Research Question and Sub-questions 72

The IDR capacity-building models so far analyzed (Section 3.4 above) differ substantially from the model that ZEF used in its Khorezm project in several respects (for details of the ZEF model, see chapter 4). Firstly, most of the above mentioned capacity- building models are of a single focused event spanning over a single day to few months, but in a concentrated time span, whereas the model under investigation spanned over at least five events of five days each spread over a period of three years. Secondly, the above mentioned models require the participants to focus on and engaged in IDR related capacity building for a few days. Such models require the participants to put their rest of the research tasks on hold for the duration of the capacity-building. The ZEF model, on the other hand, required the participants to not put their regular tasks on hold, rather use the delivered skills and tools to enhance their job performance. Thirdly, the content design of many of above mentioned initiatives is that a host of knowledge, skills, insights, frameworks, and tools are presented to the participants and the participants are then left to decide whether or not to deploy these in their actual IDR practice. The ZEF model required the participants to modify, adapt and use the skills, knowledge and tools delivered in actual practice and provide a feedback to the process. Finally, the above- mentioned training programs are of top-down nature, offering little or no feedback or monitoring mechanism of participant’s actual practice. The ZEF capacity-building model, in contrast, was by design a reflective mix of both top-down and bottom up designs. ZEF initially conceived the major themes of the successive trainings, but the content, style,

organization, and even the choice of the trainer was influenced by the participants through their feedback. Each training session had lessons from the previous one incorporated into the design, content and method of delivery (see Chapter 4).

These differences in capacity-building pose new research questions compared to those which are addressed in the literature so far. The following section elaborates the main research question and the sub-questions relevant to this inquiry.

The main research question for the present study was:

To what extent and how did ZEF’s model of structured and longitudinal capacity

building shape and nurture interdisciplinarity amongst its innovation teams of collaborating scientific staff?

The main research question is studied through several sub questions, which were used as guidance for the study:

3.5.1 Role of longitudinal capacity-building in nurturing Interdisciplinarity

a) The FTI teams went through a tailored and targeted capacity-building program to equip them with essential concepts, approaches and tools to work inter- and transdisciplinary. Questions to be addressed on this include: What were the characteristics, strengths and weaknesses of the longitudinal capacity-building model that ZEF used in nurturing interdisciplinarity and did it contribute towards understanding of the team members? Has the capacity building program facilitated their understanding of the need to work interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary? Has it facilitated collaboration? These questions are largely discussed in Chapter 4.

3.5.2 Epistemological and demographic factors and Interdisciplinarity How did the differences in disciplinary background, nationality, age, and location of the member scientists shape the team processes and impact the team performance within various FTI teams, and in what way?

The disciplinary differences to a large extent tend to reproduce in most situations and disappear very slowly (Mollinga, 2008:18), the collaboration amongst disciplines may result in serious communication problems right from the outset. Besides, each of the FTI teams comprised of members from different age groups and nationalities, differing in professional maturity, cultural styles, languages, etc. These differences might have influenced the teamwork. These issues are discussed in Chapter 5.

3.5.3 Method of Appointment and Interdisciplinarity

Does the voluntary and involuntary participation in IDR teams influences the achievements in IDR?

For various FTI teams most of the scientists did not choose their FTI group themselves in the first place, and were largely appointed to various groups depending upon the perceived relevance of their disciplines to the chosen innovation in question. Only a few Ph.D. students chose their groups as a research interest. Many of the FTI team members therefore might not have wanted to collaborate in the first place with other members of the team. Chapter 5 examines issues related to method of appointment.

3.5.4 Location of Team member and Interdisciplinarity

Did physical location of team members influence the team collaboration, and in what way? FTI team members were located at the research sites in Urgench, in Tashkent, and in Bonn. Many times, they needed to collaborate virtually through emails, telephones, and other internet-based messaging software. The teams whose most members were located at spatially different locations undertook more virtual communications than those teams whose members were most of the time located at one place. Such virtual teams might have experienced additional communication and understanding issues. The performance and challenges of collocated and dispersed teams are discussed in Chapters 5,6, and 7.

3.5.5 Contextual and managerial factors and Interdisciplinarity

How did facilitation, project management, and other contextual factors in which these collaborations took place, fostered or impeded IDR? As explained in Chapter 2, ZEF’s projects are carried out in a specific context. The nature and organization of Uzbekistan project, its management and facilitation mechanisms might have influenced the nature, degree and outcomes of the IDR. These are deliberated in detail in Chapter 2 and further discussed as a running theme throughout the study.

The inductive nature of the inquiry needed grounded evidence for which empirical data were required. The data were collected using various methods and techniques which are discussed in the following section.