Unity and diversity in a collaborative research project

Abstract

Studies on crossing boundaries show evidence that diversity in perspectives amongst group members does not need to be overcome by unity in order for collaboration to take place. This study explores what mechanisms of collaboration allow groups to maintain both unity and diversity. A longitudinal study of a Dutch inter-university research project is reported. The analysis considered how the group pursues the aim to function as a unified collective as well as the aim to include diverse project agendas and diverse theoretical perspectives. The results show two mechanisms. The first mechanism refers to an extension of diverse individually into diverse collectively voiced positions. The second mechanism includes a continuous shift in the way these diverse collective positions are constructed. This latter indicates how various types of boundaries are continuously negotiated during collaboration. We conclude that research on crossing boundaries should consider unity and diversity as two dialogically related and multilayered dimensions.

Keywords

boundary crossing collaboration diversity multiple voices unity

Yes, but we are working here in a collaborative project with the aim to develop a shared conceptual model and this means that we do have to take each other perspectives into account.

Jasmijn

Research on groups and group collaboration traditionally focused on the way collaboration took place in groups representing a social and cultural practice unique to the group. In theories on situated learning and participation, the emphasis has been on understanding the development from legitimate peripheral participation to full membership of a particular community (e.g., Lave & Wenger, 1991). The focus as such has been on groups that function as unified collectives with more or less stable boundaries.

Last decade we witnessed a huge increase in literature on group diversity, that is, groups in which the group members come from different sociocultural backgrounds and bring forward different perspectives. This can be observed when searching social scientific databases for studies on for example “interdisciplinary,” “interteam,” or “intercultural’ collaboration. The growing interest in diversity aligns with the increase in intercultural encounters faced in both professional as well as private lives due to effects of globalization and digitalization (Weber, 2001).

Increasing diversity in group work compelled psychologists and educational scientists to reconsider the way in which collaboration takes place. Initially, scholars studying diversity in groups showed particular interest in how diversity can be “overcome” by sameness, for example in the form of establishing overlap in the mental models of group members (e.g., Marks, Burke, Sabella, & Zaccaro, 2002; Mathieu, Heffner, Goodwin, Salas, & Cannon-Bowers, 2000; Mohammed & Ringseis, 2001). Doing so, the assumption remained that unity in the group, in terms of acting and thinking as one collective, is the final and ideal form of collaboration. According to Gurevitch (1988) and Matusov (1996) such an approach represents a limited view on the possibility of mutual understanding and intersubjectivity between diverse partners. In line with their critique, Star and colleagues (Star, 1989; Star & Griesemer, 1989) provided first evidence that professionals can collaborate successfully even if they represent and maintain to function in separate socio-cultural worlds. Their findings raised doubts on the need to impose sameness on groups in order to collaborate.

Based on this new understanding collaboration in culturally diverse groups was explained by Engeström, Engeström, and Kärkkäinen (1995) as a process of “boundary crossing,” that is, a process in which group members “face the challenge of negotiating and combining ingredients from different contexts to achieve hybrid situations” (p. 319). An example of the importance and effectiveness of boundary crossing can be found in hospitals in cases where specialists from different departments or organizational units work on the diagnosis and treatment of a similar patient (Kerosuo, 2008). Paterson (2007) showed how specialists may use the electronic patient record as an artifact or “boundary object” (Star, 1989) to combine ingredients of different disciplinary perspectives into a single representation of the patient’s disease.

Currently, as Akkerman and Bakker (2011) have described in their literature review, many social scientists are exploring processes of boundary crossing in both professional and educational contexts (see for example Gutiérrez, Baquedano-López, & Tejeda, 1999; Konkola, Tuomi-Gröhn, Lambert, & Ludvigsen, 2007; Macpherson & Jones, 2008). These investigations testify to the possibility that groups show unified actions while at the same time pursue and make productive use of diverse perspectives. Most of these studies on boundary crossing question what are effective conditions for boundary crossing, looking for example at the role of meetings or at the role of artifacts. As such however, they do not explicitly discuss the mechanisms in collaboration by which the simultaneity of unity and diversity is achieved. Furthermore, these studies often investigate one type of group diversity or “boundary” (e.g., different disciplinary perspectives in a group or on different organizational units that actors are connected to), thus giving only a single account of diversity. We contend that professional groups are diverse in diverse ways, and are often faced with multiple boundaries at once.

In this paper, we intend to contribute to current literature on boundary crossing by questioning what mechanisms during collaboration enable groups to maintain both unity and diversity. We address this question in the context of a Dutch inter-university research group working within our own field of educational psychology. We purposefully chose to investigate this research group as the group members showed an explicit commitment to unity in terms of pursuing collective ambitions, as well as a commitment to diversity in terms of incorporating separate project agendas and different theoretical perspectives. Our analysis addresses the way in which these multiple commitments are pursued. Before introducing and contextualizing the project and presenting the study, we describe the theoretical approach with which we conceptualized unity and diversity in groups.

Multiple voices and dialogical self theory

To grasp and study diversity we will use the notion of multiple voices, a concept introduced by Bakhtin (1981, 1984, 1986; Wertsch, 1991). Bakhtin emphasized that words are neither neutral nor unitary in their meaning: “all words have the ‘taste’ of a profession, a genre, a tendency, a party, a particular work, a particular person, a generation, an age group, the day and hour” (Bakhtin, 1981, p. 293). Hence, when an utterance is strongly intoned with a particular taste, one can say it is produced by a certain “voice.” A voice can be defined as a speaking personality bringing forward a particular perspective on the world. We can express a positive or a critical voice, but also a formal or motherly voice. Accordingly, Bakhtin extensively argued that even the shortest utterances can reveal information about both the speaker and the addressee. For example, when we hear the utterance “Yes, sir, ok sir!” we can read a form of subordination of the speaker to the one who is addressed not only by the word sir, but also by being short in its response. Since this way of responding is particularly common in the military communities, one may guess that the speaker is a soldier replying to his or her superior. The basic belief underlying Bakhtin’s theory is that words are often chosen in reaction on former as well as anticipates future utterances.

In his theory on Dialogical Self, Hermans (2001; Hermans & Kempen, 1993) extended Bakhtin’s voice concept by describing how “voices” are not only woven into what we say, but may also become woven in who we take ourselves to be. Dialogical Self theory speaks of an “I-position” of a person when a particular voice has been internalized in one’s Self presentation. I-positions of people are connected to the person’s cultural and historical experiences and social relationships. Hence, the various collective structures of meaning to which a person relates inform the way this person thinks and acts. For example, when a person has worked for years in the field of biology, he can develop an I-position as “biologist.” Depending on the situation, this person can take on the position of biologist to voice certain environmental concerns or give biological interpretations. Along with various socio-cultural environments and life experiences, a person develops multiple of such I-positions. Besides being a biologist, one can be a romantic person or a piano player. The different I-positions can inform both external as well as inner dialogues of a person. These interpersonal and intrapersonal dialogues can be productive but that can also be full with conflicts and tensions due to insurmountable differences in opinions.

What makes this theory of interest for understanding group collaboration, is that it acknowledges group members not only as participants, but also as unique and transcendent selves that can voice multiple I-positions. The I-positions of a group member may thus extend the participative stance or formal position of this person in the group. This indicates why communication in the group cannot be understood solely by looking at the interactions and relations between the participants. It also requires an understanding of the broader social, cultural and historical environments of each group member for as far as this appears relevant for the way this person thinks and acts in the group (Akkerman, Admiraal, Simons, & Niessen, 2006).

When we apply the aforementioned concepts on group level (see also Zomer, 2002), one could equally speak of a collective voice that, if becoming central to group identity, could be labeled as a “We-position.” A We-position represents a form of unity, that is, a form of thinking and acting as one collective. We contend that I-positions can be extended into We-positions. This is the case when individual voices are picked up by the collective as inherent part of their shared narrative.

In line with the Dialogical Self Theory on the individual level, one can imagine groups to voice multiple We-positions, a situation that was also encountered in the project to be discussed in this paper. Unity then also entails interrelating the multiple We-positions in the construction of a group identity. Note here that this theoretical perspective acknowledges that diversity is not only something that is visible at the level of individuals (different positions in intrapersonal or interpersonal dialogues). A multiplicity of We-positions marks diversity in perspectives on the level of a collective. The aforementioned concepts make it possible to investigate how unity and diversity can both be maintained.

In light of Bakhtin’s theory on dialogicality, it is important to explicitly denote how I- and We-positions are not to be seen as closed and self-centered positions, but as positions that are always in the making in the intra and interpersonal dynamics of selves. Akkerman and Niessen (2011) have argued how there is a risk in applying these notions in empirical studies as categories with fixed meanings. Avoiding this requires using notions such as voices or positions in the context of situational constructions resulting from acts of voicing and positioning.

In the following we describe how the project is designed and structured, showing the initial commitments to both unity and diversity. After this introduction we give more details on the method of the study.

A Dutch inter-organizational research project

The case presented in this paper concerns a collaborative research project. Sociological research on science has shown that scientific work is inherently social, as it relies on epistemic cultures shaping what and how we know the world (e.g., Knorr Cetina, 1999; Latour & Woolgar, 1979; Star & Griesemer, 1989). An explicit way in which research has taken on a social form is that of collaborative research projects. Research projects are theoretically interesting because they depend on the belief that a collaborative unit is academically more effective and innovative than are individual researchers alone. In such projects, it is assumed that a collective of researchers is able to investigate certain research questions based on a shared theoretical and methodological framework. The funding and formalization of these projects is often realized by predefining and reifying the prospective research in a research proposal that also holds the project group accountable for the process and products. However, such a shared framework is often challenged by the multiplicity that is often faced in the reality of collaborative research projects, owing to participants coming from different research groups and advancing different theoretical perspectives.

The project that is the object of the current study was a formal and funded project in the field of educational research lasting for 4 years, and connected 16 educational researchers from four different universities. The research plan of this project explicitly stated the ambition to collaboratively build a comprehensive model of “how teachers learn at work,” which also informed the main question in the project. To achieve such a comprehensive model they purposefully created two forms of diversity.

First of all, they created within the collective research project (“CP”) four different individual projects (“IPs”) with different research agendas. They planned three PhD projects that each focused on a different learning environment for teachers: a context of coaching, a context of collaboration between teachers, and a context of informal learning. Subsequently, each PhD project covered specific research questions, analyses, and interpretations, each aiming to result in a doctoral thesis. In addition, a postdoctoral project aimed at integrating the PhD activities, focusing on the overall data gathering and analyses. Each of the four IPs was assigned one full-time project participant (3 PhD students and 1 postdoctoral fellow), together with several part-time supervisors. Additionally, three general advisors were assigned to the overall CP. As one can expect, the creation of IPs lead to diversity in the group in terms of four more specific project agendas within the whole collaborative effort. As we will see in the results, these project agendas did not always align and sometimes lead to tensions.

A second form of diversity in the project, in contrast, was created within IPs, and by extension within the CP, by imposing the need to incorporate three theoretical approaches in the research to be conducted. The three theoretical perspectives were labeled respectively as a “cognitive psychological perspective,” a “Gestalt perspective” and “an organizational perspective.” The reason for including these three perspectives was that they can be found as warranted but separate epistemic strands within the literature on teachers’ learning. In an initial conceptual model described in the research proposal, the three theoretical perspectives were interrelated. The aim to further develop this integrative conceptual model was mentioned to be the most innovative nature of the research. To assure the pursuance of all of the three theoretical perspectives, the group was composed so that there were one or more representatives of these perspectives amongst the supervisors and advisors.

A common risk in research projects that include different project agendas or theoretical perspectives is that project members just pick their own path during the conduct of research based on their own responsibilities and affinities (cf. Akkerman, Admiraal, Simons, & Niessen, 2006). Resultantly, the project group may end up in fragmented actions rather than act as one collective. Anticipating this risk, this project group deliberately created a strong interdependency in their ambitions. With respect to the diverse project agendas, they did so by assigning some supervisors to two (instead of one) of the IPs. With respect to the diverse theoretical perspectives, they stated that each of the IPs was supposed to account for all three perspectives. By explicating and formalizing these interdependencies in the research plan mutual accountability was created for both unity and diversity in the project.

The project members created various formats for activities and communication to realize their collaborative aims. First, every 2 months all of the group members participated in 3-hour project meetings. In these meetings they discussed the advancements and future directions of the CP and of each IPIPs. At the end of the first 2 years, there was an extended meeting of 2 days. Second, the project group started to arrange work meetings with a smaller composition of participants after half a year of collaboration, in order to resolve certain issues or to work together on specific material for their research project. Third, from the start of the research project onwards, the three PhD students and the postdoctoral fellow were located in one room, working closely together and having meetings weekly. Fourth, many activities took place in the context of each of the four IPs, including irregular meetings with the members of each of the IPs. Finally, the members of the project group used an electronic environment in which they store information (e.g., including the minutes of meetings, project documentation and scientific literature) as well as discuss with each other in a forum.

Method

The project was followed by the first author during the first 2 years of collaboration by means of an ethnographic approach focusing on the socio-cultural meanings of the group activity and discourse. The researcher acted as a distant observer (Creswell, 1998; Spradley, 1980). This role entailed observing all activities without intruding or giving opinions on what was done and said.

Data gathering

The collaborative process was followed through a mix of qualitative methods: direct and video-based observation, interviews, and documentation of papers and of email communication. This made it possible to conduct a multi-method approach of observation (Hammersley & Atkinson, 1995). Table 1 gives an overview of the data that was gathered.

Table 1.

Overview of data gathered

Type of data	What data	Focus of data
Observation of meetings (live participation and video-taped)	11 out of the 13 three-hour project meetings	Observation notes on negotiation of actions and future directions.
	3 out of 7 two-hour working meetings	Specific instances of (mis)understanding and (dis)agreements were marked
	Two-day meeting at the end of the project
Individual interviews	Two months after the start of project with all 16 project members	Questions about origin of project, personal involvement and background related to the project, general ideas about collaboration and about this project in particular
Individual interviews	After two years of collaboration all 16 project members	Questions about personal reflections on the content and collaborative process of the project, and the activities in different settings in which they had participated
Archive of project documentation	Formal project plans	Backup information for interpretations of process and specific negotiations
	All documents exchanged and discussed by project members during the meetings
	All minutes of the various project meetings
Archive of digital communication	All messages and attachments sent by the projects’ electronic environment	Backup information for interpretations of process and specific negotiations

Analysis

The main part of the analysis consisted of a socio-cultural discourse analysis of all verbal and written group communication (Wertsch, 1991; Wolcott, 1994). For this analysis to be conducted, three preliminary steps were undertaken. As a first step, the socio-cultural history of the group and its participants was determined. This was done by content analysis of origin of the project and the project group as described formally in the project plans and as described by the project members in the first interviews. This resulted in a thick description (Geertz, 1973) of the case indicating the motives of the project and the social relations between the people in the project group.

A second step entailed eliciting I- and We-positionings of project members. This was done by scrutinizing the interviews for the ways in which the project members positioned themselves, the others, the whole group and the smaller project groups. I-positionings were identified based on implicit self presentations, specifically when someone ascribed to him or herself a certain point of view. People often did so implicitly by describing a certain personal tendency of thinking or doing. In a very natural way, but also stimulated by the interviewer showing interest, people grounded these tendencies in their life narratives. They indicated how they resulted from personal experiences and social participations in other contexts. Table 2 gives examples of I-positionings and short indications of how they are socio-culturally grounded in life narratives.

Table 2.

Examples of I-positioning in interviews

I-positioning	Grounding I-positions in life narratives
“I tend to look at the bright sight and emphasize what we can do in future actions”	“I have participated in many research projects such as this one, and I have learned how important it is to orient to the future and see how you can compromise and find solutions …”
“I am strongly focused on dialogue and always remember very precisely what has been said and how people reacted to one another”	“I also studied communication and information sciences, so it has been my interest already for a long time. I gave courses on how to present and communicate …”
“I really believe it is important to acknowledge teachers’ complex professions”	“In my previous work as teacher educator in institute X, I have seen both beginning and experienced teachers struggle …”

Though the project members positioned themselves in various and dynamic ways, one could recognize in their positioning their formal stance in the project and the way in which they advocated particular project agendas and theoretical perspectives in the project group. In a similar way as analyzing I-positioning, we found instances of We-positioning. In the latter case project members ascribed a certain point of view not only to themselves but also to the collective, making it part of the collective narrative.

A third step consisted of the identification and detailed transcription of all the communicative exchanges in which the project group talked about or referred to the project agenda(s) or to the theoretical perspective(s). Transcriptions included information about non-verbal information when this appeared to be critical in voicing a concern, opinion or attitude. The resulting transcriptions followed the chronological order of meetings and activities throughout the 2 years of collaboration. The transcription of exchanges were then extended with those sections of the minutes in which the project group reported what happened, as well as linked to the project documentation and e-mail communication when project members referred to documents or emails.

On the basis of the resulting materials a two-column format method (Argyris, 1993; Roth & Kleiner, 1999) was used, including in one column the transcribed discourse (result of the third step in the analysis) and an interpretative description of the discourse in the second column. This interpretation entailed a considering how the socio-cultural history of the group and its participants (result of first preliminary step in the analysis) as well as the ways in which the various positionings elicited in the interviews (result of second step) were reflected and (re)constructed in this discourse.

The two-column format of discourse analysis revealed two processes in maintaining unity and diversity. These processes were visible in the way project members voiced research agendas but also in the way they voiced theoretical perspectives. We therefore identified these processes as two more general mechanisms in maintaining both unity and diversity. In the results section, we focus on the two mechanisms that we found. Due to limited space we present only illustrative fragments, all consistent with the rest of our data and analysis. The discourse analysis discussed in the results section includes several examples of discourse (first column) as well as the interpretations of these (second column).

Note that the ethnographic approach in data gathering and set of iterations in the analysis as conducted by the first author forced us to carefully consider the quality of this complex study and the acceptability of its findings. For this reason, an audit was conducted (see Akkerman, Admiraal, Brekelmans, & Oost, 2008, for a detailed description of this procedure), in which the second author evaluated all linkages from the conclusions back to the data that has been gathered. It was concluded that these linkages were accurate and amply justified.¹

Results

The result section includes a description of the two patterns found in our analysis of the group collaboration. First, we discuss a pattern of extending I-positioning into We-positioning. Second, we discuss a pattern of shifting in four representations of the diverse positions in relation to one another. The first pattern can be understood as activities taking place on an individual level; the second one should be seen as a way the project group negotiates (shared) positions. We take these two patterns to be the main mechanisms by which the group maintained both unity and diversity.

Individual mechanism: Extending I-positions into We-positions

As described, the collaborative research project was designed so that it introduced two forms of diversity: diversity in project agendas by distinguishing four IPs and diversity in conceptual perspectives by including three theoretical approaches towards the topic of research. Analysis of the I-positioning of the 16 project members in the interviews indicated that they were not neutral towards these diversities. Their attachments to certain IPs were consistent with their formal role. Furthermore, some of the supervisors and advisors in the project were clearly advocates of one of the theoretical perspectives. Table 3 provides an overview of the roles of the 16 project members in relation to the IPs and the theoretical perspectives, as indicated by formal project documentation and first interviews.

Table 3.

Overview of individual roles of project members

Nr	Project participants	University	Formal role(s) in project group	Role(s) in IPs				Attachment to theoretical perspectives
Nr	Project participants	University	Formal role(s) in project group	PhD project 1: collaboration context	PhD project 2: coaching context	PhD project 3: informal learning	Postdoctoral Project 4: Integration	Attachment to theoretical perspectives
1	Karina	A	PhD student	X
2	Simone	B	PhD student		X
3	Brenda	C	PhD student			X
4	Jasmijn	C	Postdoctoral fellow				X
5	Roos	A	Daily supervisor	X
6	Stefanie	B	Daily supervisor		X			Advocate organizational perspective
7	Nienke	C	Daily supervisor			X
8	Eric (Prof.)	A	Daily supervisor			X		Advocate cognitive-psychological perspective
9	Olaf (Prof.)	A	Main supervisor	X
10	Victor (Prof.)	B	Main supervisor		X
			Additional supervisor	X
11	Lex (Prof.)	C	Main supervisor			X		Advocate gestalt perspective
12	Vincent (Prof.)	C	Project leader
			Supervisor				X
			Additional supervisor		X
13	Wim (Prof.)	A > C	Main supervisor				X
14	Karel	B	General advisor					Advocate organizational perspective
15	Thomas	D	General advisor
16	Tim	C	General advisor

Note. In the Dutch research system in the field of Social Sciences, PhD projects are commonly assigned one PhD student who conducts the PhD research, one so-called daily supervisor (often an assistant or associate professor), and one main supervisor who is the professor that is formally responsible for the project, and sometimes a professor who is an additional supervisor.

The initial positioning of the project members was clearly visible in the concerns they expressed during the meetings. With respect to the diverse IPs, the PhD students, postdoctoral fellow and the accompanying supervisors continuously expressed their responsibilities for the smaller project in which they participated. The following excerpt demonstrates how for example Brenda, one of the PhD students, voiced the concerns and particularities of “her” PhD project:

Brenda: … and it is exactly this first cluster I try to grasp a bit more in project 3. Actually this is why this project is unique as in the other two projects it [the first cluster] is more difficult to investigate and they [the researchers] even may not come to that.

In a similar way, the advocates of each of the three theoretical perspectives consistently bring forward their perspectives during project discussions about conceptual and methodological decisions. As can be seen in Table 3, Karel is an advocate of the organizational approach. In his first interview, Karel positions himself as an educational scientist commonly looking at the contextual and social side of learning:

Karel: Well I, let me say that initially during the previous years, I have to admit that I did not actively participate because I had the idea that people were still very much focused on individual learning of the individual teacher … and that there was little space to talk about the contextual side of learning, the social aspects. Back then, I did not feel like calling in the desert like “I also want to say something” […] But along the way, I sensed that people were more open for that [contextual] approach.

In this research project, Karel stresses the important role of the organizational environment for the way in which teachers work and learn. He explained how he developed this perspective during years of research and refers to scientific literature in which this perspective is grounded. Besides his own positioning, most of the other project members in their second interview confirm that Karel brings in the organizational perspective in the project. The same yields for the advocates of the other two theoretical perspectives. This indicates how the diversities in the project are initially linked to different I-positionings of the project members.

Creating mutual accountability

Despite initial stances, the analysis of the project discourse revealed how the project members also make each other accountable for the different voices they individually express. One way in which project members created accountability was by explicitly referring to “We” as subject to be responsible for a particular voice to be accounted for in the project. One example of extending I-positioning into We-positioning is an instance during the 7th meeting when Lex makes the group responsible for the Gestalt perspective:

Similar as in this example, one can find consistently how the project members make the group responsible for their own positioning. In reaction to such instances, we found that the group commonly acknowledges and acts upon the concerns expressed. Thereby I-positioning is extended into We-positioning.

Stressing diversities and voicing others’ positions

In addition to project members making others accountable for the positions they advance, we see two other processes by which I-positionings are extended into We-positioning: expressing a general awareness of the diversities that are aspired in the project and voicing the concerns of others.

First, many times project members emphasize that there is a need to account for the diverse perspectives in the project, both in relation to the four IPs with their unique agendas and in relation to the different theoretical perspectives on teachers’ learning. These expressions are sometimes in the form of a personal wish (e.g., stating that the diversity is what they think makes the collaboration innovative and worthwhile), but at other times in the form of a reference to the formal project agreement. In the first project meeting Karina (PhD student) makes such a reflective remark about the three theoretical perspectives:

Karina: Only, we did not mention that we indeed still have to look at how those three perspectives, those three theoretical perspectives, [should be addressed], that we have to keep an eye on that, that the aim was to integrate them and we have to do this also with respect to learning activities.

We also noticed that project members voiced particular perspectives, without being initially associated with them. Wim, for example, is considered as being the main advocate of the cognitive psychological perspective on teachers’ learning, but defends the position of the other two theoretical perspectives several times. We find an example of this in the fourth work meeting:

Wim: However, those perspectives we do have to consider. What came to the fore as a problem during the last meeting, of course we should not integrate three perspectives by leaving two behind. I mean, that would really be the biggest mistake that we could make. And the context perspective [originally labeled as the organizational perspective] is already not really in the picture.

Whereas this is an example in which a project member shows awareness of the diverse perspectives initially associated with other advocates by explicitly mentioning these, there are likewise instances in which project members more implicitly voice positions of others. An example of this is Simone, who voices the concerns of the postdoc Jasmijn who is not present. In response to a suggestion made by the supervisors to measure only a few learning activities, Simone (one of the PhD students) questions whether this would be acceptable considering what Jasmijn intends to do in her postdoc project. This is noteworthy as what is being suggested would actually solve several of the problems that the PhD students face. In this case, Simone thus suppresses her own positioning in favor of accounting for another perspective. Similar instances can be found throughout the collaborative project, indicating that the group is actively positioning the various concerns and perspectives of others as being perspectives to be advocated by the whole group.

Summing up, the 16 project members initially position themselves individually in different ways in relation to the IPs and the theoretical perspectives. Throughout the process, the individual concerns and perspectives are reframed and taken up as We-positions of the group by means of creating mutual accountability, showing general awareness of the diversity to be accounted for and by voicing positions of others.

Group mechanism: Dynamics in We-positioning

The emerging We-positionings presents the group a diversity of collectively acknowledged perspectives. Of interest is how the group manages this internal diversity at the collective level. Discourse analysis revealed four different ways in which the group frames diverse positionings. These four ways can be discerned both with respect to the diverse project agendas and the diverse theoretical perspectives. Figure 1 shows a visualization of the four ways in which the group voiced diverse positions. We will first discuss these representations in more detail and then go into the way the group continuously shifts between these.

Figure 1.

Representations of various ways of framing positions.

Table 4.

Fragment of 7th project meeting

Fragment of discourse	Interpretation in terms of positioning
Lex: If we go into groups in a minute, we will, will talk of course about the proposals that are there now, but we probably will not talk about what have been left out. I personally have a bit of difficulties with the sentence [in the document]: “interactive cognitions will be deleted,” “stimulated recall will be deleted” … for two reasons. And the most important reason is that I think “yeah, if one takes the Gestalt approach really serious, where will it then be measured?” The way in which the people’s schemas will be measured through those ten standard concepts, is not a solution for this. So, I have the impression that the whole approach coming from let’s say University [C], suddenly drops out. And besides the fact that I personally find that problematic, I also read in the project application that it is mentioned that we should do this. And suddenly I read here that it will be deleted. That kind of surprised me.	The fragment shows Lex doubts as to whether the Gestalt perspective is currently taken seriously in the project. He points to this being not only a personal concern, but also that this perspective is related to the participation of his university (University C) and is one of the perspectives explicitly mentioned in the formal research plan. By stating this he makes the Gestalt perspectives that he advocates a responsibility of the whole project group.
Vincent [looking directly at Lex]: Yes, on that we will come, we have to come back on that. Today.	The point of Lex is taken up seriously, as the project leader Vincent makes a matter that needs to be discussed during the meeting.

Fragment of discourse

Interpretation in terms of positioning

Lex: If we go into groups in a minute, we will, will talk of course about the proposals that are there now, but we probably will not talk about what have been left out. I personally have a bit of difficulties with the sentence [in the document]: “interactive cognitions will be deleted,” “stimulated recall will be deleted” … for two reasons. And the most important reason is that I think “yeah, if one takes the Gestalt approach really serious, where will it then be measured?” The way in which the people’s schemas will be measured through those ten standard concepts, is not a solution for this. So, I have the impression that the whole approach coming from let’s say University [C], suddenly drops out. And besides the fact that I personally find that problematic, I also read in the project application that it is mentioned that we should do this. And suddenly I read here that it will be deleted. That kind of surprised me.

The fragment shows Lex doubts as to whether the Gestalt perspective is currently taken seriously in the project. He points to this being not only a personal concern, but also that this perspective is related to the participation of his university (University C) and is one of the perspectives explicitly mentioned in the formal research plan. By stating this he makes the Gestalt perspectives that he advocates a responsibility of the whole project group.

Vincent [looking directly at Lex]: Yes, on that we will come, we have to come back on that. Today.

The point of Lex is taken up seriously, as the project leader Vincent makes a matter that needs to be discussed during the meeting.

Table 5.

Fragment of project meeting after 15 months’ collaboration

Fragment of discourse	Interpretation in terms of positioning
Victor: What I think is also an issue here, and we just spoke about this, is the relation, and feelings of responsibility of the supervisors that go with it, between the research project and the smaller projects. I explicitly mentioned that I feel responsible mainly for the project of Simone and, eeh, also for the general project. And I do think, there is a tension in this. And we actually spoke about that a lot already. How much time does the general project costs and how is the spin off to the smaller projects and vice versa, the idea of synergy. As that was actually THE big point of this research project. It was supposed to have a surplus value by intensive collaboration.	Victor refers to a tension between the CP with its collaborative aims (picture D) and the CP as incorporating three IPs with different project agendas (picture C). He marks this as a personal tension, since he feels mainly responsible for one of these projects, yet at the same time feels responsible for the CP. This can be seen as an intrapersonal conflict in I-positions. However, he suggests that this tension yields for the other supervisors, indicating that this tension is one that the whole group faces.

Fragment of discourse

Interpretation in terms of positioning

Victor: What I think is also an issue here, and we just spoke about this, is the relation, and feelings of responsibility of the supervisors that go with it, between the research project and the smaller projects. I explicitly mentioned that I feel responsible mainly for the project of Simone and, eeh, also for the general project. And I do think, there is a tension in this. And we actually spoke about that a lot already. How much time does the general project costs and how is the spin off to the smaller projects and vice versa, the idea of synergy. As that was actually THE big point of this research project. It was supposed to have a surplus value by intensive collaboration.

Victor refers to a tension between the CP with its collaborative aims (picture D) and the CP as incorporating three IPs with different project agendas (picture C). He marks this as a personal tension, since he feels mainly responsible for one of these projects, yet at the same time feels responsible for the CP. This can be seen as an intrapersonal conflict in I-positions. However, he suggests that this tension yields for the other supervisors, indicating that this tension is one that the whole group faces.

Discussing the whole research project

The project group frequently focuses on the “big picture,” that is, considers the whole research project with all its ambitions and activities (e.g., stressing how the three theoretical perspectives contribute to a comprehensive conceptual model of teacher learning; Figure 1C and 1D).

At some times, the group concentrated on the whole research project, without demarcating the project agendas of the IPs or the different theoretical positions. In these instances, the diverse We-positions were framed as constitutive elements that are closely connected by the overall collaborative aims. This representation is reflected in Figure 1D.

More frequently, the project group discussed the whole research project while clearly distinguishing diverse We-positions as part of it, emphasizing the three theoretical perspectives as distinctive ways of looking at teacher learning or emphasizing the unique project agendas of the IPs. This way of framing is represented by Figure 1C. With respect to the diversity in project agendas, the group distinguished three PhD related project agendas and a fourth project agenda related to the postdoctoral project. This indicated the dual role of the postdoctoral project: on the one hand its integrative aims were perceived as aligning with the CP, on the other hand it was perceived as a specific positioning in decisions on concepts, data gathering and analysis.

The contrast between representations C and D can be witnessed clearly in a recurrent dialogical tension in the project as expressed by Victor during a project meeting after 15 months of working:

Discussing one position

The project group also focuses on the “small picture,” that is, consider the issues and activities related only to one specific position (e.g., discussing one theoretical perspective or one smaller project). We found two different representations in the group discussions about such a single position.

At several instances a single position (one theoretical perspective or the project agenda of one of the smaller project) was discussed independently of the whole research project or of other positions that were advanced. This way of going in-depth into one position is reflected in Figure 1A. With respect to the IPs, we found this representation often when the state of the art of one of the IPs was presented by the PhD students or postdoctoral fellow to and discussed by the group. We found similar accounts of one theoretical perspective, for example when the group reflected on how this theoretical perspective implies certain ways of defining and using certain central concepts (e.g., “learning” or “learning strategies”).

Besides discussions of positions independently of others, positions were also discussed by the group by framing it partially or completely in the context of whole research project. Instances of discussing a single position in relation to the whole project is reflected in Figure 1B. When framed partially in the context of the project, a theoretical position or a smaller project was discussed as being in line with the collaborative aims, but simultaneously as moving beyond the scope of the whole project. This recognition resulted in two kinds of reactions: either something was included in order to give a more complete account of this position (e.g., additional research activities in favor of one PhD project or additional concepts to account for a theoretical perspective) or it was concluded that the position was not completely accounted for in this research project. This latter was point of debate mostly in relation to the organizational perspective and the Gestalt perspective. Only some of the single positions were already seen as being at the core of the project.

In addition to partially framing one position, the group sometimes framed a position completely in the context of the research project, perceived it as being at the core of the project. For the theoretical perspectives, we found such instances only for the cognitive psychological perspective, which was mentioned several times as being at the core of this research project and therefore most strongly represented in the approach taken by the group. For the IPs, we found such instances for all three PhD projects and for the postdoctoral project, but then in terms of subordination to the whole endeavor, stating that the diverse project agendas derived their relevance solely from being part of the broader project agenda.

Shifting representations and negotiating boundaries

The identification of four different, contrasting representations leads us to the question how and why the group shifts between these while discussing their project. Below we will present a fragment from the 12th project meeting illustrating how the group continuously shifts between representations and how these shifts are part of negotiating boundaries of the project and diverse positions. The specific issue here is that the project group is struggling how to account for the organizational perspective, while maintaining the focus on the individual teacher as unit of analysis. This latter is defined to be at the core of the research project. According to some project members, the organizational approach and the orientation of the whole research project are at points conflicting.

The discussion is a fragment from the 12th project meeting. At that point the project group was collaborating for one and a half year. The organizational perspective was brought to the fore by Karel as advocate at several times in earlier project meetings as a perspective on teacher learning in which the teacher is perceived as an employee of a larger organization that has its own cultural and contextual dynamics. Based on this organizational perspective, the group decided to measure the type of school organization in which the teacher works as an additional variable in the data gathering on teacher learning. However, in the following fragment it is being discussed whether this way of measuring the organizational context “as an additional variable” does justice to the perspective. In both his interviews, Karel emphasized how this perspective entails situating the whole learning process of teacher in the broader social and cultural context of the school organization. The discussion starts when Victor mentions a symposium that the research group organized earlier at a conference, and reflects on the comments made by the discussant of their symposium.

Victor [supervisor]: … of the second symposium I actually thought that … I find that we situate our workplace learning strongly in education, and take too little notice of the knowledge of what happens elsewhere in the world outside the … the field of educational sciences. And I actually thought that the discussion of [name of discussant at symposium] directly pointed that matter. He immediately took the other perspective. I don’t know how we, how we have to fill this gap. But I think that we are too strongly focused on education itself.

Victor describes the specific focus of the group on workplace learning as coming from the field of educational science and simultaneously points to a boundary between their activities and perspective and the outside world (“what happens elsewhere in the world”). As in Figure 1D, the research project is thus represented as bringing forward one particular, but unified perspective. Vincent then takes up Victor’s point and emphasizes further that “we have to do something with that.” As such he points to the need for the project group to overcome the boundary between their specific research focus and the outside world. In response, Thomas asks if there were any suggestions besides pointing to the importance. The following is a reaction to Thomas.

Jasmijn [postdoc]: Well, for me the main point was that we do strongly focus on the individual teacher. We do look at how he is learning in interaction, but what is now ignored is that he is also part of an organization, and a broader context, which in itself can have influence on what he learns and how he learns.

In line with previous speakers, Jasmijn emphasizes the unity of the research project, but now by claiming that they have a particular focus (“we do strongly focus on the individual teacher”). She constructs a boundary of the research project by stating that the group ignores the organizational context. Not surprisingly given the choice of words of Jasmijn (organization, context), Wim (supervisor) responds as follows, “Isn’t this one of the three perspectives, you just said, for us?” Wim questions whether the organizational context that is discussed as being beyond the scope of the project is not actually part of it in the form of one of the three theoretical perspectives. The boundary of the unified research project between what is included and excluded (Figure 1D) is overcome by shifting to a representation of the research project as incorporating different perspectives (Figure 1C). Jasmijn responds to Vincent as follows:

Jasmijn [postdoc]: Yeah, but I think that we strongly look at, well, at conditions that are, let’s say, that are in the organization to facilitate learning. Vice versa, the fact that someone is member of an organization also can be a motivating factor, or the fact that you achieve something together, for example participate in policy of the organization. The fact that one not only learns for oneself but also for the organization that, that can be of influence.

Jasmijn points to the particular focus of the research group (“we strongly look at”) and opposes that (“vice versa”) to the focus that they do not account for. She thus emphasizes again the boundary between the research project and the research community outside (Figure 1D). At the same time, she seems to agree with the reference to the organizational perspective in their research project. However, she implies that this perspective is only partly included (Figure 1B), by starting her answer with “yeah, but” and by explaining how the organization could also be accounted for in a different way. Hence, she makes a different boundary the object of discussion, namely the boundary between what elements of the organizational perspective are taken into account as opposed to elements that are not accounted for. This evokes a reaction of Nienke.

Nienke [supervisor]: yes, our perspective is more the professional development of teachers than school development … And eh, well yes, I think that’s a choice that we made, of which one can say “Yes, you could have made a different one.” But I wouldn’t want to propose that we are now going to change that …

Jasmijn [postdoc]: Yes, that is not what I am saying. I don’t say that we have to go on school development … I only say that the individual … [and school organization,] that those are two things that are interrelated. And that the individual learning activities and how someone stands in that and the choices that were made that, that the organization plays a role in that as well … and more than only conditional.

Nienke seems to agree with Jasmijn that the research group focuses on the individual teacher instead of the school organization. Yet, stating that the group has deliberately made this choice instead of a different one, she leaves a discussion of the organizational perspective as such aside and turns back to identifying the research project as a whole (Figure 1D). Moreover, by constructing an either/or situation, she emphasizes the boundary between what is currently part of the research project and what is (deliberately) left outside. In reaction to Nienke, Jasmijn again reframes the matter, saying that her suggestion is not to change to the other focus but to account for it more than is being done now. Thereby she makes the organizational perspective the object of discussion again (Figure 1B), but simultaneously claims that the boundary between what is accounted for and what is not, can be overcome. Karel immediately builds forward on this.

Karel [advisor]: Well, it goes, it goes a bit beyond that … If one, look, if one wants to include the organization, let’s say the context, as a set of more or less isolated context factors that do have a bit of influence on the individual learning and leave it at that, if one wants to do that, then you better not say you want to account for the current discussions about workplace learning, because then in those discussions you go 20 years back in time. So if you want to take some account of the current discussions about workplace learning, then you also have to learn from its insights. And then one does see that you have to go to a bit different approach with respect to that relation between context and individual learning. So it’s one or the other.

Now Karel takes on the role of expert in relation to the organizational perspective, opposing the way the project group accounts for it from the current state of art in workplace learning research. He relates the project group’s approach to the research of 20 years ago, thereby downgrading it. Denoting the partial account of the organizational perspective (Figure 1B), and emphasizing an either/or situation, Karel constructs for the research group a boundary that the group can decide to cross or not.

Simone [PhD student]: and they [researchers in the field of workplace learning] actually suggested that, we are only moving in one direction like “what is the influence of context on the teacher?”And why don’t we do that in the same interview, not, not for example turn that around? That is actually everyone’s suggestion and we don’t do that now and it would be possible, but that would be extra then.

Simone refers back to the suggestions received during the symposium. By suggesting an additional way to gather data about the organizational context which is now left aside, Simone opens a concrete search for how what is left behind can be accounted for in this project. Nevertheless, by marking it as an additional activity, both accounts (the traditional and current account) maintain to be seen as different.

Vincent [project leader]: thus it is not extra then?

Karel [advisor]: No, it is not the point that something extra is gathered. It is mostly about how one looks.

Nienke [supervisor]: This is a different perspective.

Vincent reframes Simone’s proposal for additional interview questions as not entailing extra activities as it can be done in the same interview, probably referring to the fact that Simone stated it can be done in the same interview. By focusing on finding a practical way to account for both, it is implied that there is no fundamental boundary between the two ways of approaching context. Karel counters practical understanding of the boundary to be overcome, suggesting that it is not a matter of including or excluding elements, but a matter of taking a another perspective. Nienke seems to agree with him on this but, again, puts it aside as a perspective that is different, and by the tone of her voice she seems to locate it as a position outside of their research project (Figure 1D).

Karel [advisor]: and if one takes that context perspective seriously

Vincent [project leader]: but not for data gathering?

Karel: no, no, but it is however about which place you give it in the whole model and how one looks at it within that model. And until now there has been relatively little attention for that. So I did also make some remarks about that in the evaluation. I did not think it was appropriate to put that completely on the foreground now immediately, since there are first some other little fights to be dealt with. But I do think that we have to carefully look at that, yes.

Karel puts the issue sharp, stressing that it is about how serious one takes this perspective (Figure 1B). In contrast with Nienke, he presents it as a potential We-position of the group. By referring to “other fights,” he marks this issue as a fight in itself, indicating that it is an important boundary to be overcome in the project. At the same time, he acknowledges that there are other issues to be solved as well, partly suppressing his own concerns in favor of others. Nonetheless, Jasmijn reacts on the issue that Karel is concerned with by suggesting a solution.

Jasmijn [postdoc]: But can’t one for example process it into the clustering already. We now indeed have learning in interaction, but that is actually very much about learning that is aimed at let’s say, at things that have to do with pupils, with working in the classroom. While participating in policy and participating on organizational level also can have an effect on the individual learning process of a teacher and that kind of activities we don’t have yet included with learning activities in the professional context.

Similar to Simone, Jasmijn suggests how the perspective can be accounted for in their data and analysis, thereby attempting to overcome the boundary emphasized by Karel. The way she formulates her suggestion (“we now indeed have …, but that is … While x and y also can have an effect … And those … we don’t have”) she turns it into a matter of further enriching their approach.

After Simone’s turn, the group starts considering her suggestion in more detail, indeed making a decision to extend their data and analysis. Hence, the issue seems to be resolved during this meeting. Nonetheless, there are many other instances of discussing the organizational or the Gestalt perspectives in relation to the research project or in relation to the cognitive-psychological perspective also after this meeting. These instances can be found throughout the 2 years of collaboration in relation to different research phases (data gathering, analysis, articles and dissertations to be written). This indicates that the group continues to struggle with how they can account for three theoretical perspectives that are apparently so different in nature.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to explore what mechanisms of collaboration allow groups to maintain both unity and diversity. Detailed analysis of group discourse during 2 years of collaboration revealed two mechanisms, both with respect to diversity in project agendas (related to four IPs) and with respect to diversity in theoretical perspectives. First, we found a continuous process of extending I-positioning into We-positioning. This was done by creating mutual accountability, by explicitly referring to diverse positions as embodying the enriching nature of the research project, and by project members voicing positions initially related to other persons. In this process, we see how the diversity defined within their collaborative aims in terms of the smaller project activities and in terms of three theoretical perspectives is something that this project group collectively acknowledges and advances. However, the various We-positionings still reflect a challenging diversity, be it on the collective level.

A second pattern that we found in the data showed by what mechanism the group manages diversity on the collective level. Four different representations of the project in their discourse came up: (a) a focus on one position in isolation, (b) a focus on one position (e.g., one PhD project or one theoretical perspective) that is seen in light of the whole project, (c) a focus on the whole project with a clear distinction of diverse positions, and (d) a focus on the whole project, wherein diverse positions are closely connected and contributive elements. Figure 1 visualizes these different representations. We noticed how the group continuously shifts between these representations with respect to both the diverse project agendas and the theoretical perspectives. When looking in detail how and why these shifts take place, one sees how they are instrumental in negotiating different sorts of boundaries. Each representation embodies a realization of some form of unity or some form of diversity. Hence, boundaries are much like what Valsiner (2005) in dialogical self theory called semiotic mediations of selves in relation to others.

Unity of one position is emphasized when it is object of discussion without any consideration of other positions or of the whole research project (Figure 1A). Boundaries are constructed, and the focus is of what is at the core of this position. However, clearly identifying one position entails a distinguishing it from other positions. Hence, emphasizing unity of one position (e.g., one theoretical perspective) simultaneously implies diversity within the whole CP (Figure 1C). In contrast, when a particular position is discussed in light of the CP (Figure 1B), the focus is more on the way it can connect with other positions, marking them as contributive elements of a larger endeavor (Figure 1D). As it comes to how the positioning dynamic proceeds, we can see that some project members often back up each other arguments by continuing to talk in the same frame (i.e., in terms of the respective framings in Figure 1 such discourse could be diagrammed as: A > A; B > B; C > C; D > D). In addition, we can see how project members tend to think through each others’ arguments about either a single position (IP or one theoretical position) or the CP, by considering what it means at the other level (in terms of Figure 1, instances of such shifting would then be diagrammed as: A > C or C > A, and B > D or D > B). But, in general we found that thinking along and thinking through each others’ arguments generally does not last very long, and often counter arguments are provided by shifting towards opposing framings either at the same level (e.g., A > B or B > A, and C > D or D > C) or opposing framings at another level (e.g., A > D or D > A, and B > C or C > B). Besides this dynamic process, we find that project members shift in these representations sometimes in order to discuss boundaries, putting things sharply (for example by opposing things or by introducing a choice or either/or situation), and at other times to overcome boundaries (for example by suggesting how things can be included or combined). These dynamic processes make visible how unity and diversity are dialogically related and simultaneously maintained by a continuous and multilayered negotiation of boundaries.

General conclusion

From the dynamics found in this case study we can draw some theoretical indications regarding unity and diversity. First of all, the case challenges the idea that unity in ideas is a final and ideal form of collaboration. The research group that was studied clearly benefited from the maintenance of diverse theoretical perspectives and project agendas. What was unified was the fact that the diversity was collectively acknowledged and taken up in forms of We-positioning. Second, what follows from this is that research on group collaboration should not conceptualize unity as a straightforward and independent category opposed to diversity. Both unity and diversity are relevant dimensions for describing how groups and group members construct and overcome boundaries at multiple levels of analysis: the intrapersonal level (between I-positions in one’s self narrative), the interpersonal level (between group members in communication) and the collective level (between diverse We-positions).

The dialogical framework that was used in the current study allowed conceptualizing and analyzing the multiple levels at which unity and diversity emerged and developed. The complexity and frequency of the dynamics that we found shows how important it is to theorize and analyze I- and We-positions not as isolated, static and self-centered constructions, but as temporal, developmental and relational properties underlying the emergence of (collaborative) identity work. As discussed by Akkerman and Niessen (2011), Dialogical Self theory, and especially the concept of I-positions, is sometimes analytically applied in a static way, incoherent with Bakhtin’s emphasis on the cultural and relational dynamics. In line with Bakhtin’s notion of dialogicality, we have deliberately chosen to use the term positioning rather than positions. The idea of dialogicality allowed openness in analytic categorizations and awareness of how I-positioning and We-positioning was visible in situated arguments, responding to previous utterances but also anticipating future responses.

The case reported on in this paper shows how academics and research groups with initially different ways of positioning themselves can enrich each others’ work. We consider this project to be a success in light of the initial aims they intended to achieve that is developing a theoretical framework based on three different theoretical traditions and working on an overall research agenda. Nonetheless, the findings show how this success did not entail a onetime solution or single instance of compromising, but rather entails an ongoing dynamic of I- and We-positioning and (re)defining boundaries on multiple layers.

Footnotes

Note

Sanne Akkerman is currently working as associate professor at the Department of Education of Utrecht University, the Netherlands. For the last ten years she has been studying processes of boundary crossing and learning in various contexts, including interorganizational collaboration, intercultural communication, group diversity, school–work transitions, and interdisciplinary science. Aside considering group communication and identity, she has been studying at individual level the dialogical identity of students and professionals acting as brokers.

Wilfried Admiraal was researcher, teacher and administrator at the University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Wilfried’s academic background is social and organizational. His research interest covers the combination of educational sciences, social psychology and educational technology with journal articles in the area of teacher training, workplace learning, educational designs, and the use of technology. He was recently appointed as Full professor at the Graduate School of Teaching of Leiden University, in the Netherlands.

Robert Jan Simons graduated in Psychology (developmental and educational) at the University of Amsterdam in 1973 and worked as a researcher in the universities of Amsterdam, Nijmegen and Tilburg. His PHD on the role of concrete analogies in learning took place at Tilburg University (1981). From 1990 to 2001, Simons was professor of educational psychology at the University of Nijmegen, where he directed the Research Institute for Pedagogy and Education. Since 2001 he has a chair at Utrecht University focusing on learning with ICT. Since 2010 he is director of the Netherlands School of Educational Management (NSO).

References

Akkerman

Admiraal

Simons

R J

Niessen

(2006). Considering diversity: Multivoicedness in international academic collaboration. Culture & Psychology, 12(4), 461–485.

Akkerman

Admiraal

Brekelmans

Oost

(2008). Auditing quality of research in social sciences. Quality & Quantity, 42, 257–274.

Akkerman

S. F.

Bakker

(2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132–169.

Akkerman

Niessen

(2011). Dialogical theories at the boundary. In Märtsin

Wagoner

Aveling

E L

Kadianaki

Whittaker

(Eds.), Dialogicality in focus. Challenges to Theory, Method and Application (pp. 53–64). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.

Argyris

(1993). On organizational learning. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

Bakhtin

(1981). Discourse in the novel. In Holquist

(Ed.), The dialogical imagination. (C. Emerson, M. Holquist Trans.). (pp. 259–422). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Bakhtin

(1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics. (C. Emerson. Trans.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Michigan Press.

Bakhtin

(1986). The problem of the speech genres, the problem of the text. In Emerson

Holquist

(Eds.), Speech genres & other late essays (V. McGee Trans.) (pp. 60–131). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.

Creswell

J W

(1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

10.

Engeström

Kärkkäinen

(1995). Polycontextuality and boundary crossing in expert cognition: Learning and problem solving in complex work activities. Learning and Instruction, 5, 319–336.

11.

Geertz

(1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books.

12.

Guba

E G

(1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalisic inquiries. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 29(2), 75–91.

13.

Guba

E G

Lincoln

Y S

(1989). Fourth generation evaluation. London: Sage.

14.

Gurevitch

Z D

(1988). The other side of dialogue: On making the other strange and the experience of otherness. American Journal of Sociology, 93, 1179–1199.

15.

Gutiérrez

K D

Baquedano-López

Tejeda

(1999). Rethinking diversity: Hybridity and hybrid language practices in the third space. Mind, Culture and Activity, 6, 286–303.

16.

Halpern

E S

(1983). Auditing naturalistic inquiries: The development and application of a model (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.

17.

Hammersley

Atkinson

(1995). Ethnography: Principles in practice. London, UK: Routledge.

18.

Hermans

H J M

(2001). The dialogical self: Toward a theory of personal and cultural positioning. Culture & Psychology, 7(3), 243–281.

19.

Hermans

H J M

Kempen

H J G

(1993). The dialogical self: Meaning as movement. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

20.

Kerosuo

(2008). Putting the patient in the middle: Managing chronic illness across organisational boundaries. In Sorensen

Iedema

(Eds.), Managing clinical processes in the health services (pp. 73–85). Sydney, Australia: Elsevier.

21.

Knorr Cetina

K D

(1999). Epistemic cultures. how the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

22.

Konkola

Tuomi-Gröhn

Lambert

Ludvigsen

(2007). Promoting learning and transfer between school and workplace. Journal of Education and Work, 20(3), 211–228.

23.

Latour

Woolgar

(1979). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. London: Sage.

24.

Lave

Wenger

(1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

25.

Macpherson

Jones

(2008). Object-mediated learning and strategic renewal in a mature organization. Management Learning, 39(2), 177–201.

26.

Marks

M A

Burke

C S

Sabella

M J

Zaccaro

S J

(2002). The impact of cross-training on team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 3–13.

27.

Mathieu

J E

Heffner

T S

Goodwin

G F

Salas

Cannon-Bowers

J A

(2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2), 273–283.

28.

Matusov

(1996). Intersubjectivity without agreement. Mind, Culture and Activity, 3(1), 25–45.

29.

Mohammed

Ringseis

(2001). Cognitive diversity and consensus in group decision making: The role of inputs, processes and outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85(2), 310–335.

30.

Paterson

G I

(2007). Boundary infostructures for chronic disease. Halifax, CA: Dalhousie University.

31.

Roth

Kleiner

(1999). Car launch: The human side of managing change. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

32.

Spradley

J P

(1980). Participant observation. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

33.

Star

S L

(1989). The structure of ill-structured solutions: Boundary objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving. In Gasser

Huhns

(Eds.), Distributed artificial intelligence (pp. 37–54). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc.

34.

Star

S L

Griesemer

J R

(1989). Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–1939. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420.

35.

Valsiner

(2005). Scaffolding within the structure of dialogic self: Hierarchical dynamics of semiotic mediation. New ideas in Psychology, 23, 197–206.

36.

Weber

(2001). A framework for teaching and learning “intercultural competence”. In Alred

Byram

Fleming

(Eds.), Intercultural experience and education (pp. 196–212). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.

37.

Wertsch

J V

(1991). Voices of the mind. A sociocultural approach to mediated action. London, UK: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

38.

Wolcott

H F

(1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

39.

Zomer

(2002). Team-zelfreflectie: Collectief leren in de context van de team konfrontatie methode (TKM) [Team self-reflection: Collective learning in the context of the team confrontation method] (Unpublished PhD thesis). Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.