In general, relations between sclentist-aquanauts and engineer-aquanauts were 

 excellent. In addition to the shared concern with the overall success of the 

 project, most teams developed effective techniques to assure harmony and pro- 

 ductivity in the close environment. 



One aspect of scientist-engineer relations, however, appears to have a system- 

 atic relationship with performance and group cohesiveness. This is the involve- 

 ment of engineers in scientific work and scientists in engineering activities. 

 It has already been noted that teams with engineers as leaders for part or all 

 of the mission accomplished less marine science work than teams with scientists 

 as leaders. This was attributed to noncongruence between the engineer's mission 

 role and the scientific goals of the other aquanauts. However, overall per- 

 formance on marine science was notably higher where the engineer-leader became 

 actively involved in the scientific programs of the other aquanauts. It seems 

 likely that an extension of this phenomenon may be an important factor in the 

 compatibility and productivity of isolated groups composed of individuals with 

 divergent interests and goals. 



Helmreich and Radloff (1969) proposed that the most effective social organiza- 

 tion for a confined environment (such as a long-duration space mission) is one 

 in which individuals have unique skills and knowledge which they communicate to 

 others who are motivated to learn and who have their own skills to share. This 

 form of interaction with each individual serving as both a teacher and a learner 

 should maximize the rewards possible in a closed environment and should also 

 increase interpersonal understanding. 



It was possible to examine aspects of this type of relationship in the TEKTITE 

 setting. We assume that the greatest engineer-scientist compatibility would be 

 achieved when the engineer became actively involved in marine science projects 

 and when, conversely, the scientists played a significant role in engineering/ 

 habitat maintenance activities. A preliminary examination of the data supports 

 this hypothesis. There was great variability on these measures. The average 

 of marine science time for the three engineers who became most involved in 

 working with scientists was 22.057o. The average for the three engineers who 

 participated least in scientific work was 7 .8970 marine science. This sharing 

 (or avoidance) was reflected in the participation of scientists in engineering 

 duties. Mean habitat maintenance by scientist-astronauts on the three missions 

 where the engineer took part most in scientific work was 3. 597=,, while on three 

 teams where the engineer was least active in marine science, the habitat main- 

 tenance mean for scientists was 2.077o. Preliminary analyses indicate that the 

 teams with a high degree of shared scientific-engineering activity were more 

 cohesive and compatible than those where scientists and engineers did not par- 

 ticipate in each other's work. 



Overall performance was also markedly influenced by scientist-engineer inter- 

 action. The mean for total marine science of the three teams where the 

 engineer-scientist sharing was highest was 29.957o while the total marine 

 science score for the three teams with the lowest amount of cross-participation 

 was 23.617o. This is a mean difference of more than an hour and a half per day. 



The implications of these findings are that in selecting professionally mixed 

 teams for isolated environments, not only the professional qualifications but 

 also the breadth of the candidate's interests should be considered. The 



VIII-42 



