assignment
Files/.DS_Store __MACOSX/Files/._.DS_Store Files/Instructions .docx Description Drawing on both concepts from the project unit and your experiences in the Project, address the following questions: 1.Giving examples from the Project, analyse the ways of thinking that you brought from your educational background. 2.Evaluate how your ways of thinking are contributing to the Project in comparison to other ways of thinking. 3.What potential or actual problems are arising from working on the Project with collaborators whose ways of thinking are similar or different to your own? What strategies are you using to avoid or resolve those problems? In answering all the questions, you will need to support your arguments with concepts from the academic literature(i.e. core readings from this project) as well as specific examples from your project experience and interactions with your group. Students will need to engage thefollowing texts in their assessment and include a reference listconsistent with the APA 6thReferencing Style: Criteria Ratings Pts 1. Analysing ways of thinking view longer description 30 to >25.5 pts High Distinction You analysed and critiqued your ways of thinking with reference to your discipline/educational background. You analysed and critiqued your ways of thinking, using relevant examples from the project. Your analysis is supported with evidence from multiple high-quality sources. / 30 pts 2. Evaluate contribution of ways of thinking to Project view longer description 30 to >25.5 pts High Distinction You evaluated the strengths and limitations of your ways of thinking in the context of the Project, using examples of how your ways of thinking contributed to the project. You critique the contribution of other ways of thinking in the Project. / 30 pts 3. Problems and solutions in collaborating with other ways of thinking view longer description 30 to >25.5 pts High Distinction You analysed and critiqued the problems in collaborating with other ways of thinking, using relevant examples from the project. You develop solutions that demonstrate an understanding of interactions among ways of thinking. / 30 pts 4. Clarity of writing, referencing and formatting view longer description 10 to >8.5 pts High Distinction Referencing complies with chosen style, citations made appropriately and purposefully. Critical and coherent logical argument presented. Negligible grammatical errors / 10 points __MACOSX/Files/._Instructions .docx Files/Sample 2.pdf ICPU1070Coles WordCount:1645 may be attributed to our maths and science disciplines where research adopts a post positivist worldview which focuses on establishing cause and effect relationships (SAGE Publications, 2018). While these ways of thinking helped us to emphasise objectivity to reduce bias and focus on gathering evidence to support recommendations, it limited the relevanceofpersonalexperienceandreduced ideastoa“discreteset” thatneededtobe tested. This was balanced by a pragmatic worldview, developed from my past research experience. My research in on palm oil and sustainability cultivated an understanding of the impact of political, historical and socio economic factors on the introductionandacceptanceofchange.Incontrasttopost positivism,thismindsetiscentred on responding to a situation or issue, so there is less rigid methodology and a greater consideration for thecontextof theproblem(Kaushik&Walsh,2019).Thisparadigmwas reflectedinourmixedmethodapproachtobothevaluatetraceabilitytechnologieswhilealso understandingtheattitudesofChineseconsumers. Problems&SolutionsinCollaboration Groupdiversityinevitablyleadtovariousproblems.Forexample,inourfirstgroupmeeting, knowercodeledhertoquicklyestablishaprojectscope,adoptingtheWaterfallIPEC designapproachwhichiscommonlyusedinengineering(Brindha&Vijayakumar,2015).This is a linear approach consisting of discrete phrases, whereby scope and deliverables are determinedinthefirststage.However,asinternationalbusinessstudents, andIfelt moreresearchshouldbecarriedoutbeforeestablishingourobjectofstudyasweneeded greaterinsightsintotheproblemandtoremainflexibleinourapproach. thoughtwe were being unproductive and pedantic while we thought she was oversimplifying the problem. This reflectshowourdifferentwaysof thinkingtranslatedtodifferentresearch approachesandmethods(SAGEPublications,2018). Additionally,differentwaysofthinkingcanleadtocommunicationbarriers.Throughoutour meetings,wediscoveredthatdisciplineshavetheirownjargon(Pellmar&Einsenberg,2000). Forexample,indiscussingtheexpectedoutcomeofourgroupplan,Iinterpretedoutcomes astheproposedsolutionanditsimplicationsforthewidercommunitywhereas define itastheliteralprojectdeliverables(groupplan,finalpresentation,finalreport).Initially,this ICPU1070Coles WordCount:1645 causedsomefrustrationasweboththoughtwhattheotherwassuggestingwasirrelevant andincorrect.ThisishighlightedbyHolley(2009)whoproposesthat“themeaningsofcertain termsandphrasesaresubtlyalteredastheymovedacrossdisciplines”. However,theseproblemsweremanagedusingvariousstrategies.Firstly,wecreatedateam charter together which helped to define our purpose, expected outcomes and group dynamics(Ginder,Peck&Peating,n.d.).Thisteambuildingexercisehelpedtofostertrustand respectamongstteammembers. Importantly,weemphasisedopencommunicationwhich encouragedeveryonetosharetheirideasandperspectivesandberespectiveofothers’.It alsoprovidedmeanstoaddressconflictefficientlytopreventitworseningassupportedby Byrd&Luthy(2010);whenmisunderstandingsarose,ourfirstapproachwouldbetotryand understanding the other person’s point of view. In the aforementioned disagreement regardingoutcomes,ZoeyandIquicklyrealisedwehaddifferentunderstandingsoftheword andsoughtclarificationfromourprojectsupervisor. I was also intentional about cultivating psychological safety so my group would “free to expresswork relevantthoughtsandfeelings”(Edmondson&Roloff,2008).WhenIfirstread Duhigg’s“WhatGoogleLearnedfromItsQuesttoBuildaPerfectTeam”,Iwasconfrontedby findingsthatteamcompositionwasnotasuccessindicator.Inpastgroupprojects,Ialways attributedthe lackofcollaborationto teammembers’skillsandqualities.Throughoutthe project,Ibegantorealisethatfosteringaspacewheremembersfelttheycouldshareideas comfortablywasintegraltobestutiliseourdifferentwaysofthinking.Iwasconstantlyusing phrasessuchas“Whatdoeseveryoneelsethink?”,“I’mhappytodiscussanotherway”and “I’mnotsuremyself,Ineedtodomoreresearch”.Theimportanceofthisishighlightedby Edmondson&Roloff(2008)whostressthatteamleadersshouldencourageothers’opinions andcontributionsandacknowledgetheirownshortcomings.Whilegroupdiscussionswere stilloftenfilledwithsilence,thereweresomevaluableideasproposedbygroupmembers suchasGeorge’sideaforaWeChatminiprogramwhichmayotherwisehavenotbeenshared. InterdisciplinaryLearning ICPU1070Coles WordCount:1645 ThroughouttheprojectIbegantorealisethatitwasn’tthemerepresenceofourdifferent disciplines that made our team interdisciplinary, but rather our ability to synthesise our knowledge and skills. At times, interdisciplinary integration proved to be difficult. As our disciplines fostered different ways of thinking, it sometimes felt like our ideas were in contentionorcontradictorytooneanother.Toaddressthis,wewerefirstpromptedbyour project supervisor to think more deeply and critically about our disciplines and the assumptionswemighthave.Then,asagroup,wediscussedtheseand identifiedareasof differenceandsimilarity.TheimportanceofthisishighlightedbyKeestra&Menken(2016) wherebyourassumptionsonlybecomeobviouswhenwe“engagewitheachotherinopen and extended dialogue”. These discussions were valuable in understanding that our disagreementscouldoftenbeattributedtodifferencesinourthinking,ratherthanpersonal issues and supported by the aforementioned group charter and the development of psychologicalsafety. Another barrier I initially faced was that some members felt that their disciplines were irrelevant to the problem. This issue is reflected in Richter & Paretti’s (2009) study on interdisciplinaryintheengineeringclassroom.AssigningrolessuchasBenneandSheats’tasks roleshelpedtoovercomethisasitprovidedasenseofidentityandpurpose.Furthermore,as we progressed, I realised that disciplinary contributions were not limited to explicit knowledge but also included concepts or skills (Lattuca, Knight, & Bergom, 2013). For example, majoredinmedicalscienceandimmunologyandutilisedhiswell developed researchskillstofindvaluablestudiesonChineseconsumers’perceptionsoftraceability. Byutilisingthesestrategies,ourgroupwasabletocombineourdisciplinaryperspectivesto first better understand the dynamic,multi faceted problempresented aswell as develop comprehensive recommendations that were beyond the scope of a single discipline. Regardingtheproblem,werecognisedthatitspannedacrossmanydisciplines.Forexample, economicbackgroundrevealedhowthelossofintegrityofChina’sdomesticfood industry impacted thenation’sGDP.Thisprocess is central to interdisciplinary integration whereby theories from different disciplines are connected to form a more holistic understandingoftheproblem(Keestra&Menken,2016). ICPU1070Coles WordCount:1645 Our newfound understanding of the complex problem emphasised the need for interdisciplinary integration inourrecommendations.Forexample, indefininga“system”, we combined definitions from business information systems, engineering and science to createabroadertermthatextendedbeyondcombinativetechnologiestoalsoconsideredthe role of stakeholders. Keestra & Menken (2016) explain this to be an interdisciplinary integrativetechniqueof“adding,adjustingandconnecting”.Eventhoughourfinalsolution presentedhadatechnologicalfocus,itwasbuiltonthefoundationsofallofourdisciplines. For example,we used the engineering process of functional decomposition to divide our proposedsolutionintothreepartstoprovidearounded,well detailedperspective. Priortothisexperience,interdisciplinarylearningseemedlikeabuzzwordandeventhoughI knewitwasimportant,Ididnothaveanin depthunderstandingofwhatitwas.However, nowIamconfidentIwillbeabletoworkmoreeffectivelywithothersonsolvingcomplex problemswithanewfoundawarenessofthewayspeoplethinkdifferentlyusingframeworks suchasLCTandontology.Importantly,Ihavelearnttoutilisestrategiessuchasdeveloping psychologicalsafety,assessingmyownindividualassumptionsandassigningrolestobuilda collaborativeteamratherthanbasingteamqualityonaselectioncriteriaofpre determined characteristics. ICPU1070Coles WordCount:1645 References Brindha,J.,&Vijayakumar,V.(2015).Analyticalcomparisonofwaterfallmodelandobject orientedmethodologyinsoftwareengineering.AdvancesinNaturalandApplied Sciences,9(12),7 11.Retrievedfromhttps://go gale com.ezproxy1.library.usyd.edu.au/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA450903519&v=2.1&u=usyd &it=r&p=AONE&sw=w Byrd,J.T.,&Luthy,M.R.(2010).Improvinggroupdynamics:Creatingateamcharter. AcademyofEducationalLeadershipJournal,14(1),13.Retrievedfrom https://search proquest com.ezproxy1.library.usyd.edu.au/docview/521257289?rfr_id=info%3Axri%2Fsid%3 Aprimo Duhigg,C.(2016,February26).WhatGoogleLearnedFromItsQuestToBuildthePerfect Team.TheNewYokTimesMagazine.Retrievedfrom https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/magazine/what google learned from its quest to build the perfect team.html Edmondson,A.C.,&Roloff,K.S.(2008).Overcomingbarrierstocollaboration:Psychological safetyandlearningindiverseteams.InE.Salas,G.F.Goodwin,&C.S.Burke(Eds.), Teameffectivenessincomplexorganizations:Cross disciplinaryperspectivesand approaches(pp.183 208).Retrievedfromhttps://ebookcentral proquest com.ezproxy1.library.usyd.edu.au/lib/usyd/reader.action?docID=381324&ppg=218 Ginder,G.L.,Peck,L.,&Keating,S.(n.d.).JumpstartTeamSuccess:CreateaTeamCharter. RetrievedfromtheClarosGroupwebsite: http://www.clarosgroup.com/jumpstart.pdf Holley,K.A.(2009).UnderstandingInterdisciplinaryChallengesandOpportunitiesinHigher Education.ASHEHigherEducationReport,35(2),1 131.doi:10.1002/aehe.3502 Kaushik,V.,&Walsh,C.A.(2019).Pragmatismasaresearchparadigmanditsimplications forsocialworkresearch.SocialSciences,8(9),255.doi:10.3390/socsci8090255 Keestra,M.,&Menken,S.(2016).Anintroductiontointerdisciplinaryresearch:Theoryand practice.Amsterdam,Netherlands:AmsterdamUniversityPress. Lattuca,L.R.,Knight,D.,&Bergom,I.(2013).Developingameasureofinterdisciplinary competence.TheInternationaljournalofengineeringeducation,29(3),726 739. ICPU1070Coles WordCount:1645 Retrievedfromhttps://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Developing a measure of interdisciplinary for Lattuca Knight/deb7b762bee42e9b63b1d63c96050faf1b417f12 Maton,K.&Chen,R.T H.(inpress,2019).Specializationcodes:Knowledge,knowersand studentsuccess.InJ.R.Martin,K.Maton,&Y.J.Doran(Eds),AccessingAcademic Discourse:SystemicfunctionallinguisticsandLegitimationCodeTheory.London, England:Routledge. Pellmar,T.C.,&Eisenberg,L.(2000).Barrierstointerdisciplinaryresearchandtraining. InT.C.Pellmar&L.Eisenbeg(Eds.),Bridgingdisciplinesinthebrain,behavioral,and clinicalsciences.WashingtonDC,US:NationalAcademiesPress. Richter,D.M.,&Paretti,M.C.(2009).Identifyingbarrierstoandoutcomesof interdisciplinarityintheengineeringclassroom.EuropeanJournalofEngineering Education,34(1),29 45.doi:10.1080/03043790802710185 SAGEPublications.(2018).TheSelectionofaResearchApproach.RetrievedfromtheSAGE Publicationswebsite:https://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm binaries/89166_Chapter_1_The_Selection_of_a_Research_Approach.pdf Wolff,K.(2018).Alanguagefortheanalysisofdisciplinaryboundarycrossing:insightsfrom engineeringproblem solvingpractice.TeachinginHigherEducation,23(1),104 119. doi:10.1080/13562517.2017.1359155 __MACOSX/Files/._Sample 2.pdf Files/Sample. 1.pdf 1. Ways of Thinking & Contribution Evaluation We as a group of five individuals with unique disciplinary backgrounds embody essential aspects of diversity in cognition and perceptions, and problem-solving approaches, which are highly leverageable to produce synergized design-thinking to maximize the team operative efficiency (Miura & Hida, 2004). Such fundamental differences in our ways of thinking are interpretable by applying the combination of Fortunato and Furey’s theory of MindTime (2009) (TMT) and Sternberg’s model of mental governance (1988) (MMG). As a student pursuing two distinct disciplines in finance & management, I am self-aware of utilizing both quantitative and qualitative methodologies to construct the logical flow in the problem-solving approach. According to Slevitch (2011), the ontological position of the quantitative conceptual framework enhanced in my finance major is an inclination to perceive the objective reality independently subsisting in human perception (Sale et al., 2002) and postulating the existence of conclusive truth. Thus, one side of my ways of thinking is evidently aligned with the notion of the “Past-Thinking” style from TMT involving “the evaluation of pre- existing conceptual and social schemas as to their validity and relevance” (Fortunato & Furey, 2012, p.850). I thereby utilize this perspective to indurate the credibility of conclusion via inferential statistics and hypothesis testings (Miele & Wigfield, 2014). On the other hand, my management major develops the qualitative methodologies that embrace epistemological premise emphasizing the “transferability” (Slevitch, 2011) referring to the ability enabling individuals to divert the perceived experience to their own settings gleaned from the depth and evocativeness of the perception through the cognitive intervention (Guba & Lincoln, 1994). This is aligned with the “Present-Thinking’ style in TMT engaging in the organizational information to develop and execute action plans via the transference of the obtained data into the constructive structure (Fortunato & Furey, 2012). Such the combination of two perspectives creates the parallel with Type III thinking style in Sternberg’s MMG (1988) that integrates abstractive cognitive processing (Type I) with the conformity to established methodologies and sophisticated structuring (Type II), which can be perceived as my strength due to its balancing feature. Ivanitskaya, L., Clark, D., Montgomery, G., & Primeau, R. (2002). Interdisciplinary learning: Process and outcomes. Innovative higher education, 27(2), 95-111. Keestra, M., & Menken, S. (2017). An Introduction to Interdisciplinary Research : Theory and Practice . Amsterdam University Press,. Knippenberg, D., & Schippers, M. (2007). Work group diversity. Annual Review of Psychology, 58. Liu, J., Klein, G., Chen, J., & Jiang, J. (2009). The Negative Impact of Conflict on the Information System Development Process, Product, and Project. The Journal of Computer Information Systems, 49(4), 98–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2009.11645344 Mello, A., & Delise, L. (2015). Cognitive Diversity to Team Outcomes: The Roles of Cohesion and Conflict Management. Small Group Research, 46(2), 204–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496415570916 Menken, S., & Keestra, M. (2016). An Introduction to Interdisciplinary Research: Theory and Practice. Amsterdam University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9789048531615 Miele, D., & Wigfield, A. (2014). Quantitative and Qualitative Relations Between Motivation and Critical-Analytic Thinking. Educational Psychology Review, 26(4), 519–541. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-014-9282-2 Miura, A.,