Constructing shared understanding of complex interdisciplinary problems: Epistemic games in interdisciplinary teamwork

Figures & data

Table 1. Features of epistemic games.

Feature	Description
Entry conditions	The conditions that must be met for a game to begin.
Epistemic goal	The purpose or intended outcome of the game.
Epistemic form	The knowledge form or epistemic focus that guides construction of shared understanding.
Constraints	“Rules” of the game that should be followed.
Moves	Main actions that participants take to reach the target epistemic form.
Transfers	Ways in which participants temporarily move from one unfinished epistemic game to another.
Exit conditions	The conditions in which the epistemic game ends.

Table 2. Features of the shared understanding game.

Feature	Description
Entry conditions	The team lacks a cohesive understanding despite individual knowledge. Agreement on the need to understand and formulate the problem.
Epistemic goal	A singular, integrated vision of the complex problem the team are attempting to solve.
Epistemic form	A statement of the problem
Constraints	Requires at least two active participants. At least one participant must have knowledge of the problem domain. Teams must be open to revising their understanding of the problem.
Moves^*	Knowledge sharing Perspective taking Simulation Knowledge validation Negotiation
Transfers	Individual work Problem-solving External consultation
Exit conditions	Consensual problem statement Impasse Running out of time

*N.B. This list is not exhaustive, it is representative of moves identified across all interdisciplinary teams.

Figure 1. The Trust Team entering the shared understanding game.

Figure 2. Discussing openness to constructing shared understanding.

Figure 3. Failed entry to the shared understanding game.

Figure 4. Shifting from verbal explanations to visual representations.

Figure 5. Paul shares knowledge of open banking.

Figure 6. Paul illustrates future open banking scenario.

Figure 7. Robert challenges Paul to consider another perspective.

Figure 8. Paul attempts to create a simulated future scenario.

Figure 9. Paul attempts to illustrate changes over time.

Figure 10. Paul uses the simulation move to demonstrate challenges.

Figure 11. Andrew expresses his view on valid and good enough knowledge.

Figure 12. Robert suggests the use of less formal approaches.

Figure 13. Andrew synthesizes perspectives into a refined problem statement.

Figure 14. Andrew presents another iteration of the problem statement.

Figure 15. The Trust Team collaboratively refine the problem statement.

Figure 16. Transferring to constructing shared understanding of the problem.

Figure 17. Whiteboard wall inscription of agreed upon (ticked) problem statement.

Table

↑	Upward arrow represents a marked rise in pitch.
↓	Downward arrow represents a downward shift in pitch.
:	Prolongation of the immediately prior sound.
(.)	A brief interval (± one tenth of a second) within or between utterances.
(1.0)	Numbers in parentheses indicate pauses time to the nearest tenth of a second.
underlined	Underscoring indicates a word(s) uttered with added emphasis
[]	Extended square brackets mark overlaps between utterances
(())	Transcriber’s descriptions of multimodal actions (e.g., gesturing, writing)