Latest contribution
Navigating polarities: Fostering both/and mindsets in team science
By Gemma Jiang and Joanna Kaniewska.
2. Joanna Kaniewska (biography)
How can teams develop a mindset that makes differences productive, such as disciplinary differences in work processes, communication styles, underlying assumptions, behavioral norms, and more? In particular, how can teams move from an either/or mindset, which often leads to defensiveness driven by the need to prove that “I am right; you are wrong” to a both/and mindset, which fosters a learning culture in which differences become sources of generative tension that can propel creativity and collective insight?
One practical way to cultivate a both/and mindset is through working with polarities which are opposing yet interdependent tendencies. By integrating both tendencies, teams can move beyond either/or thinking and draw on a wider range of perspectives. We argue that developing the capacity to navigate polarities helps teams navigate differences more effectively overall.
In this i2Insights contribution, we describe three limiting beliefs drawn from our experience with team science coaching and show how they can be transformed through polarity thinking.
Recent contributions
Building trust in researching about and engaging with underserved communities
By Katrina Messiha.
How can we ensure that the many people whose lives are shaped by homelessness, migration, poverty, trauma, mental illness, caring responsibilities, social isolation and other contributors to marginalisation are adequately represented and well engaged with in relevant research?
This is important because if some lives are missing from the evidence base, they may also be missing from the services, policies and practices built upon it. But what happens when researchers try to engage people whose previous encounters with healthcare, welfare, housing, immigration or other public systems, including research, may have been difficult, exhausting or even harmful?
The usual language used to describe such people is “hard to reach,” “seldom heard” or “difficult to engage.” These phrases may be commonly used and well intended, but they can hide a pressing question: Where does trust already exist and how can research begin there?
Cultivating epistemic humility in research teams
By Faye Miller.
What makes it so challenging for research teams to be truly receptive to being wrong? And what can teams do to make doubt expressible and useful?
Being aware that knowledge is always situational, incomplete, and prone to error, as well as the willingness to hold opinions tentatively, be receptive to change, and recognise the boundaries of understanding, are all components of epistemic humility. Humility about what one knows and can know is an intellectual quality in individual researchers. Yet epistemic humility also has a structural dimension: which doubts get expressed, whose knowledge is heard, and how teams handle what they don’t yet know, are challenges that go beyond the individual researcher to shape how research teams function.
This i2Insights contribution is an attempt to highlight two challenges that need to be addressed:
- the confidence trap, built on the pressure to exude certainty, and
- the silence trap, arising from the social dynamics that can suppress productive doubt.
Tinkering workshops: Exploring children’s perceptions of problems and potential solutions
By Ina Opitz, Melanie Kryst, Pia von den Benken and Audrey Podann.
2. Melanie Kryst (biography)
3. Pia von den Benken (biography)
4. Audrey Podann (biography)
How can children’s everyday experiences and perceptions of problems and solutions be made accessible for potential inclusion in transdisciplinary research? How can these processes also be used to familiarise children with the fundamentals of transdisciplinarity?
We have developed a three-hour “tinkering workshop,” based on design science principles, to encourage children to think about their environment and identify problems and solutions in a playful and creative way.
Our tinkering workshop is suitable for children aged between 9 and 12 years. We have tried it out in four workshops with a total of 56 children, focusing on the problem of plastic waste.
Modifying the Delphi method with continuous real-time data analysis
By Benedikt Steiner.
How can the Delphi method be modified to provide data aggregation and visualisation in real time? Which aspects of the Delphi method are preserved and which are changed? How does such a modified method work best?
A brief overview of the Delphi method
The Delphi method is a structured elicitation process that invites experts to explore complex, uncertain or contested topics. It aims to make the assumptions, expectations, and uncertainties of the experts involved explicit.
Key characteristics include:
- anonymity of participants, reducing social pressure and dominance effects
- iterative assessment, allowing experts to reflect and revise their judgments
- controlled feedback, showing aggregated group responses
- aggregation, rather than forced agreement.
Highlighted contributions
Six lessons for newly-forming large research consortia
By Daniel Black and Geoff Bates
2. Geoff Bates (biography)
What are some key tips for establishing new, large consortia to tackle complex global challenges? What are the best ways to coordinate large groups of researchers, practitioners and publics towards a shared goal?
Describing this type of research is cumbersome. As a shorthand we have started to use the terms ‘LMITs’ (pronounced ‘limits’) and ‘New LMITs’ to denote similarly characterised projects and teams that are: ‘Newly forming’, ‘Large-scale’, ‘Mission-orientated’, and ‘Inter- and Trans-disciplinary’.
Drawing on our own experience over the past three years of establishing a New LMIT, we suggest six primary inter-related recommendations for other New LMITs, and for those who fund or support such research groups:
1. Factor in (far) more time than you might expect
2. Seek out funders who understand
A framework for building transdisciplinary expertise
By ANU Transdisciplinarity Working Group
What expertise should everyone have in order to effectively play their role in tackling complex societal and environmental problems? Is there a framework that can help everyone develop rudimentary skills and provide a pathway to enhancing them as and when necessary?
We were charged with addressing these questions, not for everyone, but for all undergraduates at our university, The Australian National University (ANU). In particular, we were asked to ensure that all ANU graduates would be able to work with others to understand and creatively address amorphous and complex problems. More formally, this was described as proposing how undergraduates could develop the “Capability to Employ Discipline-based Knowledge in Transdisciplinary Problem Solving.”
Understanding the links between coloniality, forced displacement and knowledge production
By Alemu Tesfaye and Truphena Mukuna
2. Truphena Mukuna (biography)
What is the relationship between coloniality, forced displacement and knowledge production? How is this relevant to decolonization efforts?
The history of forced displacement can be traced back to the colonial era, during which European powers established colonies in various parts of the world, displacing and often subjugating indigenous populations. The displacement of indigenous peoples often involved the forced removal from their ancestral lands and the disruption of their social and cultural systems.
In this context, knowledge production was used to justify and legitimize the displacement of indigenous populations.
Diffusion of innovations
By James W. Dearing
How—and why—do people decide to try new things?
Studies of diffusion have frequently demonstrated a mathematically consistent sigmoid pattern (the S-shaped curve, see figure below) of over-time adoption for innovations. Innovations include new beliefs, practices, programs, policies, and technologies.
The “S” shape is due to the positive engagement of informal opinion leaders in talking about and modeling an innovation for others to hear about and see. The initial slow rate of adoption gives way to a rapidly accelerating rate, which then slows as fewer non-adopters remain.