Riesgo Ordinario Tipo 4

Hinrichs (2008) found that miscommunication can occur when the frames of reference held by individuals in a cross-disciplinary group were based on different

epistemological understandings. For example, some researchers found that miscommunication occurs because individuals in the different disciplines and

paradigms have different understandings and languages that they use to express and interpret the information shared about the object of the study (Choi & Pak, 2007; Marzano et al., 2006). For example, Marzano et al. (2006) found that these language differences meant that participants in cross-disciplinary groups struggle to either express their own views or understand the perspectives of others, which can lead to frustration and conflict. Choi and Pak (2007), in their extensive review of the factors that hinder and promote cross-disciplinary collaboration in health services, found that miscommunication is further exacerbated when the same word is used to describe different concepts. An example of this would be the term disability, which is used by some to describe an individual’s impairment and by others to describe disadvantages caused by society’s inability to accommodate those with impairments. Schramm (1954), a seminal writer on communication, considers that in order to facilitate

communication across these different frames of reference the group needs to develop a common frame of reference and language on which to base communication.

Dewulf et al. (2007) consider that this common frame of reference occurs as individuals explore each other’s frames of reference and acknowledge that there are differences between them. The individuals then attempt to reframe the other perspectives and incorporate them into their own frame of reference, which in the first instance will be only partial understandings akin to learning a new language (Dewulf et al., 2007). Individuals then seek to deepen this understanding by collectively exploring the similarities and differences between the perspectives (Dewulf et al., 2007). As individuals continue to share their personal constructions and combine their different understandings a common frame of reference and language on which to base further collaborative activities is developed (Dewulf et al., 2007; Hardy, 2005).

2.4.3. Tension, Power Differentials and the Move to a Collective Construction and Identity

The literature suggests that as individuals continue to share their personal constructions so tension arises between the different perspectives (Hardy, 2005; Lichtenstein et al., 2006). When this tension reaches a certain threshold it has the potential to lead to a breakdown in the system (Lichtenstein et al., 2006).

2.4.3.1. Power Differentials

Research has found that power differentials in the cross-disciplinary group can cause a breakdown in the system and seriously hinder cross-disciplinary collaboration (Choi & Pak, 2007; MacMynowski, 2007). Power differentials between individuals engaged in social interactions can occur for a number of reasons including age, socio-economic status, social connectedness, gender (Schumann et al., 2014), role and status, and culture (Frosch et al., 2012; Rugkasa, & Canvin, 2011). For example, Schumann et al. (2014) found that having a low social-economic status, being young and female led to a higher risk of being bullied. Whereas, Rugkasa and Canvin (2011) found that those from minority cultures and those from community sectors rather than academia tended to have their voices silenced and Frosch et al. (2012) found that those in professional or traditionally authoritarian roles, such as physicians could also silence the voices of their patients.

Additional power differentials between different types of knowledge or perspectives have been found to impact cross-disciplinary collaboration. For example,

Schoenberger (2001) considers that the perspective that holds the most power within a group is dependent on which perspective is considered the most socially valued

resource at the time. For example, at one time the value of knowledge was measured by ones standing in society then by its level of objectivity proved through the use of the scientific method then by its ability to consider the subjective nature of reality

(Schoenberger, 2001). Some researchers have also found that the knowledge that is valued at any given time is also heavily dependent on the wider influences on the field of study including the political and economic climate, and national and international legislation (Easen et al., 2000). Although not within the control of this study those facilitating the approach designed in this study will need to be aware of the power differentials between the different frames of reference held by those from the

disciplines and paradigms present in the cross-disciplinary group. These differences are explored in chapter three. They will also need to consider the potential the power differentials have to disrupt cross-disciplinary collaboration, and provide mechanisms to help address them.

Pregernig (2006) found that power differentials do not just occur between different disciplines but also between academics (those undertaking research and/or teaching within a discipline) and practitioners (those practicing in a disciplinary profession) that have different frames of reference based on their experiences. It was found that

despite some shift in the value placed on practical knowledge and personal

experience, academic knowledge still holds the greatest power (Pregernig, 2006).

In the same way as for other power differentials discussed earlier, Kochan et al. (2002) found that these power differentials between different types of knowledge can lead to the silencing of the voices that hold least power within the cross-disciplinary group. Russell et al. (2008) consider that if cross-disciplinary collaboration is to be promoted then approaches, such as the one developed in this study, need to address all these power differentials and encourage all voices to be heard.

2.4.3.2. Move to a Collective Construction and Identity

Not all tension generated by a cross-disciplinary group necessarily leads to a

breakdown of the system. Research has shown that tension can lead to innovation and adaptive change as individuals resonate, accommodate and align their own

perspectives to the information shared (Lichtenstein et al., 2006). Lichtenstein et al. (2006) suggest that as the perspectives in the cross-disciplinary group are aligned so the integration of ideas occurs that leads to the development of new innovative ideas and information. Other findings support this assertion. For example, Hardy (2005) considers that new ideas and information lead to the development of a collective construction that consists of a mutual understanding of the causes of, assumptions about, and solutions to the issue. These collective constructions are continually being developed and revised through conversation as the personal constructions are shared and considered by the group. The collective constructions also provide the resources for the on-going development of the individuals’ personal constructions in the intra- individual process (Hardy, 2005).

Lichtenstein et al. (2006) consider that at the same time as the group wrestles with the tensions and develops the collective construction they may also develop rules, roles and responsibilities in order to determine who they are and what they are doing as a group that can result in the development of a collective identity leading to collective action. The development of the collective construction and the collective identity helps to form the final phase of the cross-disciplinary system. Some authors consider that the collective self that develops is greater than the sum of the parts (Augustine et al., 2005), and demonstrates greater intelligence, capacity to learn and ability to innovate and adapt than its individual parts (Innes & Booher, 1999). These characteristics of the collective may be important when seeking to understand and develop resolutions to complex real-world issues, such as in this study. A number of factors have been found

to help promote this inter-individual process, overcome the problems of

miscommunication and power differentials and help the group use the tension that is created by the multiple perspectives to form a collective construction and collective identity. These are discussed in the next sections.