Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Communication Practice for Team Science

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
A Practical Guide for Developing Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration Skills

Abstract

Communication—the conversations, connections, and combinations that bring new insights to complex problems—is at the heart of successful crossdisciplinary collaboration (National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research and Committee on Science Engineering and Public Policy (NAS), (2004). Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research. National Academies Press, Washington, DC). In the spirit of “practice makes permanent”, teams will benefit from practicing structured dialogue in which deep engagement with one’s collaborators is the norm rather than the exception. This type of practice can help teams create a dialogical communication culture that establishes deep listening and close engagement as community norms. In this chapter, the authors describe the Toolbox dialogue method, a specific approach to structured dialogue designed to encourage a dialogical communication culture. Instructions are provided for using the Toolbox dialogue method, which can support teams in working through challenges and successfully pursuing project objectives in practice sessions as brief as 10 minutes.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Following Cialdini et al. [11], we can call the first type of norm descriptive, in that it specifies “what is done”, and the second injunctive, in that it specifies “what ought to be done” (p. 1015). These can of course be the same, but it is not uncommon for a team to settle into a routine that is not what it would choose upon reflection.

  2. 2.

    We acknowledge that there are other ways to organize these conditions. For example, one could sort them into cognitive, communicative, and motivational conditions, and further divide these categories into team and individual conditions. We have adopted the chronic/acute typology primarily because of its relationship with a team’s communication culture, but also because it has implications for the use of structured dialogue as a remediation technique.

  3. 3.

    Feedback on a task can be straightforward if the task is simple and clearly defined; however, practicing dialogue is more complicated. Therefore, the feedback process often needs some facilitation until participants develop their dialogical skills. Facilitation is built into the Toolbox process, allowing participants to focus their energy on the dialogue and leaving primary feedback responsibility to the facilitator.

  4. 4.

    The Toolbox dialogue method, including prompt development, is described in comprehensive detail in Hubbs et al. [1]. For details about running a full Toolbox workshop, see Rinkus and Vasko [44], as well as Looney et al. [45]. While it can help to participate in a formal Toolbox workshop facilitated by TDI, we have received reports from other groups that the do-it-yourself instructions in these publications provide enough detail to guide delivery of a useful workshop on the Toolbox model. Questions about conducting Toolbox-style structured dialogue can be directed to TDI at toolbox@msu.edu.

  5. 5.

    Because we aim to create a dialogical environment that stimulates a “we”-sensibility, we carefully craft these prompts so that provocations surface perspectives rather than demean individuals or their ideas.

  6. 6.

    Just how many dialogue practices are required to have the desired effect on a team’s communication culture will depend on the team, the context, and the nature of the practices. Although a single practice would be unlikely to communicate the importance of this mode of communicative engagement to the team, it can nevertheless generate lasting insights and reveal the value of dialogue to those who are receptive.

  7. 7.

    If you decide to proceed without a designated facilitator, it is critical that all dialogue participants know and be willing to uphold the communication guidelines for the community.

References

  1. Hubbs G, O’Rourke M, Orzack SH (eds) (2020) The Toolbox Dialogue Initiative: the power of crossdisciplinary practice. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  2. Hoever IJ, Van Knippenberg D, Van Ginkel WP et al (2012) Fostering team creativity: perspective taking as key to unlocking diversity’s potential. J Appl Psychol 97:982–996

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. West MA (1996) Reflexivity and work group effectiveness: a conceptual integration. In: West MA (ed) Handbook of work group psychology. Wiley, Chichester, pp 555–579

    Google Scholar 

  4. National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Facilitating Interdisciplinary Research and Committee on Science Engineering and Public Policy (NAS) (2004) Facilitating interdisciplinary research. National Academies Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hall TE, O’Rourke M (2014) Responding to communication challenges in transdisciplinary sustainability science. In: Huutoniemi K, Tapio P (eds) Transdisciplinary sustainability studies: a heuristic approach. Routledge, New York, pp 119–139

    Google Scholar 

  6. Keyton J (1999) Relational communication in groups. In: Frey LR, Gouran DS, Poole MS (eds) The handbook of group communication theory and research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 192–222

    Google Scholar 

  7. O’Rourke M, Robinson B (2020) Communication and integration in crossdisciplinary activity. In: Hubbs G, O’Rourke M, Orzack SH (eds) The Toolbox Dialogue Initiative: the power of crossdisciplinary practice. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 58–81

    Google Scholar 

  8. Keyton J, Ford DJ, Smith FI (2008) A mesolevel communicative model of collaboration. Commun Theor 18:376–406

    Google Scholar 

  9. Robson-Williams M, Small B, Robson-Williams R (2021) A week in the life of a transdisciplinary researcher: failures in research to support policy for water-quality management in New Zealand’s South Island. In: Fam D, O’Rourke M (eds) Interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary failures: lessons learned from cautionary tales. Routledge, London, pp 131–146

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gersick CJG, Hackman JR (1990) Habitual routines in task-performing groups. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 47:65–97

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cialdini RB, Reno RR, Kallgren CA (1990) A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. J Pers Soc Psychol 58(6):1015–1026

    Google Scholar 

  12. Duhigg C (2016) What Google learned from its quest to build the perfect team. The New York Times Magazine, 25 Feb

    Google Scholar 

  13. Eigenbrode S, O’Rourke M, Wulfhorst JD et al (2007) Employing philosophical dialogue in collaborative science. Bioscience 57:55–64

    Google Scholar 

  14. Lélé S, Norgaard RB (2005) Practicing interdisciplinarity. Bioscience 55:967–975

    Google Scholar 

  15. Wang J, Aenis T, Siew TF (2019) Communication processes in intercultural transdisciplinary research: framework from a group perspective. Sustain Sci 14:1673–1684

    Google Scholar 

  16. della Chiesa B, Christoph V, Hinton C (2009) How many brains does it take to make a new light: knowledge management challenges of a transdisciplinary project. Mind Brain Educ 3(1):17–26

    Google Scholar 

  17. Roy ED, Morzillo AT, Seijo F et al (2013) The elusive pursuit of interdisciplinarity at the human-environment interface. Bioscience 63(9):745–753

    Google Scholar 

  18. Wear DN (1999) Challenges to interdisciplinary discourse. Ecosystems 2:299–301

    Google Scholar 

  19. Campbell LM (2005) Overcoming obstacles to interdisciplinary research. Conserv Biol 19:574–577

    Google Scholar 

  20. Giri AK (2002) The calling of a creative transdisciplinarity. Futures 34:103–115

    Google Scholar 

  21. MacMynowski D (2007) Pausing at the brink of interdisciplinarity: power and knowledge at the meeting of social and biophysical science. Ecol Soc 12(1):20

    Google Scholar 

  22. Hampton SE, Parker JN (2011) Collaboration and productivity in scientific synthesis. Bioscience 61:900–910

    Google Scholar 

  23. Jakobsen CH, Hels T, McLaughlin WJ (2004) Barriers and facilitators to integration among scientists in transdisciplinary landscape analysis: a cross-country comparison. Forest Policy Econ 6:15–31

    Google Scholar 

  24. Greer LL, Van Bunderen L, Yu S (2017) The dysfunctions of power in teams: a review and emergent conflict perspective. Res Organ Behav 37:103–124

    Google Scholar 

  25. Lang DJ, Wiek A, Bergmann M et al (2012) Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain Sci 7(S1):25–43

    Google Scholar 

  26. Morse WC, Nielsen-Pincus M, Force J et al (2007) Bridges and barriers to developing and conducting interdisciplinary graduate-student team research. Ecol Soc 12(2):8

    Google Scholar 

  27. Thompson JL (2009) Building collective communication competence in interdisciplinary research teams. J Appl Commun Res 37(3):278–297

    Google Scholar 

  28. Polanyi M (1967) The tacit dimension. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London

    Google Scholar 

  29. Hackman JR, Brousseau KR, Weiss JA (1976) The interaction of task design and group performance strategies in determining group effectiveness. Organ Behav Hum Perform 16:350–365

    Google Scholar 

  30. Ericsson KA, Krampe RT, Tesch-Römer C (1993) The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychol Rev 100(3):363–406

    Google Scholar 

  31. O’Rourke M, Crowley S (2013) Philosophical intervention and crossdisciplinary science: the story of the Toolbox project. Synthese 190:1937–1954

    Google Scholar 

  32. Tsoukas H (2009) A dialogical approach to the creation of new knowledge in organizations. Organ Sci 20:941–957

    Google Scholar 

  33. O’Rourke M, Hall TE, Laursen BK (2020) The power of dialogue. In: Hubbs G, O’Rourke M, Orzack SH (eds) The Toolbox Dialogue Initiative: the power of crossdisciplinary practice. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 94–115

    Google Scholar 

  34. Pickering MJ, Garrod S (2004) Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behav Brain Sci 27:169–190

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Kuhn D (2015) Thinking together and alone. Educ Res 44:46–53

    Google Scholar 

  36. Sprain L, Black L (2018) Deliberative moments: understanding deliberation as an interactional accomplishment. West J Commun 82:336–355

    Google Scholar 

  37. Gregory MR (2007) A framework for facilitating classroom dialogue. Teach Philos 30(1):59–84

    Google Scholar 

  38. Bangerter A, Clark HH (2003) Navigating joint projects with dialogue. Cogn Sci 27:195–225

    Google Scholar 

  39. Rinkus MA, Donovan S, Hall TE et al (2021) Using a survey to initiate and sustain productive group dialogue in focus groups. Int J Soc Res Methodol 24(3):327–340

    Google Scholar 

  40. Western Michigan University Evaluation Center (WMUEC) (2017) MSU Toolbox Dialogue Initiative evaluation report. Zenodo, CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6555532. Accessed on 10 Dec 2022

  41. Rinkus MA, O’Rourke M (2020) Qualitative analyses of the effectiveness of Toolbox dialogues. In: Hubbs G, O’Rourke M, Orzack SH (eds) The Toolbox Dialogue Initiative: the power of crossdisciplinary practice. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 142–161

    Google Scholar 

  42. Robinson B, Gonnerman C (2020) Enhancing crossdisciplinary science through philosophical dialogue: evidence of improved group metacognition for effective collaboration. In: Hubbs G, O’Rourke M, Orzack SH (eds) The Toolbox Dialogue Initiative: the power of crossdisciplinary practice. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 127–141

    Google Scholar 

  43. Schnapp LM, Rotschy L, Hall TE et al (2012) How to talk to strangers: facilitating knowledge sharing within translational health teams with the Toolbox dialogue method. Transl Behav Med 2(4):469–479

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Rinkus MA, Vasko SE (2020) Best practices for planning and running a Toolbox workshop. In: Hubbs G, O’Rourke M, Orzack SH (eds) The Toolbox Dialogue Initiative: the power of crossdisciplinary practice. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 116–126

    Google Scholar 

  45. Looney C, Donovan S, O’Rourke M et al (2014) Seeing through the eyes of collaborators: using Toolbox workshops to enhance crossdisciplinary communication. In: O’Rourke M, Crowley S, Eigenbrode SD et al (eds) Enhancing communication and collaboration in interdisciplinary research. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 220–243

    Google Scholar 

  46. Schippers MC, West MA, Edmondson AC (2017) Team reflexivity and innovation. In: Salas E, Rico R, Passmore J (eds) The Wiley Blackwell handbook of the psychology of team working and collaborative processes, 1st edn. Wiley, Chichester, pp 459–478

    Google Scholar 

  47. Schippers MC, Edmondson AC, West MA (2014) Team reflexivity as an antidote to team information-processing failures. Small Group Res 45(6):731–769

    Google Scholar 

  48. Pangrazio L (2017) Exploring provocation as a research method in the social sciences. Int J Soc Res Methodol 20(2):225–236

    Google Scholar 

  49. Bennett LM, Cardenas E, O’Rourke M (2022) Collaboration agreement template, version 1. Zenodo, CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, Geneva, Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6394789. Accessed on 10 Dec 2022

  50. Tuckman BW (1965) Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychol Bull 63(6):384–399

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their very helpful comments, and Dave Gosselin for his comments, guidance, and support throughout the process of preparing this chapter. We would also like to acknowledge the more than 4,600 previous participants in Toolbox workshops who have helped us learn about the importance of dialogue practice. Work on this chapter has been supported by the NSF Convergence Accelerator grant no. OIA-2114321. O’Rourke’s work on this chapter was also supported by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Hatch project MICL02573.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Toolbox Dialogue Initiative Center, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

    Michael O’Rourke, Marisa A. Rinkus, Edgar Cardenas & Chet McLeskey

Authors
  1. Michael O’Rourke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marisa A. Rinkus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Edgar Cardenas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chet McLeskey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael O’Rourke .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Environmental and Sustainability Studies Program, University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA

    David Gosselin

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

O’Rourke, M., Rinkus, M.A., Cardenas, E., McLeskey, C. (2023). Communication Practice for Team Science. In: Gosselin, D. (eds) A Practical Guide for Developing Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration Skills . AESS Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies and Sciences Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37220-9_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation