Table 2 Summary of the principal Communities of Practice features displayed in the five projects funded following the 2014 Idélab
From: The construction of new scientific norms for solving Grand Challenges
Project | Communities of Practice Features | Examples from interviewees | Further multidisciplinary work envisaged? |
|---|---|---|---|
A | Shared repertoire | Storytelling/awareness of language and audience when reporting results | Yes |
Mutual engagement | Group decision to terminate one work package following social science input and individual reflection | ||
Joint enterprise | Clear and consistent sense of all work packages contributing to the project’s common goal | ||
B | Shared repertoire | Defining technical terms; establishment of common jargon | Yes |
Joint enterprise | The shared repertoire served the project’s technological and scientific goals | ||
Mutual engagement | A clear sense of project identity | ||
C | Lack of joint enterprise | Work packages operating independently | Not with this team |
Lack of mutual engagement | Perceived leadership problems, lack of shared project identity | ||
Lack of shared repertoire | Perceived leadership problems, lack of shared project identity | ||
D | Lack of shared repertoire | Communication problems | No |
Lack of mutual engagement | Experience of ‘barriers’ between disciplines rather than a shared project goal | ||
E | Shared repertoire | Reflection continued throughout the project and was perceived as a strength | Yes |
Mutual engagement | Regular discussions of impact and ethics related to the project such that it became internalised in individual researchers’ everyday scientific practices both in the project and in their own disciplines | ||
Joint enterprise | Group reflection helped to build trust and mutual understanding |
