Interdisciplinary collaboration is fundamentally relational; tools assist but relationships make or break it¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · qualitative r1 · q1
Currency · newest study 2022 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q1 i? The authors conclude that while tools like conjecture maps assist interdisciplinary collaboration, the nature of the collaboration is made or broken by the relations held between the researchers. → Chang 2022

Evidence¶

Chang 2022¶

Chang, M.A., Magana, A., Benes, B., Kao, D., & Fusco, J. (2022). Driving interdisciplinary collaboration through adapted conjecture mapping: A case study with the PECAS Mediator [Project Report]. Digital Promise. https://doi.org/10.51388/20.500.12265/156

q1 · i? · qualitative · r1

Authors' concluding interpretation of the case study: the discussion would not have been possible without the mutual respect and openness to new ideas exhibited by the PECAS Mediator team. This is an expert reflection from one case, offered without empirical measurement.

"While a tool like a conjecture map may assist researchers in exploring difficult questions around interdisciplinary research, the nature of the collaboration is made or broken by the relations held between the researchers."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Interdisciplinary humanities units improve students' interdisciplinary competences — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
• Collaborative conjecture map construction surfaced a tension between nuanced learning theory and limited technical capability — related
• The adapted conjecture map's framing around unintended consequences proved generative for interdisciplinary discussion — related
• First-time computer scientist users' contributions fit naturally into the adapted conjecture map format — related
• Framing instructors as part of the solution shifted the design toward supporting instructor judgment and co-design — related