Feedback provision – Integration and Implementation Insights

Navigating polarities: Fostering both/and mindsets in team science

June 16, 2026

By Gemma Jiang and Joanna Kaniewska.

authors_gemma-jiang_joanna-kaniewska — 1. Gemma Jiang (biography)
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.

Cultivating epistemic humility in research teams

June 2, 2026

By Faye Miller.

faye-miller_2025 — Faye Miller (biography)

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.

Establishing, discussing, and sustaining accountability in your team: Seven strategies

October 27, 2025September 24, 2024

By L. Michelle Bennett, Michael O’Rourke, and Edgar Cardenas

authors_l-michelle-bennett_michael-orourke_edgar-cardenas — 1. L. Michelle Bennett (biography)
2. Michael O’Rourke (biography
3. Edgar Cardenas (biography)

How can I hold my teammates accountable?

Being willing and able to hold yourself and others accountable depends heavily on the collaborative culture created by the team (see previous i2Insights contribution by L. Michelle Bennett on Mindset matters for interdisciplinary teams: Choose a collaborative one).

Collaborative cultures characterized by psychological safety, transparency, and an ability to engage in productive conflict provide the strongest foundation for accountability.

Practising responsible research within an Indigenous paradigm

May 21, 2024

By Norma Romm

What might it mean to practise responsible research within a postcolonial Indigenous paradigm? What is distinctive in terms of the conception of responsible research practice? How does research informed by this paradigm include responsiveness to the voices/spirit of the more-than-human world?

A postcolonial Indigenous paradigm as defined by scholars from a variety of geographical regions is offered as a way of doing research that expressly draws out and tries to revitalise the relational knowing-and-being processes of Indigenous communities in Africa, the Indigenous peoples of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and the USA (First Nations). These scholars (Indigenous, as well as non-Indigenous ones who can be regarded as allies) have tried to credentialise this research paradigm by expanding upon the underlying suggestion that processes of knowing are inextricably tied to ways of living (being in relation to others, human and more-than-human).

This implies a specific conception of responsibility to try to nurture (in all fields of our influence, including in research practices) relationships that can be considered reciprocal rather than exploitative (of other humans or of other species and of the land and its communities).

Writing confidentiality and anonymity into collaboration agreements

October 27, 2025November 21, 2023

By Edgar Cardenas, L. Michelle Bennett, and Michael O’Rourke

authors_edgar-cardenas_l-michelle-bennett_michael-orourke — 1. Edgar Cardenas (biography)
2. L. Michelle Bennett (biography)
3. Michael O’Rourke (biography)

How might teams create norms to scaffold the use of confidentiality and anonymity in team settings? How could a team integrate language about confidentiality and anonymity into their collaboration agreement? How can teams use these approaches and simultaneously build psychological safety and trust?

In an earlier i2Insights contribution, we provided a collaboration agreement template to help teams improve their chances of collaboration success by facilitating dialogue about shared values, norms, and processes of collaboration. This template is designed around three central dimensions of collaborative research: team management, team dynamics, and team communication.

Confidentiality and anonymity in teams

November 21, 2023

By Edgar Cardenas, L. Michelle Bennett, and Michael O’Rourke

Do confidentiality and anonymity have a place in teamwork? What are the risks and how might they be mitigated? Can teams move past the need for confidentiality and anonymity?

It takes time and intentional effort to create an environment within a team that is safe for interpersonal risk-taking (ie., a psychologically safe environment). As a team works to develop a psychologically safe environment, teammates will likely be more and more willing to speak openly about challenges. As part of this work, and in an effort to make certain all team members are comfortable sharing issues and challenges, teams may suggest adopting confidential and/or anonymous communication channels; however, there are significant risks associated with their use in teams. Here we detail some of the common risks and provide a set of design elements for dealing with them.

Confidentiality

Teammates who have concerns and are uncomfortable sharing them openly with the full team might choose to communicate confidentially with another person, who may be on the team or outside of the team.

Trust and empowerment inventory for community groups

September 23, 2021January 29, 2019

By Craig Dalton

Author - Craig Dalton — Craig Dalton (biography)

Community groups are often consulted by researchers, government agencies and industry. The issues may be contentious and the relationship vexed by distrust and poor communication. Could an inventory capture the fundamental sources of community frustration and highlight scope for improvement in respect, transparency, fairness, co-learning, and meeting effectiveness from a community perspective?

The trust and empowerment inventory presented below is based on the main sources of community frustration that I have witnessed over two decades as a public health physician and researcher liaising with communities about environmental health risks and it is likely to have broader relevance.

Using the arts and design to build student creative collaboration capacity

September 12, 2024May 15, 2018

By Edgar Cardenas

How can undergraduate and graduate students be helped to build their interdisciplinary collaboration capacity? In particular, how do they build capacity between the arts and other disciplines?

In 2018, I co-facilitated the annual, 3-day Emerging Creatives Student Summit, an event for approximately 100 undergraduate and graduate students from 26 universities organized by the Alliance for the Arts in Research Universities. Students’ majors ranged from the sciences, engineering, music, arts, and design.