É. Kalmár
info
Please Note
<p>This page displays the records of the person named above and is not linked to a unique person identifier. This record may need to be merged to a profile.</p>
21 records found
1
To be able to tackle the volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous challenges of our world, current and future employees need to acquire fresh perspectives and a transdisciplinary approach (Pokojska, 2022). To prepare STEM students to be able to deal with such issues, we need to prepare them with the competencies that are required to navigate in such uncertain and complex environments, such as working beyond their sectors and disciplines and dealing with various stakeholders (Amelink, Grote, Norris, & Grohs, 2024). Challenge-based education provides the possibility for students to learn such skills through solving real-world challenges (Gallagher & Savage, 2023). Students participating in challenge-based education experience various levels of uncertainty and ambiguity (Feng, Wang, Huo, & Luo, 2024). The extent to which a person can tolerate ambiguity (also called tolerance of ambiguity) is often seen as a personality trait (Furnham & Marks, 2013), while it has been shown to depend on various factors, such as the context of the problem and the educational environment (Durrheim & Foster, 1997). People with low ambiguity tolerance see ambiguous situations as a source of discomfort or even as a threat and avoid these situations or leave such projects (maybe not physically, but operationally and psychologically). People with a high tolerance for ambiguity can feel more comfortable in such projects. They can withstand the discomfort of an ambiguous situation and seek for information to be able to find a solution (Stoycheva, 2010). While it has been suggested that ambiguity tolerance, or at least the soft skills related to the tolerance of ambiguity, can be trained (Saarikoski & Rybushkina, 2019), there are limited pedagogical instructions on how to help students better manage ambiguity in their challenge-based projects. In this workshop, we will discuss what ambiguity means for students in challenge-based education and what kinds of response mechanisms students show in such situations. The workshop participants will then use the reflection tool designed by Yiwei Tao, which is aimed at helping student teams participating in challenge-based education identify the causes of uncertainty and ambiguity and discuss their coping mechanisms. After using the intervention tool, the participants will reflect on their teaching practices and their experiences with students dealing with ambiguity and uncertainty, as well as on the tool. The tool will be available to participants for educational purposes. Workshop structure: 60 minutes – total time 10 minutes - introduction on ambiguity in challenge-based education, introduction of the intervention 5 minutes – team formation, introduction of team members 30 minutes – teams participating in the puzzle intervention 15 minutes – reflection on educational practices, on students coping with ambiguity
References:
Amelink, C. T., Grote, D. M., Norris, M. B., & Grohs, J. R. (2024). Transdisciplinary learning opportunities: exploring differences in complex thinking skill development between STEM and non-STEM majors. Innovative Higher Education, 49(1), 153-176.
Durrheim, K., & Foster, D. (1997). Tolerance of ambiguity as a content specific construct. Personality & individual differences, 22(5), 741-750.
Feng, X., Wang, X., Huo, Y., & Luo, Y. (2024). Inquiry in uncertainty-nursing students' learning experience in challenge-based learning: A qualitative study. Nurse Education Today, 135, 106093.
Furnham, A., & Marks, J. (2013). Tolerance of ambiguity: A review of the recent literature. Psychology, 4(09), 717-728. Gallagher, S. E., & Savage, T. (2023). Challenge-based learning in higher education: an exploratory literature review. Teaching in Higher Education, 28(6), 1135-1157.
Pokojska, J. (2022). Competences of the Future as a Transdisciplinary Issue. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 13th International Multi-Conference on Complexity, Informatics and Cybernetics: IMCIC.
Saarikoski, L., & Rybushkina, S. (2019). Developing tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty by interdisciplinary intensive courses.
Stoycheva, K. (2010). Tolerance for ambiguity, creativity, and personality. Bulgarian Journal of Psychology(1-4), 178-188. ...
References:
Amelink, C. T., Grote, D. M., Norris, M. B., & Grohs, J. R. (2024). Transdisciplinary learning opportunities: exploring differences in complex thinking skill development between STEM and non-STEM majors. Innovative Higher Education, 49(1), 153-176.
Durrheim, K., & Foster, D. (1997). Tolerance of ambiguity as a content specific construct. Personality & individual differences, 22(5), 741-750.
Feng, X., Wang, X., Huo, Y., & Luo, Y. (2024). Inquiry in uncertainty-nursing students' learning experience in challenge-based learning: A qualitative study. Nurse Education Today, 135, 106093.
Furnham, A., & Marks, J. (2013). Tolerance of ambiguity: A review of the recent literature. Psychology, 4(09), 717-728. Gallagher, S. E., & Savage, T. (2023). Challenge-based learning in higher education: an exploratory literature review. Teaching in Higher Education, 28(6), 1135-1157.
Pokojska, J. (2022). Competences of the Future as a Transdisciplinary Issue. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 13th International Multi-Conference on Complexity, Informatics and Cybernetics: IMCIC.
Saarikoski, L., & Rybushkina, S. (2019). Developing tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty by interdisciplinary intensive courses.
Stoycheva, K. (2010). Tolerance for ambiguity, creativity, and personality. Bulgarian Journal of Psychology(1-4), 178-188. ...
To be able to tackle the volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous challenges of our world, current and future employees need to acquire fresh perspectives and a transdisciplinary approach (Pokojska, 2022). To prepare STEM students to be able to deal with such issues, we need to prepare them with the competencies that are required to navigate in such uncertain and complex environments, such as working beyond their sectors and disciplines and dealing with various stakeholders (Amelink, Grote, Norris, & Grohs, 2024). Challenge-based education provides the possibility for students to learn such skills through solving real-world challenges (Gallagher & Savage, 2023). Students participating in challenge-based education experience various levels of uncertainty and ambiguity (Feng, Wang, Huo, & Luo, 2024). The extent to which a person can tolerate ambiguity (also called tolerance of ambiguity) is often seen as a personality trait (Furnham & Marks, 2013), while it has been shown to depend on various factors, such as the context of the problem and the educational environment (Durrheim & Foster, 1997). People with low ambiguity tolerance see ambiguous situations as a source of discomfort or even as a threat and avoid these situations or leave such projects (maybe not physically, but operationally and psychologically). People with a high tolerance for ambiguity can feel more comfortable in such projects. They can withstand the discomfort of an ambiguous situation and seek for information to be able to find a solution (Stoycheva, 2010). While it has been suggested that ambiguity tolerance, or at least the soft skills related to the tolerance of ambiguity, can be trained (Saarikoski & Rybushkina, 2019), there are limited pedagogical instructions on how to help students better manage ambiguity in their challenge-based projects. In this workshop, we will discuss what ambiguity means for students in challenge-based education and what kinds of response mechanisms students show in such situations. The workshop participants will then use the reflection tool designed by Yiwei Tao, which is aimed at helping student teams participating in challenge-based education identify the causes of uncertainty and ambiguity and discuss their coping mechanisms. After using the intervention tool, the participants will reflect on their teaching practices and their experiences with students dealing with ambiguity and uncertainty, as well as on the tool. The tool will be available to participants for educational purposes. Workshop structure: 60 minutes – total time 10 minutes - introduction on ambiguity in challenge-based education, introduction of the intervention 5 minutes – team formation, introduction of team members 30 minutes – teams participating in the puzzle intervention 15 minutes – reflection on educational practices, on students coping with ambiguity
References:
Amelink, C. T., Grote, D. M., Norris, M. B., & Grohs, J. R. (2024). Transdisciplinary learning opportunities: exploring differences in complex thinking skill development between STEM and non-STEM majors. Innovative Higher Education, 49(1), 153-176.
Durrheim, K., & Foster, D. (1997). Tolerance of ambiguity as a content specific construct. Personality & individual differences, 22(5), 741-750.
Feng, X., Wang, X., Huo, Y., & Luo, Y. (2024). Inquiry in uncertainty-nursing students' learning experience in challenge-based learning: A qualitative study. Nurse Education Today, 135, 106093.
Furnham, A., & Marks, J. (2013). Tolerance of ambiguity: A review of the recent literature. Psychology, 4(09), 717-728. Gallagher, S. E., & Savage, T. (2023). Challenge-based learning in higher education: an exploratory literature review. Teaching in Higher Education, 28(6), 1135-1157.
Pokojska, J. (2022). Competences of the Future as a Transdisciplinary Issue. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 13th International Multi-Conference on Complexity, Informatics and Cybernetics: IMCIC.
Saarikoski, L., & Rybushkina, S. (2019). Developing tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty by interdisciplinary intensive courses.
Stoycheva, K. (2010). Tolerance for ambiguity, creativity, and personality. Bulgarian Journal of Psychology(1-4), 178-188.
References:
Amelink, C. T., Grote, D. M., Norris, M. B., & Grohs, J. R. (2024). Transdisciplinary learning opportunities: exploring differences in complex thinking skill development between STEM and non-STEM majors. Innovative Higher Education, 49(1), 153-176.
Durrheim, K., & Foster, D. (1997). Tolerance of ambiguity as a content specific construct. Personality & individual differences, 22(5), 741-750.
Feng, X., Wang, X., Huo, Y., & Luo, Y. (2024). Inquiry in uncertainty-nursing students' learning experience in challenge-based learning: A qualitative study. Nurse Education Today, 135, 106093.
Furnham, A., & Marks, J. (2013). Tolerance of ambiguity: A review of the recent literature. Psychology, 4(09), 717-728. Gallagher, S. E., & Savage, T. (2023). Challenge-based learning in higher education: an exploratory literature review. Teaching in Higher Education, 28(6), 1135-1157.
Pokojska, J. (2022). Competences of the Future as a Transdisciplinary Issue. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 13th International Multi-Conference on Complexity, Informatics and Cybernetics: IMCIC.
Saarikoski, L., & Rybushkina, S. (2019). Developing tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty by interdisciplinary intensive courses.
Stoycheva, K. (2010). Tolerance for ambiguity, creativity, and personality. Bulgarian Journal of Psychology(1-4), 178-188.
Change to Care
Transforming Our Education and Focus on Students’ Identity Development
Book chapter
(2025)
-
S.M. Flipse, I. Akay, Jorge Martinez, A.E. Roseboom, M.G.C. Bosch-Rekveldt, P.W. Chan, W. Chu, T. Geydan, E. Kalmar, J. van Keulen, H. Khodaei, M. Leijten
At TU Delft, we are not just educating engineers; we are shaping the future of engineering and engineering education. We are empowering our students to become the kind of leaders who can navigate complexity, embrace change, and build a better world, also under VUCA conditions. In this manifesto, we develop a line of reasoning to rethink our education, moving away from ‘professional problem solvers’ to ‘individuals who care for our collective future from an engineering background.’
We believe that TU Delft has a unique opportunity to lead the way in reimagining engineering education for the VUCA world. By embracing the principles outlined in this manifesto, we can empower our students to become the future-proof engineers that our society needs. We invite all members of the TU Delft community – faculty, students, and staff – to join us on this exciting journey. ...
We believe that TU Delft has a unique opportunity to lead the way in reimagining engineering education for the VUCA world. By embracing the principles outlined in this manifesto, we can empower our students to become the future-proof engineers that our society needs. We invite all members of the TU Delft community – faculty, students, and staff – to join us on this exciting journey. ...
At TU Delft, we are not just educating engineers; we are shaping the future of engineering and engineering education. We are empowering our students to become the kind of leaders who can navigate complexity, embrace change, and build a better world, also under VUCA conditions. In this manifesto, we develop a line of reasoning to rethink our education, moving away from ‘professional problem solvers’ to ‘individuals who care for our collective future from an engineering background.’
We believe that TU Delft has a unique opportunity to lead the way in reimagining engineering education for the VUCA world. By embracing the principles outlined in this manifesto, we can empower our students to become the future-proof engineers that our society needs. We invite all members of the TU Delft community – faculty, students, and staff – to join us on this exciting journey.
We believe that TU Delft has a unique opportunity to lead the way in reimagining engineering education for the VUCA world. By embracing the principles outlined in this manifesto, we can empower our students to become the future-proof engineers that our society needs. We invite all members of the TU Delft community – faculty, students, and staff – to join us on this exciting journey.
Journal article
(2025)
-
Johanna Colgrove, Hylkje Geertsema, Floortje d'Hont, Éva Kalmár, Joost Maarschalkerweerd, Dimphna H. Meijer, Jill Slinger, Martijn Wackers, Hegias Mira-Bontenbal, More authors...
As current challenges become more complex, bringing together people from different backgrounds to solve multifaceted problems has become crucial in the STEM field. There is growing recognition of the need to explicitly teach students the skills necessary to conduct inter- and transdisciplinary science, including communication, collaboration, reflection, and understanding of the research process. This set of skills is complex and requires acquiring knowledge and practice and changing attitudes. Moreover, these processes also require the cultivation of emotional skills, which are often neglected in the STEM field, especially in project-based learning programs that primarily emphasize technical expertise. As educators, we recognize our need to develop these competencies as well. This case study reports on the co-creation journey of an education program designed to teach collaboration with a strong emotional intelligence component in biomedical research to bachelor’s students while providing them with a project to practice. This program also provides an environment for scientists, PhD students, and us as an education design team to improve our skills. We report on what we have done and learned from each other and our students in 360º education, including the program design process evaluation, which tends to be overlooked in the development process of such educational programs.
...
As current challenges become more complex, bringing together people from different backgrounds to solve multifaceted problems has become crucial in the STEM field. There is growing recognition of the need to explicitly teach students the skills necessary to conduct inter- and transdisciplinary science, including communication, collaboration, reflection, and understanding of the research process. This set of skills is complex and requires acquiring knowledge and practice and changing attitudes. Moreover, these processes also require the cultivation of emotional skills, which are often neglected in the STEM field, especially in project-based learning programs that primarily emphasize technical expertise. As educators, we recognize our need to develop these competencies as well. This case study reports on the co-creation journey of an education program designed to teach collaboration with a strong emotional intelligence component in biomedical research to bachelor’s students while providing them with a project to practice. This program also provides an environment for scientists, PhD students, and us as an education design team to improve our skills. We report on what we have done and learned from each other and our students in 360º education, including the program design process evaluation, which tends to be overlooked in the development process of such educational programs.
Engineering problems are not naturally restricted to artificial discipline-oriented boundaries (Ertas et al. 2003). To solve such complex problems, future engineers need to collaborate with both (academic) experts and non-academic stakeholders from different fields and backgrounds and take various perspectives into account. Societal stakeholders can contribute valuable input to support the creation of engineering solutions. Addressing big challenges (as the 14 grand engineering challenges formulated by the National Academy of Engineering) demands a joint effort of diverse teams, different disciplines, different companies, people viewing and tackling the problems from different perspectives and angles. The students we are educating now are likely to be part of such teams, which are not separated from the economic, societal and political aspects of our society. One of the main questions that we thus need to ask, whether we are educating students now to be part of such inter- and transdisciplinary teams and whether they can navigate in the societal trends.
As a result, in any engineering development, future engineers must consistently be aware of the size and extent of the impact. The fact that this comes with major uncertainties implies that future engineers should not only be educated in the “hard” technique and management of stakeholders but also in how to deal with uncertainty. Technical and social systems in society have become complex or wicked; consequently, a planned and control-focused approach will invariably fail. Even when not designing them themselves, engineers need skills to cope with unanticipated events, values and stakeholder positions.
This requires students to learn how to anticipate the social, technical, societal and environmental impact of their actions. For this, they need skills that transcend the ‘hard’ scientific and technical skills related to disciplinary education and focus also on e.g. transdisciplinary skills. Tan et al. (2019) listed systems thinking, metacognition, empathy, and open-mindedness as essential for reaching transdisciplinarity.
Much has been written about the necessity of such skills, but less about how these could be translated to effective learning and teaching strategies for specific, dedicated and desired learning outcomes fitting to the development level (1st to 5th year students) of the students within their respective programs (BSc, Minor, Master) that are also assessable in an educational context.
In this session, we will briefly discuss the necessity of an approach to dissecting transdisciplinary tools into their basic concepts, collecting already existing pedagogical methods, and designing new ways to practice these skills. Then, we will ask the audience to participate in a quick brainstorm session to generate ideas for how systems thinking, metacognition, empathy, or open-mindedness could be incorporated in educational programmes. After sharing the results of the brainstorming, our panel will discuss some important aspects of transdisciplinary education we came across during or university-wide research on teaching practices, led by statements and dilemmas. ...
As a result, in any engineering development, future engineers must consistently be aware of the size and extent of the impact. The fact that this comes with major uncertainties implies that future engineers should not only be educated in the “hard” technique and management of stakeholders but also in how to deal with uncertainty. Technical and social systems in society have become complex or wicked; consequently, a planned and control-focused approach will invariably fail. Even when not designing them themselves, engineers need skills to cope with unanticipated events, values and stakeholder positions.
This requires students to learn how to anticipate the social, technical, societal and environmental impact of their actions. For this, they need skills that transcend the ‘hard’ scientific and technical skills related to disciplinary education and focus also on e.g. transdisciplinary skills. Tan et al. (2019) listed systems thinking, metacognition, empathy, and open-mindedness as essential for reaching transdisciplinarity.
Much has been written about the necessity of such skills, but less about how these could be translated to effective learning and teaching strategies for specific, dedicated and desired learning outcomes fitting to the development level (1st to 5th year students) of the students within their respective programs (BSc, Minor, Master) that are also assessable in an educational context.
In this session, we will briefly discuss the necessity of an approach to dissecting transdisciplinary tools into their basic concepts, collecting already existing pedagogical methods, and designing new ways to practice these skills. Then, we will ask the audience to participate in a quick brainstorm session to generate ideas for how systems thinking, metacognition, empathy, or open-mindedness could be incorporated in educational programmes. After sharing the results of the brainstorming, our panel will discuss some important aspects of transdisciplinary education we came across during or university-wide research on teaching practices, led by statements and dilemmas. ...
Engineering problems are not naturally restricted to artificial discipline-oriented boundaries (Ertas et al. 2003). To solve such complex problems, future engineers need to collaborate with both (academic) experts and non-academic stakeholders from different fields and backgrounds and take various perspectives into account. Societal stakeholders can contribute valuable input to support the creation of engineering solutions. Addressing big challenges (as the 14 grand engineering challenges formulated by the National Academy of Engineering) demands a joint effort of diverse teams, different disciplines, different companies, people viewing and tackling the problems from different perspectives and angles. The students we are educating now are likely to be part of such teams, which are not separated from the economic, societal and political aspects of our society. One of the main questions that we thus need to ask, whether we are educating students now to be part of such inter- and transdisciplinary teams and whether they can navigate in the societal trends.
As a result, in any engineering development, future engineers must consistently be aware of the size and extent of the impact. The fact that this comes with major uncertainties implies that future engineers should not only be educated in the “hard” technique and management of stakeholders but also in how to deal with uncertainty. Technical and social systems in society have become complex or wicked; consequently, a planned and control-focused approach will invariably fail. Even when not designing them themselves, engineers need skills to cope with unanticipated events, values and stakeholder positions.
This requires students to learn how to anticipate the social, technical, societal and environmental impact of their actions. For this, they need skills that transcend the ‘hard’ scientific and technical skills related to disciplinary education and focus also on e.g. transdisciplinary skills. Tan et al. (2019) listed systems thinking, metacognition, empathy, and open-mindedness as essential for reaching transdisciplinarity.
Much has been written about the necessity of such skills, but less about how these could be translated to effective learning and teaching strategies for specific, dedicated and desired learning outcomes fitting to the development level (1st to 5th year students) of the students within their respective programs (BSc, Minor, Master) that are also assessable in an educational context.
In this session, we will briefly discuss the necessity of an approach to dissecting transdisciplinary tools into their basic concepts, collecting already existing pedagogical methods, and designing new ways to practice these skills. Then, we will ask the audience to participate in a quick brainstorm session to generate ideas for how systems thinking, metacognition, empathy, or open-mindedness could be incorporated in educational programmes. After sharing the results of the brainstorming, our panel will discuss some important aspects of transdisciplinary education we came across during or university-wide research on teaching practices, led by statements and dilemmas.
As a result, in any engineering development, future engineers must consistently be aware of the size and extent of the impact. The fact that this comes with major uncertainties implies that future engineers should not only be educated in the “hard” technique and management of stakeholders but also in how to deal with uncertainty. Technical and social systems in society have become complex or wicked; consequently, a planned and control-focused approach will invariably fail. Even when not designing them themselves, engineers need skills to cope with unanticipated events, values and stakeholder positions.
This requires students to learn how to anticipate the social, technical, societal and environmental impact of their actions. For this, they need skills that transcend the ‘hard’ scientific and technical skills related to disciplinary education and focus also on e.g. transdisciplinary skills. Tan et al. (2019) listed systems thinking, metacognition, empathy, and open-mindedness as essential for reaching transdisciplinarity.
Much has been written about the necessity of such skills, but less about how these could be translated to effective learning and teaching strategies for specific, dedicated and desired learning outcomes fitting to the development level (1st to 5th year students) of the students within their respective programs (BSc, Minor, Master) that are also assessable in an educational context.
In this session, we will briefly discuss the necessity of an approach to dissecting transdisciplinary tools into their basic concepts, collecting already existing pedagogical methods, and designing new ways to practice these skills. Then, we will ask the audience to participate in a quick brainstorm session to generate ideas for how systems thinking, metacognition, empathy, or open-mindedness could be incorporated in educational programmes. After sharing the results of the brainstorming, our panel will discuss some important aspects of transdisciplinary education we came across during or university-wide research on teaching practices, led by statements and dilemmas.
UNSPEAKABLE
Hidden curriculum of transdisciplinary skills
This project (poster) explores and maps transdisciplinary skills in the TU Delft curricula and challenge based education. Courses to address these skills have been identified by means of keyword search in the course descriptions. Interviews are used to explore the transdisciplinary approaches addressing reasons, values, learning activities, assessment and professionalisation. The exploration was initiated by a multidisciplinary group of educators from different TU Delft faculties. The initiators noticed that transdisciplinary skills are regularly part of a hidden curriculum, delicate to define or grasp, bear different names, are rarely made explicit or maybe even are considered a taboo. As such, the transdisciplinary skills remain unspeakable.
The exploration is made within the Technical University of Delft. It is to be expected that lessons learned will not be exclusive to this context and can be applied in other settings that aim for societal impact of science and education as well. ...
The exploration is made within the Technical University of Delft. It is to be expected that lessons learned will not be exclusive to this context and can be applied in other settings that aim for societal impact of science and education as well. ...
This project (poster) explores and maps transdisciplinary skills in the TU Delft curricula and challenge based education. Courses to address these skills have been identified by means of keyword search in the course descriptions. Interviews are used to explore the transdisciplinary approaches addressing reasons, values, learning activities, assessment and professionalisation. The exploration was initiated by a multidisciplinary group of educators from different TU Delft faculties. The initiators noticed that transdisciplinary skills are regularly part of a hidden curriculum, delicate to define or grasp, bear different names, are rarely made explicit or maybe even are considered a taboo. As such, the transdisciplinary skills remain unspeakable.
The exploration is made within the Technical University of Delft. It is to be expected that lessons learned will not be exclusive to this context and can be applied in other settings that aim for societal impact of science and education as well.
The exploration is made within the Technical University of Delft. It is to be expected that lessons learned will not be exclusive to this context and can be applied in other settings that aim for societal impact of science and education as well.
Why do we do science?
Navigating the paths of individual excellence and team science
In this whitepaper, we address an issue that has been emerging within the academic community: how do we
align our personal career perspectives with ideas of democratic, open and inclusive research and innovation
strategies? We address this issue and voice our concerns regarding the governance of this alignment within our
lovely institution in the hope that it provides a starting point for further deliberation amongst our scholars and
students.
...
In this whitepaper, we address an issue that has been emerging within the academic community: how do we
align our personal career perspectives with ideas of democratic, open and inclusive research and innovation
strategies? We address this issue and voice our concerns regarding the governance of this alignment within our
lovely institution in the hope that it provides a starting point for further deliberation amongst our scholars and
students.
The COVID-19 paradox of online collaborative education
When you cannot physically meet, you need more social interactions
Journal article
(2022)
-
Eva Kalmar, Tom Aarts, Chuntzu Fan, Enya Berrevoets, Melissa Trotsenburg, Loes Maton, Jill van Remundt, Ela Sari, Lee Wen Omar, Emiel Beinema, Robbert Winkel, Maarten van der Sanden, Esther Bosman, Camera Ford, Lisa de Kluijver, Josine Beets, Lisette Veldkamp, Pauline Timmers, Diede Besseling, Joris Koopman
Collaborative learning is a teaching method that brings together students to discuss a topic important for a given course or curriculum and solve a related problem or create a product. By doing this, learners create knowledge together and gain 21st –century skills such as communication, critical thinking, decision making, leadership and conflict management. Universities had to close their campuses and turn their education fully online in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which created a forced step in the evolution of the digitalisation of collaborative teaching. How did TU Delft face this challenge? How did the students experience the online version of collaborative learning? How did distant learning affect their motivation? This article presents four student team projects investigating these questions from the collaborative learning perspective. One of the significant findings of these projects is the lack of socio-emotional interactions during online collaborative work. We present a few guidelines on how to enable these interactions when designing online or blended collaborative education.
...
Collaborative learning is a teaching method that brings together students to discuss a topic important for a given course or curriculum and solve a related problem or create a product. By doing this, learners create knowledge together and gain 21st –century skills such as communication, critical thinking, decision making, leadership and conflict management. Universities had to close their campuses and turn their education fully online in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which created a forced step in the evolution of the digitalisation of collaborative teaching. How did TU Delft face this challenge? How did the students experience the online version of collaborative learning? How did distant learning affect their motivation? This article presents four student team projects investigating these questions from the collaborative learning perspective. One of the significant findings of these projects is the lack of socio-emotional interactions during online collaborative work. We present a few guidelines on how to enable these interactions when designing online or blended collaborative education.
Science Communication has shifted from decreasing knowledge deficit to engage and initiate discussions with the public about, for example, vaccination denial or fear from GMOs. These problems are complex, and current public engagement practices are tackling them only from a single perspective, leaving complexity and some stakeholders out of the picture. Co-design is frequently used to solve complex problems and to engage different stakeholders actively, but not in Science Communication. Co-design is a process in which users and other stakeholders are involved in some phases of design to create a product, service or experience together.
SEED, a 2-day-long co-creation think tank was organised around the topic of Blockchain for Science. The aim of SEED was to create multidisciplinary teams out of stakeholders to solve critical issues of the scientific life cycle. Librarians, Blockchain developers, researchers from natural and social sciences were sitting together with lawyers, grant officers and patent officers to formulate concrete problems and to come up with Blockchain-based solutions. Six teams were working on the issues, and at the end of the sessions, they have voted for the best project which was developed to a minimal viable product.
Qualitative analysis of team processes during the think tank show that co-design helped the freshly formed multistakeholder teams in initiating effective discussions in most cases. Analyzing the interrelations of the stakeholders and understanding other stakeholders’ perspectives helped the deeper understanding of the problems. Those teams, which discussed fundamental issues standing behind the problems more were able to come up with game-changing and creative solutions, compared to those in which participants had a fixed mindset.
Based on our experiences, we argue that co-design has the potential to initiate effective discussions between different stakeholders of science communication-related complex problems, leading to a deeper understanding of the problems and to more successful solutions. ...
SEED, a 2-day-long co-creation think tank was organised around the topic of Blockchain for Science. The aim of SEED was to create multidisciplinary teams out of stakeholders to solve critical issues of the scientific life cycle. Librarians, Blockchain developers, researchers from natural and social sciences were sitting together with lawyers, grant officers and patent officers to formulate concrete problems and to come up with Blockchain-based solutions. Six teams were working on the issues, and at the end of the sessions, they have voted for the best project which was developed to a minimal viable product.
Qualitative analysis of team processes during the think tank show that co-design helped the freshly formed multistakeholder teams in initiating effective discussions in most cases. Analyzing the interrelations of the stakeholders and understanding other stakeholders’ perspectives helped the deeper understanding of the problems. Those teams, which discussed fundamental issues standing behind the problems more were able to come up with game-changing and creative solutions, compared to those in which participants had a fixed mindset.
Based on our experiences, we argue that co-design has the potential to initiate effective discussions between different stakeholders of science communication-related complex problems, leading to a deeper understanding of the problems and to more successful solutions. ...
Science Communication has shifted from decreasing knowledge deficit to engage and initiate discussions with the public about, for example, vaccination denial or fear from GMOs. These problems are complex, and current public engagement practices are tackling them only from a single perspective, leaving complexity and some stakeholders out of the picture. Co-design is frequently used to solve complex problems and to engage different stakeholders actively, but not in Science Communication. Co-design is a process in which users and other stakeholders are involved in some phases of design to create a product, service or experience together.
SEED, a 2-day-long co-creation think tank was organised around the topic of Blockchain for Science. The aim of SEED was to create multidisciplinary teams out of stakeholders to solve critical issues of the scientific life cycle. Librarians, Blockchain developers, researchers from natural and social sciences were sitting together with lawyers, grant officers and patent officers to formulate concrete problems and to come up with Blockchain-based solutions. Six teams were working on the issues, and at the end of the sessions, they have voted for the best project which was developed to a minimal viable product.
Qualitative analysis of team processes during the think tank show that co-design helped the freshly formed multistakeholder teams in initiating effective discussions in most cases. Analyzing the interrelations of the stakeholders and understanding other stakeholders’ perspectives helped the deeper understanding of the problems. Those teams, which discussed fundamental issues standing behind the problems more were able to come up with game-changing and creative solutions, compared to those in which participants had a fixed mindset.
Based on our experiences, we argue that co-design has the potential to initiate effective discussions between different stakeholders of science communication-related complex problems, leading to a deeper understanding of the problems and to more successful solutions.
SEED, a 2-day-long co-creation think tank was organised around the topic of Blockchain for Science. The aim of SEED was to create multidisciplinary teams out of stakeholders to solve critical issues of the scientific life cycle. Librarians, Blockchain developers, researchers from natural and social sciences were sitting together with lawyers, grant officers and patent officers to formulate concrete problems and to come up with Blockchain-based solutions. Six teams were working on the issues, and at the end of the sessions, they have voted for the best project which was developed to a minimal viable product.
Qualitative analysis of team processes during the think tank show that co-design helped the freshly formed multistakeholder teams in initiating effective discussions in most cases. Analyzing the interrelations of the stakeholders and understanding other stakeholders’ perspectives helped the deeper understanding of the problems. Those teams, which discussed fundamental issues standing behind the problems more were able to come up with game-changing and creative solutions, compared to those in which participants had a fixed mindset.
Based on our experiences, we argue that co-design has the potential to initiate effective discussions between different stakeholders of science communication-related complex problems, leading to a deeper understanding of the problems and to more successful solutions.
In this series of comments, we argue for Science Communication as an enabler of transdisciplinary, integrative collaboration in the context of today’s complex, multi-stakeholder issues. Participatory design, as a collaborative method, is effective in achieving mutual learning, shared understandings, integrating disciplines and creating solutions that make sense in the multi-layered reality of today’s challenges. Science Communication, therefore, is communication design in transdisciplinary collaborations.
...
In this series of comments, we argue for Science Communication as an enabler of transdisciplinary, integrative collaboration in the context of today’s complex, multi-stakeholder issues. Participatory design, as a collaborative method, is effective in achieving mutual learning, shared understandings, integrating disciplines and creating solutions that make sense in the multi-layered reality of today’s challenges. Science Communication, therefore, is communication design in transdisciplinary collaborations.
Transdisciplinary team processes within the Dutch Blockchain Coalition
Reflection on transdisciplinary team processes within the Dutch Blockchain Coalition based on a case study of three teams
“Ben ik een roepende in de woestijn of die pionier die daadwerkelijk iets in beweging zet?” This question of one of the use case members of the Dutch Blockchain Coalition (DBC) highlights the precarious venture of its transdisciplinary efforts towards innovation. Transdisciplinary collaboration is key to fundamentally transforming blockchain applications for Dutch society. Such collaborative processes are highly complex though. The essential collaborative capability of collaborating partners is continuously (re)constructed in their interactions, making or breaking the teamwork. Understanding these group dynamics, therefore, is key to set the right stage for successful collective effort. The TU Delft Communication Design for Innovation department, member of the Delft Blockchain Lab, has studied three teams within the DBC to gain insights into transdisciplinary team processes within the network.
...
“Ben ik een roepende in de woestijn of die pionier die daadwerkelijk iets in beweging zet?” This question of one of the use case members of the Dutch Blockchain Coalition (DBC) highlights the precarious venture of its transdisciplinary efforts towards innovation. Transdisciplinary collaboration is key to fundamentally transforming blockchain applications for Dutch society. Such collaborative processes are highly complex though. The essential collaborative capability of collaborating partners is continuously (re)constructed in their interactions, making or breaking the teamwork. Understanding these group dynamics, therefore, is key to set the right stage for successful collective effort. The TU Delft Communication Design for Innovation department, member of the Delft Blockchain Lab, has studied three teams within the DBC to gain insights into transdisciplinary team processes within the network.
The Dutch Blockchain Coalition for transformation
Whitepaper on the evolution of the Dutch Blockchain Coalition
Connect and create. With this tagline, the Dutch Blockchain Coalition (DBC) works on the development of the upcoming technology of blockchain. In 2017 various partners from industry as well as government and knowledge institutions officially launched the coalition, a collaboration which aims to stimulate the development of blockchain applications for Dutch society.
After a period of foundation, the coalition is running and at a crucial stage of scaling-up. Capacities, abilities, ideas and concepts are available within the network to make further steps forward, but how to unleash these steps as a growing, ever-evolving network? This whitepaper aims to support the DBC’s scale-up by reflecting on its evolution from a network perspective and recommending next steps to move further towards transformative blockchain innovations. ...
After a period of foundation, the coalition is running and at a crucial stage of scaling-up. Capacities, abilities, ideas and concepts are available within the network to make further steps forward, but how to unleash these steps as a growing, ever-evolving network? This whitepaper aims to support the DBC’s scale-up by reflecting on its evolution from a network perspective and recommending next steps to move further towards transformative blockchain innovations. ...
Connect and create. With this tagline, the Dutch Blockchain Coalition (DBC) works on the development of the upcoming technology of blockchain. In 2017 various partners from industry as well as government and knowledge institutions officially launched the coalition, a collaboration which aims to stimulate the development of blockchain applications for Dutch society.
After a period of foundation, the coalition is running and at a crucial stage of scaling-up. Capacities, abilities, ideas and concepts are available within the network to make further steps forward, but how to unleash these steps as a growing, ever-evolving network? This whitepaper aims to support the DBC’s scale-up by reflecting on its evolution from a network perspective and recommending next steps to move further towards transformative blockchain innovations.
After a period of foundation, the coalition is running and at a crucial stage of scaling-up. Capacities, abilities, ideas and concepts are available within the network to make further steps forward, but how to unleash these steps as a growing, ever-evolving network? This whitepaper aims to support the DBC’s scale-up by reflecting on its evolution from a network perspective and recommending next steps to move further towards transformative blockchain innovations.
Blockchain innovation and framing in the Netherlands
How a technological object turns into a ‘hyperobject’
Journal article
(2019)
-
Arnoud Lagendijk, Bas Hillebrand, Eva Kalmar, Ingrid van Marion, Maarten van der Sanden
Blockchain emerged as a well-defined technological object with limited applicability applications (e.g. Bitcoin). Embraced by more and more ‘stakeholders’, Blockchain has turned into a bounty of possibilities and promises. This raises the question whether Blockchain is turning into an overextending, affective ‘hyperobject’. Adopting a post-ANT topological perspective, and using mixed-methods analysis, this paper traces Blockchain's recent developments in the Netherlands. A media analysis of newspaper items shows a telling divide between stakeholders (including incumbents) stressing Blockchain's radicalising prospects and those (notably involved knowledge and policy workers) warning of its overhyping and lack of governance capacities. A detailed analysis of strategies and operations of the key enabler, the Dutch Blockchain Coalition, reveals how much effort has gone into face-to-face encounters and communication to frame and script the object. Yet, this also causes Blockchain to proliferate in all kinds of directions, turning into a hyperobject beyond the reach of intellectual and practical grasp.
...
Blockchain emerged as a well-defined technological object with limited applicability applications (e.g. Bitcoin). Embraced by more and more ‘stakeholders’, Blockchain has turned into a bounty of possibilities and promises. This raises the question whether Blockchain is turning into an overextending, affective ‘hyperobject’. Adopting a post-ANT topological perspective, and using mixed-methods analysis, this paper traces Blockchain's recent developments in the Netherlands. A media analysis of newspaper items shows a telling divide between stakeholders (including incumbents) stressing Blockchain's radicalising prospects and those (notably involved knowledge and policy workers) warning of its overhyping and lack of governance capacities. A detailed analysis of strategies and operations of the key enabler, the Dutch Blockchain Coalition, reveals how much effort has gone into face-to-face encounters and communication to frame and script the object. Yet, this also causes Blockchain to proliferate in all kinds of directions, turning into a hyperobject beyond the reach of intellectual and practical grasp.
The challenges of our modern world are getting more and more multi-dimensional, integrating not only technological but social, environmental and politically sensitive issues. The complexity of these problems requires the involvement of multiple actors in the research and innovation processes, the engagement of scientists with non-scientists by bridging disciplinary and sector-based boundaries.
The collaborating partners share their human capital, risk and resources, join complementary skills and capacities in the course of joint work. These collaborations, often called as collaborative networks create new expectations, alter roles and shift communication practices for its members. The partners have to adjust to new social, organizational and management settings and adapt to the new collaboration-facilitating technologies. Organizations that lack the ability to share and collaborate have a huge potential to resist these adjustments and adaptation processes and limit the effectiveness of the collaboration as a whole. This could lead to the failure of the join work.
We claim that next to the technology readiness levels, collaboration readiness levels of research teams, organizations or companies can be measured and needs to be used within innovation processes. Much has been studied regarding the success factors of collaborations, or the collaboration readiness of distinct partners working together, but still, the evaluation of such collaborations are yet done at the last phase and are generally based on the number of produced research publications and patents. Our goal is to build a Collaboration Readiness framework that can be used to measure the collaborative status of collaborative networks even during their formation to support them in reaching their utmost potential.
Blockchain, the distributed ledger technology is a disruptive innovation, with potential uses in healthcare, food industry, energy, smart industry, logistics, and government. Blockchain entails an entirely new way of identification, transacting, trading and regulation. Blockchain is best seen as a technology that is co-created with multiple stakeholders. The heterogeneity of the actors involved in its development implies that these stakeholders are likely to have very different backgrounds and interests and as a result, they are also likely to have very different understandings of Blockchain regarding (for example) what it is and what it should do. This can both hamper collaboration among these stakeholders and reduce widespread support for Blockchain.
A pilot study was performed on the Dutch Blockchain Coalition in 2017 to map how different internal stakeholders collaborate, how they perceive the technology, how they reach out, and how these issues could determine the success of Blockchain innovations. The aim of the pilot study was dual. First, to check the theoretical framework of collaboration readiness generated by the authors based on theoretical input as the first step in the design-based research approach. The results of the pilot were used to give feedback on issues that should be changed by the coalition to become more effective. The report on our findings was used to implement several organizational changes. This presentation summarizes the collaboration readiness framework, the pilot research, and draws the silhouette of the further research. ...
The collaborating partners share their human capital, risk and resources, join complementary skills and capacities in the course of joint work. These collaborations, often called as collaborative networks create new expectations, alter roles and shift communication practices for its members. The partners have to adjust to new social, organizational and management settings and adapt to the new collaboration-facilitating technologies. Organizations that lack the ability to share and collaborate have a huge potential to resist these adjustments and adaptation processes and limit the effectiveness of the collaboration as a whole. This could lead to the failure of the join work.
We claim that next to the technology readiness levels, collaboration readiness levels of research teams, organizations or companies can be measured and needs to be used within innovation processes. Much has been studied regarding the success factors of collaborations, or the collaboration readiness of distinct partners working together, but still, the evaluation of such collaborations are yet done at the last phase and are generally based on the number of produced research publications and patents. Our goal is to build a Collaboration Readiness framework that can be used to measure the collaborative status of collaborative networks even during their formation to support them in reaching their utmost potential.
Blockchain, the distributed ledger technology is a disruptive innovation, with potential uses in healthcare, food industry, energy, smart industry, logistics, and government. Blockchain entails an entirely new way of identification, transacting, trading and regulation. Blockchain is best seen as a technology that is co-created with multiple stakeholders. The heterogeneity of the actors involved in its development implies that these stakeholders are likely to have very different backgrounds and interests and as a result, they are also likely to have very different understandings of Blockchain regarding (for example) what it is and what it should do. This can both hamper collaboration among these stakeholders and reduce widespread support for Blockchain.
A pilot study was performed on the Dutch Blockchain Coalition in 2017 to map how different internal stakeholders collaborate, how they perceive the technology, how they reach out, and how these issues could determine the success of Blockchain innovations. The aim of the pilot study was dual. First, to check the theoretical framework of collaboration readiness generated by the authors based on theoretical input as the first step in the design-based research approach. The results of the pilot were used to give feedback on issues that should be changed by the coalition to become more effective. The report on our findings was used to implement several organizational changes. This presentation summarizes the collaboration readiness framework, the pilot research, and draws the silhouette of the further research. ...
The challenges of our modern world are getting more and more multi-dimensional, integrating not only technological but social, environmental and politically sensitive issues. The complexity of these problems requires the involvement of multiple actors in the research and innovation processes, the engagement of scientists with non-scientists by bridging disciplinary and sector-based boundaries.
The collaborating partners share their human capital, risk and resources, join complementary skills and capacities in the course of joint work. These collaborations, often called as collaborative networks create new expectations, alter roles and shift communication practices for its members. The partners have to adjust to new social, organizational and management settings and adapt to the new collaboration-facilitating technologies. Organizations that lack the ability to share and collaborate have a huge potential to resist these adjustments and adaptation processes and limit the effectiveness of the collaboration as a whole. This could lead to the failure of the join work.
We claim that next to the technology readiness levels, collaboration readiness levels of research teams, organizations or companies can be measured and needs to be used within innovation processes. Much has been studied regarding the success factors of collaborations, or the collaboration readiness of distinct partners working together, but still, the evaluation of such collaborations are yet done at the last phase and are generally based on the number of produced research publications and patents. Our goal is to build a Collaboration Readiness framework that can be used to measure the collaborative status of collaborative networks even during their formation to support them in reaching their utmost potential.
Blockchain, the distributed ledger technology is a disruptive innovation, with potential uses in healthcare, food industry, energy, smart industry, logistics, and government. Blockchain entails an entirely new way of identification, transacting, trading and regulation. Blockchain is best seen as a technology that is co-created with multiple stakeholders. The heterogeneity of the actors involved in its development implies that these stakeholders are likely to have very different backgrounds and interests and as a result, they are also likely to have very different understandings of Blockchain regarding (for example) what it is and what it should do. This can both hamper collaboration among these stakeholders and reduce widespread support for Blockchain.
A pilot study was performed on the Dutch Blockchain Coalition in 2017 to map how different internal stakeholders collaborate, how they perceive the technology, how they reach out, and how these issues could determine the success of Blockchain innovations. The aim of the pilot study was dual. First, to check the theoretical framework of collaboration readiness generated by the authors based on theoretical input as the first step in the design-based research approach. The results of the pilot were used to give feedback on issues that should be changed by the coalition to become more effective. The report on our findings was used to implement several organizational changes. This presentation summarizes the collaboration readiness framework, the pilot research, and draws the silhouette of the further research.
The collaborating partners share their human capital, risk and resources, join complementary skills and capacities in the course of joint work. These collaborations, often called as collaborative networks create new expectations, alter roles and shift communication practices for its members. The partners have to adjust to new social, organizational and management settings and adapt to the new collaboration-facilitating technologies. Organizations that lack the ability to share and collaborate have a huge potential to resist these adjustments and adaptation processes and limit the effectiveness of the collaboration as a whole. This could lead to the failure of the join work.
We claim that next to the technology readiness levels, collaboration readiness levels of research teams, organizations or companies can be measured and needs to be used within innovation processes. Much has been studied regarding the success factors of collaborations, or the collaboration readiness of distinct partners working together, but still, the evaluation of such collaborations are yet done at the last phase and are generally based on the number of produced research publications and patents. Our goal is to build a Collaboration Readiness framework that can be used to measure the collaborative status of collaborative networks even during their formation to support them in reaching their utmost potential.
Blockchain, the distributed ledger technology is a disruptive innovation, with potential uses in healthcare, food industry, energy, smart industry, logistics, and government. Blockchain entails an entirely new way of identification, transacting, trading and regulation. Blockchain is best seen as a technology that is co-created with multiple stakeholders. The heterogeneity of the actors involved in its development implies that these stakeholders are likely to have very different backgrounds and interests and as a result, they are also likely to have very different understandings of Blockchain regarding (for example) what it is and what it should do. This can both hamper collaboration among these stakeholders and reduce widespread support for Blockchain.
A pilot study was performed on the Dutch Blockchain Coalition in 2017 to map how different internal stakeholders collaborate, how they perceive the technology, how they reach out, and how these issues could determine the success of Blockchain innovations. The aim of the pilot study was dual. First, to check the theoretical framework of collaboration readiness generated by the authors based on theoretical input as the first step in the design-based research approach. The results of the pilot were used to give feedback on issues that should be changed by the coalition to become more effective. The report on our findings was used to implement several organizational changes. This presentation summarizes the collaboration readiness framework, the pilot research, and draws the silhouette of the further research.
A decentralized, distributed, immutable and transparent Blockchain-based system could revolutionize scientific research and provide solution to its urgent problems. It could be used for permanently and transparently storing and sharing data, run data analysis algorithms, and for
altering the current system for research evaluation, publishing and research
funding. But would scientists use a system like that? ...
altering the current system for research evaluation, publishing and research
funding. But would scientists use a system like that? ...
A decentralized, distributed, immutable and transparent Blockchain-based system could revolutionize scientific research and provide solution to its urgent problems. It could be used for permanently and transparently storing and sharing data, run data analysis algorithms, and for
altering the current system for research evaluation, publishing and research
funding. But would scientists use a system like that?
altering the current system for research evaluation, publishing and research
funding. But would scientists use a system like that?
Collaboration has become the most supported form of scientific research, funding agencies prefer transdisciplinary international collaborations. Today, scientific inquiry is almost unimaginable without research groups from different scientific domains working together due to the growth of knowledge, high specialization of scientific domains and quickly changing technology. The scientific problems to be solved are complex in nature as are the social aspects of these challenges. The formation of transdisciplinary coalitions may sounds straightforward since we all tend to think that we know what collaboration is or means, but the success of these alliances is not in all cases guaranteed as well as the deployment of science communication processes.
The factors determining the success and effectiveness of transdisciplinary and intersectoral collaborations are spanning across different (personal, interpersonal, organizational, technological and socio-political) levels, making the management of these kinds of projects an ill-defined and complex problem. These collaborations create new expectations, alter roles and shift communication practices for its members. The collaborating partners have to adjust to new social, organizational and management settings, and adopt to the new collaboration-facilitating technologies. Organizations that lack the ability of and adaptive culture of sharing and collaborating have a large potential to resist to these adjustments and adaptation processes, and limit the effectiveness of the collaboration as a whole.
We propose, that next to the technology readiness levels, collaboration readiness levels of research teams, organizations or companies can be measured and needs to be used within innovation processes. In this Idea in progress session, I would like to present our preliminary results of the Science Communication research within the Dutch Blockchain Coalition. A clear example of business to business type Science Communication happening in an uncertain world of an uncertain technology, performed by uncertain engineers, business developers and policy makers in opaque collaboration processes. ...
The factors determining the success and effectiveness of transdisciplinary and intersectoral collaborations are spanning across different (personal, interpersonal, organizational, technological and socio-political) levels, making the management of these kinds of projects an ill-defined and complex problem. These collaborations create new expectations, alter roles and shift communication practices for its members. The collaborating partners have to adjust to new social, organizational and management settings, and adopt to the new collaboration-facilitating technologies. Organizations that lack the ability of and adaptive culture of sharing and collaborating have a large potential to resist to these adjustments and adaptation processes, and limit the effectiveness of the collaboration as a whole.
We propose, that next to the technology readiness levels, collaboration readiness levels of research teams, organizations or companies can be measured and needs to be used within innovation processes. In this Idea in progress session, I would like to present our preliminary results of the Science Communication research within the Dutch Blockchain Coalition. A clear example of business to business type Science Communication happening in an uncertain world of an uncertain technology, performed by uncertain engineers, business developers and policy makers in opaque collaboration processes. ...
Collaboration has become the most supported form of scientific research, funding agencies prefer transdisciplinary international collaborations. Today, scientific inquiry is almost unimaginable without research groups from different scientific domains working together due to the growth of knowledge, high specialization of scientific domains and quickly changing technology. The scientific problems to be solved are complex in nature as are the social aspects of these challenges. The formation of transdisciplinary coalitions may sounds straightforward since we all tend to think that we know what collaboration is or means, but the success of these alliances is not in all cases guaranteed as well as the deployment of science communication processes.
The factors determining the success and effectiveness of transdisciplinary and intersectoral collaborations are spanning across different (personal, interpersonal, organizational, technological and socio-political) levels, making the management of these kinds of projects an ill-defined and complex problem. These collaborations create new expectations, alter roles and shift communication practices for its members. The collaborating partners have to adjust to new social, organizational and management settings, and adopt to the new collaboration-facilitating technologies. Organizations that lack the ability of and adaptive culture of sharing and collaborating have a large potential to resist to these adjustments and adaptation processes, and limit the effectiveness of the collaboration as a whole.
We propose, that next to the technology readiness levels, collaboration readiness levels of research teams, organizations or companies can be measured and needs to be used within innovation processes. In this Idea in progress session, I would like to present our preliminary results of the Science Communication research within the Dutch Blockchain Coalition. A clear example of business to business type Science Communication happening in an uncertain world of an uncertain technology, performed by uncertain engineers, business developers and policy makers in opaque collaboration processes.
The factors determining the success and effectiveness of transdisciplinary and intersectoral collaborations are spanning across different (personal, interpersonal, organizational, technological and socio-political) levels, making the management of these kinds of projects an ill-defined and complex problem. These collaborations create new expectations, alter roles and shift communication practices for its members. The collaborating partners have to adjust to new social, organizational and management settings, and adopt to the new collaboration-facilitating technologies. Organizations that lack the ability of and adaptive culture of sharing and collaborating have a large potential to resist to these adjustments and adaptation processes, and limit the effectiveness of the collaboration as a whole.
We propose, that next to the technology readiness levels, collaboration readiness levels of research teams, organizations or companies can be measured and needs to be used within innovation processes. In this Idea in progress session, I would like to present our preliminary results of the Science Communication research within the Dutch Blockchain Coalition. A clear example of business to business type Science Communication happening in an uncertain world of an uncertain technology, performed by uncertain engineers, business developers and policy makers in opaque collaboration processes.
Journal article
(2009)
-
Jochen Gehrig, Markus Reischl, Eva Kalmar, Marco Ferg, Yavor Hadzhiev, Andreas Zaucker, Chengyi Song, Simone Schindler, Urban Liebel, Ferenc Müller
Zebrafish embryos offer a unique combination of high-throughput capabilities and the complexity of the vertebrate animal for a variety of phenotypic screening applications. However, there is a need for automation of imaging technologies to exploit the potential of the transparent embryo. Here we report a high-throughput pipeline for registering domain-specific reporter expression in zebrafish embryos with the aim of mapping the interactions between cis-regulatory modules and core promoters. Automated microscopy coupled with custom-built embryo detection and segmentation software allowed the spatial registration of reporter activity for 202 enhancer-promoter combinations, based on images of thousands of embryos. The diversity of promoter-enhancer interaction specificities underscores the importance of the core promoter sequence in cis-regulatory interactions and provides a promoter resource for transgenic reporter studies. The technology described here is also suitable for the spatial analysis of fluorescence readouts in genetic, pharmaceutical or toxicological screens.
...
Zebrafish embryos offer a unique combination of high-throughput capabilities and the complexity of the vertebrate animal for a variety of phenotypic screening applications. However, there is a need for automation of imaging technologies to exploit the potential of the transparent embryo. Here we report a high-throughput pipeline for registering domain-specific reporter expression in zebrafish embryos with the aim of mapping the interactions between cis-regulatory modules and core promoters. Automated microscopy coupled with custom-built embryo detection and segmentation software allowed the spatial registration of reporter activity for 202 enhancer-promoter combinations, based on images of thousands of embryos. The diversity of promoter-enhancer interaction specificities underscores the importance of the core promoter sequence in cis-regulatory interactions and provides a promoter resource for transgenic reporter studies. The technology described here is also suitable for the spatial analysis of fluorescence readouts in genetic, pharmaceutical or toxicological screens.
Journal article
(2008)
-
Denes Kovacs, Eva Kalmar, Zsolt Torok, Peter Tompa
ERD10 and ERD14 (for early response to dehydration) proteins are members of the dehydrin family that accumulate in response to abiotic environmental stresses, such as high salinity, drought, and low temperature, in Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana). Whereas these proteins protect cells against the consequences of dehydration, the exact mode(s) of their action remains poorly understood. Here, detailed evidence is provided that ERD10 and ERD14 belong to the family of intrinsically disordered proteins, and it is shown in various assays that they act as chaperones in vitro. ERD10 and ERD14 are able to prevent the heat-induced aggregation and/or inactivation of various substrates, such as lysozyme, alcohol dehydrogenase, firefly luciferase, and citrate synthase. It is also demonstrated that ERD10 and ERD14 bind to acidic phospholipid vesicles without significantly affecting membrane fluidity. Membrane binding is strongly influenced by ionic strength. Our results show that these intrinsically disordered proteins have chaperone activity of rather wide substrate specificity and that they interact with phospholipid vesicles through electrostatic forces. We suggest that these findings provide the rationale for the mechanism of how these proteins avert the adverse effects of dehydration stresses.
...
ERD10 and ERD14 (for early response to dehydration) proteins are members of the dehydrin family that accumulate in response to abiotic environmental stresses, such as high salinity, drought, and low temperature, in Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana). Whereas these proteins protect cells against the consequences of dehydration, the exact mode(s) of their action remains poorly understood. Here, detailed evidence is provided that ERD10 and ERD14 belong to the family of intrinsically disordered proteins, and it is shown in various assays that they act as chaperones in vitro. ERD10 and ERD14 are able to prevent the heat-induced aggregation and/or inactivation of various substrates, such as lysozyme, alcohol dehydrogenase, firefly luciferase, and citrate synthase. It is also demonstrated that ERD10 and ERD14 bind to acidic phospholipid vesicles without significantly affecting membrane fluidity. Membrane binding is strongly influenced by ionic strength. Our results show that these intrinsically disordered proteins have chaperone activity of rather wide substrate specificity and that they interact with phospholipid vesicles through electrostatic forces. We suggest that these findings provide the rationale for the mechanism of how these proteins avert the adverse effects of dehydration stresses.
Journal article
(2007)
-
Agnès Roure, Ute Rothbächer, François Robin, Eva Kalmar, Giustina Ferone, Clément Lamy, Caterina Missero, Ferenc Mueller, Patrick Lemaire
Background. The past few years have seen a vast increase in the amount of genomic data available for a growing number of taxa, including sets of full length cDNA clones and cis-regulatory sequences. Large scale cross-species comparisons of protein function and cis-regulatory sequences may help to understand the emergence of specific traits during evolution. Principal Findings. To facilitate such comparisons, we developed a Gateway compatible vector set, which can be used to systematically dissect cis-regulatory sequences, and overexpress wild type or tagged proteins in a variety of chordate systems. It was developed and first characterised in the embryos of the ascidian Ciona intestinalis, in which large scale analyses are easier to perform than in vertebrates, owing to the very efficient embryo electroporation protocol available in this organism. Its use was then extended to fish embryos and cultured mammalian cells. Conclusion. This versatile vector set opens the way to the mid-to large-scale comparative analyses of protein function and cis-regulatory sequences across chordate evolution. A complete user manual is provided as supplemental material.
...
Background. The past few years have seen a vast increase in the amount of genomic data available for a growing number of taxa, including sets of full length cDNA clones and cis-regulatory sequences. Large scale cross-species comparisons of protein function and cis-regulatory sequences may help to understand the emergence of specific traits during evolution. Principal Findings. To facilitate such comparisons, we developed a Gateway compatible vector set, which can be used to systematically dissect cis-regulatory sequences, and overexpress wild type or tagged proteins in a variety of chordate systems. It was developed and first characterised in the embryos of the ascidian Ciona intestinalis, in which large scale analyses are easier to perform than in vertebrates, owing to the very efficient embryo electroporation protocol available in this organism. Its use was then extended to fish embryos and cultured mammalian cells. Conclusion. This versatile vector set opens the way to the mid-to large-scale comparative analyses of protein function and cis-regulatory sequences across chordate evolution. A complete user manual is provided as supplemental material.
Journal article
(2006)
-
Remo Sanges, Eva Kalmar, Pamela Claudiani, Maria D'Amato, Ferenc Muller, Elia Stupka
Background: All vertebrates share a remarkable degree of similarity in their development as well as in the basic functions of their cells. Despite this, attempts at unearthing genome-wide regulatory elements conserved throughout the vertebrate lineage using BLAST-like approaches have thus far detected nonooding conservation in only a few hundred genes, mostly associated with regulation of transcription and development. Results: We used a unique combination of tools to obtain regional global-local alignments of orthologous loci. This approach takes into account shuffling of regulatory regions that are likely to occur over evolutionary distances greater than those separating mammalian genomes. This approach revealed one order of magnitude more vertebrate conserved elements than was previously reported in over 2,000 genes, including a high number of genes found in the membrane and extracellular regions. Our analysis revealed that 72% of the elements identified have undergone shuffling. We tested the ability of the elements identified to enhance transcription in zebrafish embryos and compared their activity with a set of control fragments. We found that more than 80% of the elements tested were able to enhance transcription significantly, prevalently in a tissue-restricted manner corresponding to the expression domain of the neighboring gene. Conclusion: Our work elucidates the importance of shuffling in the detection of cis-regulatory elements. It also elucidates how similarities across the vertebrate lineage, which go well beyond development, can be explained not only within the realm of coding genes but also in that of the sequences that ultimately govern their expression.
...
Background: All vertebrates share a remarkable degree of similarity in their development as well as in the basic functions of their cells. Despite this, attempts at unearthing genome-wide regulatory elements conserved throughout the vertebrate lineage using BLAST-like approaches have thus far detected nonooding conservation in only a few hundred genes, mostly associated with regulation of transcription and development. Results: We used a unique combination of tools to obtain regional global-local alignments of orthologous loci. This approach takes into account shuffling of regulatory regions that are likely to occur over evolutionary distances greater than those separating mammalian genomes. This approach revealed one order of magnitude more vertebrate conserved elements than was previously reported in over 2,000 genes, including a high number of genes found in the membrane and extracellular regions. Our analysis revealed that 72% of the elements identified have undergone shuffling. We tested the ability of the elements identified to enhance transcription in zebrafish embryos and compared their activity with a set of control fragments. We found that more than 80% of the elements tested were able to enhance transcription significantly, prevalently in a tissue-restricted manner corresponding to the expression domain of the neighboring gene. Conclusion: Our work elucidates the importance of shuffling in the detection of cis-regulatory elements. It also elucidates how similarities across the vertebrate lineage, which go well beyond development, can be explained not only within the realm of coding genes but also in that of the sequences that ultimately govern their expression.
Hsp90 isoforms
Functions, expression and clinical importance
Review
(2004)
-
Amere Subbarao Sreedhar, Éva Kalmár, Péter Csermely, Yu Fei Shen
The 90 kDa heat shock protein, Hsp90, is a main functional component of an important cytoplasmic chaperone complex, and it is involved in various cellular processes, such as cell proliferation, differentiation and apoptosis. Identification of Hsp90 as a molecular target of various anticancer drugs highlighted its importance from the clinical point of view. Here we summarize the current knowledge on various Hsp90 isoforms regarding their genomic location, molecular evolution, functional differences, differential induction after various environmental stresses and in pathological conditions as well as the growing importance of discriminating between Hsp90 isoforms in clinical practice.
...
The 90 kDa heat shock protein, Hsp90, is a main functional component of an important cytoplasmic chaperone complex, and it is involved in various cellular processes, such as cell proliferation, differentiation and apoptosis. Identification of Hsp90 as a molecular target of various anticancer drugs highlighted its importance from the clinical point of view. Here we summarize the current knowledge on various Hsp90 isoforms regarding their genomic location, molecular evolution, functional differences, differential induction after various environmental stresses and in pathological conditions as well as the growing importance of discriminating between Hsp90 isoforms in clinical practice.