Transdisciplinary teams are usually configured and structured as a function of the problem or problems to be investigated
and
solved. With the problem definition being prioritized, a second step usually consists in selecting academic input towards
problem-solving, typically determined in terms of academic disciplines. In addition, extra-academic input is sought from those
deemed to have relevant interests, experiential knowledge of or expertise in the problem.
Working in this way is rather self-evident for many involved and presented as standard in education and textbooks. However,
this workshop raises the question whether it is really so self-evident? Indeed, could it be that applying this sequence of steps is
sub-optimal with regard to cultivating a mind-set for learning and experimentation. For defining a problem is itself already a
process that is not just content-driven nor expertise-dependent as it builds upon intra- and interpersonal interactions,
processes, hierarchies and so on. On the contrary, a team’s determining the space of options that characterize a problem and
its potential solutions is a process rich in affective, motivational and embodied states and interactions, complementing and
influencing the contents that we associate with academic contributions. Obviously, those dimensions are equally important to
the process of determining which participants are assumed to have a stake in the problem or bring relevant expertise. Initiating
a project in terms of its problem definition and team composition while relegating these rich process dimensions to a later stage
- considered to merely play a supporting role - implies that the project’s initiation risks suffering from constraints that will
continue to hinder subsequent project phases. This analysis has elsewhere led to proposals of decolonizing the research
process, which is in some sense implied in this workshop’s proposal.
If, in contrast, we do acknowledge these typically neglected dimensions of the project initiation and build upon these, inverting
the transdisciplinary process as this workshop proposes implies that its outcomes are also likely to be qualitatively very different
from typical TD outcomes. By postponing to a later phase the input of formal academic, extra-academic or professional
knowledge and expertise and foregrounding and attending to these dimensions, we can focus upon building interpersonal trust
and confidence, allowing for an emerging team dynamics that fundamentally affects the project initiation. Indeed, inverting the
process also emphasized the iterative or recursive nature of it, as the first process step does not yet allow the constraints on
problem contents or team composition that are typically present.
This workshop consists of a 90 minute online experiment with the audience, in which we participate together in an inverted
transdisciplinary process, experiencing its consequences and reflecting upon its implications for normal transdisciplinary
research processes. More specifically, the reversed - and iterative - process we propose for this occasion consists of:
1. Starting the process, creating an open space ready for diversity, experimentation and imagination by focusing on the
configuration of a team beyond a mere group of experts. Shedding off (academically) socialized features, we start working with
embodied, affective dynamics. In doing so, the team emphasizes trust building and richer ways of interaction while allowing its
configuration to emerge and recognizing the plurality of options it has.
2. Proceeding the process, going from the embodied to motivational dimensions. Here the focus is on metacognizing and
articulating the motivations, alliances, life experiences, and personalities that each team member brings in their interactions
with others. The team will recognize how a problem space and the space of possible solutions is shaped by these neglected
dimensions, even before it starts determining the problem.
3. After trust building and attending to motivational dimensions, the team is only entering the phase of articulating and assigning
formal, academic and extra-academic expertise and knowledge. This project initiation step also involves the team composition,
requiring potentially its expansion and reconfiguration.
The workshop/experiment will start and end with asking the participants the question “What are in your opinion both the biggest
promise of TD research and the critical challenge(s) potentially undermining TD projects?” Further questions we aim to address
and explore with the participants are a.o.:
- Does a reversed TD process, more than its typical version, create space for a more inclusive problem definition, shared by
most people involved in the process irrespective of their status and discipline?
- Does a reversed TD process scaffold a space to foster the creativity present in all the team members, creativity that otherwise
might be hindered by neglected dimensions?
- Does the TD space that is created in a reversed TD process results in an outcome that reflects better the collective expertise,
motivations and normative positions of the team members?
- Does a reversed TD process prepare mind-sets in the team members such that it encourages their individual and joint
imagination, relevant to all research process phases?
- Does a reversed TD process, more than its usual course, ensure that the outcomes created by the team will reflect their
collective engagement and care, enhancing the probability that these will be actionable and eventually implemented?
solved. With the problem definition being prioritized, a second step usually consists in selecting academic input towards
problem-solving, typically determined in terms of academic disciplines. In addition, extra-academic input is sought from those
deemed to have relevant interests, experiential knowledge of or expertise in the problem.
Working in this way is rather self-evident for many involved and presented as standard in education and textbooks. However,
this workshop raises the question whether it is really so self-evident? Indeed, could it be that applying this sequence of steps is
sub-optimal with regard to cultivating a mind-set for learning and experimentation. For defining a problem is itself already a
process that is not just content-driven nor expertise-dependent as it builds upon intra- and interpersonal interactions,
processes, hierarchies and so on. On the contrary, a team’s determining the space of options that characterize a problem and
its potential solutions is a process rich in affective, motivational and embodied states and interactions, complementing and
influencing the contents that we associate with academic contributions. Obviously, those dimensions are equally important to
the process of determining which participants are assumed to have a stake in the problem or bring relevant expertise. Initiating
a project in terms of its problem definition and team composition while relegating these rich process dimensions to a later stage
- considered to merely play a supporting role - implies that the project’s initiation risks suffering from constraints that will
continue to hinder subsequent project phases. This analysis has elsewhere led to proposals of decolonizing the research
process, which is in some sense implied in this workshop’s proposal.
If, in contrast, we do acknowledge these typically neglected dimensions of the project initiation and build upon these, inverting
the transdisciplinary process as this workshop proposes implies that its outcomes are also likely to be qualitatively very different
from typical TD outcomes. By postponing to a later phase the input of formal academic, extra-academic or professional
knowledge and expertise and foregrounding and attending to these dimensions, we can focus upon building interpersonal trust
and confidence, allowing for an emerging team dynamics that fundamentally affects the project initiation. Indeed, inverting the
process also emphasized the iterative or recursive nature of it, as the first process step does not yet allow the constraints on
problem contents or team composition that are typically present.
This workshop consists of a 90 minute online experiment with the audience, in which we participate together in an inverted
transdisciplinary process, experiencing its consequences and reflecting upon its implications for normal transdisciplinary
research processes. More specifically, the reversed - and iterative - process we propose for this occasion consists of:
1. Starting the process, creating an open space ready for diversity, experimentation and imagination by focusing on the
configuration of a team beyond a mere group of experts. Shedding off (academically) socialized features, we start working with
embodied, affective dynamics. In doing so, the team emphasizes trust building and richer ways of interaction while allowing its
configuration to emerge and recognizing the plurality of options it has.
2. Proceeding the process, going from the embodied to motivational dimensions. Here the focus is on metacognizing and
articulating the motivations, alliances, life experiences, and personalities that each team member brings in their interactions
with others. The team will recognize how a problem space and the space of possible solutions is shaped by these neglected
dimensions, even before it starts determining the problem.
3. After trust building and attending to motivational dimensions, the team is only entering the phase of articulating and assigning
formal, academic and extra-academic expertise and knowledge. This project initiation step also involves the team composition,
requiring potentially its expansion and reconfiguration.
The workshop/experiment will start and end with asking the participants the question “What are in your opinion both the biggest
promise of TD research and the critical challenge(s) potentially undermining TD projects?” Further questions we aim to address
and explore with the participants are a.o.:
- Does a reversed TD process, more than its typical version, create space for a more inclusive problem definition, shared by
most people involved in the process irrespective of their status and discipline?
- Does a reversed TD process scaffold a space to foster the creativity present in all the team members, creativity that otherwise
might be hindered by neglected dimensions?
- Does the TD space that is created in a reversed TD process results in an outcome that reflects better the collective expertise,
motivations and normative positions of the team members?
- Does a reversed TD process prepare mind-sets in the team members such that it encourages their individual and joint
imagination, relevant to all research process phases?
- Does a reversed TD process, more than its usual course, ensure that the outcomes created by the team will reflect their
collective engagement and care, enhancing the probability that these will be actionable and eventually implemented?