By Kimberly Bourne and Alison Deviney.
2. Alison Deviney (biography)
What are the benefits of field experiences for large convergence research centers? How can they be used to generate new research questions that cross disciplines and benefit local communities?
We draw on a two-day retreat centered around a geographically specific issue to provide lessons that may be useful for others. The retreat combined field excursions and a brainstorming workshop to generate new research questions. An additional benefit was that it positively changed the power dynamics in the group.
In our case, the large convergence research center focuses on innovations for sustainable phosphorus management. A central field site is in South Florida, USA, where phosphorus pollution from agricultural and urban areas threatens a wetlands national park (the Everglades). The aim was to identify additional research questions to support practical solutions and, in addressing them, to expand connections to the South Florida research site with new collaborators from the Center’s diverse members.
The two-day retreat was attended by a subset of Center members from different institutions, disciplines, and educational backgrounds who were interested in connecting their work to issues prevalent in the South Florida research site and who would later share their experiences with the broader Center community.
Pre-Retreat: Required pre-work introducing participants to the local problem context included assigned readings from the academic literature to familiarize participants with current research on phosphorus sustainability in South Florida. These readings were supplemented with two one-hour long, lead-up seminars, where invited regional experts and those from the Center presented and discussed research on the topic. Participants were encouraged to reflect upon how their own research connected to the Center’s ongoing research in South Florida.
Day 1: Participants went on a field excursion to experience multiple sites where phosphorus is applied, managed, or considered a pollutant, including a sugar cane farm, the South Florida Water Management District headquarters, and the Everglades, to learn first-hand about the specific local problem context. The excursion included conversations with different stakeholder representatives from government, industry, and regional academic experts.
Throughout the day, participants used an anonymous polling app to offer general thoughts, pose research questions related to what they learned, or to comment on the information presented as it related to current research. The use of the polling app was promoted between field experiences to remind participants to submit their ideas. However, participants were encouraged to submit to the polling app at any time throughout the day, allowing them to capture ideas and questions in real time using their phones. The planning committee reviewed 80 submissions to the app and were able to extract five themes, or “big ideas,” to serve as the foundation of the brainstorming to connect Center research with the field location, which would lead to new research ideas and collaborations.
Day 2: Participants were introduced to the “big ideas” and assigned to one of five multidisciplinary groups, each with a designated facilitator. The goal of the day was to brainstorm on each of the “big ideas” and develop ideas for new, convergent projects. Participants used post-it notes to record related concepts, questions, project ideas and potential data needs. Participants were also encouraged to identify existing projects in the Center that could contribute to the “big ideas”, related impact opportunities, and potential stakeholders to engage. Each group then read through the brainstorming outputs for each of the other four groups to identify connections with their own “big idea” or existing projects and contribute any additional clarifying information.
Post-Retreat: At the brainstorming workshop, participants had generated a list of potential “outputs” that provided a contact person, project description, and opportunity for interested members to sign up for future engagement. The contact person was charged with following up on their output idea with volunteers outside of the retreat. The output ideas were shared across the Center so those who did not attend could also contribute.
The major outcome of the retreat was a successful US National Science Foundation-funded proposal based on discussions around the “big ideas” during the brainstorming workshop. Other products included a knowledge map of the brainstorming session itself, a writing retreat for scholars, and a contribution to the Center’s PhosForUs podcast series. According to a post-retreat evaluation, it also provided less tangible, but nonetheless core team benefits as outcomes, particularly:
- Facilitated networking and relationship building across the Center.
- Demonstrated to researchers how their own disciplines can connect and contribute to different research goals.
An important but less recognized additional benefit was the breaking down of power hierarchies. The field excursion served two purposes in breaking down some of the power dynamics that exist between those with varying levels of expertise, such as faculty, postdocs, and students:
- It provided an opportunity for socialization and community building among team members in a more casual setting. This was especially important for team members across disciplines and from different institutions to build relationships.
- It ensured everyone started the brainstorming workshop with a similar level of base knowledge, shared language, and foundation for idea creation by highlighting specific research needs in the local problem context.
During the brainstorming workshop portion of the retreat, assigning participants to specific multidisciplinary groups of varied expertise levels allowed each member of the group to provide their unique perspective, carving their own niche in a convergence microcosm.
What strategies do you use to increase the more tangible research outcomes of brainstorming workshops in addition to the less tangible ones? How do you increase cross-disciplinary idea generation in brainstorming workshops? Have you found other ways of breaking down power hierarchies?
Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) Statement: Generative artificial intelligence was not used in the development of this i2Insights contribution. (For i2Insights policy on generative artificial intelligence please see https://i2insights.org/contributing-to-i2insights/guidelines-for-authors/#artificial-intelligence.)
Biography: Kimberly Bourne PhD is a postdoctoral scholar with the Science and Technologies for Phosphorus Sustainability Center (STEPS; steps-center.org) at Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina, USA. She focuses on developing tools, methods, and workshops to increase convergence capacity across the Center. She is also interested in using team science, novel modelling, and stakeholder engagement methods to improve environmental decision-making.
Biography: Alison Deviney PhD is a postdoctoral scholar with the Science and Technologies for Phosphorus Sustainability Center (STEPS; steps-center.org) at North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA. She works with various teams on convergence research, education and knowledge transfer. Her broader interests include applying systems thinking, team science, and stakeholder engagement to support a resilient future.
Acknowledgement: This work was funded by the National Science Foundation Grant #2019435. We also acknowledge Daniel Laxman for his contribution in administering the post-retreat evaluation.