Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Orchestrating conflict in teams with the use of boundary objects and trading zones in innovation-driven engineering design projects

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
International Journal of Technology and Design Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

While teamwork has been a central concern in engineering education, little research has systematically examined how conflict is managed in engineering teams of students. Socio-constructivism provides a solid base to explain how teamwork can foster innovation through the use of cultural artifacts, such as “boundary objects.” The purpose of this paper describing the anatomy of negotiation within several teams of engineering students located in universities of Northern California and Santiago de Chile from 2010 to 2017. We propose the concept of “conflict orchestration” to explain the dynamics of engineering teams working on innovation-driven engineering design challenges. A context sensitive qualitative research design was deployed using an ethnographic approach to the study team negotiation patterns observed in 11 teams of engineering students from Northern California and Santiago de Chile. The methodological focus was on identifying commonalities in the use of boundary objects and trading zones emerging from the students’ team interaction. Our findings illustrate two distinct strategies that the engineering teams adopted using boundary objects. We describe the use of Sticky Notes and Third Platforms. Finally, we explore students’ perceptions of the educational gain of PBL engineering design courses. The relevance of this study is threefold. First it conceptualizes a teamwork phenomenon that energizes innovation through scaffolded conflict. We also explore how this concept is enacted by engineering teams in two different cultural sites. Finally, we provide bottom-up strategies that can be implemented in other undergraduate engineering design programs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, R., Evangelou, D., English, L., De Figueiredo, A. D., Mousoulides, N., Pawley, A. L., et al. (2011). Multiple perspectives on engaging future engineers. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(1), 48–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amabile, T. M. (1988). A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummins (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 123–167). Greenwhich: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dysfunctional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 123–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amason, A. C., & Sapienza, H. J. (1997). The effects of top management team size and interaction norms on cognitive and affective conflict. Journal of Management, 23, 495–516.

    Google Scholar 

  • Amason, A. C., & Schweiger, D. M. (1994). Resolving the paradox of conflict, strategic decision making, and organizational performance. International Journal of Conflict Management, 5(3), 239–253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ames, G. J., & Murray, F. B. (1982). When two wrongs make a right: Promoting cognitive change by social conflict. Developmental Psychology, 18(6), 894.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, N., Perret-Clermont, A. N., & Grossen, M. (1985). Sociocognitive conflict and intellectual growth. In M. W. Berkowitz (Eds.), Peer conflict and psychological growth. New directions for child development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

  • Borrego, M., Froyd, J. E., & Hall, T. S. (2010). Diffusion of engineering education innovations: A survey of awareness and adoption rates in U.S. engineering departments. Journal of Engineering Education, 99(3), 185–207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borrego, M., Karlin, J., McNair, L. D., & Beddoes, K. (2013). Team effectiveness theory from industrial and organizational psychology applied to engineering student project teams: A research review. Journal of Engineering Education, 102(4), 472–512.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bourgeois, E. (2009). Apprentissage et transformation du sujet en formation. In J. C. R.-B. J. M. Barbier, E. Bourgeois, & G. Chapelle (Eds.), Encyclopédie de la formation (pp. 31–71). Paris: PUF.

  • Bourgeois, E., & Nizet, J. (1997). Apprentissage et formation des adultes. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradley, B. H., Anderson, H. J., Baur, J. E., & Klotz, A. C. (2015). When conflict helps: Integrating evidence for beneficial conflict in groups and teams under three perspectives. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 19(4), 243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brannan, K., Dion, T., & Fallon, D. (1999). ABET engineering criteria 2000: Assessment of classroom instruction. In ASEE annual conference.

  • Collins, H. M. (2010). Tacit and explicit knowledge. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 39(3), 124–130. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cropley, D. H. (2016). Creativity in engineering. In G. E. Corazza & S. Agnoli (Eds.), Multidisciplinary contributions to the science of creative thinking (pp. 155–173). London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, D., & Ulseth, R. (2013). Building student capacity for high performance teamwork. In ASEE annual conference (pp. 23–26). Atlanta, GA.

  • DiDonato, N. C. (2013). Effective self- and co-regulation in collaborative learning groups: An analysis of how students regulate problem solving of authentic interdisciplinary tasks. Instructional Science, 41(1), 25–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. F., & Leifer, L. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 34(1), 103–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Følstad, A. (2008). Living labs for innovation and development of information and communication technology: A literature review. The Electronic Journal for Virtual Organizations and Networks, 10(August), 99–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fominykh, M., Prasolova-Førland, E., Divitini, M., & Petersen, S. A. (2016). Boundary objects in collaborative work and learning. Information Systems Frontiers, 18(1), 85–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galison, P. (1999). Trading zone: Coordinating action and belief. In M. Biagioli (Ed.), The science studies reader (pp. 137–160). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaver, B., Dunne, T., & Pacenti, E. (1999). Cultural probes. Interactions, 6(1), 21–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Genco, N., Hölttä-Otto, K., & Seepersad, C. C. (2012). An experimental investigation of the innovation capabilities of undergraduate engineering students. Journal of Engineering Education, 101(1), 60–81.

    Google Scholar 

  • Given, L. M. (2016). 100 questions (and answers) about qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hadwin, A., & Oshige, M. (2011). Self-regulation, coregulation, and socially shared regulation: Exploring perspectives of social in self-regulated learning theory. Teachers College Record, 113(2), 240–264.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halpern, M., Erickson, I., Forlano, L., & Gay, G. K. (2013). Designing collaboration: comparing cases exploring cultural probes as boundary-negotiating objects. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on computer supported cooperative work (pp. 1093–1102). ACM.

  • Hargadon, A. B., & Bechky, B. A. (2006). When collections of creatives become creative collectives: A field study of problem solving at work. Organization Science, 17(4), 484–500.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henriksen, M. (1997). An overview of ABET engineering criteria 2000. In ASEE annual conference. Milwaukee, WI.

  • Jehn, K. (1994). Enhancing effectiveness: An investigation of advantages and disadvantages of value-based intragroup conflict. International Journal of Conflict Management, 5, 223–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jehn, K. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jehn, K. (1997). Affective and cognitive conflict in work groups: Increasing performance through value-based intragroup conflict. In C. K. W. DeDreu & E. Van de Vliert (Eds.), Using conflict in organizations. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolko, J. (2010). Abductive thinking and sensemaking: The drivers of design synthesis. Design Issues, 26(1), 15–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lissi, M. R., & Sebastián, C. (2016). El aprendizaje como proceso psicológico superior. Hacia una comprensión histórico-cultural del desarrollo del proceso de aprender. In Aprendizaje y educación: Contribuciones desde una perspectiva psicosocial. Santiago, Chile: Ediciones Universidad Alberto Hurtado.

  • Meinel, C., & Leifer, L. (2011). Design thinking research. In H. Plattner, C. Meinel, & L. Leifer (Eds.), Design thinking: Understand-improve-apply (pp. 1–11). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minneman, S. (1991). The social construction of a technical reality: Empirical studies of group engineering design practice. Menlo Park, CA: Stanford University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miranda, C. (2013). Mapping visual negotiations in innovation driven teams: A peek into the design process culture of graduate engineering students (Doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University). Retrieved from http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/resolver/1840.16/8737.

  • Mugny, G., de Paolis, P., & Carugati, F. (1984). Social regulations in cognitive development. In W. Doise & A. Palmonari (Eds.), Social interaction in individual development. New York: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newell, A., Shaw, J., & Simon, H. (1967). The process of creative thinking. In H. Gruber, G. Terrel, & M. Wertheimer (Eds.), Contemporary approaches to creative thinking (pp. 63–119). New York, NY: Literary Licensing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Panadero, E., & Järvelä, S. (2015). Socially shared regulation of learning: A review. European Psychologist, 20(3), 190–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paretti, M., Cross, K. J., & Matusovich, H. M. (2014). Match or mismatch: Engineering faculty beliefs about communication and teamwork versus published criteria. In ASEE annual conference. Indianapolis, IN.

  • Perusich, K., Davis, B., & Taylor, K. (2010). Teamwork and ABET review: A template for assessment. In K. M. Iskander, V. Kapila (Eds.), Technological developments in education and automation (pp. 349–353). Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piaget, J. (1970). Piaget’s theory. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael´s handbook of child psychology (pp. 703–731). New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pink, S. (2007). Doing visual ethnography. London, U.K.: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, M. (1967). The tacit dimension. London, U.K.: Routledge & K. Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prados, J. (1997). ABET engineering criteria 2000: How we got there and why. In ASEE annual conference. Milwaukee, WI.

  • Psaltis, C., & Duveen, G. (2006). Social relations and cognitive development: The influence of conversation type and representations of gender. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36(3), 407–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purzer, S. (2011). The relationship between team discourse, self-efficacy, and individual achievement: A sequential mixed-methods study. Journal of Engineering Education, 100(4), 655–679.

    Google Scholar 

  • Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sebastián, C. (2007). La diversidad interindividual como una oportunidad para el aprendizaje de los estudiantes de educación superior. Calidad En La Educación, 26, 83–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Star, L. (2010). This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin of a concept. Science, Technology and Human Values, 35(5), 601–617.

    Google Scholar 

  • Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stark, D. (2010). The sense of dissonance: Accounts of worth in economic life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 443–466). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, J. R. (2016). Team cognition conflict: A conceptual review identifying cognition conflict as a new team conflict construct. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 29(2), 145–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van De Ven, A. H. (1986). Central problems in the management of innovation. Management Science, 32(5), 590–607.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Bossche, P., Gijselaers, W., Segers, M., Woltjer, G., & Kirschner, P. (2011). Team learning: Building shared mental models. Instructional Science, 39(3), 283–301.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vigotsky, L. (1987). Thinking and speech. In R. W. Rieber, & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky (Vol. 1, pp. 39–285). New York: Plenum Press.

  • Volkwein, J., Lattuca, L., & Terenzini, P. (2004). Engineering change: A study of the impact of EC2000. International Journal of Engineering Education, 20(3), 318–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vollmer, A. (2015). Conflicts in innovation and how to approach the “last mile” of conflict management research—A literature review. International Journal of Conflict Management, 26(2), 192–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. (1931). Historia del desarrollo de las funciones psíquicas superiores. In Obras Escogidas: Volumen 3. Problemas del desarrollo de la psique (pp. 11–340). Madrid, Spain: Aprendizaje - Visor/MEC.

  • Warwick, P., Mercer, N., & Kershner, R. (2013). “Wait, let’s just think about this”: Using the interactive whiteboard and talk rules to scaffold learning for co-regulation in collaborative science activities. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 2(1), 42–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1995). Creativity and the aesthetics of imperfection. In C. M. Ford & D. A. Goia (Eds.), Creative action in organizations (pp. 187–192). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weick, K. E. (1998). Introductory essay: Improvisation as a mindset for organizational analysis. Organization Science, 9(5), 543–555.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yildirim, T. P., Shuman, L., & Besterfield-Sacre, M. (2010). Model-eliciting activities: Assessing engineering student problem solving and skill integration processes. International Journal of Engineering Education, 26(4), 831–845.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. DILAB School of Engineering, Pontificia Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile

    Constanza Miranda & Julian Goñi

  2. School of Engineering, Pontificia Universidad de Chile, Santiago, Chile

    Isabel Hilliger

Authors
  1. Constanza Miranda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julian Goñi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Isabel Hilliger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Constanza Miranda.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Miranda, C., Goñi, J. & Hilliger, I. Orchestrating conflict in teams with the use of boundary objects and trading zones in innovation-driven engineering design projects. Int J Technol Des Educ 31, 339–355 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09552-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10798-019-09552-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation