| |
A Preliminary Report on Bridging Chasms Event Event Two
April 5-7, 2019
National Museum of American History
Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C
Prepared by Kari Zacharias
Event Two Participants
Dympna Callaghan, William L. Safire Professor of Modern Letters, Syracuse University
E. Scott Geller, Alumni Distinguished Professor of Psychology, Virginia Tech
Carolyn Henne, Professor in Art and Sculptor, Florida State University
Niels Lundquist, Professor, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Institute of Marine Sciences
Monique O’Connell, Professor of History, Wake Forest
Courtney (Kiki) Petrosino, Associate Professor of Literature and Director of Writing, University of Louisville
Katherine Saul, Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, North Carolina State University
Gautam Yadama, Professor and Dean of Boston College School of Social Work, Boston College
Bridging Chasms Steering Committee
Edmund Campion, Professor of Composition, University of California Berkeley
Olivia A. Graeve, Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of California San Diego
R. Benjamin Knapp, Professor of Computer Science, Virginia Tech*
Stephen McAdams, Professor, Schulich School of Music, McGill University
Scott E. Page, Leonid Hurwitz Collegiate Professor of Complex Systems, Political Science, and Economics, University of Michigan
Roger Reynolds, University Professor of Composition, Department of Music, University of California San Diego*
Oumelbanine Zhiri, Professor of French Literature, University of California San Diego
Bridging Chasms Ethnographer
Kari Zacharias, Assistant Professor, Centre for Engineering in Society, Concordia University*
*also present at Event One
Event Two Schedule
Encounter 1: Friday morning, 5 April 2019
Participants: Dympna Callaghan and Monique O’Connell
Encounter 2: Friday afternoon, 5 April 2019
Participants: Katherine Saul and Carolyn Henne
Encounter 3: Saturday morning, 6 April 2019
Participants: Kiki Petrosino and Gautam Yadama
Encounter 4: Saturday afternoon, 6 April 2019
Participants: Scott Geller and Niels Lundquist
Concluding session: Sunday morning, 7 April 2019
All Participants and organizers
All Participants were also present during the Encounters in which they did not present. Roger Reynolds, Ben Knapp, and Kari Zacharias observed all Encounters. The Bridging Chasms initiative explores cross-disciplinary communication and seeks to identify and develop tools and strategies that can facilitate the bridging of disciplinary divides. The second Bridging Chasms Event was held in April 2019 at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History in Washington, D.C., in conjunction with the ACCelerate Festival of Creativity and Innovation. Following this second full iteration of the Bridging Chasms Event format, several recurring outcomes, successes, and issues were observed. This report both summarizes the April 2019 Event and reflects on the future of the Bridging Chasms initiative. It identifies outcomes and questions from the first two Events and suggests potential future directions for the larger project.
Overview of Event Two Planning and Structure
Virginia Tech shouldered the chief organizational responsibility for the second Bridging Chasms Event. Ben Knapp and the staff at Virginia Tech’s Institute for Creativity, Arts, and Technology arranged for the Event to be held in conjunction with the ACCelerate Festival of Creativity and Innovation, a gathering of faculty and students from all Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC) universities held at the Smithsonian Institution. Event Two Participants were nominated by their respective universities. Knapp, Bridging Chasms founder Roger Reynolds, and project ethnographer Kari Zacharias selected the final group of eight Participants from a shortlist of ACC university nominees.
Knapp, Reynolds, and Zacharias held a half-hour video call with each Participant prior to the Event. Participants were asked to prepare a “kernel”: a concise but meaningful aspect of their own work that they wished to communicate during their Encounter. They were also instructed to keep their initial explanation of this kernel to approximately 20 minutes, and to use paper rather than digital slides to present any visual or textual aids.
The Event included four “Encounters” and one summarizing discussion. Each Encounter lasted approximately three hours and occurred primarily between two Participants, with no moderator or interventions from others during the first two hours. During these two hours, the two central Participants took turns presenting their “kernel” to their partner, and asking questions when they were not presenting. During the third hour, the Participants who were not central to the Encounter were also able to ask questions and engage in open discussion.
Presenters sat across from each other at one end of a long table. The Participants who were not central to a given Encounter sat at the same table as the presenters, but were slightly removed from them. Reynolds, Knapp, and Zacharias observed the proceedings from an adjacent table. The entire group was isolated from the main ACCelerate festival during the Encounters, in a quiet suite that was not accessible to the public. (Note: references below to both “organizers” and “observers” of Event Two refer to Reynolds, Knapp, and Zacharias. For Event One, Reynolds was the primary organizer and the observers were Reynolds, Zacharias, and Oumelbanine Zhiri, a member of the Bridging Chasms Steering Committee.)
Learning from Event One
Following the initial Bridging Chasms Event, held at the University of California San Diego in September 2018, observers and Event One Participants reflected on the Event’s structure and process. The Event One report summarized these thoughts, presenting seven areas of consideration for those involved in planning future Bridging Chasms Events. These areas of consideration are listed below, posed as questions as they were in the original report. Organizers discussed each of the areas as they began to plan for Event Two. Reynolds’ and Zacharias’ involvement in both Events allowed for continuity and the opportunity to implement changes in response to observations from the initial Event.
• To what extent should organizers communicate the specific goal(s) of an Event to Participants in advance?
• What format/structure should Encounters take?
• What is the role of a moderator?
• What are the roles of Participants during an Encounter in which they do not present?
• Should visual materials be used during an Encounter? If so, how?
• What physical arrangements (of rooms, Participants, tables, observers, screens, etc.) should be used during an Encounter?
• What are the logistical potentials and limitations of a single Event? (Duration? Number of participants? Number of Encounters?)
The first area of consideration listed above – To what extent should organizers communicate the specific goal(s) of an Event to Participants in advance? – remains the most unsettled, and was a source of contention during Event Two. We will return to this topic and question in a later section of this report. Discussion of the other six areas resulted in changes to the planning and format of the Event that successfully addressed open questions from Event One. These changes are briefly summarized below.
What format/structure should Encounters take?
Three different formats for Encounters were used during Event One: two Participants with a guide, two Participants without a guide, and three Participants without a guide. In each case, the central Participants took turns communicating a particular aspect of their work to their interlocutor(s), and the Encounter closed with an open conversation among all Participants, including those who had not presented. During Event One, the observers found that all Encounters, regardless of their intended format, unfolded largely as a series of sustained one-on-one interactions. The guide made minimal interventions and had a limited effect on the conversation, and the three-person Encounter resulted in a series of extended two-person interactions.
Event Two organizers decided to encourage sustained one-on-one communication by using only one Encounter format. The chosen format (briefly described in the previous section) was very similar to the “two Participants without a guide” format used during Event One: two Participants spent approximately one hour each presenting and discussing a central aspect of their work with a partner. Following these two hours of one-on-one exchange, all Participants engaged in one hour of open conversation about the material presented and the progression of the exchange. The main adjustment made to this format for Event Two was to provide an approximate time limit of 20 minutes for a Participant’s initial presentation of their “kernel.” After these first 20 minutes, the Participant who had listened to the initial presentation was asked to briefly summarize what they had heard. Organizers made this addition to the format in an attempt to facilitate exchange between the central Participants and avoid one Participant dominating the conversation. Finally, the short prompts (e.g. “patterns”) that organizers developed for each Encounter in Event One were not created for Event Two, as they were found to be unnecessary and occasionally disorienting for Participants during the first Event.
What is the role of a moderator?
As mentioned above, the Participant who acted as a “guide” during Event One did not make significant interventions during their Encounter. However, Reynolds acted as an unofficial moderator throughout all three of the Event One Encounters, intervening when he perceived that the conversation was heading off track. During preparation for Event Two, Knapp, Reynolds, and Zacharias agreed that such interventions from observers should be kept to an absolute minimum. In an effort to let conversation flow and to avoid giving Participants the impression that they were doing an Encounter “incorrectly” (a worry reported by multiple Event One Participants), the observers at Event Two agreed that they would only intervene if Participants exceeded their provided time limits, or in cases of seriously inconsiderate or offensive language or actions. Happily, no such inappropriate behavior occurred and Participants were generally aware and respectful of their own time limits. This resulted in minimal disruptions from those who were not central to a given Encounter.
What are the roles of Participants during an Encounter in which they do not present?
Participants in the first Event commented that they found it difficult or unnatural to focus on communicating with their assigned partner(s) in the direct presence of other people. They also reported that the time allotted for open conversation at the end of an Encounter was valuable, an opinion which backed up observers’ findings that this unrestricted communication was important both to group development and to better understanding what had occurred during an Encounter. Accordingly, the Encounter format for Event Two retained a significant amount of time (1 hour, or 1/3 of the total time) for open group discussion. To address discomfort with one-on-one communication among a larger group, organizers made sure that the Participants who were central to a given Encounter were physically removed from the other Participants, while remaining at the same large table (see the question below on physical arrangement for additional details).
Should visual materials be used during an Encounter? If so, how?
During Event One, organizers did not provide Participants with guidelines regarding their use of visual materials for presentation. Of the resulting seven presentations, four featured PowerPoint slides, one included printed handouts (although the presenter did not rely heavily on the handouts, and referred to them only near the end of their exchange), and two used neither slides nor printed materials. Observers also noted frequent use of physical movement to convey meaning during Event One, particularly during and following the presentation of a dancer, who used both gesture and dance to communicate. Observers found that use of slides consistently drew the audience’s attention towards the screen and away from the presenter, and that presenters who used slides tended to let their focus shift away from addressing their designated partner and towards speaking to the entire Participant group. In addition, while images on screens could be very useful in helping the presenter explain complex information, they occasionally also conveyed messages that were contrary to the presenter’s intention.
For Event Two, the organizers instructed Participants not to prepare any PowerPoint slides. Participants were given the option of preparing up to five pages of handouts, which could include text and/or images. Participants sent these handouts to the organizers in advance, and they were printed and distributed to Participants and observers in advance of the Encounters. Four Participants chose to prepare handouts. One Participant chose to distribute copies of a book that he had written in lieu of handouts, and three presented without any prepared visual materials. Another Participant brought a small whiteboard with markers to the Event, which she and several others used during their presentations.
What physical arrangements should be used during an Encounter?
The Encounters at Event One occurred on stage at the Conrad Prebys Music Center at UCSD. Apart from Participants, observers, and facilitators of the Event, no one else had access to the space. These conditions presented some clear advantages: Participants appreciated the beauty and uniqueness of the space, the conversations could be well lit and recorded, and the atmosphere during Encounters remained quiet and focused. Challenges of this set-up included a feeling of disconnection from the outside world, which some Participants struggled with as the Event drew to a close, and a lack of natural light that some found difficult. In addition, Participants were unsure of how/where to situate themselves at the central table during an Encounter, and organizers experimented with different seating instructions during the Event. Participants at Event One took all of their meals in a different space within the same building. In contrast to the stage where the Encounters took place, the meeting room used at mealtimes had large windows which offered plenty of natural light as well as views of the UCSD campus.
Event Two was held at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History, alongside the rest of the ACCelerate Festival. The Bridging Chasms Participants were removed from the remainder of the festival and the visiting public, as the Encounters occurred in a private room that was inaccessible to museum visitors and other ACC representatives. The positive and negative effects of this privacy were similar to those observed at the first Event. The space allowed for focus and concentration while perhaps also contributing to Participants’ fatigue and sense of isolation. In contrast to the UCSD Event, Event Two featured a large, public festival occurring on the other side of the meeting room doors, a circumstance of which the Participants were well aware. A further difference between the two Events was that Event Two did not include a designated second room for breaks and mealtimes. Between Encounters, Participants in Event Two had the choice to remain in the private room, visit the museum exhibits or cafeteria, or leave the museum premises altogether. This set-up resulted in more time spent in the room where the Encounters took place, which may have increased feelings of disconnection, as well as less total time spent together by Participants and observers.
Within the room where the Encounters occurred, the table set-up for Event Two improved upon the previous arrangement. Participants sat around a large table (approximately 5’ by 10’), as they had during the initial Event; however, the central Participants in a given Encounter were instructed to sit across from one another at one end of the table. Other Participants sat at the same table, but were physically removed from the central pair. Knapp, Reynolds, and Zacharias sat at an adjacent table to observe the Encounters. This arrangement seemed to largely resolve the discomfort that Event One Participants had associated with holding a one-on-one conversation while seated in a larger group, and also emphasized the two central Participants’ dual roles as presenters and listeners.
What are the logistical potentials and limitations of a single Event?
The duration, number of Participants, and number of Encounters at Event Two did not vary greatly from the logistics of the first Event. Event One ran from Friday evening to Sunday mid-afternoon and included an introductory dinner, three Encounters, a musical performance, and a concluding discussion, along with other, more informal shared meals. Event Two ran from Friday morning to Sunday at noon. It included four Encounters, a concluding discussion, a shared restaurant dinner on Saturday evening, and informal shared breakfasts and lunches. Seven Participants and three observers took part in Event One, while Event Two featured eight Participants and three observers.
The observers of Event Two concurred with the original conclusions drawn about the logistics of Event One. The duration of each Event – roughly 2.5 days – seemed to be an upper limit for both the sustained focus required of Participants and the amount of time that could reasonably be demanded of them. The number of Participants and observers seemed appropriate to each Event. As noted in the Event One report, the format of Encounters, number of Participants, physical set-up, and total Event duration are certainly not independent from one another. The combination of these variables used by Bridging Chasms thus far has been effective, but this does not necessarily mean that other combinations would not work.
Observed Outcomes
In addition to noting specific tools and strategies used by the Participants in their communication, the second Event allowed the organizers to make more general observations on distinctions and commonalities between Events, and on the nature of the Bridging Chasms project. This section summarizes these various types of observed outcomes.
Tools and Strategies for Cross-Disciplinary Communication
One of the aims of the Bridging Chasms initiative is to identify specific ways in which scholars communicate with colleagues from other fields and disciplines. The report on Event One identified many of these tools and strategies, grouping them into the following broad categories:
• Practicing focus and intentionality when speaking and listening
• Recognizing one another’s expertise
• Naming and defining terms, but limiting terminology to what is most necessary
• Disrupting or intervening during discussions, and being open to interventions from others
• Breaking down complex ideas using various communicative devices and materials (e.g. metaphor, analogy, gesture, supporting images or texts)
• Building on shared experiences and understandings throughout the Event
Specific instances of many of these same tools and strategies were observed during Event Two (perhaps unsurprisingly, as both groups were given similar directives and had similarly structured experiences). Observers again witnessed the importance of intentionality during both speaking and listening, and we found that the Participants’ attention was drawn to their two roles during an Encounter: both as presenter and as listener. Participants found multiple ways to recognize their interlocutors’ expertise: some quite obvious (“I know you know this”) and others less direct (offering possible connections between the ideas being presented and the listener’s own knowledge or experience).
Several participants identified specific terms that were vital to their presentation, defined them, and used them repeatedly (e.g. configuration, blazon, collective action, humanism), while avoiding other terminology that may have been unfamiliar to their partners. Questions and interruptions from listeners similarly opened up new avenues for engagement, and presenters used a variety of devices and materials (metaphor, analogy, repetition, gesture, visual aids) to get their messages across.
Other strategies seemed to be more present at this Event than they had been at Event One. Listeners – both the Participants initially involved in an Encounter and the other Participants, during the latter phase of open discussion – repeatedly articulated connections between the material that they had heard and their own fields, expertise, or ideas. For example, a Participant who studies transdisciplinarity described an exchange between two others by stating that they were both “being transdisciplinary.” Another characterized a fellow Participant’s statement as “humanism,” an area that he himself studies. Others found common ground in the reasons that various Participants had chosen their respective fields.
In contrast to Event One, where the Participants developed shared vocabulary and common references that they repeatedly and increasingly referenced throughout the weekend, the Event Two Participants more often identified individual connections between their work, such as the ones mentioned above. Several terms (e.g. monument/monumental, ephemeral) did emerge early on and resurface in significant ways throughout the weekend; however, connections were more often made by identifying specific areas of common ground than by defining concepts or terms that applied to the entire group.
Successes
Both iterations of Bridging Chasms have demonstrated similar types of positive outcomes. These successes include the development of a sense of community among Participants, increased understanding and appreciation of others’ points of view, collaborations (or desire for collaboration) between Participants, and new insights into projects or ideas that did not involve collaboration with others involved in Bridging Chasms. The organizers and observers of Bridging Chasms have not yet developed formal reporting mechanisms to evaluate these outcomes. The successes discussed here, as well as the issues and open questions listed below, stem from observations during the Events themselves and from informal communication between observers and Participants following both Events.
Participants who did not initially know one another formed bonds throughout both Events. By the end of both weekends, Participants displayed group behavior that was not evident at the beginning of the Event. They demonstrated shared vocabulary and inside jokes as well as common frames of reference and frustrations. At Event Two, various pairs and groups of Participants toured the museum, experienced and discussed other parts of the ACCelerate Festival, and visited other locations in Washington, D.C. together. During the concluding discussion at each Event, some Participants also described how they had gained appreciation for or understanding of their fellow Participants’ fields, or occasionally a better understanding of interdisciplinarity or interdisciplinary initiatives, over the course of the Event.
Following the first Event, many Participants expressed interest in finding a shared project to work on together. While such a large group project did not emerge, the expressed desire to continue what had been built during the Event was strong and universal. The organizers made no effort to assist Participants in realizing these wishes following the weekend at UCSD. During the second Event, at least one pair of Participants made concrete plans to visit one another’s institutions after the Event.
In addition to the desire for collaboration that has resulted from the Events, several Participants reported that their experience led to new ideas that they plan to bring to their own research, teaching, or administrative responsibilities. After Event One, a Participant stated that his thinking had been positively altered through his new understanding of the “kernel” presented by his partner during their Encounter. A Participant in Event Two expressed that she had learned a lot about bringing people from different disciplines together, including the challenges of such undertakings and strategies for creating bonds among group members.
Issues and Open Questions
Common uncertainties and areas of discomfort were also observed at both Events. These recurring issues related to the initial question posed to future Event organizers in the first Bridging Chasms report: To what extent should organizers communicate the specific goal(s) of an Event to Participants in advance? While most Participants reported a positive overall experience, it is clear that communication and clarity regarding the purpose of Bridging Chasms was an issue before and during both Events. Open questions exist regarding the concise definition of the initiative’s purpose and the communication of that purpose to (potential) Participants.
Participants in both Events had persistent questions about the overall goal of the gatherings, and of Bridging Chasms as a whole. Many Participants expressed confusion about the purpose of the initiative: is it a research project? A retreat? A public presentation? A team building exercise? A service project? Accordingly, Participants were not sure whether their roles in Bridging Chasms were those of research subjects, collaborators, disciplinary subject matter experts, or some combination of identities. In the case of Event Two, this confusion was exacerbated by the number of stakeholders involved in the Participant nomination process, and the logistical difficulties inherent in making Bridging Chasms a part of the larger ACCelerate festival. However, it must be noted that Participants at Event One shared many of the same concerns, albeit to a lesser degree.
Similarly, Participants were unsure of what they stood to gain from taking part in an Event. At Event Two, some Participants reported that they had agreed to participate only after a high-level administrator urged them to do so, while others stated that they had no idea what to expect from the Event and were present largely out of curiosity. Once again, the logistical challenges posed by Event Two undoubtedly increased the uncertainty about its value that Participants expressed. At Event One, many Participants listed a general interest in interdisciplinarity and/or a conversation with Reynolds as motivating factors for their participation. At the beginning of the Event, Event One Participants were nevertheless unsure of how they might benefit from the experience.
Finally, some Participants were uncomfortable with the format of the Encounters, and many expressed that they were not sure how to prepare for an Encounter and/or believed that they had prepared incorrectly. This issue was present during Event Two, but was more common during Event One. It is possible that the modifications made to the format and structure of the Event and the individual Encounters alleviated some of this discomfort.
Reflections on Future Directions
The first two Events suggest that the Bridging Chasms format has the potential to generate significant positive outcomes. Event organizers have been impressed by the engagement and dynamism of the two Participant groups, and by the depth of their conversations. Most Participants have agreed that the Event experience was a novel, challenging, and enjoyable one. Organizers of future Events could benefit from reflecting on both the successes of the format and the recurring questions that it has generated. The novelty of the Bridging Chasms Event format means that prospective Participants will likely be uncertain of what to expect, how to prepare, and why they should take part. Potentially helpful steps for organizers include defining specific intended outcomes for the initiative, situating the project with respect to literature on interdisciplinarity and communication, and continuing their efforts to more clearly articulate to potential Participants the intention and format of an Event, as well as a rationale for participation.
Defining Intended Outcomes
Throughout the genesis of Bridging Chasms, members of the steering committee and organizers of individual Events have discussed various outcomes for the project. Some of these potential outcomes have included a set of communicative tools and strategies that might be shared with or taught to future interdisciplinarians; a portable Event format that could be used in different contexts, without the direct involvement of Bridging Chasms founders or organizers; a code of conduct for participation in an interdisciplinary institute; and an academic publication or set of publications that would contribute to literature on cross-disciplinary understanding and communication.
As of the writing of this report, Bridging Chasms organizers have not set specific practical outcomes for the project to target. Following Event Two, the observers discussed the possibility that the evolving format of the Encounters themselves – or the format of the entire Event – may become a key contribution of the initiative. It is rare for experts in different fields to have the opportunity and motivation to engage in deep conversation, particularly in the absence of any need for their interactions to produce an immediate practical result. The structure for such conversations that Bridging Chasms provides may itself be an important outcome.
In addition to this range of possible tangible outcomes, organizers have discussed numerous positive experiences and phenomena that might result from participation in a Bridging Chasms Event. It is clear that organizers have attempted to improve and optimize the Event format: this has occurred between the initial conception of the project and the first Event, between the first and second Events, and following the second Event. However, it is less obvious which quantity or quantities are being optimized for. In other words, to what end are organizers working to “improve” the format of a Bridging Chasms Event? To what end are Participants using the tools and strategies that the observers have noted? Examples of the different types of desirable quantities that might potentially result from a Bridging Chasms experience include, in no particular order:
• Successful identification or understanding of other disciplinary mindsets
• Improved ability to confront or overcome excessive attachment to one’s own way of thinking: what Paretti et al. have called “disciplinary ego-centrism”
• Increased empathy between Participants
• Increased collegiality between Participants
• Better understanding of unfamiliar subject matter
• Better understanding of how other academic fields function
• New insights into one’s own research, teaching, or other projects
• New collaborations between Participants
• New (or improved) interdisciplinary collaborations at Participants’ home institutions or in their other work contexts
It may be the case that all of the tangible outcomes listed above are feasible, and that all of the quantities in the bulleted list have resulted or will result from Bridging Chasms Events. Nevertheless, identifying specific goals or areas of emphasis for the project – even if the goals are multiple, and even if the emphasis changes in the future – may help to explain the initiative to potential Participants, organizers, funders, and the general public. Alongside this identification of potential outcomes, conducting a review of literature related to interdisciplinarity and communication would help to situate the project in its academic contexts.
Communicating Intent and Rationale
How have, and how might, Participants find value in the experience of Bridging Chasms? Communicating the purpose and format of Bridging Chasms is vital, but communicating the value of participation in an Event is equally important. Participants in Event Two raised this issue explicitly during the concluding discussion. Some suggested that Participants should receive a stipend as compensation for their time and efforts, while others proposed that an Event should have some public-facing result beyond a website and written reports (e.g. a podcast or, in the case of the Smithsonian Event, a personally curated mini-guide to the museum). Given this feedback, future Event organizers may wish to reconsider the steering committee’s original decision against providing honoraria, and/or think about the practical outcomes that an Event might produce. Alternatively, or in addition to these ideas, organizers may consider highlighting the potential for new collaborations and individual insights to emerge from an Event. A modified Event format might also be used in conjunction with an existing interdisciplinary organization, project group, or meeting. Thinking about and defining a rationale for participation in Bridging Chasms is important not only for recruitment purposes, but also because of the connection between reasons for participation and the overall intention of the initiative.
A Bridging Chasms Event is not a typical academic conference, invited talk, or research project. As such, both organizers and Participants have at times struggled to come to terms with its format. In the case of Event Two, organizational hurdles related to the logistical demands of the larger ACCelerate festival, the number of institutions involved, and the presence of intermediaries between Participants and organizers exacerbated these difficulties. At the same time, Participants have praised the Event structure for the luxuries of time and space that it presents for them to express themselves in, and for the connections and inspiration that they have gained from their participation. As the initiative moves forward, organizers present and future should acknowledge the positive results of the previous Events as they work towards refining and clarifying the overall project.
|