Translational Behavioral Medicine

, Volume 2, Issue 4, pp 469–479 | Cite as

How to talk to strangers: facilitating knowledge sharing within translational health teams with the Toolbox dialogue method

  • Lynn M Schnapp
  • Liela Rotschy
  • Troy E Hall
  • Stephen Crowley
  • Michael O’Rourke
Practice Tools


Translational behavioral medicine involves experts from different disciplines and professions interacting to solve complex problems. Coordinating this expertise can be frustrated by the partially tacit nature of expertise and by the various ways in which it manifests in different communities. We describe a method—the Toolbox dialogue method—for addressing these challenges by means of a structured dialogue among team members concerning their respective approaches to complex problems. The Toolbox dialogue method consists of a philosophically grounded questionnaire—the “Toolbox”—deployed in workshops by collaborators from different disciplines and professions. The Health Science Toolbox was modified from an extensively utilized questionnaire designed for Science–Technology–Engineering–Mathematics (STEM) research and has been piloted with translational medicine teams. Eighty-five percent of participants in STEM workshops indicated a positive impact on awareness of the knowledge, opinions, or scientific approach of teammates. In the Health Science Toolbox, 35 % of questionnaire responses changed substantially from pre- to post-workshop, demonstrating impact of the workshops. The Toolbox dialogue method is a relatively brief workshop encounter that can have a positive impact on mutual understanding within translational medicine teams.


Toolbox dialogue method Science of team science Philosophy Teamwork Interdisciplinary collaboration 


  1. 1.
    Benda LE, Poff NL, Tague C, et al. How to avoid train wrecks when using science in environmental problem solving. BioScience. 2002;52:1127-1136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Eigenbrode SD, O’Rourke M, Althoff D, et al. Employing philosophical dialogue in collaborative science. BioScience. 2007;57:55-64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fiore SM. Interdisciplinarity as teamwork—how the science of teams can inform team science. Small Group Res. 2008;39:251-277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hall TE, Wilson P, Newman J. Evaluating the short- and long-term effects of a modified deliberative poll on Idahoans’ attitudes and civic engagement related to energy options. Journal of Public Deliberation. 2011;7(1):Article 6.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Klein J. Creating Interdisciplinary Campus Cultures: a Model for Strength and Sustainability. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2010.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kuhn T. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1970.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    MacQueen K, McLellan-Lemal E, Bartholow K, Milstein B. Team-based codebook development: structure, process, and agreement. In: Guest G, MacQueen KM, eds. Handbook for Team-Based Qualitative Research. Lanham: AltaMira; 2008:119-135.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    McDonald D, Bammer G, Deane P. Research Integration Using Dialogue Methods. Canberra: ANU E-Press; 2009. Available at Accessibility verified May 14, 2012.
  9. 9.
    National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research and Committee on Science Engineering and Public Policy (NAS). Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. Washington: National Academies Press; 2004.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Olson GM, Zimmerman A, Bos N. Scientific Collaboration on the Internet. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2008.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Polanyi M. Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1958.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rescher N. Philosophical Reasoning. New York: Blackwell; 2001.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Winowiecki L, Smukler S, Shirley K, et al. Tools for enhancing interdisciplinary communication. Sustain Sci Pract Pol. 2011;7:74-80.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of Behavioral Medicine 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lynn M Schnapp
    • 1
  • Liela Rotschy
    • 2
  • Troy E Hall
    • 3
  • Stephen Crowley
    • 4
  • Michael O’Rourke
    • 5
  1. 1.Division of Pulmonary and Critical CareUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  2. 2.Department of LinguisticsThe Ohio State UniversityColumbusUSA
  3. 3.Conservation Social SciencesUniversity of IdahoMoscowUSA
  4. 4.Department of Philosophy, College of Arts and SciencesBoise State UniversityBoiseUSA
  5. 5.Department of PhilosophyMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations