0026mdash;unfolding through cognitive, emotional, and behavioral stages. He highlights information asymmetry and exclusion from decision-making as key factors that exacerbate conflict.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003eConflicts\\u003c/strong\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ein collaborative settings are not simply the result of personality clashes or communication failures; rather, they often stem from deeper issues of organizational structure and institutional design. In STEM laboratories, conflicts frequently center on research funding, access to experimental resources, authorship order, and responsibility allocation\\u0026mdash;factors that tend to disadvantage early-career researchers. This study therefore constructs a coding scheme around five key structural sources of conflict in collaboration: role ambiguity, resource scarcity, power imbalance, goal misalignment, and communication breakdowns(Table\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab2\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e2\\u003c/span\\u003e). These categories provide the basis for analyzing the organizational roots of conflict.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003eConflict\\u003c/strong\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ewithin organizations should not be seen merely as an issue to be eliminated, but as a key mechanism for organizational change and adaptation (Coser, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR16\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1998\\u003c/span\\u003e). Blake and Mouton (1962) and Thomas and Kilmann (\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR67\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1975\\u003c/span\\u003e) emphasize that the way conflict is managed fundamentally shapes the quality and sustainability of collaboration. Drawing on Thomas and Kilmann\\u0026rsquo;s conflict handling modes theory, this study analyzes the conflict resolution strategies employed by researchers in real-world collaborative settings, and investigates how these choices are influenced by the structural conditions of the organization and individuals\\u0026rsquo; positionality within it.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec7\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e2.2 Conflict Handling Modes\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe Conflict Handling Modes model proposed by Thomas and Kilmann (\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR67\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1975\\u003c/span\\u003e) offers a foundational framework for analyzing individual approaches to conflict resolution in organizational settings. It categorizes conflict handling into five modes based on two dimensions: assertiveness\\u0026mdash;the extent to which an individual pursues their own goals\\u0026mdash;and cooperativeness\\u0026mdash;the extent to which they seek to work with others.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe model identifies five conflict handling modes: competing, avoiding, compromising, collaborating, and accommodating. Competing involves pursuing one's own goals at the expense of others. This mode may be effective for urgent decision-making but risks undermining relationships over time. Avoiding refers to withdrawing from or ignoring conflict rather than actively engaging with it. It can be appropriate when the issue is minor or when involvement is unnecessary, though it may result in unresolved tensions. Compromising entails mutual concession and seeks a middle ground. While useful for prompt resolution, it may fall short of providing optimal solutions. Collaborating emphasizes joint problem-solving to maximize mutual gain. This approach supports trust and long-term cooperation but often requires considerable time and effort. Accommodating prioritizes the other party's needs over one's own. Though it may ease tension, repeated accommodation can foster latent dissatisfaction.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe model offers a systematic classification of conflict resolution strategies and serves as a practical tool for identifying individual response patterns. It is especially useful for analyzing and comparing how members respond to conflict across different collaborative contexts. However, because the model is grounded in individual traits and choices, it has limited capacity to account for broader contextual factors such as organizational structures, power asymmetries, role and resource allocation systems, and cultural expectations.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAccordingly, this study employs Thomas and Kilmann\\u0026rsquo;s model as a framework for classifying conflict handling strategies, while placing analytical emphasis on how each strategy relates to structural factors such as organizational position, power dynamics, and role ambiguity. In hierarchical, performance-oriented environments like STEM research laboratories, strategies such as accommodating or avoiding may emerge from institutional constraints embedded in the organizational structure. These should not be reduced to individual coping styles. With this perspective, the study conceptualizes conflict handling not only as behavioral tendencies but also as strategies of structural adaptation, and seeks to examine the contextual conditions that give rise to the repeated use of particular modes.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec8\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e2.3 Contingency Theory\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eContingency theory posits that there is no universally optimal way to organize; rather, effective structures and strategies must align with the specific environmental conditions facing the organization (Van De Ven et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR70\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2013\\u003c/span\\u003e). It conceptualizes the organization as a constrained optimization problem, wherein structures are adapted to internal and external constraints to enhance performance (Achterberg et al., 2010; Fiedler, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR26\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2006\\u003c/span\\u003e; Fiedler, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR25\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1967\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThis study employs contingency theory as an analytical framework for interpreting the contextual nature of collaboration conflicts in STEM research laboratories. STEM environments are shaped by complex situational variables\\u0026mdash;such as task specialization, hierarchical structures, researcher diversity, and resource allocation\\u0026mdash;that influence the dynamics of conflict and resolution. The nature and management of conflict vary according to institutional and cultural conditions specific to each lab. For instance, the level and distribution of resources\\u0026mdash;such as funding, equipment, and space\\u0026mdash;can significantly shape the scope and form of collaboration. While abundant resources may foster expansive collaboration, scarcity or unequal distribution may lead to heightened competition and tension. Additionally, disciplinary differences and methodological divergences among researchers often generate friction during collaboration. A typical example is a life scientist and an engineer working on a joint project, where experimental and modeling-centered approaches may clash. Such disciplinary backgrounds constitute important contextual factors in understanding collaboration dynamics (Scott, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR63\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1981\\u003c/span\\u003e; Van De Ven et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR70\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2013\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eOrganizational structure also shapes how collaboration and conflict unfold. In vertically hierarchical settings, authority is often concentrated in professors or principal investigators, resulting in collaboration characterized by top-down directives and task assignments rather than autonomous coordination. In contrast, flatter structures tend to support more flexible negotiation and shared responsibility among researchers. When the roles of research leads\\u0026mdash;such as postdoctoral fellows or doctoral students\\u0026mdash;are not clearly defined, conflicts may emerge from overlapping responsibilities, avoidance of accountability, or power struggles. These structural characteristics are closely tied to the notion of \\u0026ldquo;fit\\u0026rdquo; between organizational design and environmental context, a central concern in contingency theory (Fiedler, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR25\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1967\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eGrounded in contingency theory, this study qualitatively investigates how conflict arises within the structural and environmental conditions of university research organizations, and how individual researchers respond through specific strategies. By interpreting collaborative conflict not as interpersonal friction but as a contextually shaped manifestation of structural tension, this research aims to generate practical insights for improving collaborative practices.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"3. Methods\",\"content\":\"\\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec10\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e3.1 Author\\u0026rsquo;s Positionalites\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eOur identities are not singular; rather, they are shaped within and across multiple social categories such as race, gender, class, ability, and bodily conditions (Collins, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR15\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1986\\u003c/span\\u003e). This positionality influences how researchers interpret social phenomena and carries significant implications for the direction and focus of analysis in qualitative research. Accordingly, this study explicitly acknowledges the researcher\\u0026rsquo;s positionality and considers its implications for the analytic process.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe first author is a female scientist who completed a master\\u0026rsquo;s degree in a molecular cell biology laboratory and has also worked as a high school science teacher. Her experiences navigating the rigid hierarchies and apprenticeship-based culture of university laboratories shaped her understanding of collaborative difficulties as not merely technical challenges, but as issues intertwined with interpersonal dynamics, emotion, and identity. The emotional atmosphere of the lab, uneven distributions of responsibility, and implicit hierarchies and expectations shaped her positionality and became central to her ability to interpret and empathize with participants\\u0026rsquo; narratives. This positionality also proved meaningful during the interview process. Participants\\u0026mdash;especially female scientists\\u0026mdash;were more willing to articulate tensions and fatigue associated with laboratory collaboration, grounded in a sense of shared experience. Recognizing the researcher as someone with similar disciplinary and practical backgrounds fostered trust and candor, thereby enriching the depth and authenticity of their accounts. This dynamic expanded the interpretive possibilities of \\u0026ldquo;shared experience\\u0026rdquo; within phenomenological inquiry. The first author did not merely act as a data collector but functioned as an embodied interpreter of the emotional and structural dimensions constituting collaborative settings. Her background as a practicing scientist allowed her to grasp the tacit norms, everyday language, and procedural routines of laboratory life, enabling her to discern nuanced meanings and contextual subtleties that might elude an external observer. Her positionality served not as a simple insider alignment, but as a layered interpretive stance\\u0026mdash;one that facilitated epistemological, ontological, and axiological engagement with the phenomenon of STEM collaboration. This dual grounding in theoretical sensitivity and experiential familiarity contributed to a more situated and reflexive mode of analysis.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe second author maintained personal relationships with several research participants. Given the study\\u0026rsquo;s focus on conflict in collaborative settings, this relational context contributed to establishing a natural and open interview environment\\u0026mdash;even when navigating sensitive or potentially uncomfortable topics. Participants exhibited lower psychological defensiveness and shared their experiences with notable candor, thereby enriching the depth and diversity of the qualitative data. As a graduate student with experience as a science teacher, the second author occupied a position closely aligned with that of the participants. This positional similarity mitigated hierarchical barriers and fostered a sense of emotional safety, enabling participants to articulate their emotions and reconstruct specific episodes of conflict in everyday collaborative contexts. Additionally, Seung-Ah has consistently engaged in efforts to reinterpret collaborative conflict in STEM research environments through the lens of science education. These efforts informed an analytical perspective that moves beyond interpersonal explanations to consider the structural conditions underpinning collaboration.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe corresponding author is a researcher who has studied various forms of cognitive bias since 2009. Since 2015, his work has focused on how such biases manifest in learning, inquiry, and research, and how they shape scientific judgment and reasoning. Through extensive engagement in large-scale collaborative projects\\u0026mdash;such as automated assessment systems and multimodal learning analytics\\u0026mdash;he has repeatedly encountered how tensions, ambiguity, and the diffusion of responsibility within collaborative structures impact not only scientific outcomes but also participants\\u0026rsquo; emotional and cognitive states. These experiences have informed a critical orientation that resists reducing conflict to interpersonal friction, instead emphasizing the intersection of cognitive bias and structural dynamics. His view of collaboration as a complex process shaped by intertwined emotional and structural factors, rather than as a simple matter of task division or technical interaction, aligns with his prior research and provides a theoretical foundation for this study\\u0026rsquo;s effort to systematically and contextually understand the dynamics of collaborative breakdown.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec11\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e3.2 Participants\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTo recruit participants with over three years of diverse collaborative experience in university-based STEM laboratories, the study initially employed criterion-based convenience sampling, selecting eligible individuals from the researcher\\u0026rsquo;s accessible network. This was followed by snowball sampling, through which additional participants were recruited via referrals from the initial cohort. Eighteen participants were initially enrolled; however, three withdrew during the course of the study, and interviews were ultimately conducted with fifteen. Of these, data from thirteen participants (eight women and five men) were included in the final analysis, selected for the completeness and relevance of their interview responses.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTo ensure ethical compliance, the study received approval from Institutional Review Board of [Blinded for Review] (No. 2304/003\\u0026ndash;006). Interviews lasted between 60 and 90 minutes on average, with some participants interviewed up to three times as needed. Table\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab1\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e1\\u003c/span\\u003e presents the general characteristics of the participants.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"gridtable\\\"\\u003e\\u003ctable float=\\\"Yes\\\" id=\\\"Tab1\\\" border=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e \\u003ccaption language=\\\"En\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionNumber\\\"\\u003eTable 1\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionContent\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eGeneral characteristics of research participants\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/caption\\u003e \\u003ccolgroup cols=\\\"6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" colnum=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\" colnum=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\" colnum=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\" colnum=\\\"4\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\" colnum=\\\"5\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\" colnum=\\\"6\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cthead\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCode\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eStatus\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eMajor (Field)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eGender\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAge group\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTotal research experience\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/thead\\u003e \\u003ctbody\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eS01\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSenior Researcher\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAgricultural Life Sciences\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(Plant Immunology)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFemale\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e40s\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e10 years\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eS02\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSenior Researcher\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAgricultural Life Sciences (Horticultural Science)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFemale\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e30s\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e15 years\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eS03\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eResearcher\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eLife Sciences\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(Genetic Engineering)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eMale\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e30s\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e12 years\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eS04\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eResearcher\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eComputer Engineering, Medicine (Immunomicrobiology)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFemale\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e30s\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e10 years\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eS05\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eResearcher\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAgricultural Life Sciences (Horticultural Crop Breeding)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eMale\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e30s\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e12 years\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eS09\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eResearcher\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eLife Sciences (Microbiology)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFemale\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e30s\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e15 years\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eS11\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eResearcher\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eChemistry (Organic Chemistry)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eMale\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e30s\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e10 years\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePS01\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePhD Student\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eLife Sciences\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(Molecular Cell Biology)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eMale\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e20s\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e5 years\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePS02\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePhD Student\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePhysical Chemistry\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(Materials Science \\u0026amp; Engineering)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFemale\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e30s\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e3 years\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePS03\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePhD Student\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eMedicine (Immunology)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFemale\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e20s\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e5 years\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePS04\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePhD Student\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eMedicine (Immunology)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFemale\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e20s\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e5 years\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePS05\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePhD Student\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eLife Sciences\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(Molecular Cell Biology)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFemale\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e20s\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e4 years\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePS06\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePhD Student\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eMathematics\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e(Applied Mathematics)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eMale\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e20s\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e8 years\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/tbody\\u003e \\u003c/colgroup\\u003e \\u003c/table\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec12\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e3.3 Interview Structure\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe study employed a three-phase semi-structured interview protocol. Interview questions were iteratively refined through consultation with a qualitative research expert, and prior training was conducted on techniques for addressing sensitive topics and effective interviewing practices.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e During the introduction and preparation phase, the researcher and participants engaged in brief ice-breaking conversations, sharing their laboratory research experiences to build trust and rapport. Participants were then asked to provide background information, including their academic discipline and research history, and to recall three particularly memorable instances of collaboration from recent years. This approach was designed to facilitate participants\\u0026rsquo; recollection of concrete collaborative episodes. Additionally, a role-selection item was included to help participants reflect on their typical involvement in collaborative contexts and to encourage open, natural discussion of potentially weighty experiences.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIn the first phase, participants described the \\u0026ldquo;most difficult collaboration experience\\u0026rdquo; among the episodes they had previously recalled. To support clear reflection on interpersonal dynamics, they constructed a relationship map showing the roles and connections among those involved. This visual tool clarified participants\\u0026rsquo; accounts, especially in collaborations involving disciplinary, hierarchical, and gender diversity. Participants used anonymized identifiers such as \\u0026ldquo;PhD1,\\u0026rdquo; \\u0026ldquo;Professor2,\\u0026rdquo; or \\u0026ldquo;Researcher3\\u0026rdquo; to refer to specific individuals.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFollow-up questions examined the collaboration\\u0026rsquo;s topic, role distribution, and the nature of tensions or difficulties that arose. The relationship map remained open to revision during the interview and served as a prompt for detailed accounts of interactions and emotions linked to specific individuals. After this exploration, participants responded to a creative prompt: \\u0026ldquo;If you had access to one superpower during that collaboration, what ability would have helped you?\\u0026rdquo; This question encouraged participants to synthesize their experience in a personal and focused way, often surfacing insights or emotions not previously articulated. It contributed to a clearer understanding of the emotional and experiential dimensions of collaboration.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIn the second phase, participants reflected on their \\u0026ldquo;most positive collaboration experience\\u0026rdquo; using the same method. Using a relationship map, they described member roles, the course of collaboration, and factors that contributed to its success. The phase ended with the question, \\u0026ldquo;If you had to describe collaboration in a single word, what would it be?\\u0026rdquo; This prompt invited participants to state their view and emotional stance toward collaboration. It sometimes led to new episodes and clarified the context of earlier cases. These accounts served as contrasts to the difficult experiences and supported the analysis.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec13\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e3.4 Data analysis\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eWe coded participants\\u0026rsquo; utterances using a coding scheme developed to systematically analyze structural causes of conflict in collaborative processes(Table\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab2\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e2\\u003c/span\\u003e). Throughout the analysis, we kept reflective memos to document interpretive decisions and analytical judgments. These memos functioned as a key tool for adjusting coding procedures, refining research questions, and facilitating researcher discussions in identifying patterns and themes. The systematic documentation of reflective memos enhanced the confirmability and credibility of the findings (Anney, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR3\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2014\\u003c/span\\u003e). Two researchers independently coded all data. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion, and repeated review led to analytic consensus, supporting the overall validity and rigor of the analysis.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e Not all participant utterances were directly related to collaboration. Statements with no clear connection to collaborative contexts were excluded from coding. For instance, remarks like \\u0026ldquo;The experiment was very difficult. The conditions in SPF\\u0026hellip;\\u0026rdquo; described physical or technical challenges but lacked relevance to collaborative dynamics such as conflict or role allocation. These utterances were not included in the main analysis but were documented separately as memos, considering their potential use in discussing how research environments indirectly affect collaboration. This memoing served as a reference for identifying contextual influences on collaborative conflict.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSome utterances were excluded from coding due to a lack of objective evidence. For instance, when participants speculated about the roles or hierarchical structure of other teams based on personal experience, such statements were not included in the analysis, as they did not reflect verifiable information about those teams. This decision was made to ensure clarity in identifying conflict causes, as defined in the coding scheme. However, when a participant\\u0026rsquo;s subjective perception offered insight into the research context, the utterance was documented as a memo or classified as an interpretive code for supplementary analysis. For example, the statement \\u0026ldquo;I remember they just did what the professor told them to do\\u0026rdquo; was based on the participant\\u0026rsquo;s memory of their master\\u0026rsquo;s program and inferred the roles of others. While lacking objective grounding, it contributed to exploring subjective understandings of role dynamics. This approach maintained analytical objectivity while capturing the interpretive significance of participant perspectives.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTo enhance the validity of qualitative analysis and ensure interpretive coherence, we employed multiple verification strategies. In addition to repeated discussions among the research team, member checking was conducted to confirm the appropriateness of utterance interpretation. Weekly data meetings supported ongoing dialogue about coding criteria and analytic direction (Anney, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR3\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2014\\u003c/span\\u003e). We also engaged in peer debriefing with colleagues and academic experts familiar with qualitative methods. This allowed for critical reflection on our interpretations and the integration of alternative perspectives. Guba (\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR32\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1981\\u003c/span\\u003e) describes peer debriefing as a procedure that enables researchers to examine their insights and subject them to rigorous questioning, while Bitsch (\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR7\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2005\\u003c/span\\u003e) highlights the importance of incorporating peer perspectives into the development of research conclusions. Presenting our findings at academic conferences and departmental seminars further enabled critical feedback from peers with varied disciplinary backgrounds. These practices helped mitigate interpretive bias and reinforced the transparency and credibility of the analysis.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"gridtable\\\"\\u003e\\u003ctable float=\\\"Yes\\\" id=\\\"Tab2\\\" border=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e \\u003ccaption language=\\\"En\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionNumber\\\"\\u003eTable 2\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionContent\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCoding framework integrating structural conflict theory and conflict management model\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/caption\\u003e \\u003ccolgroup cols=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" colnum=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\" colnum=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\" colnum=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cthead\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCode\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eDescription\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSample quotes\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"3\\\" nameend=\\\"c3\\\" namest=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cem\\u003eStructural Causes\\u003c/em\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/thead\\u003e \\u003ctbody\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eRole-related issues\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAmbiguity, overlap, or mismatch of expected roles; problems caused by a lack of clear role definition\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;It wasn\\u0026rsquo;t like, \\u0026lsquo;You do this and that\\u0026rsquo;\\u0026mdash;there was no assignment, and PhD student 4 just did everything on their own.\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eResource issues\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eImbalance in research personnel, funding, equipment, space, or data analysis skills\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;The only lab with unrestricted BL3 access was the PI\\u0026rsquo;s own lab.\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePower issues\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eUnequal distribution of decision-making authority, abuse of power, hierarchical barriers, or unequal representation of opinions\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;Once the professor thinks something \\u0026lsquo;might be the case,\\u0026rsquo; he rarely changes his mind.\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eGoal incongruence\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eLack of opportunity to share goals, or differences in perception of the research objective\\u0026rsquo;s value\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;In this project, we were pursuing different goals.\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCommunication issues\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eInadequate information sharing, indirect communication, distorted messages, lack of interaction, or inefficient channels\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;PhD 1 and 2 didn\\u0026rsquo;t talk to each other. Since they never said what experiments they were doing or what they were observing, no one really knew what the other was working on.\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colspan=\\\"3\\\" nameend=\\\"c3\\\" namest=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003eConflict Handling Styles\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCompeting\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePrioritizing one\\u0026rsquo;s own goals while dismissing or forcing the other\\u0026rsquo;s needs\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;I said, \\u0026lsquo;There\\u0026rsquo;s no time\\u0026mdash;just send it by 4 PM no matter what.\\u0026rsquo;\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAccommodating\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eYielding one\\u0026rsquo;s position to prioritize the other\\u0026rsquo;s needs\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;Once I took it on, I felt responsible and just ended up doing it all myself.\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCompromising\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eBoth sides making concessions to find a middle ground\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;We tried to find a compromise point and built the data around that.\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCollaborating\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eJointly seeking a solution that maximizes mutual benefit\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;We adjusted things so that both of us could be satisfied.\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAvoiding\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eWithdrawing from or ignoring the conflict situation\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;I think I just tried to ignore it.\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/tbody\\u003e \\u003c/colgroup\\u003e \\u003c/table\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"4. Finding\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eThis study investigates conflicts experienced by researchers during collaboration in university STEM laboratories and aims to empirically examine their structural causes and resolution patterns. The findings are presented under two main themes. First, the analysis reveals that collaboration-related conflicts are rooted in structural conditions. These conditions were categorized into five types: goal incongruence; resource constraints (including shortages of personnel, administrative burdens, staff turnover, and limitations in material or technical resources); role ambiguity; hierarchical and power asymmetries; and communication breakdowns. The study examines how these factors operate within the organizational and environmental contexts of STEM labs to give rise to conflict. Second, the analysis focuses on the conflict management strategies employed by researchers. These included accommodating, avoiding, compromising, and competing. Such responses were shaped by the specific situational dynamics of the lab, including power relations, individual positionality, and local research environments.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec15\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e4.1 Structural Mechanisms and Types of Collaboration Conflict in University STEM Laboratories\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec16\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e4.1.1 Goal Incongruence in Collaborative Processes\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCollaboration in university STEM laboratories is not always initiated through formal proposals or scholarly dialogue. As reflected in statements such as, \\u0026ldquo;Our professor met another professor through a sports club and proposed working together\\u0026rdquo; (S11), and \\u0026ldquo;It was just a personal connection\\u0026mdash;we were planning to write a paper together\\u0026hellip;\\u0026rdquo; (PS01), collaborations often emerge through informal faculty networks. Moreover, statements like, \\u0026ldquo;Regional universities don\\u0026rsquo;t receive much funding... honestly, it\\u0026rsquo;s about securing research money\\u0026rdquo; (S09), \\u0026ldquo;It was really just to get the money\\u0026rdquo; (PS03), and \\u0026ldquo;They offered funding and said they\\u0026rsquo;d share the research grant if we worked together\\u0026rdquo; (PS03) highlight how the pursuit of research funding can act as a central motivation. Because research assignments are frequently determined by faculty rather than initiated by the researchers themselves, such arrangements can create a context in which goal incongruence arises for those carrying out the work. The following case (PS01) illustrates how this misalignment played out in practice.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;There was conflict with the collaborating team. This was not a collaboration based on a shared commitment to the project\\u0026rsquo;s goals, but rather one initiated at the request of our PI. It was built on personal connections, with the purpose of co-authoring a paper, and offered no financial compensation. The relationship between teams felt more like, \\u0026lsquo;We\\u0026rsquo;ll include your name if you agree to work with us.\\u0026rsquo; Our team was focused on therapeutic development, while the collaborating team was involved on the condition of receiving first authorship. In practice, however, only the professor showed genuine interest in the project, while the students appeared largely disengaged.\\u0026rdquo; (PS01)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePS01 highlighted that the collaboration was not grounded in a shared research goal but was initiated unilaterally, driven by one team\\u0026rsquo;s needs and informal connections. The two teams pursued divergent objectives, and discrepancies in commitment were evident even within the collaborating team. Although framed as a collaboration, the arrangement was largely transactional, lacking mutual understanding. The low engagement of student researchers within the collaborating team became a key point of tension.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;They had their own experiments to run and didn\\u0026rsquo;t seem particularly interested in our project. Our team was in need and reached out for collaboration, but their existing research commitments made it difficult for them to contribute. This may explain their delays or their expressed difficulty in participating due to scheduling conflicts. Ultimately, they were unable to engage actively in our research because their focus remained on their own experiments.\\u0026rdquo; (PS01)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThis statement illustrates how differing perceptions of goals and priorities between collaborating teams can manifest as conflict during the research process. The team approached for collaboration prioritized their own experimental timeline and perceived the external project as secondary. As a result, friction emerged during the implementation phase, marked by unmet commitments and limited engagement.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePS06 and PS03 likewise described comparable situations:\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;The collaborating lab was large and ran multiple experiments, so they didn\\u0026rsquo;t prioritize our project, and data delivery was often delayed.\\u0026rdquo; (PS06)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;Although this was technically our largest collaboration, it wasn\\u0026rsquo;t the main project for either me or my junior colleague, so we couldn\\u0026rsquo;t fully commit to it.\\u0026rdquo; (PS03)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIn university research settings, it is common for researchers to manage multiple projects concurrently rather than dedicating themselves to a single topic. As a result, collaborative research is often treated as a lower priority. Such goal misalignment frequently leads to conflicting priorities, contributing to delays in collaboration and interpersonal tensions among researchers.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eS02 described a case in which team members shared common goals and emphasized that goal alignment was critical to the success of the collaboration.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;To complete a project efficiently, it is crucial that everyone shares a similar understanding of its importance\\u0026mdash;when that happens, the work proceeds smoothly, and roles are fulfilled without delay. But if even one person perceives the task as less urgent, progress slows. As I mentioned, the most difficult part of collaboration is when team members hold differing views about the significance of the work, which consistently causes delays.\\u0026rdquo; (S02)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIn this case, shared goals motivated each team member to carry out their responsibilities effectively, allowing for smooth and timely collaboration. In contrast, when members held differing views on the task\\u0026rsquo;s importance, some postponed their work or engaged only minimally, potentially disrupting the project\\u0026rsquo;s overall progress.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec17\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e4.1.2 Structural Constraints of Research Resources and Collaboration Conflict\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eResearch resources encompass the essential components required to carry out scientific work, including human resources (researchers and technical staff), financial support (funding), physical infrastructure (equipment and space), technical and digital capacity for data collection and analysis, and administrative or institutional support for effective project management (NRC, 2012; OECD, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR59\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2015\\u003c/span\\u003e). These resources are inherently limited, and their scarcity or unequal distribution can serve as a key source of conflict in collaborative research settings.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cb\\u003eHuman Resource Constraints\\u003c/b\\u003e A recurring issue across laboratories was a critical shortage of personnel available to carry out research tasks. This was particularly evident in large-scale projects where substantial workloads were concentrated among a small number of individuals. For example, participants noted, \\u0026ldquo;There weren\\u0026rsquo;t that many research staff, so each person had to handle the equivalent of 100 units of work\\u0026rdquo; (PS03), \\u0026ldquo;Manpower was limited, so it was physically exhausting\\u0026rdquo; (PS01), \\u0026ldquo;Only two graduate students were doing the practical work\\u0026rdquo; (PS04), \\u0026ldquo;I was doing all the experiments and analysis alone\\u0026rdquo; (S04), and \\u0026ldquo;Although many people were listed on the project, only Master\\u0026rsquo;s student 2 actually performed the experiments\\u0026rdquo; (PS09). These statements highlight the pervasive problem of understaffing in research collaborations.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eUnder staffing constraints, researchers are often burdened with administrative responsibilities in addition to their core research duties, including grant applications, budgeting, and laboratory management. These forms of labor are frequently treated as distinct from scientific activity and are often rendered invisible despite their critical role. As Fujimura (\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR28\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1987\\u003c/span\\u003e) argues, such administrative work constitutes a central form of articulation work\\u0026mdash;aligning organizational, material, and temporal elements to make scientific problems \\u0026ldquo;do-able\\u0026rdquo; in practice.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe problem arises when such invisible and repetitive administrative tasks are concentrated on specific researchers or carried out without clear role allocation, potentially leading to conflict in collaborative settings. When researchers lack sufficient time for scientific work and administrative overload results in role imbalances, these conditions can become structural barriers to effective collaboration.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIn university STEM laboratories, students and researchers were frequently tasked with administrative responsibilities beyond their primary research duties, such as grant applications, budgeting, and lab management. Even when administrative personnel were present, limited capacity often led to the redistribution of these tasks back onto researchers. This tendency was particularly evident in labs managing multiple projects, where graduate students and postdoctoral researchers routinely took on administrative work in addition to conducting experiments and writing manuscripts.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe case of PS02 vividly illustrates this issue:\\u003cdiv class=\\\"BlockQuote\\\"\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eThe administrative staff was supposed to upload the project proposal, but she had no idea how to do it. She didn\\u0026rsquo;t know how to calculate the research budget and said Excel was too difficult. It was incredibly stressful\\u0026mdash;I ended up doing everything myself, from uploading the application to managing all administrative and financial processes.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003cp\\u003eShe said she was on vacation. The deadline was that same week, and I found out on Tuesday\\u0026mdash;with only three days left. What could I possibly do?\\u003c/p\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;As a result, I couldn\\u0026rsquo;t conduct any research. I lost four to five months dealing solely with administrative work for this project.\\u0026rdquo; (PS02)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThis case illustrates how the inadequacy of administrative support can place disproportionate burdens on individual researchers, disrupting the continuity and efficiency of research. Occurring during a period that coincided with coursework and final exams, the incident led to emotional exhaustion, highlighting the affective dimension of conflict in collaborative settings.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAnother human resource issue that undermined collaborative continuity was the cyclical turnover of personnel. Given the structure of university laboratories, master's students typically graduate and leave within two years, resulting in frequent personnel changes during long-term projects. This turnover disrupted experimental continuity, and when handovers were incomplete, it led to reduced reproducibility and inefficiencies such as redundant work.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eS03 and S09 highlighted the consequences of frequent personnel turnover in long-term projects:\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;I began this project working with a master's student, but after that person graduated, others came and went. The project extended over a long period, and the collaborators kept changing.\\u0026rdquo; (S03)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;The problem is this. I started the project as an undergraduate and worked on it through the first and second years. But when the senior members left, there was little handover. Reproducibility is key in research, but we couldn't replicate results consistently\\u0026mdash;and that became a significant issue.\\u0026rdquo; (S09)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThese accounts underscore that the generation and interpretation of experimental data are not purely technical tasks, but social and organizational practices that demand contextual understanding and sustained engagement. Personnel turnover and role discontinuity, therefore, can result in collaborative breakdowns and should be understood not as administrative oversights but as structural flaws inherent in the organization of research work.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cb\\u003eFunding Constraints\\u003c/b\\u003e Research in university STEM laboratories demands substantial financial resources, and the high cost of experimental materials means that funding shortages can directly disrupt lab operations. In underfunded labs, pressures to maximize resource efficiency are high, affecting research practices, interpersonal dynamics, and the allocation of experimental opportunities.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIn research environments with ample funding, material losses or researcher errors during experiments are generally met with tolerance. However, in settings with limited resources, the outcome of an experiment is closely linked to the continuity of funding, resulting in a lower tolerance for failure. These contrasting conditions shape how experimental failure is interpreted and managed, ultimately influencing the formation of a laboratory\\u0026rsquo;s research culture.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eS01 reflected on the contrast between their doctoral lab and their current environment, highlighting how funding conditions shape research culture:\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;Back then, we lacked funding. One PhD student and one postdoc worked for three years on a single grant. We made everything ourselves, and it was rare to purchase materials. Under those conditions, mistakes felt much more consequential. In my current lab, where funding is sufficient, mistakes are generally accepted as part of the learning process.\\u0026rdquo; (S01)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThis account demonstrates how the interpretation of experimental failure is shaped by resource conditions. In well-funded environments, the ability to repeat experiments fosters a culture that treats mistakes as part of learning. In contrast, in resource-limited settings, errors often translate directly into financial losses, becoming a source of tension and conflict among team members. S01 further emphasized that funding conditions influence researchers\\u0026rsquo; psychological orientation, behavioral patterns, and modes of adaptation, offering the following analogy.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;It\\u0026rsquo;s like when someone grows up in a wealthy household and suddenly moves to a poor one\\u0026mdash;they really struggle. One of the graduate students from our lab went to the U.S. for an internship-like position and found it extremely difficult for a year and a half. She had to get the professor\\u0026rsquo;s approval for every single purchase. That must have been incredibly frustrating. But for me, because I used to make everything from scratch, the current environment feels very comfortable.\\u0026rdquo; (S01)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThis account highlights how funding shortages can create psychological barriers to resource use among team members, while simultaneously reinforcing hierarchical, professor-centered decision-making structures.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eS04 similarly highlighted how the high cost of experimental materials restricted practice opportunities:\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;Many of the reagents are extremely expensive\\u0026mdash;some cost over one million won. That\\u0026rsquo;s why our professor discourages practice. A small bottle of reagent can cost 600,000 won, and it\\u0026rsquo;s used up after just two attempts.\\u0026rdquo; (S04)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThis statement illustrates how resource scarcity can not only limit the frequency of experiments, but also cultivate a culture in which practice itself is discouraged. The reduction in experimental opportunities constrains skill development and can intensify researchers\\u0026rsquo; fear of failure.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eBy contrast, in laboratories with relatively abundant resources, researchers had greater autonomy to plan and adjust their experiments. S05 reflected on their experience in such an environment as follows.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;Our lab never experienced a significant lack of funding. At one point, I had my own project as well, so I could conduct experiments without much pressure. Genome analyses, for example, cost around six million won each time, so the professor was always aware of them. But if an experiment failed, we simply discarded the results\\u0026mdash;it wasn\\u0026rsquo;t a big deal. Sometimes we even conducted experiments without the professor\\u0026rsquo;s knowledge. Having sufficient funding made that possible. If the results looked promising, we would inform the professor and proceed.\\u0026rdquo; (S05)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThis account demonstrates that in resource-rich environments, researchers experience reduced psychological pressure around experimental failure and greater autonomy in designing and conducting experiments. Resource availability extends beyond material conditions, functioning as a structural factor that shapes scientific agency, tolerance for failure, and the broader culture of collaboration within the laboratory.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cb\\u003eMaterial and Technical Resource Constraints\\u003c/b\\u003e When a specific laboratory holds concentrated access to material and technical resources\\u0026mdash;such as experimental equipment, advanced analytical tools, or specialized facilities\\u0026mdash;partner teams are often placed in a position of dependence. This dynamic introduces structural asymmetries into the collaboration and heightens the potential for conflict. PS03 reflected on such conditions, describing challenges in conducting experiments due to exclusive access to high-level equipment (BL3) by one lab.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;When conducting our experiments, we needed access to various mouse systems, but borrowing equipment from other teams wasn\\u0026rsquo;t an option. The only lab with unrestricted access to the BL3 facility was the one run by the principal investigator.\\u0026rdquo; (PS03)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eRestricted access to essential equipment can cause significant delays in experimental timelines and constitutes a structural bottleneck arising from centralized resource allocation. PS02 reported that their research was delayed by nearly a year due to the collaborating team\\u0026rsquo;s lack of analytical equipment, during which they faced growing pressure to deliver results and experienced shifting responsibility for the project\\u0026rsquo;s stagnation.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;My responsibility was to synthesize the materials required for the experiment, while another team was in charge of conducting the analysis. After handing over the synthesized materials, we needed to wait for the results and validation before proceeding to the next stage. However, equipment issues on the part of Researcher B caused repeated delays, and the project was ultimately set back by nearly a year. During this period, Professor A continually pressured me with questions like, \\u0026lsquo;When will this be finished?\\u0026rsquo; and \\u0026lsquo;When is the paper coming out?\\u0026rsquo;\\u0026rdquo; (PS02)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAs delays persisted, PS02 described a gradual erosion of trust in the collaborating team, stating, \\u0026ldquo;I started to wonder, do they actually intend to follow through with this?\\u0026rdquo;\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePS06 similarly described reaching a threshold of patience due to the prolonged delays caused by the collaborating team, and ultimately resorted to alternative measures to move the project forward.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;One of the ongoing delays involves a project the other research team has been conducting for four to five years without producing clear results. Given how long it's taken, we couldn't keep waiting indefinitely, so we developed a hypothetical discussion model to generate alternative outcomes.\\u0026rdquo; (PS06)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eS09 described the structural vulnerability of sequential collaboration, where delays in one team\\u0026rsquo;s workflow stalled the entire project. They expressed feelings of helplessness and difficulty in holding collaborators accountable:\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;Our microbiology team had to complete its experiments before the molecular team could proceed. But microbiological work takes time\\u0026mdash;often a year or two. During that period, the molecular team continued receiving funding and salaries while claiming they couldn\\u0026rsquo;t move forward because we hadn\\u0026rsquo;t provided data. When we finally did, they used only their part and passed the final report writing back to us. After this happened repeatedly, I began to question whether this could even be called collaboration.\\u0026rdquo; (S09)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSuch dependencies and delays are not limited to scheduling concerns; they can also produce emotional distance and psychological unease among collaborators. PS01 reflected on feelings of informal hierarchy and a lack of belonging that emerged when relying on another team\\u0026rsquo;s resources:\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;Since we had never conducted animal experiments before, we had to learn everything from scratch. I got the sense that the other team didn\\u0026rsquo;t really like that. There\\u0026rsquo;s no hard evidence\\u0026mdash;it was just my impression\\u0026mdash;but I did feel a kind of territorial attitude from them.\\u0026rdquo; (PS01)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIn inter-laboratory collaborations within STEM fields, asymmetries in material and technical resources often lead to delays and operational constraints, which in turn can produce hierarchical dynamics, erode trust, and generate emotional tensions among collaborators.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec18\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e4.1.3 Role Conflict and the Distribution of Responsibility Among Researchers\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eRole-related issues in collaborative processes serve as a central source of conflict within research teams. This study identifies three primary types of role conflict in STEM laboratories: (1) the absence of clear role allocation; (2) conflicts resulting from overlapping roles and hierarchical norms; and (3) tensions arising from a mismatch between expected and actual responsibilities, particularly under performance-driven cultures.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cb\\u003eAbsence of Role Allocation\\u003c/b\\u003e In instances where roles were not clearly defined, collaboration often collapsed into individualized labor. PS05 pointed out a case in which, due to the absence of role clarification, one researcher (PhD4) was left to manage all of the core tasks alone.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;It felt like everyone was just doing whatever they wanted. There were no clear directives like, \\u0026lsquo;You take care of this and that,\\u0026rsquo; and no actual division of roles. In the end, PhD4 handled everything alone.\\u0026rdquo; (PS05)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIn small-scale laboratories with limited personnel, the lack of clear role boundaries often complicates the evaluation of individual contributions. As PS04 explained:\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;With so few people, it was difficult to divide up roles\\u0026hellip; (omitted) When only two people are doing the actual work, the lines of responsibility become very blurred. Even though both of us worked hard, when it came time to decide whose name would go first on the paper, we had to determine who had contributed more.\\u0026rdquo; (PS04)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThis statement demonstrated that the absence of clearly defined or recorded roles in collaborative environments often led to disputes over authorship and contribution. In small teams operating with joint task execution, unclear boundaries of responsibility frequently necessitated post hoc justification of individual contributions.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003eConflict\\u003c/strong\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cb\\u003eArising from Role Overlap and Hierarchical Culture\\u003c/b\\u003e Role overlap often exacerbated interpersonal tensions when entangled with Korea\\u0026rsquo;s seniority-based organizational culture. In some cases, the absence of clearly designated leadership in research projects enabled seniority-based hierarchies to shape the dynamics of collaboration and decision-making.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;Our professor assigned me to lead the project and said, \\u0026lsquo;I\\u0026rsquo;ll bring in someone who can assist you.\\u0026rsquo; But the person he brought in was significantly more senior than I was, and that led to considerable conflict over our respective roles.\\u0026rdquo; (S02)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThis case demonstrates how the absence of clearly established leadership, when intersecting with seniority-based hierarchies, can destabilize role expectations and create tension over authority. While formal responsibility was assigned to a junior researcher, the presence of a more senior colleague blurred the locus of leadership and gave rise to conflicts over control and legitimacy.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;The main issue, as I mentioned, was that I had been assigned to lead the project, but I was a newly minted postdoc at the time. The colleague brought in to assist had completed their PhD seven or eight years earlier and was a highly experienced senior postdoc. From their perspective, my leadership may not have seemed entirely credible, and they often asserted their views strongly. When their input was not adopted, they expressed significant dissatisfaction, which led to frequent clashes.\\u0026rdquo; (S02)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThis case illustrates how formal leadership can be destabilized when it clashes with informal hierarchies grounded in seniority and experience. The junior researcher\\u0026rsquo;s authority was repeatedly questioned by the more senior colleague, resulting in tension over decision-making processes and emotional strain rooted in contested legitimacy.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003eConflict\\u003c/strong\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cb\\u003eArising from Mismatches Between Expected and Actual Roles Within Performance-Oriented Research Cultures\\u003c/b\\u003e Mismatches between researchers\\u0026rsquo; anticipated and actual roles often triggered conflict within the performance-driven culture of university STEM laboratories. In these environments, scholarly output\\u0026mdash;especially publications\\u0026mdash;functions as a key measure of achievement, and for postdoctoral researchers, such metrics are critical to career advancement. When administrative tasks unrelated to direct research outcomes are informally delegated, affected researchers may face disproportionate workloads and psychological burnout.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eUpon returning from maternity leave, S01 was tasked with managing the launch and operations of a research center, in addition to her experimental work. She reflected on the strain of balancing both roles in the absence of any formal recognition:\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;Our professor told me, \\u0026lsquo;Don\\u0026rsquo;t stay too busy with experiments\\u0026mdash;you\\u0026rsquo;ve just had a baby. Help with the center operations instead.\\u0026rsquo; But I knew that stepping away from experiments wouldn\\u0026rsquo;t be compensated in any way. As a postdoc, your performance is measured by publications... and I had to do both. It felt like I was being torn apart.\\u0026rdquo; (S01)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThis case demonstrates how the informal delegation of administrative responsibilities\\u0026mdash;often unlinked to formal performance metrics\\u0026mdash;can result in role conflict and emotional fatigue. When postdoctoral researchers are pulled away from their core research activities, the disjunction between performance evaluation systems and actual task distribution becomes evident, exposing the structural inequities embedded in role definitions within collaborative research settings.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eS01 also recounted a case in which a researcher voiced frustration at being assigned tasks unrelated to their core research role:\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;PhD1 said, \\u0026lsquo;Why are you assigning this to me? I came here to do research\\u0026mdash;not to deal with these kinds of things.\\u0026rsquo;\\u0026rdquo; (S01)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSuch dissatisfaction was amplified when researchers perceived a lack of recognition for their expertise or were compelled to perform tasks outside their anticipated roles. Discrepancies between expected and actual responsibilities diminished motivation and undermined both research productivity and the formation of trust within collaborative teams.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIn contrast, collaboration proceeded more smoothly when roles were clearly defined and voluntarily assumed in the early stages of a project. PS06 described a case in which postdoctoral researchers self-selected data analysis tasks, followed by sustained inter-lab discussions:\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;When the data arrived, they asked, \\u0026lsquo;Who would like to take this on?\\u0026rsquo; The postdocs raised their hands\\u0026mdash;\\u0026lsquo;I\\u0026rsquo;ll give it a try\\u0026rsquo;\\u0026mdash;and from there, all the labs continued to engage in joint discussions.\\u0026rdquo; (PS06)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThis example illustrates how early-stage role clarity combined with voluntary task selection and collective discussion can improve both collaboration efficiency and individual accountability.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec19\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e4.1.4 Hierarchy and Power in STEM Lab Collaboration\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIn STEM laboratories, hierarchical structures are not only common but often seen as necessary. Roles and responsibilities are typically stratified according to academic status\\u0026mdash;professors, postdoctoral researchers, doctoral students, and master\\u0026rsquo;s students\\u0026mdash;within an apprenticeship-based system. This model facilitates the transfer of knowledge and skills from senior to junior researchers, contributing to professional development, but it may also restrict the autonomy and agency of junior members. Hierarchy is often justified by the principal investigator\\u0026rsquo;s responsibility for project direction and resource acquisition, serving as a mechanism for distributing tasks and ensuring decision-making efficiency. However, conflict may arise when hierarchical power is exercised in disproportionate or unacknowledged ways within collaborative settings.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\\"It wasn\\u0026rsquo;t an equal relationship. I began collaborating in my first semester of the master\\u0026rsquo;s program, just as I was starting to adjust, but the PhD student felt too intimidating for me to express any opinions. The lab had a mentor-apprentice system, so it was difficult to speak freely, and I lacked knowledge, making it hard to present any opinions or ideas. Usually, the PhD student and the professor would decide on the direction through discussion, and I would receive instructions on the experiments to perform, ending up in a role similar to a technician.\\\" (PS01)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\\"PhD student 1 tends to be quite stubborn and doesn\\u0026rsquo;t really listen when I suggest an idea. I think it\\u0026rsquo;s because I\\u0026rsquo;m seen as a junior or still just a student. But PhD student 2 is very open. When I present an idea, they say, 'That could be possible,' and we have some discussion. So, in that sense, there was more interaction.\\\" (PS05)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThis case illustrates a structural problem in STEM laboratories, where the intersection of the apprenticeship model and hierarchical organization constrains the actual voice and contributions of junior researchers within formal collaborations. Power is legitimized not only through status but also through internalized psychological intimidation and self-censorship.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eWhen power derived from hierarchy functioned as a unilateral command structure, it often led to role overload, inequitable task distribution, and unrecognized contributions, which in turn triggered conflict.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;PhD student 1 assigned me to complete the review paper. I already knew from prior experience that writing reviews involved tedious tasks\\u0026hellip; I was aware that I needed to write it for research output, but I didn\\u0026rsquo;t want to. So I tried to express this indirectly, but he said, \\u0026lsquo;If you don\\u0026rsquo;t want to write, just say so. But output? It\\u0026rsquo;s better to have something. And once you\\u0026rsquo;re in the real world, you\\u0026rsquo;ll face more than what you're dealing with here.\\u0026rsquo; That made it difficult to refuse, so I just agreed.\\u0026rdquo; (PS02)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe PhD researcher\\u0026rsquo;s emphasis on output was accompanied by subtle social pressure rather than acceptance of refusal. As a result, the junior researcher\\u0026rsquo;s autonomy was constrained, and the lab\\u0026rsquo;s hierarchical structure directly shaped task allocation and psychological burden.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e As exemplified by PS02, cases in which hierarchical power was exercised through language\\u0026mdash;hierarchy-based verbal domination\\u0026mdash;appeared frequently. PS02 described how academic prestige and performance-driven evaluation criteria were linguistically imposed on lab members. He recalled a postdoctoral researcher saying, \\u0026ldquo;Things always work out if you're from S University. Do you think it was easy for someone from a regional university to get this far?\\u0026rdquo; Such remarks, combined with statements like \\u0026ldquo;You need 20 papers to be considered equal to someone from S University,\\u0026rdquo; functioned as tools to rank members by institutional background and research output, induce feelings of inferiority, and legitimize a burdensome and inescapable hierarchy. This form of verbal coercion extended beyond discomfort, contributing to actual cases of member withdrawal.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;When students didn\\u0026rsquo;t listen, she said things like, \\u0026lsquo;Are you ignoring me on purpose?\\u0026rsquo; and went to the professor saying, \\u0026lsquo;Students at this university have no manners,\\u0026rsquo; and \\u0026lsquo;They just want to choose who they work with.\\u0026rsquo;\\u0026rdquo; (S01)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;\\u0026lsquo;You\\u0026rsquo;re much younger and don\\u0026rsquo;t know anything yet. I have to teach you, so you need to do as I say\\u0026rsquo;\\u0026mdash;that was the baseline.\\u0026rdquo; (S02)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;There was an air of, \\u0026lsquo;I\\u0026rsquo;ve been in this field for 15 years.\\u0026rsquo;\\u0026rdquo; (S04)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThese statements illustrate how superiors invoked language to assert authority, constrain the voice and autonomy of junior members, and reinforce hierarchical order. Such verbal domination is not merely a matter of communication, but a mechanism through which power is performed and reproduced in everyday interactions.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;One PhD student gathered all the combined master\\u0026rsquo;s-PhD program students from labs a, b, c, and d for a meeting. Without the professors. He tried to use his position\\u0026mdash;being someone who had already completed his PhD\\u0026mdash;to kind of do something on his own. He didn\\u0026rsquo;t consult with the professors.\\u0026rdquo; (PS03)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e Hierarchy-based verbal domination operates not only through the content of speech but also as a form of organizational power enacted through summoning, directing, and decision-making. In the cited case, the PhD student went beyond language use to mobilize organizational actions, attempting to bypass or substitute formal procedures and authority. This illustrates that the hierarchical structure of STEM laboratories is not limited to vertical role division but is materially enacted and reproduced through everyday language and behavior.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIn contrast, there were also cases where collaboration occurred in a horizontal manner despite the presence of formal hierarchies. Recalling a project with an external organization during the PhD program, PS01 described a qualitatively different experience from the top-down, task-oriented collaboration of an apprenticeship-based lab:\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;I would say that the collaboration was carried out on an equal footing. Our company\\u0026rsquo;s CEO served as the overall project lead, and we were more on the client side. It was technically a form of collaboration, but we were in charge of the project and took the lead in allocating roles. In that sense, unlike the apprenticeship-based lab I experienced during my master\\u0026rsquo;s, this was a project where each person fulfilled their role equally and collaboratively.\\u0026rdquo; (PS01)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThis account reflects a collaborative structure in which roles and responsibilities were clearly delineated and carried out through mutual respect and autonomy, without unilateral direction or authoritative control. While a project lead existed, participants exercised agency in decision-making and role distribution, performing function-based tasks. This case illustrates that hierarchical distinctions do not necessarily translate into power but can result in collaborative efficiency and mutual respect. The speaker highlights, through contrast with a prior apprenticeship-based setting, that their role was not limited to passive execution but involved active leadership in managing the project.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCollaborative relationships grounded in mutual respect and equality were also found in external partnerships. S02 described how an external professor, despite holding a higher formal position and greater career experience, made a conscious effort to avoid asserting authority and consistently respected the expertise of those involved:\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;In fact, even when this external professor asked me to run an experiment, he said things like, \\u0026lsquo;I\\u0026rsquo;ve never done experiments myself, so I\\u0026rsquo;ll just trust your timeline. Just tell me what you want to do.\\u0026rsquo; He really tried not to act unilaterally.\\u0026rdquo; (S02)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThis case shows that the existence of hierarchy and authority does not inevitably lead to dominant linguistic practices. The senior member, while aware of their formal position, actively transformed their authority into communication grounded in autonomy and trust. As S02 stated, the professor \\u0026ldquo;made an effort not to act unilaterally,\\u0026rdquo; indicating a conscious practice of restraint to prevent their authority from turning into dominance. This stands in contrast to the top-down instructions, suppressed voice, and hierarchy-based discourse commonly observed in apprenticeship-oriented lab structures. It highlights how collaborative relationships among researchers can be restructured horizontally through intentional relational attitudes and language use.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec20\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e4.1.5 Communication Issues\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIn university STEM laboratories, modes and pathways of communication emerged as structural sources of conflict in collaborative processes. Core issues included differences in disciplinary backgrounds, spatial and organizational separation, hierarchical communication structures, and the instability of informal communication channels.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIn STEM laboratories, differences in disciplinary backgrounds and research approaches among researchers often gave rise to conflict in scientific decision-making. When researchers from distinct fields applied divergent interpretations and evaluative criteria to the same phenomenon, disagreements emerged over how to proceed with research tasks.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePS01 described ongoing tensions in collaboration stemming from disciplinary differences between herself, trained in biology, and a chemistry professor. Similarly, S05 recounted recurring conflicts with her advisor, whose experimental orientation often clashed with her own genomic analysis approach.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;Biologically, it is natural for cellular results to vary due to environmental influences. But in chemistry, reproducibility is key\\u0026mdash;if a reacts with b, c should always result. My data showed high variability, which was difficult for the chemist to accept. I had to gather additional data and conduct extensive background research to explain it. Even then, the data were not understood, and discussions occasionally escalated.\\u0026rdquo; (PS01)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;I don\\u0026rsquo;t think the professor had any experience in genome analysis. While we based our work on standards from other crops, he approached the data experimentally. A 500Mb discrepancy in genome sequences is quite common genomically, but from an experimental viewpoint, it seemed implausible. Many meetings ended in frustration and anger.\\u0026rdquo; (S05)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eBoth participants described feeling that their data were not trusted\\u0026mdash;PS01 stating, \\u0026ldquo;I felt like my data was being dismissed,\\u0026rdquo; and S05 noting, \\u0026ldquo;The professor doesn\\u0026rsquo;t really trust my data.\\u0026rdquo; These instances reflect more than interpretive disagreement; they illustrate how conflicts can threaten researchers\\u0026rsquo; sense of credibility and scholarly identity.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eDifferences in disciplinary backgrounds also created challenges in interpreting data, giving feedback, and preparing experimental materials.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;When collaborating with the molecular team, the microbiology team had little understanding of molecular biology, and vice versa. While mutual respect existed, we often lacked the time to study each other\\u0026rsquo;s fields, so results were shared without being fully understood.\\u0026rdquo; (S09)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;Because the hospital staff were unfamiliar with my field, they had limited understanding of sample handling and research application. The sample information files were also poorly formatted, making interpretation difficult. These gaps in communication caused practical challenges.\\u0026rdquo; (PS04)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThese examples highlight how, in multidisciplinary STEM environments, collaboration quality and working relationships can deteriorate when there is insufficient mutual understanding or effort to share interpretive frameworks across fields.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIn contrast, when collaborators had a strong understanding of each other\\u0026rsquo;s disciplinary backgrounds, research tended to proceed more smoothly, with notable gains in efficiency and outcome quality. PS06, a mathematics major, shared a positive experience working with a PhD-level researcher trained in both mathematics and life sciences:\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;This PhD researcher, with a background in life sciences and mathematics, knew exactly what kind of data was needed for the experiments. They focused on extracting that data, which enabled us to write the paper quickly. The project progressed very efficiently.\\u0026rdquo; (PS06)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eWith insight into both experimental design and the structure of scientific writing, the researcher was able to anticipate data requirements and respond accordingly. PS06\\u0026rsquo;s remarks\\u0026mdash;\\u0026ldquo;they focused on the necessary data\\u0026rdquo; and \\u0026ldquo;we were able to write the paper quickly\\u0026rdquo;\\u0026mdash;underscore how disciplinary understanding enhanced not only communication but also research productivity.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe hierarchical structure of university STEM laboratories also shaped communication in a top-down manner, and when this structure led to unilateral decision-making, it often caused conflict.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;The professor preferred a top-down style of communication\\u0026mdash;such as directing who should help whom. But I was under pressure to identify genes quickly and prepare for graduation, so I couldn\\u0026rsquo;t afford to wait for such procedures. For example, if I needed help from someone in another lab, I first had to report it and wait for the professor\\u0026rsquo;s approval. There was a vertical structure like that in the lab. Eventually, I tried to resolve things by meeting people informally, but even that felt burdensome.\\u0026rdquo; (S05)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eS05 noted that vertical communication protocols, shaped by hierarchical lab structures, delayed problem-solving that could have otherwise been addressed more efficiently, resulting in significant frustration.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCommunication breakdowns also emerged as a structural barrier to effective collaboration. In external partnerships, real-time communication was hindered not only by physical distance but also by differences in expertise and workload. PS04 remarked, \\u0026ldquo;Email responses were very delayed, and we haven\\u0026rsquo;t had a single meeting,\\u0026rdquo; pointing to how the absence of timely consultation created direct challenges in sample use and data organization. Within the lab, limited communication about experiment progress or task distribution also led to confusion and delays. As PS05 explained, \\u0026ldquo;We didn\\u0026rsquo;t really know what each other was doing until the professor asked, and then we\\u0026rsquo;d briefly talk about it,\\u0026rdquo; indicating that the absence of consistent communication undermined both the continuity of collaboration and researchers\\u0026rsquo; sense of ownership. These cases suggest that without structurally supported communication\\u0026mdash;internally and externally\\u0026mdash;collaborative work risks becoming little more than a nominal division of labor.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePhysical separation among researchers limited interpersonal interaction and contributed to misunderstandings or distrust concerning individual contributions. S02 noted that PhD and master\\u0026rsquo;s students worked on the upper floor while others worked on the first, which reduced opportunities for communication and made it difficult to assess one another\\u0026rsquo;s engagement. She added that this spatial divide exacerbated communication breakdowns and intensified conflict by obscuring perceptions of contribution.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIn contrast, sustained practices of feedback and communication within teams that supported collaboration in diverse ways served as counterexamples to these structural problems. S02 described a case in which, rather than simply accepting results from a master's student with limited experimental experience, she engaged in active questioning and review, enhancing data reliability and fostering learning:\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;When a master\\u0026rsquo;s student brings results, I don\\u0026rsquo;t just say, \\u0026lsquo;Okay\\u0026rsquo; and accept them. I ask, \\u0026lsquo;How did you do this? What sample did you use? This part looks a bit odd.\\u0026rsquo; Through this kind of discussion, we sometimes catch mistakes. Then I might suggest, \\u0026lsquo;Try adjusting this part and repeating the experiment.\\u0026rsquo; They end up learning a lot through that repetition.\\u0026rdquo; (S02)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThis account highlights collaboration as a dynamic process involving communication, verification, and shared learning, rather than mere task division. Iterative feedback and data review enabled early correction of errors, increasing the credibility of research outcomes. Simultaneously, it supported the junior researcher\\u0026rsquo;s growth and skill development. This case demonstrates that communication can serve not only as a means of coordination, but as a pedagogical process and a site for collaborative learning.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eS02 further noted that sustained communication and progress monitoring by an external professor contributed to the stability of the collaborative process:\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;The external professor kept the project from stalling by maintaining regular contact and checking on progress. I think that\\u0026rsquo;s what made the collaboration work well.\\u0026rdquo; (S02)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThis case illustrates that active coordination and oversight by a lead researcher or supervisor are key to stabilizing project development and fostering communication among team members. When research goals and timelines are clearly communicated, problems can be identified and addressed early, and researchers are more likely to participate proactively.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec21\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e4.2 Conflict Handling Style in University STEM Lab Collaboration\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTo examine how participants addressed conflicts encountered during the research process, this study applied the Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Handling Model (Thomas, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR68\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2008\\u003c/span\\u003e; Thomas \\u0026amp; Kilmann, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR67\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1975\\u003c/span\\u003e). Conflict episodes were categorized into five handling styles\\u0026mdash;Competing, Avoiding, Compromising, Collaborating, and Accommodating\\u0026mdash;along with cases in which no clear style was evident (Not apparent). The coding focused on the specific conflict-handling style actually adopted by the participant in each situation. In some cases, contrasting styles appeared simultaneously\\u0026mdash;for example, one party adopted a competing stance while the other responded with accommodation. In such instances, coding was based on the participant\\u0026rsquo;s actual response. For instance, if the participant accepted the counterpart\\u0026rsquo;s demand, the episode was coded as Accommodating. The frequency of each conflict-handling style observed among participants is presented in Table\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab3\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e3\\u003c/span\\u003e (see Supplementary Materials for episode-level coding).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAccording to Table\\u0026nbsp;\\u003cspan refid=\\\"Tab3\\\" class=\\\"InternalRef\\\"\\u003e3\\u003c/span\\u003e, the most frequently used conflict-handling style was Accommodating, observed in 23 cases (57.5%). This was followed by Avoiding and Compromising, each appearing in 4 cases (10.0%). In contrast, Collaborating was not observed in any instance (0.0%), and Competing was identified in only one case (2.5%). In 8 cases (20.0%), the conflict-handling style was not clearly identifiable and thus was left uncoded.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"gridtable\\\"\\u003e\\u003ctable float=\\\"Yes\\\" id=\\\"Tab3\\\" border=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e \\u003ccaption language=\\\"En\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionNumber\\\"\\u003eTable 3\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv class=\\\"CaptionContent\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFrequencies of conflict-handling style employed by researchers in university STEM laboratories\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/caption\\u003e \\u003ccolgroup cols=\\\"7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\" colnum=\\\"1\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\" colnum=\\\"2\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\" colnum=\\\"3\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\" colnum=\\\"4\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\" colnum=\\\"5\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\" colnum=\\\"6\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv align=\\\"left\\\" class=\\\"colspec\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\" colnum=\\\"7\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cthead\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eStyle\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCompeting\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAvoding\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCompromising\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCollaborating\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAccommodating\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003cth align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eNot apparent\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/th\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/thead\\u003e \\u003ctbody\\u003e \\u003ctr\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c1\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003eFrequency\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c2\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e1\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c3\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e4\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c4\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e4\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c5\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e0\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c6\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e23\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003ctd align=\\\"left\\\" colname=\\\"c7\\\"\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cb\\u003e8\\u003c/b\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/td\\u003e \\u003c/tr\\u003e \\u003c/tbody\\u003e \\u003c/colgroup\\u003e \\u003c/table\\u003e\\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe findings indicate that researchers in university STEM laboratories most frequently adopted the Accommodating style when facing conflict. In the following sections, specific examples will be analyzed to illustrate how each conflict-handling style manifested in practice, and how these responses were shaped by the situational contexts of university STEM research environments.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec22\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e4.2.1 Choosing the Accommodating Style Between Relational Maintenance and Structural Constraint\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eParticipants tended to adopt the accommodating strategy, as maintaining relationships with the principal investigator and senior researchers was essential, and expressing conflict could lead to personal disadvantages.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;I did feel like running away. I could have stopped at any time. But I was worried about how it would affect my image. I knew I had worked hard, but I couldn\\u0026rsquo;t stand the thought of being seen as someone who just gave up. So I forced myself to push through and did everything I could.\\u0026rdquo; (PS02)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePS02 recognized that their approach to performing research could influence both how they were evaluated within the lab and the trajectory of their future career, prompting them to maintain an accommodating stance. The statement \\u0026ldquo;I feel like the professor trusts me\\u0026rdquo; reflects an awareness that one\\u0026rsquo;s research conduct is subject to evaluation by the principal investigator and other senior members. PS02 considered not only research output but also relational dynamics. Despite being overburdened due to a shortage of personnel in the team, they chose to endure the workload out of a sense of responsibility rather than challenge the situation. Expressions such as \\u0026ldquo;It was a situation where I couldn\\u0026rsquo;t refuse,\\u0026rdquo; \\u0026ldquo;I just pushed through and uploaded everything,\\u0026rdquo; and \\u0026ldquo;I just agreed\\u0026rdquo; exemplify a pattern of accepting conflict rather than addressing it. This stance reveals a broader dynamic in which conflicts within the lab are rarely resolved through formal processes and instead are adjusted by individual researchers absorbing the burden themselves.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e Participants\\u0026rsquo; accommodating responses were often shaped by the performance-driven nature of the lab environment. Conflicts were frequently managed by suppressing emotions and prioritizing project completion.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;The most important thing was to bring the project to a successful close, so I didn\\u0026rsquo;t want to escalate the conflict with this person. In the end\\u0026hellip; from the outside, it probably looked like there wasn\\u0026rsquo;t a serious issue. I did try hard not to let it surface, though there were ongoing minor tensions.\\u0026rdquo; (S02)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThis account illustrates a tendency to minimize and internalize conflict for the sake of maintaining project momentum. It reflects a broader lab culture in which individuals silently absorb tensions arising from power imbalances and ambiguous roles. While accommodation appears to function as a primary conflict handling strategy, it often fails to resolve underlying issues and results in emotional strain and psychological fatigue among researchers.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec23\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e4.2.2 Conflict Avoidance in the Context of Relational Fatigue and Structural Dysfunction\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAvoidance strategies were often employed as a way to circumvent direct confrontation. Researchers tended to ignore or sidestep conflict.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eS11, who had experienced conflict with a colleague due to ambiguous role definitions, witnessed the colleague taking credit for work they had not done but refrained from raising the issue.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;Later on, I caught them, and they just laughed awkwardly and said they had written their name down as if they had done it. But at that point, our relationship had already deteriorated so much that I didn\\u0026rsquo;t say anything further.\\u0026rdquo; (S11)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIn this instance, S11 chose not to escalate the situation further, opting instead to tolerate the issue within the context of a strained relationship. This reflects how relational fatigue can contribute to the adoption of avoidance.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;I think I tried to ignore it. Just the fact that someone was behaving like that was so stressful that I didn\\u0026rsquo;t want to respond. I told myself it was enough that others knew what was happening on the surface, and that I could take pride in the effort I put in. So I endured it. But looking back, I don\\u0026rsquo;t think that was the right thing to do.\\u0026rdquo; (PS04)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eBoth S11 and PS04 adopted avoidance strategies to reduce the emotional burden and personal stress they were experiencing.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eEven in situations where research projects were disrupted or proper transitions failed to occur due to staffing shortages, researchers often avoided addressing the issues directly, opting instead to leave the lab.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;This just gets passed down. I wasn\\u0026rsquo;t happy either, so when they called, I didn\\u0026rsquo;t answer. They probably wanted to ask where the report was, and I just said, \\u0026lsquo;It\\u0026rsquo;s all filed there.\\u0026rsquo; I did the handover and left.\\u0026rdquo; (S09)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThis example shows a researcher who, despite recognizing structural problems within the lab, chose not to address them but instead distanced themselves after leaving. The recurrence of unresolved conflicts reflects deeper structural dysfunctions within the research environment and reveals why researchers are often driven to adopt avoidance as a coping strategy.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec24\\\" class=\\\"Section3\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e4.2.3 Competition and Compromise in Collaborative Tensions\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;I got upset with another staff member. I was nearly in tears, saying, \\u0026lsquo;Why is no one helping me?\\u0026rsquo; I explained that something really urgent had to be done this week, and that I was overwhelmed because I had received so many documents, only to have to start over from scratch. I asked why it was so difficult to just send one official letter. Eventually, they did send it.\\u0026rdquo; (PS02)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThis example reflects the characteristics of a competitive approach to conflict handling. Although PS02, a doctoral student, typically exhibited an accommodating stance in the hierarchical setting of the STEM lab, they displayed a different response when confronted with an urgent, non-negotiable task. In an interaction with someone outside the lab\\u0026rsquo;s formal power structure and without a direct stake in the task, PS02 asserted their needs, using emotional expression and strong demands to achieve the desired outcome.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eResearchers also adopted compromise as a strategy for managing conflicts within the lab. This approach, which involved adjusting mutual interests to mitigate tensions and sustain collaboration, was observed in situations such as coordinating equipment usage, negotiating the allocation of research funds, and reconciling different approaches to data interpretation.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFor instance, PS01 faced conflict over data interpretation due to disciplinary differences and employed a strategy of collecting additional data to persuade the other party.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;They weren\\u0026rsquo;t convinced, so I increased the sample size. After doing so, I presented the results using both the mean and the minimum values. When I showed the minimum, it aligned to some extent with the previous results, and that allowed me to persuade them.\\u0026rdquo; (PS01)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eIn this case, the researcher sought compromise by navigating between the counterpart\\u0026rsquo;s expectations and their own position. Although direct resolution of the disagreement was difficult, the researcher facilitated agreement by supplementing the analysis with additional data.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003ePS02 sought to resolve the conflict by consulting directly with their principal investigator.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;I went to the professor and said, \\u0026lsquo;I\\u0026rsquo;m struggling too, and honestly, I\\u0026rsquo;m not obligated to do this work. But despite the disorganized state of lab administration, I pushed through and secured the research grant.\\u0026rsquo; The professor acknowledged my efforts, noting that it\\u0026rsquo;s common for graduate students to be responsible for both proposal writing and administrative tasks. He responded by promising to hire additional administrative staff and advised me to step away from administrative duties. He also told me not to concern myself with PhD Student 1\\u0026rsquo;s responsibilities and to assign Researcher 1 as the new point of contact for those tasks.\\u0026rdquo; (PS02)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe professor responded by proposing a structural solution, promising to hire new administrative staff to address the underlying issue. They also instructed that PS02 no longer handle the tasks delegated by PhD Student 1, effectively reducing their workload. PS02 engaged in direct communication with the professor, articulating their concerns and difficulties, to which the professor responded with understanding and concrete measures. As both parties actively participated in the resolution process and adopted a mutually receptive stance, this case exemplifies conflict resolution through compromise.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eWhat stands out in this case is that the conflict was resolved through a hierarchical dynamic between the advisor and the student. As a graduate student, PS02 was inevitably subject to the professor\\u0026rsquo;s academic authority and supervisory control within the STEM lab. Thus, their attempt to resolve the issue through consultation with the professor can be seen not only as a collaborative gesture but also as a strategic move leveraging the professor\\u0026rsquo;s position of authority. In coding and analyzing conflict resolution strategies, we found that hierarchical authority often played a central role when conflicts emerged in lab settings. This reliance on faculty authority in conflict resolution will be discussed further in the discussion section.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"5. Discussion\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eCollaboration is widely recognized as a central mechanism for fostering productivity and innovation in contemporary scientific research (Bennett \\u0026amp; Gadlin, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR6\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2012\\u003c/span\\u003e; Bozeman \\u0026amp; Boardman, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR9\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2014\\u003c/span\\u003e). In university STEM laboratories, where research is often multidisciplinary and highly specialized, collaboration constitutes an indispensable mode of scientific practice. Yet collaboration is not merely a cooperative endeavor oriented toward shared goals; it is a complex arena of interaction shaped by a range of organizational and social dynamics (Frodeman et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR27\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2017\\u003c/span\\u003e; Shrum et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR64\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2007\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eWhile prior research has primarily focused on research productivity and the structural features of collaborative networks (Cummings \\u0026amp; Kiesler, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR19\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2005\\u003c/span\\u003e; Lee \\u0026amp; Bozeman, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR48\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2005\\u003c/span\\u003e), relatively little attention has been paid to how internal organizational dynamics\\u0026mdash;such as hierarchies, resource distribution, and role assignment\\u0026mdash;contextually shape conflicts within collaborative research environments.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTo address this gap in the literature, this study conducted a qualitative analysis of the structural causes of collaborative conflict and the modes of conflict resolution, drawing on the experiences of researchers working in university STEM laboratories. The analysis reveals that conflicts in collaboration are not simply the result of interpersonal tensions, but are shaped by the interaction of structural conditions and situational contexts. Rather than actively resolving these conflicts, researchers often respond by accommodating or avoiding them, reflecting the constraints embedded in their working environments.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec26\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e5.1 Reframing Conflict: From Individual Fault to Structural Conditions\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eCollaboration conflicts in STEM research laboratories have traditionally been attributed to individual traits, capabilities, or communication failures (Jehn, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR35\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1997\\u003c/span\\u003e; Kuhn \\u0026amp; Poole, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR42\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2000\\u003c/span\\u003e). However, more recent scholarship highlights how such interpretations overlook the structural nature of conflict, pointing instead to institutional conditions and power dynamics as central to its formation. In STEM labs characterized by strong hierarchies, conflict is shaped less by individual behavior than by the organization of research practices and underlying structures of authority (Mallinson et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR53\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2016\\u003c/span\\u003e), which in turn exert a significant influence on the quality and sustainability of collaboration.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eLangley et al. (\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR44\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2022\\u003c/span\\u003e), examining an interdisciplinary collaboration involving doctoral researchers, identified hierarchical structures of knowledge production and ambiguity in role definition as key structural sources of conflict. Early-career researchers are often positioned not as autonomous peers but as precarious actors subject to external power dynamics and shifting institutional conditions. This highlights why collaborative conflict should not be reduced to interpersonal disagreement alone (Addison et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR2\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2025\\u003c/span\\u003e). Such structural dynamics are consistent with prior findings that elements like information sharing, mutual respect, and strategic alignment within collaborative interactions significantly shape team outcomes (Yang et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR73\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2025\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eMisalignment of goals within organizations has long been recognized as a major impediment to effective collaboration (DeChurch \\u0026amp; Mesmer-Magnus, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR22\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2010\\u003c/span\\u003e). In STEM research laboratories, research agendas and directions are frequently driven by the principal investigator\\u0026rsquo;s academic network and grant acquisition strategies, placing researchers in a structure that limits their ability to independently initiate or steer research efforts (Knorr-Cetina, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR40\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1999\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e \\u003cstrong\\u003eConflict\\u003c/strong\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eis also evident under material constraints such as limited research funding. In STEM laboratory settings, tensions over the use of experimental materials or equipment can be interpreted through the lens of resource competition (Jehn, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR35\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1997\\u003c/span\\u003e), particularly as access to funding is closely tied to the feasibility and continuity of experimentation. In such contexts, competitive dynamics may overshadow collaborative intentions (Katz \\u0026amp; Martin, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR37\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1997\\u003c/span\\u003e). Participants in this study reported experiencing disputes over material access and equipment scheduling under funding pressure. While Lewis et al. (2012) suggested that collaboration can be sustained even amid financial scarcity, our findings indicate that a lack of funding may undermine researchers\\u0026rsquo; psychological stability, heighten fear of failure, and promote competition for survival rather than cooperative engagement.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eRole and responsibility ambiguity constitutes another key structural factor. When research duties are not clearly delineated within collaborative structures, researcher interactions tend to become inefficient and strained (Jackson \\u0026amp; Schuler, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR34\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1985\\u003c/span\\u003e). This is particularly pronounced in contexts where the involvement style of the principal investigator causes roles among lab members to shift fluidly. Such conditions produce recurring tensions during role negotiation. Crucially, this is not merely a matter of task allocation\\u0026mdash;it reflects deeper asymmetries in authority and control over knowledge production, often leading to confusion and marginalization among early-career researchers (Langley et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR44\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2022\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eDespite structural factors at play, researchers often attribute the source of conflict to personal traits, such as the communication style or disposition of others. Comments like \\u0026ldquo;they acted territorially\\u0026rdquo; or \\u0026ldquo;PhD Student 1 was too authoritarian\\u0026rdquo; exemplify the tendency to locate conflict in individual behavior rather than in structural or contextual conditions. Such attributions risk misrepresenting the underlying nature of the conflict and may obstruct efforts toward structural change (Martinko et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR54\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2007\\u003c/span\\u003e; Mills, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR56\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2023\\u003c/span\\u003e). Importantly, factors such as emotional distancing, responsibility deflection, and ambiguous authority are frequently shaped by the invisible hierarchies embedded in academic settings\\u0026mdash;an aspect that must not be overlooked in analyses of collaborative conflict (Greer et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR30\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2018\\u003c/span\\u003e; Ylijoki, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR74\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2022\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAlthough conflict is often framed as stemming from individual personalities or behaviors, the recurrence of similar disputes across research labs suggests that the underlying causes are often structural. Role-related tensions, for instance, are frequently the result of inadequate systems for coordinating responsibilities, rather than the authoritarian tendencies of specific individuals. When research duties are ambiguously defined, researchers face structural pressure to assert their positions, increasing the likelihood of conflict. Similarly, competition over research funding does not simply reflect a desire for personal gain but emerges in an environment where securing grants is central to the lab\\u0026rsquo;s operation.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThese findings indicate that collaboration conflicts in STEM laboratories are frequently rooted in structural rather than personal factors. Efforts to enhance the quality of collaboration will fall short if the causes of conflict are understood solely in interpersonal terms. Conversely, when lab structures\\u0026mdash;such as research management systems, power distribution, and funding mechanisms\\u0026mdash;are designed to be collaborative and transparent, conflicts are less likely to escalate into barriers to cooperation. Therefore, building a sustainable collaborative environment in STEM research demands not only individual behavioral change, but also systemic and institutional reforms. A shift in perspective\\u0026mdash;from \\u0026ldquo;a problem of people\\u0026rdquo; to \\u0026ldquo;a problem of structure\\u0026rdquo;\\u0026mdash;is an essential first step toward improving collaborative practice.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec27\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e5.2 The Structural Foundations and Limitations of the Accommodating Strategy\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThis study demonstrates that conflict resolution in STEM research laboratories is frequently shaped less by autonomous coordination among members and more by reliance on the authority of the principal investigator. Graduate researchers, particularly doctoral students, often responded to conflict by awaiting the intervention or judgment of the advisor, rather than addressing the issue independently. This pattern is not attributable to individual disposition alone, but reflects the structural influence of the apprenticeship model, in which the professor\\u0026rsquo;s authority encompasses not only epistemic leadership but also administrative and interpersonal governance (Bozeman \\u0026amp; Corley, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR10\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2004\\u003c/span\\u003e; Song et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR65\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2025\\u003c/span\\u003e). In many cases, the capacity to resolve conflict is determined less by problem-solving skill than by positional authority\\u0026mdash;echoing prior findings on the impact of hierarchical power structures in collaborative contexts (Jehn, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR35\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1997\\u003c/span\\u003e; Kotter, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR41\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2016\\u003c/span\\u003e; Kuhn \\u0026amp; Poole, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR42\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2000\\u003c/span\\u003e). Such structures undermine horizontal communication and trust-based collaboration, and they restrict early-career researchers from developing the agency to negotiate or mediate conflict.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThis study found that the accommodating strategy did not lead to the fundamental resolution of conflict, but rather served to temporarily patch over issues or manage emotional strain. In cases like the one below, conflict was rationalized as a necessary \\u0026ldquo;rite of passage\\u0026rdquo; for academic growth, leaving the researcher with little room to consider alternatives and compelling them to internalize the emotional burden.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;It was framed like this: \\u0026lsquo;It might be mentally and physically difficult, but this will be very beneficial for you.\\u0026rsquo; I emphasized that if the student could endure it, it could lead to significant benefits\\u0026mdash;such as publishing in a good journal, applying for scholarships, or securing PhD funding later. They would also gain experience with advanced experimental techniques that most master\\u0026rsquo;s students wouldn\\u0026rsquo;t have access to. And the person they were working with had strong research abilities, so there was much to learn through discussion. So I told them to push through. The student agreed and worked very hard, but still experienced ongoing conflict and significant emotional distress.\\u0026rdquo; (S02)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThis reflects the dual nature of university STEM laboratories as spaces where education and research intersect, and where the cultural emphasis is often placed not on addressing conflict, but on enduring it as a path to growth. In apprenticeship-driven environments, members are inclined to interpret challenges as rites of passage to be endured and overcome (Collins, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR15\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1986\\u003c/span\\u003e; Fuller \\u0026amp; Unwin, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR29\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2003\\u003c/span\\u003e). Such a cultural framing provides the structural foundation for the repeated adoption of accommodating strategies.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eHowever, this mode of conflict resolution often privileges short-term stability at the expense of addressing underlying structural causes. In some cases, the principal investigator, acting as a mediator, did not engage with the substance of the conflict but instead adopted a stance of balanced neutrality, effectively deferring resolution. Such authority-centered interventions may sustain relational tensions among members and heighten the risk of conflict recurrence (Bendersky \\u0026amp; Hays, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR5\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2012\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThe performance-driven structure of academic research further shapes how researchers respond to conflict. Rather than confronting issues directly, researchers often prioritize the continuity of their work\\u0026mdash;factoring in publication goals, scholarships, and career trajectories\\u0026mdash;and thus tend to adopt accommodating or avoidance strategies. This pattern is closely linked to a broader lab culture in which researchers are encouraged to adapt to the expectations of their principal investigator rather than exercise independent decision-making (Baruch \\u0026amp; Hall, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR4\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2004\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;When tensions arose between people in the lab, I tried to listen. Even when someone was extremely upset, they tended to feel a bit more at ease after talking it through with me.\\u0026rdquo; (S02)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eAs this case illustrates, conflicts within research laboratories are frequently handled through informal emotional mediation in the absence of formal conflict resolution mechanisms. Existing literature has noted that while informal mediators may be effective in reducing emotional tension, they are limited in their ability to resolve the underlying sources of conflict (Jehn, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR35\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e1997\\u003c/span\\u003e).\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eUltimately, the adoption of the accommodating strategy reflects structural conditions shaped by hierarchical power relations, growth-oriented academic culture, the apprenticeship-based nature of scientific research, and performance-driven expectations. This suggests that research laboratories must be reimagined not merely as sites where conflict is endured, but as environments that actively foster high-quality collaboration and sustainable working relationships. Creating conditions that enable members to autonomously address and negotiate conflict, and encouraging a shift in the professor\\u0026rsquo;s role from unilateral authority figure to collaborative facilitator, are essential steps toward this goal.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e \\u003cdiv id=\\\"Sec28\\\" class=\\\"Section2\\\"\\u003e \\u003ch2\\u003e5.3 Reframing Leadership and Implementing Training to Foster a Collaborative Research Lab Culture\\u003c/h2\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThis study highlights that collaborative conflict in university STEM laboratories is driven less by interpersonal tensions and more by underlying structural conditions. In particular, the frequent adoption of an accommodating strategy by researchers reflects the effects of internal power asymmetries and the lack of clearly established norms for collaboration.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eTo address the limitations of current conflict resolution practices, it is essential to equip researchers with opportunities to learn actionable principles of collaboration and conflict management that can be applied in practice. In this study, some participants described having received collaboration training, during which they learned and implemented principles such as \\u0026ldquo;prioritizing a collaborator\\u0026rsquo;s request\\u0026rdquo; in the course of their research activities.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003e\\u0026ldquo;When I received training, I was taught that in any collaboration, you should always prioritize your collaborator\\u0026rsquo;s work. So I\\u0026rsquo;ve always done that first. And if I didn\\u0026rsquo;t feel confident I could do that, I just wouldn\\u0026rsquo;t take on the collaboration. That approach worked really well for me.\\u0026rdquo; (S02)\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eS02\\u0026rsquo;s strategy contributed positively to building trust with collaborators, preventing conflict, and enhancing the overall efficiency of the collaborative process. By setting a clear principle\\u0026mdash;either to prioritize the collaborator\\u0026rsquo;s needs or not to enter into the collaboration at all\\u0026mdash;S02 was able to maintain high standards of collaborative quality while avoiding unnecessary friction or inefficiency.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThis case highlights the importance of ensuring that early-career researchers have access to training in collaborative principles and conflict negotiation strategies. Recent research has shown that mentoring and institutional support positively influence postdoctoral researchers\\u0026rsquo; mental health, employability, and perceived career success\\u0026mdash;effects mediated by factors such as work engagement and academic identity (Addison et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR2\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2025\\u003c/span\\u003e). Collaboration training and mentoring programs can function not merely as mechanisms for skill acquisition, but as critical resources for improving the quality of collaboration and proactively preventing conflict.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eMoreover, when collaborative conflict is viewed as a structural rather than interpersonal issue, the concept of the \\u0026ldquo;science facilitator\\u0026rdquo; (Carvens et al., 2022) points to the need for institutionalized roles dedicated to coordination and mediation within research teams. Training programs that foster researchers\\u0026rsquo; interactive expertise offer a viable strategy for conflict prevention and improved research productivity. In a related study, Love et al. (\\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR52\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2022\\u003c/span\\u003e) found that effective collaboration is not determined by the aggregate skills of individuals, but by the internal dynamics of the team\\u0026mdash;specifically, the structure of interaction, equity of voice, and inclusivity. Their findings suggest that balanced speaking opportunities and inclusive team composition are directly correlated with collaborative quality.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eDespite its importance, structured collaboration training remains largely absent in most research laboratories. Researchers are often left to navigate collaborative work without clear guidelines, relying instead on personal trial-and-error. To address this gap, it is crucial to both institutionalize formal conflict mediation systems and expand collaboration training initiatives that equip researchers with explicit principles and practical strategies for managing collaborative dynamics (Fantini, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR24\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2024\\u003c/span\\u003e; Lindvig et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR49\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2025\\u003c/span\\u003e; Llorca et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR50\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2025\\u003c/span\\u003e; Zhu et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR75\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2024\\u003c/span\\u003e). Such measures are essential for cultivating a research environment grounded in cooperation and for advancing more sustainable modes of lab governance.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFinally, the cultivation of a collaborative research culture requires a rethinking of the principal investigator\\u0026rsquo;s role (Song et al., \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR65\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2025\\u003c/span\\u003e). At present, professors often hold dual responsibilities\\u0026mdash;defining research directions and evaluating lab members\\u0026mdash;which can constrain researchers\\u0026rsquo; capacity for independent inquiry and conflict resolution (Stefanowski, \\u003cspan citationid=\\\"CR66\\\" class=\\\"CitationRef\\\"\\u003e2019\\u003c/span\\u003e). To enable more effective collaboration, it is essential that faculty strengthen their role not only as research leaders but also as facilitators of cooperative work. This entails reconfiguring lab governance to soften vertical hierarchies and to empower researchers to make autonomous decisions within the research process. Such shifts can support both individual scholarly agency and the development of a more communicative, collaborative lab environment.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003c/div\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"6. Limitations and Future Research\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eThis study employed qualitative analysis to investigate the ways in which collaborative conflict in university STEM laboratories is shaped not by interpersonal dynamics alone, but by specific organizational structures, institutional conditions, and contextual contingencies. During the course of analysis, however, certain complex elements emerged that were not fully accounted for within the study\\u0026rsquo;s analytical framework or fell outside the primary focus. These gaps point to the need for more nuanced investigation in future research. In the following section, we propose potential directions for such continued inquiry.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFirst, while this study identified five categories of structural causes, it became evident that conflicts in practice are rarely attributable to a single factor. Rather, they often emerge through the complex interplay of multiple structural elements. For instance, disputes over authorship order reflected not only power asymmetries, but also role ambiguity, performance pressure, and inadequate communication. However, the current analysis approached these causes discretely, without fully examining their interaction. Future research should adopt a more integrative approach by centering specific conflict episodes and tracing how these emerge from the intersection of multiple structural forces, thereby offering a more nuanced understanding of how collaboration-related conflict unfolds in STEM research environments.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eSecond, although this study framed power dynamics largely in terms of formal hierarchies, power within research laboratories was found to be exercised through a range of resource-based mechanisms\\u0026mdash;such as control over funding, access to data, decision-making authority on research topics, and use of experimental infrastructure. Future research should undertake a more multi-dimensional and refined examination of how various manifestations of power\\u0026mdash;including resource allocation, informal authority, and evaluative metrics\\u0026mdash;shape both the development and resolution of collaborative conflicts.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThird, there is a need for future research to examine how researchers\\u0026rsquo; intersecting identities\\u0026mdash;such as gender, caregiving responsibilities, and parental status\\u0026mdash;influence both the conduct of collaboration and the sustainability of academic work. Although this study surfaced some challenges experienced by male and female researchers managing childcare during collaborative projects, such issues were not explored in depth due to the study\\u0026rsquo;s primary focus. In STEM labs, those with caregiving roles may be particularly vulnerable to role overload, informal exclusion, and difficulties in coordinating research schedules, all of which can affect long-term career trajectories. As collaboration is embedded in the lived realities of researchers\\u0026rsquo; social and personal roles, future work should investigate how caregiving researchers navigate constraints and possibilities in areas such as collaborative participation, research assessment, and lab governance.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFourth, while this study included participants from a range of academic ranks\\u0026mdash;from doctoral students to senior researchers\\u0026mdash;its analytical focus was confined to individual experiences at discrete points in time. Yet the findings revealed that perceptions of and responses to collaborative conflict varied markedly by career stage and positionality. This indicates that collaboration and conflict resolution are not fixed practices but are shaped and reshaped through temporal processes and evolving roles. Future research would benefit from longitudinal approaches that trace researchers\\u0026rsquo; career development to better understand how collaborative conflict is negotiated, reconfigured, and reinterpreted over time.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eFinally, this study employed qualitative methods, drawing on interviews with 13 researchers engaged in collaborative work within university STEM laboratories. The findings are thus interpretive in nature, rooted in the specific structural contexts of the research sites and the lived experiences of participants, and may not be generalizable to all STEM environments. Rather than seeking universal laws, the study aimed to offer an in-depth exploration of how collaborative conflict emerges and is made sense of within particular structural and contextual conditions. Future research would benefit from comparative analyses across a broader range of institutional and cultural settings to illuminate the structural patterns of collaboration conflict in more diverse contexts.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"7. Conclusion\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eThis study examined the structural conditions that give rise to collaborative conflict in university STEM laboratories and investigated how researchers navigate and respond to such tensions. The findings suggest that conflict is not simply a product of individual personality or isolated communication breakdowns, but is shaped by intersecting structural constraints and contextual dynamics. Specifically, factors such as ambiguous roles, unequal resource allocation, hierarchical concentrations of power, misaligned objectives, and fractured communication were shown to erode the trust and mutual respect necessary for effective collaboration, contributing to recurring tensions among lab members.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eThese findings challenge idealized narratives of scientific collaboration that emphasize creativity, collective intelligence, and mutual benefit, illustrating how such ideals can be undermined by structural realities within research environments. Collaboration is not simply a function of goodwill or individual intent; it is a social practice shaped by institutional design, organizational logics, and the allocation of authority and responsibility. As such, effective collaboration requires more than conflict avoidance\\u0026mdash;it demands structural interventions that acknowledge the conditions under which conflict arises and facilitate institutional mechanisms for its management.\\u003c/p\\u003e \\u003cp\\u003eWhile this study examined the sources of and responses to conflict through qualitative analysis, it did not fully address issues such as laboratory culture, the gendered nature of lab work, or the positionality of non-tenure-track researchers. Future research should undertake a more integrated exploration of how intersecting identities and institutional arrangements influence collaboration-related conflict, with the aim of informing more inclusive and equitable models of collaborative practice in academic science.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"Declarations\",\"content\":\"\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eAcknowledgements\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThis work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korean government (MSIT) (No. NRF-2023R1A2C1003475). \\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eIt was also supported by the BK21 FOUR Program through the Center for Science Education in the Infosphere.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eAuthor Contributions\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eSunyoung Shin: Project administration, Interviews, Data analysis, Writing – original draft, Review and editing of the manuscript; Seungah Park: Interviews, Data analysis, Coding validation, Review and editing of the manuscript; Minsoo Ha: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Supervision, Review and editing of the manuscript\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eEthics declarations\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eCompeting interests\\u0026nbsp;\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eInformed consent\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003eBefore the interviews, all participants were informed that the purpose of this study was to explore conflicts experienced during collaboration in STEM research environments. Subsequently, each participant read and signed a written informed consent form between June 14 and September 28, 2024. The informed consent stated that all data would be used solely for research purposes, stored and processed anonymously, and would have no adverse consequences for the participants.\\u003c/p\\u003e\\n\\u003cp\\u003e\\u003cstrong\\u003eEthical approval\\u003c/strong\\u003e\\u003cbr\\u003e\\u0026nbsp;To ensure compliance with ethical standards, the researcher obtained approval from the Seoul National University Institutional Review Board (IRB No. 2304/003-006) on 12 April 2023.\\u003c/p\\u003e\"},{\"header\":\"References\",\"content\":\"\\u003col\\u003e\\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eAchterberg J, Vriens D, Achterbergh J, Vriens D (2009) Introducing organizations as social systems conducting experiments. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 1\\u0026ndash;29\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eAddison C, Guo Y, Wang M (2025) How does mentor support contribute to sustainable careers? Evidence from postdoctoral researchers in China. \\u003cem\\u003eHumanities and Social Sciences Communication\\u003c/em\\u003es, 12, Article number: 489. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04835-7\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1057/s41599-025-04835-7\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eAnney VN (2014) Ensuring the quality of the findings of qualitative research: Looking at trustworthiness criteria. J Emerg Trends Educational Res Policy Stud 5(2):272\\u0026ndash;281\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eBaruch Y, Hall DT (2004) The academic career: a model for future careers in other sectors? J Vocat Behav 64(2):241\\u0026ndash;262\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eBendersky C, Hays NA (2012) Status conflict in groups. Organ Sci 23(2):323\\u0026ndash;340\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eBennett LM, Gadlin H (2012) Collaboration and team science: from theory to practice\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eBitsch V (2005) Qualitative research: A grounded theory example and evaluation criteria. J agribusiness 23(1):75\\u0026ndash;91\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eBlake RR, Mouton JS, Bidwell AC (1962) Managerial grid. Advanced Management-Office Executive\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eBozeman B, Boardman C (2014) Research collaboration and team science: A state-of-the-art review and agenda\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eBozeman B, Corley E (2004) Scientists\\u0026rsquo; collaboration strategies: implications for scientific and technical human capital. Res Policy 33(4):599\\u0026ndash;616\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eBritton DM (2017) Beyond the chilly climate: The salience of gender in women\\u0026rsquo;s academic careers. Gend Soc 31(1):5\\u0026ndash;27\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eCallister RR (2006) The impact of gender and department climate on job satisfaction and intentions to quit for faculty in science and engineering fields. J Technol Transf 31:367\\u0026ndash;375\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eCasad BJ, Franks JE, Garasky CE, Kittleman MM, Roesler AC, Hall DY, Petzel ZW (2021) Gender inequality in academia: Problems and solutions for women faculty in STEM. J Neurosci Res 99(1):13\\u0026ndash;23\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eCravens AE, Jones MS, Ngai C, Zarestky J, Love HB (2022) Science facilitation: navigating the intersection of intellectual and interpersonal expertise in scientific collaboration. Humanit Social Sci Commun 9(1):1\\u0026ndash;13\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eCollins PH (1986) Learning From the Outsider Within: The Sociological Significance of Black Feminist Thought. Soc Probl 33(6):S14\\u0026ndash;S32. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.2307/800672\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.2307/800672\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eCoser LA (1998) The functions of social conflict, vol 9. Routledge\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eCreswell JW, Poth CN (2016) Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eCsikszentmihalhi M (2020) \\u003cem\\u003eFinding flow: The psychology of engagement with everyday life\\u003c/em\\u003e. Hachette UK\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eCummings JN, Kiesler S (2005) Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Soc Stud Sci 35(5):703\\u0026ndash;722\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eCunningham E, Smyth B, Greene D (2021) Collaboration in the time of COVID: A scientometric analysis of multidisciplinary SARS-CoV-2 research. Humanit Social Sci Commun 8., Article 194. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00922-7\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1057/s41599-021-00922-7\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eDahrendorf R (2019) Class and class conflict in industrial society. In \\u003cem\\u003eSocial Stratification, Class, Race, and Gender in Sociological Perspective\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003eSecond Edition\\u003c/em\\u003e (pp. 105\\u0026ndash;111). Routledge\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eDeChurch LA, Mesmer-Magnus JR (2010) The cognitive underpinnings of effective teamwork: A meta-analysis. J Appl Psychol 95(1):32\\u0026ndash;53. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1037/a0017328\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1037/a0017328\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eEngestr\\u0026ouml;m Y (2014) Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Cambridge University Press\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eFantini E (2024) Podcasting for interdisciplinary education: active listening, negotiation, reflexivity, and communication skills. Humanit Social Sci Commun 11(1):1\\u0026ndash;9. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04119-6\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1057/s41599-024-04119-6\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eFiedler FE (1967) A THEORY OF LEADERSHIP EFFECTIVENESS. MCGRAW-HILL SERIES IN MANAGEMENT\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eFiedler FE (2006) The contingency model: A theory of leadership effectiveness. Small groups: Key readings 12(4):369\\u0026ndash;382\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eFrodeman R, Klein JT, Pacheco RCDS (eds) (2017) The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity. Oxford University Press\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eFujimura JH (1987) Constructingdo-Able'problems in Cancer research: Articulating alignment. Soc Stud Sci 17(2):257\\u0026ndash;293\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eFuller A, Unwin L (2003) Learning as Apprentices in the Contemporary UK Workplace: creating and managing expansive and restrictive participation. J Educ Work 16(4):407\\u0026ndash;426. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/1363908032000093012\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1080/1363908032000093012\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eGreer LL, de Jong BA, Schouten ME, Dannals JE (2018) Why and when hierarchy impacts team effectiveness: A meta-analytic integration. J Appl Psychol 103(6):591\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eGriffin KA, Pifer MJ, Humphrey JR, Hazelwood AM (2011) (Re) defining departure: Exploring Black professors\\u0026rsquo; experiences with and responses to racism and racial climate. Am J Educ 117(4):495\\u0026ndash;526\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eGuba EG (1981) Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries. Educational Communication Technol J 29(2):75\\u0026ndash;91. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003e10.1007/bf02766777\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1007/bf02766777\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eHuffman DR, Bruns CJ, Neff PD, Roop HA (2025) Social network analysis to understand participant engagement in transdisciplinary team science: a large US Science and Technology Center case study. Humanit Social Sci Commun 12(1):1\\u0026ndash;14\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eJackson SE, Schuler RS (1985) A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 36(1):16\\u0026ndash;78\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eJehn KA (1997) A qualitative analysis of conflict types and dimensions in organizational groups. Adm Sci Q, 530\\u0026ndash;557\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eJones BF, Wuchty S, Uzzi B (2008) Multi-university research teams: Shifting impact, geography, and stratification in science. Science 322(5905):1259\\u0026ndash;1262\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eKatz JS, Martin BR (1997) What is research collaboration? Res Policy 26(1):1\\u0026ndash;18\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eKezar A, Holcombe E (2020) The role of collaboration in integrated programs aimed at supporting underrepresented student success in STEM. Am Behav Sci 64(3):325\\u0026ndash;348\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eKlein JT (ed) (2001) Transdisciplinarity: Joint problem solving among science, technology, and society: An effective way for managing complexity. Springer Science \\u0026amp; Business Media\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eKnorr-Cetina K (1999) Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Harvard University Press\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eKotter JP (2016) Power, dependence, and effective management. Organizational influence processes. Routledge, pp 127\\u0026ndash;141\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eKuhn TIM, Poole MS (2000) Do conflict management styles affect group decision making? Evidence from a longitudinal field study. Hum Commun Res 26(4):558\\u0026ndash;590\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eKurniati E, Suwono H, Ibrohim I, Suryadi A, Saefi M (2022) International Scientific Collaboration and Research Topics on STEM Education: A Systematic Review. Eurasia J Math Science Technol Education, \\u003cem\\u003e18\\u003c/em\\u003e(4)\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eLangley D, Martin L, Kythreotis AP, Wood R (2022) Critical reflections of postgraduate researchers on a collaborative interdisciplinary research project. Humanit Social Sci Commun 9:317. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01494-w\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1057/s41599-022-01494-w\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eLatour B (1987) Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Harvard University Press\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eLazzarotti V, Manzini R, Nosella A, Pellegrini L (2016) Collaborations with scientific partners: The mediating role of the social context in fostering innovation performance. Creativity Innov Manage 25(1):142\\u0026ndash;156\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eLedford H (2015) How to solve the world\\u0026rsquo;s biggest problems. Nature 525:308\\u0026ndash;311. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/525308a\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1038/525308a\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eLee S, Bozeman B (2005) The impact of research collaboration on scientific productivity. Soc Stud Sci 35(5):673\\u0026ndash;702\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eLindvig KE, Sexton S, Earle D, Hillersdal L (2025) Building collaborative infrastructures for an interdisciplinary higher education master\\u0026rsquo;s program. Humanit Social Sci Commun 12:321. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04575-8\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1057/s41599-025-04575-8\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eLlorca J, Royuela V, Evans C, Pavlova I, Tzovla E, Magro E, Suckow M (2025) Fostering interdisciplinarity and collaboration: The role of challenge-driven research in European University Alliances through the CHARM-EU experience. Humanit Social Sci Commun 12:479. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04410-0\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1057/s41599-025-04410-0\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eLove HB, Cross JE, Fosdick B, Crooks KR, VandeWoude S, Fisher ER (2021) Interpersonal relationships drive successful team science: An exemplary case-based study. Humanit Social Sci Commun 8:106. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00789-8\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1057/s41599-021-00789-8\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eLove HB, Fosdick BK, Cross JE, Suter M, Egan D, Tofany E, Fisher ER (2022) Towards understanding the characteristics of successful and unsuccessful collaborations: a case-based team science study. Humanit Social Sci Commun 9(1):1\\u0026ndash;11\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eMallinson T, Lotrecchiano GR, Schwartz LS, Furniss J, Leblanc-Beaudoin T, Lazar D, Falk-Krzesinski HJ (2016) Pilot analysis of the motivation assessment for team readiness, integration, and collaboration (MATRICx) using Rasch analysis. J Investig Med 64(7):1186\\u0026ndash;1193\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eMartinko MJ, Harvey P, Douglas SC (2007) The role, function, and contribution of attribution theory to leadership: A review. Leadersh Q 18(6):561\\u0026ndash;585\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eMazzocchi F (2019) Scientific research across and beyond disciplines: Challenges and opportunities of interdisciplinarity. EMBO Rep, 20(6), e47682\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eMills CW (2023) The sociological imagination. Social Work. Routledge, pp 105\\u0026ndash;108\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eNational Research Council (2012) Research universities and the future of America: Ten breakthrough actions vital to our nation\\u0026rsquo;s prosperity and security. National Academies. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.17226/13396\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.17226/13396\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eNational Research Council (2015) Enhancing the effectiveness of team science. National Academies, Washington, DC\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eOECD (2015) Making Open Science a Reality, \\u003cem\\u003eOECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers\\u003c/em\\u003e, No. 25, OECD Publishing, Paris. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttp://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jrs2f963zs1-en\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1787/5jrs2f963zs1-en\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003ePondy LR (1967) Organizational conflict: Concepts and models. Administrative Sci quarterly, 296\\u0026ndash;320\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eSalazar MR, Lant TK, Fiore SM, Salas E (2012) Facilitating innovation in diverse science teams through integrative capacity. Small Group Res 43(5):527\\u0026ndash;558\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eSawyer RK (2014) Group creativity: Music, theater, collaboration. Psychology\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eScott WR (1981) Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems. Prentice Hall Inc, Englewood Cliffs, NJ\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eShrum W, Genuth J, Chompalov I (2007) Structures of scientific collaboration. MIT Press\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eSong H, Hu A, Li X (2025) Mentor support and postdoctoral sustainable careers: evidence from China. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 12:505. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04835-7\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1057/s41599-025-04835-7\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eStefanowski J (2019) Who is in the position to proclaim a supervision conflict? Elephant Lab. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3271196\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.5281/zenodo.3271196\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eThomas KW, Kilmann RH (1975) The social desirability variable in organizational research: An alternative explanation for reported findings. Acad Manag J 18(4):741\\u0026ndash;752\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eThomas KW (2008) Thomas-kilmann conflict mode. TKI Profile Interpretive Rep, \\u003cem\\u003e1\\u003c/em\\u003e(11)\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eTom\\u0026aacute;ška Ľ, Cesare AJ, AlTurki TM, Griffith JD (2020) Twenty years of t-loops: a case study for the importance of collaboration in molecular biology. DNA Repair 94:102901\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eVan De Ven AH, Ganco M, Hinings CR (2013) Returning to the frontier of contingency theory of organizational and institutional designs. Acad Manage Annals 7(1):393\\u0026ndash;440\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eWalsh JP, Maloney NG (2007) Collaboration structure, communication media, and problems in scientific work teams. J computer-mediated communication 12(2):712\\u0026ndash;732\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eWuchty S, Jones BF, Uzzi B (2007) The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 316(5827):1036\\u0026ndash;1039\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eYang W, Mu\\u0026ntilde;oz Mart\\u0026iacute;n R, Wang X (2025) Individual metacognition in technology-assisted collaborative translation: comparing higher- and lower-achieving teams. \\u003cem\\u003eHumanities and Social Sciences Communications\\u003c/em\\u003e, \\u003cem\\u003e12\\u003c/em\\u003e, Article number: 453. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04756-5\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1057/s41599-025-04756-5\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eYlijoki OH (2022) Invisible hierarchies in academic work and career-building in an interdisciplinary landscape. Eur J High Educ 12(4):356\\u0026ndash;372\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e \\u003cli\\u003e\\u003cspan\\u003eZhu M, Su C, Hao J, Liu L, Kyllonen P, von Davier A (2024) Who benefits from virtual collaboration? The interplay of team member expertness and Big Five personality traits. Humanit Social Sci Commun 11(1):1\\u0026ndash;15. \\u003cspan class=\\\"ExternalRef\\\"\\u003e\\u003cspan class=\\\"RefSource\\\"\\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03678-y\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003cspan address=\\\"10.1057/s41599-024-03678-y\\\" targettype=\\\"DOI\\\" class=\\\"RefTarget\\\"\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/span\\u003e\\u003c/li\\u003e\\u003c/ol\\u003e\"}],\"fulltextSource\":\"\",\"fullText\":\"\",\"funders\":[],\"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow\":false,\"hasManuscriptDocX\":true,\"hasOptedInToPreprint\":true,\"hasPassedJournalQc\":\"\",\"hasAnyPriority\":false,\"hideJournal\":true,\"highlight\":\"\",\"institution\":\"\",\"isAcceptedByJournal\":false,\"isAuthorSuppliedPdf\":false,\"isDeskRejected\":\"\",\"isHiddenFromSearch\":false,\"isInQc\":false,\"isInWorkflow\":false,\"isPdf\":false,\"isPdfUpToDate\":true,\"isWithdrawnOrRetracted\":false,\"journal\":{\"display\":true,\"email\":\"info@researchsquare.com\",\"identity\":\"researchsquare\",\"isNatureJournal\":false,\"hasQc\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":true,\"externalIdentity\":\"\",\"sideBox\":\"\",\"snPcode\":\"\",\"submissionUrl\":\"/submission\",\"title\":\"Research Square\",\"twitterHandle\":\"researchsquare\",\"acdcEnabled\":true,\"dfaEnabled\":false,\"editorialSystem\":\"\",\"reportingPortfolio\":\"\",\"inReviewEnabled\":false,\"inReviewRevisionsEnabled\":true},\"keywords\":\"scientific collaboration, research conflict, structural factors, university laboratories, conflict responses, team science\",\"lastPublishedDoi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6676661/v1\",\"lastPublishedDoiUrl\":\"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-6676661/v1\",\"license\":{\"name\":\"CC BY 4.0\",\"url\":\"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/\"},\"manuscriptAbstract\":\"\\u003cp\\u003eUniversity STEM laboratories are spaces where collaboration is essential, yet structural tensions frequently arise. This study analyzes the structural causes of conflict that emerge during collaborative processes in university STEM labs and explores how researchers respond to these tensions. Grounded in conflict theory and conflict management models, the study developed analytical categories and systematically coded interview data from 13 researchers. The analysis was structured through the theoretical lens of contingency theory, with the aim of identifying how five structural categories\\u0026mdash;role ambiguity, resource scarcity, hierarchical power imbalances, goal misalignment, and insufficient communication\\u0026mdash;manifest as conflict within the specific institutional contexts of university STEM labs. Researchers adopted a range of strategies to address these conflicts, including avoidance, accommodation, compromise, and competition, depending on their positionality and institutional circumstances. This study conceptualizes collaborative conflict not as a matter of interpersonal misunderstanding but as a phenomenon rooted in structural contexts, and it proposes institutional and organizational reforms to support fairer and more sustainable collaboration in academic research environments.\\u003c/p\\u003e\",\"manuscriptTitle\":\"Collaboration and conflict: structural causes and researcher responses in university STEM labs\",\"msid\":\"\",\"msnumber\":\"\",\"nonDraftVersions\":[{\"code\":1,\"date\":\"2025-06-14 10:16:15\",\"doi\":\"10.21203/rs.3.rs-6676661/v1\",\"editorialEvents\":[{\"type\":\"communityComments\",\"content\":0}],\"status\":\"published\",\"journal\":{\"display\":true,\"email\":\"info@researchsquare.com\",\"identity\":\"researchsquare\",\"isNatureJournal\":false,\"hasQc\":true,\"allowDirectSubmit\":true,\"externalIdentity\":\"\",\"sideBox\":\"\",\"snPcode\":\"\",\"submissionUrl\":\"/submission\",\"title\":\"Research Square\",\"twitterHandle\":\"researchsquare\",\"acdcEnabled\":true,\"dfaEnabled\":false,\"editorialSystem\":\"\",\"reportingPortfolio\":\"\",\"inReviewEnabled\":false,\"inReviewRevisionsEnabled\":true}}],\"origin\":\"\",\"ownerIdentity\":\"4c2a23f0-9b61-40fd-8995-16518e944883\",\"owner\":[],\"postedDate\":\"June 14th, 2025\",\"published\":true,\"recentEditorialEvents\":[],\"rejectedJournal\":[],\"revision\":\"\",\"amendment\":\"\",\"status\":\"posted\",\"subjectAreas\":[{\"id\":49927072,\"name\":\"Social science/Education\"},{\"id\":49927073,\"name\":\"Social science/Science technology and society\"},{\"id\":49927074,\"name\":\"Social science/Sociology\"}],\"tags\":[],\"updatedAt\":\"2025-09-16T15:08:59+00:00\",\"versionOfRecord\":[],\"versionCreatedAt\":\"2025-06-14 10:16:15\",\"video\":\"\",\"vorDoi\":\"\",\"vorDoiUrl\":\"\",\"workflowStages\":[]},\"version\":\"v1\",\"identity\":\"rs-6676661\",\"journalConfig\":\"researchsquare\"},\"__N_SSP\":true},\"page\":\"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]\",\"query\":{\"redirect\":\"/article/rs-6676661\",\"identity\":\"rs-6676661\",\"version\":[\"v1\"]},\"buildId\":\"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7\",\"isFallback\":false,\"isExperimentalCompile\":false,\"dynamicIds\":[84888],\"gssp\":true,\"scriptLoader\":[]}","source_license":"CC-BY-4.0","license_restricted":false}