Summarizing emerging themes from the implementation phase of CS studies

In brief, the shared CS introductory studies seem to have aimed at creating a basis for interprofessional design collaboration and sustainability dialogues. The fundamental idea for the joint content is to prime students from several fields to work together around a shared problem, involving value dialogues on

sustainability along the way. The actual collaboration is then taken toward a real-world setting in project-based study modules introduced by each participating department.

Like the initiator data, the interview material from the second interview set was first coded and analyzed independently. However, after writing the analysis up as a story, the themes were re-evaluated and restructured. In this sense, the themes here continue the rationale that was set up in the initiator analysis. The following five general themes are elaborated from teacher interviews (see Table 35).

Tackling novelty and complexity

In CS, many components of the shared introductory courses were newly planned for the program, with a special emphasis on sustainability as a context for action.

The challenges of sustainability are identified as wicked — “there are complex, dynamic systems involved” [#7] — and interprofessional collaboration is identified as the main solution in tackling them. New study content, however, calls for the evaluation and assessment of the outcomes. In CS, “we’re kind of learning by doing and it’s a very experimental program,” but after a certain amount of time “we have the responsibility to then produce results on how we are doing things, what are our tools and methods, and how do they work” [#9b]. In general, the constant evolution of content calls for a flexible and reflective approach to teaching. New content was revisited in various projects, some of which eventually became more established.

As in the initiator interviews, the idea was “just go and do it and see what happens,”

and this is perceived fitting “if you think about the name of the program, Creative Sustainability” [#10]. As the challenges in focus were “about multidisciplinary and rather new issues in sustainability” there was not a clearly “established path for each profession”: instead it was “something students need to develop themselves” [#9a].

Expanding processes of learning

In general, the idea was to expand the professional views on sustainability along with the understanding on which CS as a study program operated. Teachers also eagerly connected their other encounters with CS content and teaching.

Eventually, the CS students went “outside of the university with their projects,”

resulting in “their professional development and personal development” [#9b] and an increased awareness of CS outside the program. Such expansive and

transdisciplinary activities of outreach were also supported by the program director.

Projects on courses and in advanced core study modules acted as platforms to expand collaboration toward new collaborators. In the context of interprofessional sustainability, there is a constant need to expand dialogues outside the like-minded — whether in relation to one’s profession or values — “to really explain your ideas to somebody who’s completely on the outside and argue those ideas, why they are valid” [#9a]. Facilitating collaboration, however, does not always mean learning. Instead, one has to structure “the act of learning” [#5] with “very cleverly designed tasks to learn.” The theories and activities utilized “must support the learning objectives,” which are well described [#5]. Building from well prepared learning objectives may help to “come backwards to the tasks, to the theories, to the practices,” to “support the learning processes” [#5].

Sharing initiative

CS students and the contributing teaching staff were often very motivated.

Various types of peer learning and expansive capacity-building for sustainability dialogues took place between staff, but also with and within the student

community. This proactive approach was often strongly supported by the

teaching staff and program management, as “when students are developing ideas,”

these should be communicated “all over the world […] to develop their own ideas but also to develop themselves personally” [#9b]. In a sense, giving students experiences of such leadership also means capacity-building for the program.

Much of the early content of CS was built on discussions held within the

preparations board and through the group members’ contacts. Still, in developing the pilot content, some participants became collaborators in teaching (as in both Systems Thinking and Creative Teamwork courses, for example), and several outside contacts were supported in various project collaborations. Later on, student initiatives and activities led to full-scale projects and to the

implementation of new course content. Such an approach to initiating studies and activities in fluid collaboration with the program leadership was often the case when introducing new content, projects, student and staff activities, or other novel interactions.

Institutional constraints and challenges

The core CS teaching staff were in general motivated to develop the CS community and content. However, there were also several constraints to the development of content, and even continuation. The biggest constraint addressed in all the interview material was the scarcity of time. While amongst the core CS staff “people are pretty invested in the program and generally it’s possible to find time amongst the teaching community” [#9b], there are also “some professors or teachers that we don’t really get a chance to discuss topics in the program with because they simply don’t have the time” [#9b].

Institutional constraints and the resulting challenges were also visible in the changes of personnel, based on the availability of doctoral students as assistants, or visiting teachers and hourly-paid lecturers, or researchers tied to specific project funding. The differences in academic schedules, and the practices of decision-making and development of study content can also cause problems. In CS, these have often been different in different schools and departments, although through the Aalto merger they have started to conform. Furthermore, the overall structure of studies in academic terms and annual courses creates a natural sequence for developmental activity.

Developing one’s own (teaching) profession

While the educators are aware of the potential of interprofessional collaboration, they still approach the emphases in teaching content mainly on a professional basis, based on their disciplinary experiences and perspective. Personal interests are connected to the CS program topics, and the broadness of the program and its activities makes this easily possible. In approaching these interests, students are also perceived as resources performing the learning on courses to serve the professional development of the teacher.

Based on the interviews, however, the teachers are often also rather unaware of what teaching takes place on other courses. Also, in relation to institutional constraints, there is little time to contribute to the overall development of CS content. Instead, encounters with CS students become limited to only a few course sessions, and a more comprehensive understanding of the learning in CS overall is difficult to form. In the end, only a few of the several teachers were involved in CS teaching (shared introductory studies or advanced studies), and most of them were operating mainly in their own schools and departments, with only occasional encounters with CS students and other CS teachers.

Overall, the materials and interviews with teachers identify the implementation of CS studies as a journey into the unknown, but with confidence that such an approach, supported by interprofessional mediation, can result in a new understanding and professionalism. The initiative to develop the content and approach was also extended to the students themselves.

Table 35. Identified themes of interest in interviews II: educators.

Theme Description Example instance(s) Tackling

“in today's complex world, we deal with complex problems, and it's quite clear that a single person cannot solve these” [#5]

“they're wicked problems, they're complex problems, and I think it simply needs…you need to have different types of expertise in the process” [#6a]

Expanding processes of learning

In teaching, the idea was to expand the students’

“it's important to somehow validate outside one's own path of thinking that the frame-work actually makes sense” [#9a]

“different people can approach the same problem […] but for different people it’s still different... It simulates well some real-world situation” [#7]

“there are so many theories and models that perhaps cannot be adopted immedi-ately so that they could be discussed […]

it belongs to the learning process” [#7]

Sharing

initiative Overall, the initiative for developing content and

“the support for teaching has been really great […] it’s also really open to new ideas, so that teachers who have ideas for courses can easily go to her and discuss and estab-lish a course” [#9b]

[The program director] “offers many op-portunities for students or teachers to run workshops and the issues that they see as important” [#9a] aca-demia, mainly the lack of time and ability to

“the practical issues in organizing the course, and in schedules, and. the whole annual rhythm, and then in weekly timeta-bles… that isn't easy” [#8]

“teachers are really burdened with, for ex-ample, funding […] the professors are bur-dened with administrative work, when it comes to deciding on budgets and things like that. In the end, I don't know if that's what either category of people is really hired to do” [#9b] never-theless act mainly on a professional basis, based on their disciplinary ex-perience and perspec-tive.

“I think we've managed to introduce some-thing new, like, thinking. I'm confident that we've succeeded in that […] But then have we got them [students] inspired — as I al-ways consider that important — there are probably some big differences”[#8]

“each professional probably has a different idea of what success is. So, they're going to set their goals differently” [#6a]

4.3. Experiencing: Developing Interprofessional