Rohit Agarwal, Krishna Agarwal
The 3DNanoscopy group at UiT is transdisciplinary, with researchers from biology, microscopy, computational physics, and artificial intelligence domains. It was discussed in 2023 in the group that one of the obstacles on the way is that the researchers do not even have fundamental knowledge about each other’s topics.
Therefore, in the spring of 2024, the group attempted to resolve the issue by conducting pedagogy-style lectures on fundamental topics led by the researchers themselves. The brief instruction was that (A) the lecturing researcher chooses the scope and topic that is relevant to their research and benefits from collaboration across another discipline, (B) the lecture is delivered in a pedagogical style and with no or just a few slides and the primary teaching tool being whiteboard, (C) the lecture incorporates the scope of discussion. In order to translate the benefit of these efforts, we opened the lecture sessions to all. Three sessions were conducted last semester – one each for label-free microscopy, Bayesian optimization, and tissue-level biology.
We discussed the experience, took feedback from the group, and determined the next steps. The insights are presented below.
Insights from last semester
The majority of the group saw these lectures as beneficial. However, the experience spanned from highly positive to a complete let down, depending on varying expectations of the attendees and prior exposure or realization of the need to consider transdisciplinary research. Some expected to get a concrete outcome from a single lecture which enables them to discuss transdisciplinary research with the lecturer and identify a pilot project right away. However, it is not as easy as it sounds and therefore led to disappointment. Other members of the group registered that it was nice and useful while it lasted, but the retention or trickle-down effect was insignificant. In opposite experiences, some did end up undertaking pilot investigations and including the results in a scientific article and others did get an opportunity to generate insight into the scientific thoughts and concepts used by their current collaborator from another discipline. The group leader of 3DNanoscopy, Krishna, surmises that potentially monitoring, guiding, or fulfilling everyone’s expectations may be quite difficult, and thinks that promoting an open-minded approach to such exercises with the idea of stepping out of individual comfort zones is potentially the only intervention plausible regarding the expectations management.
The second common aspect was prioritization. Such an exercise required attendees to carve out time, be exposed to topics they know almost nothing about, and expect no clear goal or immediate outcome in the short term. Therefore, they needed extra motivation to brush aside their ongoing tasks and deadlines, which was often quite difficult. Also, these sessions being open for all gave a feeling that they were not necessarily catering to them, and therefore closed room sessions with clear expectations from the principal investigator regarding attendance by all were cited as useful. The preference for closed room niche sessions was also cited regarding facilitating open discussions within the safe zone or trusted group members without inviting judgement or passive criticism from peers who are not insiders. Even the lecturers felt that they might have tuned the content and scope differently if it were not an open session, even bringing risky points up for discussion.
New approach
It is clear from our experience that it is a challenge to hold meaningful discussions within the transdisciplinary setting. Therefore, before even discussing a new approach to knowledge dissemination in a transdisciplinary setting, it was important to discuss the challenges of such a setting and whether it is even worth it.
Challenges in a transdisciplinary setting span communicating the research in an understandable manner to researchers from other fields and generating excitement among them. This is not an easy task for both the audience and the speaker. The speaker needs to understand the various backgrounds of each domain and cater to varied audiences. They need to find a link to each field to “hook” the audience to their lectures. The transdisciplinary setting differs from intradisciplinary since within intradisciplinary it is easy for the audience to grasp what the speaker is communicating, as all of them belong to the same field. There may not be a need to form the base of the talk. However, in the transdisciplinary setting audience needs to put extra effort into understanding the lecture which can be via asking many questions that may sound stupid to others. In a way, it is moving away from one’s comfort zone.
So, the question arises, why do both the speaker and the audience go to such lengths to communicate in a transdisciplinary setting? Why not just let it go. The answer lies in the multiple opportunities it provides and various positive outcomes the world has already seen because of this.
As recalled by one of the group members, a successful outcome of transdisciplinary research was when an astronomer strayed out of curiosity or boredom into some lecturers or discussions about seeing small things up close and suggested seeing large, far away things are just the opposite. So, the astronomer proposed inverting a telescope to make a microscope. One may say that this is a one-off example. However, within the 3DNanoscopy group too, we found an interesting collaboration. A lecture led to a joint investigation on an interesting problem that did not appear to both the participants before the discussions triggered in the lecture. The resulting outcome is a deeper understanding of instrument’s physics influencing the computational algorithm’s design.
However, achieving the above outcomes is not easy because the environment of such communication needs to be apt to facilitate and encourage collaboration. Therefore, the 3DNanoscopy proposes to modify the setting of knowledge dissemination and hold a semi-informal meeting for the group.
Two members of the group will present in a slot of 1.5 hrs. The first presenter (P1) will present their research for 15 minutes, followed by the second presenter (P2). Subsequently, P1 will lead an open discussion for 30 minutes, followed by P2 for 30 minutes. The 15-minute presentation will set the base, excite the audience, and present a problem the presenter is facing. In the 30-minute discussion, the presenter can decide to ask for help with whatever issue they have, or an audience can explain or provide ideas about the problem. This may also facilitate collaborations. However, an additional step may be required for the presenter to understand the audience’s knowledge level before the lecture. This can be done via a small survey of a few minutes helping the speaker better prepare the lecture.
The 3DNanoscopy group invites other researchers/groups working in the transdisciplinary setting to present their insights. This could possibly lead to improving our own ways of discussion within the group. We also hope that this article can help other transdisciplinary groups in streamlining their discussion.