Theoretical framework for open team science / オープンチームサイエンスという考え方

By Yasuhisa Kondo

A Japanese version of this post is available

author yasuhisa kondo
Yasuhisa Kondo (biography)

What is open team science? What challenges does it deal with and how?

What is open team science?

In our experience, projects are commonly disrupted by socio-psychological boundaries, particularly at the initial phase of team building. Such boundaries are often generated by asymmetric information, knowledge, wisdom (wise use of knowledge; Bellingen et al., 2004), values, socio-economic status, and power among actors.

We have developed a theoretical framework that considers open science as an open scientific knowledge production system, which can be interlinked with transdisciplinarity as a driver of boundary spanning to develop a new research paradigm. We call this open team science.

The open team science theoretical framework

Our theoretical framework spans inter-actor boundaries by:

  1. developing the goals that actors with different interests can tackle together (transcend method)
  2. considering ethical equity with special attention paid to empowering marginalized actors
  3. developing data visualization based on the FAIR Data Principles
  4. facilitating dialogue.

The framework is summarised in the two figures below.

kondo_theoretical framework_principles citizen science
The theoretical framework of open team science interlinking principles from citizen science and community-based participatory research. Source: Kondo et al (2019).



kondo_theoretical framework_key concepts
Key concepts and approaches for boundary spanning in the open team science framework. Source: Kondo et al (2019).

Finally, we describe three key concepts for boundary spanning in our framework: “transcend,” “ethical equity” and FAIR data principles.


Transcend involves discovering and sharing the goals that actors with different interests can tackle together. The ‘transcend’ method was introduced by Johan Galtung (Transcend International 2019) and is fundamentally based on transforming conflict by peaceful means, including dialogue, negotiation, and mediation. The transcend method involves constructing new realities among the range of parties.

Where conflict exists, a mediator is required to facilitate dialogue among the parties. Once a dialogue emerges and develops, the parties in conflict can deepen their understanding of each other’s perspectives and communicate in such a way that a divergence of perceptions can take place.

In open science, where researchers, practitioners, policymakers, and civil society members aim to share data, code, and protocols, and to collaborate with each other to produce scientific knowledge applicable to real world problems, the transcend method can provide openness and a virtuous cycle toward constructing a continuous dialogue among all parties.

Ethical equity

Ethical equity requires special attention to empowering marginalized (or ‘small voice’) actors. It involves considering procedural or distributive justice for a variety of individuals with different goals and ideas, including marginalized people. For example, knowledge and information are regarded as resources that should be fairly evaluated and distributed. Attention must be paid to the process itself before directly aiming for agreement, especially ensuring that the voices of marginalized people are not masked. Organizers and/or facilitators should spare no effort to understand marginalized people involved in their decision process.

FAIR data principles

FAIR stands for: Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable. These principles place importance on the ability of data to be found and used automatically by machines, as well as re-used by humans.

Next steps

Evaluating the effect of boundary spanning in open team science is an important next task. Useful assessment methods include participatory observation, semi-structured interviews, and periodic questionnaires. These can examine project outcomes, processes and the perceptual transformation of participants.

What do you think? Do this framework and the key concepts resonate with your experience? Are there other issues that you think should be considered?

To find out more:
Kondo, Y., Miyata, A., Ikeuchi, U., Nakahara, S., Nakashima, K., Ōnishi, H., Osawa, T., Ota, K., Sato, K., Ushijima, K., Vienni Baptista, B., Kumazawa, T., Hayashi, K., Murayama, Y., Okuda, N., and Nakanishi H. (2019). Interlinking open science and community-based participatory research for socio-environmental issues. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 39: 54-61. (Online) (DOI – Open Access):

Bellingen, G., Durval, C. and Mills. A. (2004). Data, information, knowledge, and wisdom. The Way of Systems website. (Online):

Transcend International: A Peace Development Environment Network website. (2019). (Online):

Biography: Yasuhisa Kondo PhD is an associate professor at the Research Institute for Humanity and Nature (RIHN), Kyoto, Japan. He is interested in the promotion of open science to address socio-environmental issues, and is coordinating a meta-research project titled “Information Asymmetry Reduction in Open Team Science for Socio-environmental Cases” at the RIHN (

オープンチームサイエンスという考え方 / Theoretical framework for open team science

An English version of this post is available







(4)主体間の対話をうながすこと が重要です(図1・2)。

kondo_theoretical framework_principles citizen science



kondo_theoretical framework_key concepts



「とりつくしま」とは、ここでは関心事の異なる主体が一緒に取り組める目標を見つけて共有することを指します。元々は英語でTranscendといって、平和学者のヨハン・ガルトゥング(Johan Galtung)が、対話や交渉・調停といった平和な手段・方法によって対立や紛争を解決に導くための方法として提唱した概念です。「とりつくしま」を見つけることは、異なる主体が新しい現実を共創することを意味します。










近藤康久・宮田晃碩・池内有為・中原聖乃・中島健一郎・大西秀之・大澤剛士・太田和彦・佐藤賢一・牛島 健・Bianca Vienni Baptista・熊澤輝一・林 和弘・村山泰啓・奥田 昇・中西久枝, 2019. Interlinking open science and community-based participatory research for socio-environmental issues. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 39: 54-61. (オープンアクセス)

Collaboration: From groan zone to growth zone

Community member post by Carrie Kappel

Carrie Kappel (biography)

What is the groan zone in collaboration? What can you do when you reach that point?

As researchers and practitioners engaged in transdisciplinary problem-solving, we know the value of diverse perspectives. We also know how common it is for groups to run into challenges when trying to learn from diverse ideas and come to consensus on creative solutions.

This challenging, often uncomfortable space, is called the groan zone. The term comes from Sam Kaner’s diamond model of participation shown in the figure below. After an initial period of divergent thinking, where diverse ideas are introduced, groups have to organize that information, focus on what’s most important, and make decisions in order to move forward into the phase of convergent thinking. Continue reading

Skilful conversations for integration

Community member post by Rebecca Freeth and Liz Clarke

Rebecca Freeth (biography)

Interdisciplinary collaboration to tackle complex problems is challenging! In particular, interdisciplinary communication can be very difficult – how do we bridge the gulf of mutual incomprehension when we are working with people who think and talk so very differently from us? What skills are required when mutual incomprehension escalates into conflict, or thwarts decision making on important issues?

It is often at this point that collaborations lose momentum. In the absence of constructive or productive exchange, working relationships stagnate and people retreat to the places where they feel safest: Continue reading

Conditions for co-creation

Community member post by Gabriele Bammer

This is part of a series of occasional “synthesis blog posts” drawing together insights across blog posts on related topics.

Gabriele Bammer (biography)

What is required for effective co-creation, especially between researchers and stakeholders? In particular, what contributes to a productive environment for co-creation? And what considerations are relevant for deciding who to involve?

Twelve blog posts which have addressed these issues are discussed. Bringing those insights together provides a richer picture of how to achieve effective co-creation.

What makes a productive environment for co-creation?

A good starting point is to be working in an environment and organizational culture that support co-creation and to have sufficient financial, personnel and other resources, as pointed out by Kit Macleod and Arnim Wiek.

Dialogue-based processes are often an important part of co-creation and they need to be established as a generative space, focused on synergy, not conflict. Continue reading

A checklist for documenting knowledge synthesis

Community member post by Gabriele Bammer

Gabriele Bammer (biography)

How do you write-up the methods section for research synthesizing knowledge from different disciplines and stakeholders to improve understanding about a complex societal or environmental problem?

In research on complex real-world problems, the methods section is often incomplete. An agreed protocol is needed to ensure systematic recording of what was undertaken. Here I use a checklist to provide a first pass at developing such a protocol specifically addressing how knowledge from a range of disciplines and stakeholders is brought together.


1. What did the synthesis of disciplinary and stakeholder knowledge aim to achieve, which knowledge was included and how were decisions made? Continue reading

Three tasks for transdisciplinary bridge builders

Community member post by Roderick J. Lawrence

Roderick J. Lawrence (biography)

Human groups and societies have built many kinds of bridges for centuries. Since the 19th century, engineers have designed complex physical structures that were intended to serve one or more purposes in precise situations. In essence, the construction of a bridge is meant to join two places together. What may appear as a mundane functional structure is built only after numerous decisions have been made about its appearance, cost, functions, location and structure. Will a bridge serve only as a link and passage, or will it serve other functions?

In discussing three things the transdisciplinary research community can do to build bridges, I use “building bridges” as a metaphor. I discuss a bridge as a human-made artefact that is attributed meaningful form. It is created intentionally for one or more purposes. Continue reading