Page 61 - Sustainability Communication Interdisciplinary Perspectives and Theoritical Foundations

44 J. Godemann

teams made up of natural science researchers as ‘narrow interdisciplinarity’, as
they make use of very similar paradigms and methods and share a common knowl-
edge culture. They speak of ‘broad interdisciplinarity’ when teams are composed
of natural scientists and social scientists and are also organised in different organi-
sations. Such teams must be able to cope with different paradigms, methods and
knowledge cultures.
In every type of group there are certain classic phenomena resulting from fears
and uncertainties, for example the fear of a negative evaluation (Arrow et al. 2000).
These aspects have a negative effect on performance and lead to individual group
members not participating fully (Brodbeck and Frey 1999). In addition the following
factors influence group processes and the exchange of knowledge:

• The size of a team. Previous research recommends that the number of group
members be between 4 and 12, with between seven and nine as an optimal size
for interdisciplinary work (Taylor 1975; Stankiewicz 1979). In general it can be
said that groups with a constant number of members are best integrated. Groups
that are too large over-complicate communication processes and there is a ten-
dency to work at the level of the lowest commonly agreed upon denominator.
Larger groups can still achieve good results when they are divided into sub-teams
with an open communication structure. However this complicates the integration
of knowledge as well as the delegation of responsibility (Thompson Klein
2005).
• The degree of experience with collaboration (Steinheider and Burger 2000). The
more experience with (transdisciplinary) group work there is, the better the com-
munication and collaboration in a team.
• The status of group members (Stasser et al. 1989). Status conflicts arise for a
number of reasons, including gender, cultural background and race. A hier-
archisation of disciplines leads to the creation of status differences, in which
individual disciplines become dominant and see themselves as playing a leading
role. Closely related to this phenomenon is the influence of power, which arises
from differences in individual influence within a group and is a central factor in
group processes.
• The degree of familiarity among individual group members. The development of
meta-knowledge in the form of knowledge about the expertise of the others is
influenced by knowledge of each other (Hollingshead 2000).
• The leadership of the team. The leader of an inter- or transdisciplinary team
can be characterised in a number of different ways, from ‘ringmaster’ to
‘boundary agent’ to ‘bridge scientist’. His tasks go beyond the translation of
disciplinary perspectives and involve the integration of disciplinary perspec-
tives (Anbar 1973). The management and communicative skills of leaders are
a major variable of an inter- or transdisciplinary team’s problem-solving ability
(Thompson Klein 2005).
Effectiveness in groups characterised by a high degree of complexity, both regard-
ing content and group composition, is very strongly dependent on the self-reflection
skills within the group. This so-called ‘group task reflexivity’ (West 1996) is defined