International collaboration projects in academic work can be considered boundary-crossing projects with learning potential. Contrary to perceiving diversity as a barrier for understanding, we depart from dialogical arguments in perceiving ambiguity and diversity as continuous resources for meaning enrichment. Here, we report a study of an international academic project to gain more insight into how this resource is exploited. Using Bakhtin’s theory, negotiation processes are analysed and explained by distinguishing voices stemming from different socio-cultural backgrounds. Project members did not explore fully the voices being expressed in their negotiation processes and therefore did not come to face their differences. We conclude that diversity should neither be seen as an obstacle for understanding, nor be presupposed as a resource for meaning generation. Rather, diversity should be actively worked on by group members in collaboration, starting by perceiving each other as real ‘others’ and receiving arguments initially as not understood.
Abbott, A. (1995). Things of boundaries. Social Research, 62, 857-883.
2.
Akkerman, S., Admiraal, W., Brekelmans, M., & Oost, H. (in press). Auditing quality of research in social sciences. Quality & Quantity.
3.
Akkerman, S., Admiraal, W., & Simons, R. J. (2006). Collaborative activities in academic work. Manuscript submitted for publication.
4.
Alexandrov, V. E. (2000). Biology, semiosis, and cultural difference in Lotman’s semiosphere. Comparative Literature, 52, 399-423.
5.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays (M. Holquist, Ed. & Trans.; C. Emerson, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.
6.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Eds.; V.W. McGee, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.
7.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8.
Davies, B., & Harré, R. (2001). Positioning: The discursive production of selves. In M. Wetherell, S. Taylor, & S. J. Yates (Eds.), Discourse theory and practice (pp. 216-271). London: Sage.
9.
Derry, S., Adams DuRussel, L., & O’Donnell, A. M. (1998). Individual and distributed cognitions in interdisciplinary teamwork: A developing case study and emerging theory. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 25-56.
10.
Engeström, Y. (1999). Communication, discourse and activity. Communication Review, 3(1-2), 165-185.
11.
Engeström, Y., Engeström, R., & Kärkäinen, M. (1995). Polycontextuality and boundary crossing in expert cognition: Learning and problem solving in complex work activities. Learning and Instruction, 5, 319-336.
12.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
13.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
14.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360-1361.
15.
Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalisic inquiries. Educational Communication and Technology Journal, 29, 75-91.
16.
Gurevitch, Z. D. (1988). The other side of dialogue: On making the other strange and the experience of otherness. American Journal of Sociology, 93, 1179-1199.
17.
Gutiérrez, K. D., Baquedano-López, P., & Tejeda, C. (1999). Rethinking diversity: Hybridity and hybrid. Language practices in the third space. Mind, Culture and Activity, 6, 286-303.
18.
Halpern, E.S. (1983). Auditing naturalistic inquiries: The development and application of a model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Indiana.
19.
Hermans, H. J. M. (2001). The dialogical self: Toward a theory of personal and cultural positioning. Culture & Psychology, 7, 243-281.
20.
Hermans, H. J. M., & Kempen, H. J. G. (1993). The dialogical self: Meaning as movement. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
21.
Homan, T. (2001). Teamleren. Theorie en facilitatie [Team learning. Theory and facilitation]. Schoonhoven: Academic Services.
22.
Knorr Cetina, K. D. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
23.
Lotman, Y. M. (1990). Universe of the mind: A semiotic theory of culture (A. Shukman, Trans.). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
24.
Lotman, Y. M. (1994). Text within a text. Publications of the Modern Language Association, 109, 377-384.
25.
Marks, M. A., Burke, C. S., Sabella, M. J., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2002). The impact of cross-training on team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 3-13.
26.
Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 273-283.
27.
Matusov, E. (1996). Intersubjectivity without agreement. Mind, Culture and Activity, 3, 25-45.
28.
Mohammed, S., & Ringseis, E. (2001). Cognitive diversity and consensus in group decision making: The role of inputs, processes and outcomes. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 85, 310-335.
29.
Morris, P. (Ed.). (1994). The Bakhtin reader. London: Edward Arnold.
30.
Ryan, D. P., Cott, C., & Robertson, D. (1997). Conceptual tools for thinking about interteam work in clinical gerontology. Educational Gerontology, 23, 651-667.
31.
Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
32.
Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387-420.
33.
Valsiner, J., & Van der Veer, R. (2000). The social mind: Construction of the idea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35.
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press.
36.
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
37.
Wertsch, J., & Toma, C. (1995). Discourse and learning in the classroom: A sociocultural approach. In L. P. Steffle & J. Gale (Eds.), Constructivism in education (pp. 159-175). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
38.
Wetherell, M., Taylor, S., & Yates, S. J. (2001). Discourse as data. London: Sage.
39.
Yoo, Y., & Kanawattanachai, P. (2001). Developments of transactive memory systems and collective mind in virtual teams. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 9, 187-208.
