Files/.DS_Store
__MACOSX/Files/._.DS_Store
Files/Instructions .docx
Description
Drawing on both concepts from the project unit and your experiences in the Project, address the following questions:
1.Giving examples from the Project, analyse the ways of thinking that you
ought from your educational background.
2.Evaluate how your ways of thinking are contributing to the Project in comparison to other ways of thinking.
3.What potential or actual problems are arising from working on the Project with collaborators whose ways of thinking are similar or different to your own? What strategies are you using to avoid or resolve those problems?
In answering all the questions, you will need to support your arguments with concepts from the academic literature(i.e. core readings from this project) as well as specific examples from your project experience and interactions with your group.
Students will need to engage thefollowing texts in their assessment and include a reference listconsistent with the APA 6thReferencing Style:
Criteria
Ratings
Pts
1. Analysing ways of thinking
view longer description
30 to >25.5 pts
High Distinction
You analysed and critiqued your ways of thinking with reference to your discipline/educational background. You analysed and critiqued your ways of thinking, using relevant examples from the project. Your analysis is supported with evidence from multiple high-quality sources.
/ 30 pts
2. Evaluate contribution of ways of thinking to Project
view longer description
30 to >25.5 pts
High Distinction
You evaluated the strengths and limitations of your ways of thinking in the context of the Project, using examples of how your ways of thinking contributed to the project. You critique the contribution of other ways of thinking in the Project.
/ 30 pts
3. Problems and solutions in collaborating with other ways of thinking
view longer description
30 to >25.5 pts
High Distinction
You analysed and critiqued the problems in collaborating with other ways of thinking, using relevant examples from the project. You develop solutions that demonstrate an understanding of interactions among ways of thinking.
/ 30 pts
4. Clarity of writing, referencing and formatting
view longer description
10 to >8.5 pts
High Distinction
Referencing complies with chosen style, citations made appropriately and purposefully. Critical and coherent logical argument presented. Negligible grammatical e
ors
/ 10 points
__MACOSX/Files/._Instructions .docx
Files/Sample 2.pdf
ICPU1070 Coles
Word Count: 1645
may be attributed to our maths and science disciplines where research adopts a post
positivist worldview which focuses on establishing cause and effect relationships (SAGE
Publications, 2018). While these ways of thinking helped us to emphasise objectivity to
educe bias and focus on gathering evidence to support recommendations, it limited the
elevance of personal experience and reduced ideas to a “discrete set” that needed to be
tested. This was balanced by a pragmatic worldview, developed from my past research
experience. My research in on palm oil and sustainability cultivated an
understanding of the impact of political, historical and socio economic factors on the
introduction and acceptance of change. In contrast to post positivism, this mindset is centred
on responding to a situation or issue, so there is less rigid methodology and a greater
consideration for the context of the problem (Kaushik & Walsh, 2019). This paradigm was
eflected in our mixed method approach to both evaluate traceability technologies while also
understanding the attitudes of Chinese consumers.
Problems & Solutions in Collaboration
Group diversity inevitably lead to various problems. For example, in our first group meeting,
knower code led her to quickly establish a project scope, adopting the Waterfall IPEC
design approach which is commonly used in engineering (Brindha & Vijayakumar, 2015). This
is a linear approach consisting of discrete phrases, whereby scope and deliverables are
determined in the first stage. However, as international business students, and I felt
more research should be ca
ied out before establishing our object of study as we needed
greater insights into the problem and to remain flexible in our approach. thought we
were being unproductive and pedantic while we thought she was oversimplifying the
problem. This reflects how our different ways of thinking translated to different research
approaches and methods (SAGE Publications, 2018).
Additionally, different ways of thinking can lead to communication ba
iers. Throughout our
meetings, we discovered that disciplines have their own jargon (Pellmar & Einsenberg, 2000).
For example, in discussing the expected outcome of our group plan, I interpreted outcomes
as the proposed solution and its implications for the wider community whereas define
it as the literal project deliverables (group plan, final presentation, final report). Initially, this
ICPU1070 Coles
Word Count: 1645
caused some frustration as we both thought what the other was suggesting was i
elevant
and inco
ect. This is highlighted by Holley (2009) who proposes that “the meanings of certain
terms and phrases are subtly altered as they moved across disciplines”.
However, these problems were managed using various strategies. Firstly, we created a team
charter together which helped to define our purpose, expected outcomes and group
dynamics (Ginder, Peck & Peating, n.d.). This team building exercise helped to foster trust and
espect amongst team members. Importantly, we emphasised open communication which
encouraged everyone to share their ideas and perspectives and be respective of others’. It
also provided means to address conflict efficiently to prevent it worsening as supported by
Byrd & Luthy (2010); when misunderstandings arose, our first approach would be to try and
understanding the other person’s point of view. In the aforementioned disagreement
egarding outcomes, Zoey and I quickly realised we had different understandings of the word
and sought clarification from our project supervisor.
I was also intentional about cultivating psychological safety so my group would “free to
express work relevant thoughts and feelings” (Edmondson & Roloff, 2008). When I first read
Duhigg’s “What Google Learned from Its Quest to Build a Perfect Team”, I was confronted by
findings that team composition was not a success indicator. In past group projects, I always
attributed the lack of collaboration to team members’ skills and qualities. Throughout the
project, I began to realise that fostering a space where members felt they could share ideas
comfortably was integral to best utilise our different ways of thinking. I was constantly using
phrases such as “What does everyone else think?”, “I’m happy to discuss another way” and
“I’m not sure myself, I need to do more research”. The importance of this is highlighted by
Edmondson & Roloff (2008) who stress that team leaders should encourage others’ opinions
and contributions and acknowledge their own shortcomings. While group discussions were
still often filled with silence, there were some valuable ideas proposed by group members
such as George’s idea for a WeChat mini program which may otherwise have not been shared.
Interdisciplinary Learning
ICPU1070 Coles
Word Count: 1645
Throughout the project I began to realise that it wasn’t the mere presence of our different
disciplines that made our team interdisciplinary, but rather our ability to synthesise our
knowledge and skills. At times, interdisciplinary integration proved to be difficult. As our
disciplines fostered different ways of thinking, it sometimes felt like our ideas were in
contention or contradictory to one another. To address this, we were first prompted by our
project supervisor to think more deeply and critically about our disciplines and the
assumptions we might have. Then, as a group, we discussed these and identified areas of
difference and similarity. The importance of this is highlighted by Keestra & Menken (2016)
whereby our assumptions only become obvious when we “engage with each other in open
and extended dialogue”. These discussions were valuable in understanding that our
disagreements could often be attributed to differences in our thinking, rather than personal
issues and supported by the aforementioned group charter and the development of
psychological safety.
Another ba
ier I initially faced was that some members felt that their disciplines were
i
elevant to the problem. This issue is reflected in Richter & Paretti’s (2009) study on
interdisciplinary in the engineering classroom. Assigning roles such as Benne and Sheats’ tasks
oles helped to overcome this as it provided a sense of identity and purpose. Furthermore, as
we progressed, I realised that disciplinary contributions were not limited to explicit
knowledge but also included concepts or skills (Lattuca, Knight, & Bergom, 2013). For
example, majored in medical science and immunology and utilised his well developed
esearch skills to find valuable studies on Chinese consumers’ perceptions of traceability.
By utilising these strategies, our group was able to combine our disciplinary perspectives to
first better understand the dynamic, multi faceted problem presented as well as develop
comprehensive recommendations that were beyond the scope of a single discipline.
Regarding the problem, we recognised that it spanned across many disciplines. For example,
economic background revealed how the loss of integrity of China’s domestic food
industry impacted the nation’s GDP. This process is central to interdisciplinary integration
whereby theories from different disciplines are connected to form a more holistic
understanding of the problem (Keestra & Menken, 2016).
ICPU1070 Coles
Word Count: 1645
Our newfound understanding of the complex problem emphasised the need for
interdisciplinary integration in our recommendations. For example, in defining a “system”,
we combined definitions from business information systems, engineering and science to
create a
oader term that extended beyond combinative technologies to also considered the
ole of stakeholders. Keestra & Menken (2016) explain this to be an interdisciplinary
integrative technique of “adding, adjusting and connecting”. Even though our final solution
presented had a technological focus, it was built on the foundations of all of our disciplines.
For example, we used the engineering process of functional decomposition to divide our
proposed solution into three parts to provide a rounded, well detailed perspective.
Prior to this experience, interdisciplinary learning seemed like a buzzword and even though I
knew it was important, I did not have an in depth understanding of what it was. However,
now I am confident I will be able to work more effectively with others on solving complex
problems with a newfound awareness of the ways people think differently using frameworks
such as LCT and ontology. Importantly, I have learnt to utilise strategies such as developing
psychological safety, assessing my own individual assumptions and assigning roles to build a
collaborative team rather than basing team quality on a selection criteria of pre determined
characteristics.
ICPU1070 Coles
Word Count: 1645
References
Brindha, J., & Vijayakumar, V. (2015). Analytical comparison of waterfall model and object
oriented methodology in software engineering. Advances in Natural and Applied
Sciences, 9(12), 7 11. Retrieved from https:
go gale
com.ezproxy1.li
ary.usyd.edu.au/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA XXXXXXXXXX&v=2.1&u=usyd
&it=r&p=AONE&sw=w
Byrd, J. T., & Luthy, M. R. (2010). Improving group dynamics: Creating a team charter.
Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 14(1), 13. Retrieved from
https:
search proquest
com.ezproxy1.li
ary.usyd.edu.au/docview/ XXXXXXXXXX?rfr_id=info%3Axri%2Fsid%3
Aprimo
Duhigg, C. (2016, Fe
uary 26). What Google Learned From Its Quest To Build the Perfect
Team. The New Yok Times Magazine. Retrieved from
https:
www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what google learned from its
quest to build the perfect team.html
Edmondson, A. C., & Roloff, K. S. (2008). Overcoming ba
iers to collaboration: Psychological
safety and learning in diverse teams. In E. Salas, G. F. Goodwin, & C.S. Burke (Eds.),
Team effectiveness in complex organizations: Cross disciplinary perspectives and
approaches (pp. 183 208). Retrieved from https:
ebookcentral proquest
com.ezproxy1.li
ary.usyd.edu.au/li
usyd
eader.action?docID=381324&ppg=218
Ginder, G.L., Peck, L., & Keating, S. (n.d.). Jumpstart Team Success: Create a Team Charter.
Retrieved from the Claros Group website:
http:
www.clarosgroup.com/jumpstart.pdf
Holley, K. A. (2009). Understanding Interdisciplinary Challenges and Opportunities in Higher
Education. ASHE Higher Education Report, 35(2), 1 131. doi: 10.1002/aehe.3502
Kaushik, V., & Walsh, C. A. (2019). Pragmatism as a research paradigm and its implications
for social work research. Social Sciences, 8(9), 255. doi: 10.3390/socsci8090255
Keestra, M., & Menken, S. (2016). An introduction to interdisciplinary research: Theory and
practice. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.
Lattuca, L. R., Knight, D., & Bergom, I. (2013). Developing a measure of interdisciplinary
competence. The International journal of engineering education, 29(3), 726 739.
ICPU1070 Coles
Word Count: 1645
Retrieved from https:
www.semanticscholar.org/pape
Developing a measure of
interdisciplinary for Lattuca Knight/deb7b762bee42e9b63b1d63c96050faf1b417f12
Maton, K. & Chen, R. T H. (in press, 2019). Specialization codes: Knowledge, knowers and
student success. In J. R. Martin, K. Maton, & Y. J. Doran (Eds), Accessing Academic
Discourse: Systemic functional linguistics and Legitimation Code Theory. London,
England: Routledge.
Pellmar, T. C., & Eisenberg, L. (2000). Ba
iers to interdisciplinary research and training.
In T.C. Pellmar & L. Eisenbeg (Eds.), Bridging disciplines in the
ain, behavioral, and
clinical sciences. Washington DC, US: National Academies Press.
Richter, D. M., & Paretti, M. C. (2009). Identifying ba
iers to and outcomes of
interdisciplinarity in the engineering classroom. European Journal of Engineering
Education, 34(1), 29 45. doi: 10.1080/ XXXXXXXXXX
SAGE Publications. (2018). The Selection of a Research Approach. Retrieved from the SAGE
Publications website: https:
www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm
inaries/89166_Chapter_1_The_Selection_of_a_Research_Approach.pdf
Wolff, K. (2018). A language for the analysis of disciplinary boundary crossing: insights from
engineering problem solving practice. Teaching in Higher Education, 23(1), 104 119.
doi: 10.1080/ XXXXXXXXXX1359155
__MACOSX/Files/._Sample 2.pdf
Files/Sample. 1.pdf
1. Ways of Thinking & Contribution Evaluation
We as a group of five individuals with unique disciplinary backgrounds embody essential aspects
of diversity in cognition and perceptions, and problem-solving approaches, which are highly
leverageable to produce synergized design-thinking to maximize the team operative efficiency
(Miura & Hida, XXXXXXXXXXSuch fundamental differences in our ways of thinking are interpretable by
applying the combination of Fortunato and Furey’s theory of MindTime XXXXXXXXXXTMT) and
Sternberg’s model of mental governance XXXXXXXXXXMMG).
As a student pursuing two distinct disciplines in finance & management, I am self-aware of
utilizing both quantitative and qualitative methodologies to construct the logical flow in the
problem-solving approach. According to Slevitch (2011), the ontological position of the
quantitative conceptual framework enhanced in my finance major is an inclination to perceive
the objective reality independently subsisting in human perception (Sale et al., 2002) and
postulating the existence of conclusive truth. Thus, one side of my ways of thinking is evidently
aligned with the notion of the “Past-Thinking” style from TMT involving “the evaluation of pre-
existing conceptual and social schemas as to their validity and relevance” (Fortunato & Furey,
2012, p.850). I thereby utilize this perspective to indurate the credibility of conclusion via
inferential statistics and hypothesis testings (Miele & Wigfield, XXXXXXXXXXOn the other hand, my
management major develops the qualitative methodologies that em
ace epistemological premise
emphasizing the “transferability” (Slevitch, 2011) refe
ing to the ability enabling individuals to
divert the perceived experience to their own settings gleaned from the depth and evocativeness of
the perception through the cognitive intervention (Guba & Lincoln, XXXXXXXXXXThis is aligned with
the “Present-Thinking’ style in TMT engaging in the organizational information to develop and
execute action plans via the transference of the obtained data into the constructive structure
(Fortunato & Furey, XXXXXXXXXXSuch the combination of two perspectives creates the parallel with
Type III thinking style in Sternberg’s MMG XXXXXXXXXXthat integrates abstractive cognitive
processing (Type I) with the conformity to established methodologies and sophisticated
structuring (Type II), which can be perceived as my strength due to its balancing feature.
Ivanitskaya, L., Clark, D., Montgomery, G., & Primeau, R XXXXXXXXXXInterdisciplinary learning:
Process and outcomes. Innovative higher education, 27(2), 95-111.
Keestra, M., & Menken, S XXXXXXXXXXAn Introduction to Interdisciplinary Research : Theory and
Practice . Amsterdam University Press,.
Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M XXXXXXXXXXWork group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology,
58.
Liu, J., Klein, G., Chen, J., & Jiang, J XXXXXXXXXXThe Negative Impact of Conflict on the
Information System Development Process, Product, and Project. The Journal of
Computer Information Systems, 49(4), 98–104.
https:
doi.org/10.1080/ XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX
Mello, A., & Delise, L XXXXXXXXXXCognitive Diversity to Team Outcomes: The Roles of Cohesion
and Conflict Management. Small Group Research, 46(2), 204–226.
https:
doi.org/10.1177/ XXXXXXXXXX
Menken, S., & Keestra, M XXXXXXXXXXAn Introduction to Interdisciplinary Research: Theory and
Practice. Amsterdam University Press. https:
doi.org/10.1515/ XXXXXXXXXX
Miele, D., & Wigfield, A XXXXXXXXXXQuantitative and Qualitative Relations Between Motivation
and Critical-Analytic Thinking. Educational Psychology Review, 26(4), 519–541.
https:
doi.org/10.1007/s XXXXXXXXXX
Miura, A.,