1.1 Disciplinarities

Institutions are usually defined as sets of conventions, norms and formally sanctioned rules constructed by societies that coordinate and regulate human interactions (^{Vatn, 2005}). Disciplines can be understood as institutions that coordinate the production of knowledge. Generally, disciplines contain a set of instructions on how to generate knowledge including subject definitions, conceptual approaches, cognitive structures, goals and norms (^{Klein, 1996}). Such constructs constrain the research activity that occurs within disciplinary spheres (^{Petts et al., 2008}). According to ^{Good (2000}) disciplines are historical entities that can be seen as changing frameworks organising scientific activities. Disciplines are used to address well-defined issues but they are transformed over time to the extent that the initial logic and practices of a discipline may disappear (^{Good, 2000}). In the process of specialization, disciplinary silos were formed, and there was little, if any interest in communication or integration in between. In the late twentieth century transformation of these silos may have been accelerated by a re-contextualisation of disciplines, a weakening of disciplinary boundaries and an alteration of identities, which all led to changes in canons, codes and categories of knowledge production processes (^{Klein, 1996}). There are many different definitions of varied kinds of multi- and interdisciplinarity, mostly designed to capture what is felt to be degrees of interdisciplinarity (^{Griffin et al. 2006}). Multidisciplinarity is defined by ^{Stock and Burton (2011}) as thematically organized rather than problemoriented. Disciplinary boundaries are not crossed, but rather different disciplines are considered in parallel. Interdisciplinarity, in turn, integrates perspectives, information, data, techniques, tools, concepts, and/or theories from two or more disciplines. While earlier definitions of transdisciplinarity focused on overarching theories that transcended traditional disciplines (^{Berger, 1972}; ^{Lattuca, 2001}), the term has more recently taken on a meaning that includes a broader range of stakeholders, including practitioners and the public in its focus on solving authentic problems (^{Klein, 1996}). Transdisciplinarity can then be considered as a process of collaboration between scholars and non-scholars on a specific real-world problem (^{Walter et al., 2007}). Undisciplinarity, again, can be seen as a problem-based, integrative, interactive, interconnected, emergent, reflexive science and process which involves strong forms of collaboration and partnership (^{Robinson, 2008}). Researchers have also pointed to the difficulties of drawing boundaries between disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity as forms of knowledge production (^{Klein, 1996}). For example, researchers do not necessarily share the same understanding of interdisciplinary research (^{Vincenti, 2005}). ^{Aram (2004}) observes that interdisciplinary research derives from the confluence, fusion or synthesis of disciplinary knowledge and from the re-definition of the disciplines. Others argue that the re-imagination of disciplines is already occurring as disciplines are now producing numerous specialisms, often overlapping and intermixing across social and natural sciences (^{Ramadier, 2004}; see also ^{Klein, 1996}). However, despite possibly changing roles, ^{Klein (1996)} insists that disciplines continue to bear core elements of current forms of knowledge production. Such views suggest that disciplinary and interdisciplinary research may be closer than is commonly understood. More recently, interdisciplinary research and collaboration among scientists has increased significantly. The reasons for such a rise are varied. Interdisciplinary research may be regarded as: the result of changes associated with knowledge-based economies (^{Hicks and Katz, 1996}); a necessary turn away from reductionist approaches to scientific progress (^{Lessard, 2007}); a response to the challenges of an increasingly complex world (^{Latour, 1998}) an approach to refine tools for practical work (^{Hukkinen, 2003}); or a complementary element to ongoing specialisation in knowledge production (^{Weingart, 2000}). Formerly unchallenged knowledge and expertise hierarchies may be called into question by a wide array of scientific communities and the public (^{Klein, 1996}). Individual researchers or groups of researchers can expand or break the boundaries of disciplines to different degrees and hence facilitate interdisciplinary research, even though interdisciplinary research is mediated by the structures of power that draw the boundaries between disciplinary and interdisciplinary research (^{Klein, 1996}). Therefore, one could understand interdisciplinary research as occurring in the ‘border areas’ between disciplines (^{Klein, 1996}). However, in practice, the borders may be more amorphous than anticipated. Bibliometric research reveals that there exists substantial boundary-crossing between disciplines in terms of authorship of publications and readership (Pierce, 1999). ^{Lau and Pasquini (2008)} assert that disciplinarity and interdisciplinarity can be seen as something under constant negotiation. Challenges to interdisciplinary researchers emerge from the working practices of those individuals who strongly adhere to the institutions of a discipline and their operation within organizations. In his structure of scientific revolutions, ^{Kuhn (1962}) provides a detailed account of the process of knowledge reproduction through textbooks and the reproduction of knowledge in higher education institutions. Disincentives resulting from academic reward structures and evaluation procedures, almost entirely developed along disciplinary lines, constitute serious barriers to interdisciplinary research (^{Vincenti, 2005}; ^{Lau and Pasquini, 2008}). For example, one of the vehicles for the reproduction of disciplinary institutions is the educational process. Education is produced through a series of formally sanctioned rules, exams, research projects, and practical work, all within the contours of particular disciplines.

Such institutions have been commonly identified as one of the main obstacles for interdisciplinarity (^{Frs, 1962}). Single-discipline education is still predominant in higher education. Once education is completed, the researcher will be encouraged to remain within a single discipline by a range of disciplinary institutions such as: the dominance of disciplinary publishing for career advancement (^{Griffin, 2006}) the review processes of funding proposals (^{Griffin, 2006}) and the performance indicators used within university departments (^{Bourke and Butler, 1998}). Some research suggests that researchers may struggle to obtain recognition for interdisciplinary research from traditionalist research institutions, such as scientific journals (e.g. ^{Tress et al., 2006}).

Undisciplinarity due to ^{Celaschi, Formia and Lupo (2013}) allows us to be more disruptive which is needed for imagination and action towards the unknown. Undisciplinary is a reaction to the struggle of mixed disciplinary approaches and the conflicts it can bring. It is based on ‘the long-standing concept of the unity of knowledge, according to which the ultimate goal of scholarship is to provide an integrated and unified understanding of all knowledge’ (^{Robinson, 2008}, p. 71). ^{Marshall and Bleecker (2010}) argue that the key of healthy academic environment is that we learn to coexist beyond disciplines. Undisciplinarity is a habit of working and approach to creating and circulating culture that can go its own way, without worrying about working outside of what histories-of-disciplines say is proper work. It is undisciplined, meaning new knowledge is created rather than incremental contributions to a body of existing knowledge (^{Celaschi, Formia and Lupo, 2013}). Research shows that early career researchers feel the need to describe their own work as clearly demarcated within a discipline that has long historical roots, in order to gain legitimacy among their senior colleagues (^{Haider et al, 2018}). When viewing interdisciplinary work, scholars then tend to try to squeeze it into their own discipline or create a new discipline (^{Robinson, 2008}). This development is in contradiction to what is considered to be necessary for sustainable academic development. (^{Kates et al. 2001}; ^{Komiyama and Takeuchi 2006}; ^{Leach et al. 2010}). ^{Robinson (2008)} argues that this need of staying within one discipline will never enable you to engage with the real and complex problems of the world. What ^{Robinson (2008)} calls issue-driven interdisciplinarity or undisciplinarity, refers to the studies of academics that are more interested in creating forms of knowledge that are inherently useful rather than creating a discipline that primarily focuses on its theoretical or epistemological claims. Undisciplinarity doesn’t supress facts about the real world and its plurality to be able to satisfy a discipline but welcomes them for consideration (^{Robinson, 2008}). Undisciplinarity is more interested in reaching across disciplines for a particular purpose rather than filling gaps between them (^{Robinson, 2008}).

Interrupting the structures of existence (in this case the existence of academia as a disciplinary sector) could lead to a transformation towards long-term relationships and create a process where ‘we learn to travel together differently in a foggy road - with the stamina for the long-haul rather than a desire for quick fixes’.This ontological critique on education and thinking around global challenges shares the vision of undisciplinarity in academia in a way that both ask questions about how we could experience existence substantially differently to what we already know before or have been taught ‘because solutions articulated from within the system itself will ultimately result in more of the same’.

1.2 Learning individual - learning group

Learning, as a concept, has been looked at from various disciplines and perspectives throughout history, including both individual and collective learning. As a result, the concept of learning is used to cover a wide society of ideas (^{Minsky, 1988}). In this article, though, there is no attempt to give a full overview of the results of conceptual richness (for an overview, se e.g. ^{Lundgren, Säljö and Liberg, 2014}). Instead, the choice here is theories that can bear relevance to the perspective on learning in multi- and interdisciplinary settings. Especially interesting are those perspectives that address joint processes of learning. It is further assumed that creation of the values is a learning journey. To implement creation of values in any group, it is necessary to tag on to collaborative culture.

Creation of collaborative culture requires creative thinking in solving problems, leadership, knowledge management, institutionalized learning, experiential learning, communication, quality management, and continuous improvement in a group or an organization (^{Roser et al., 2013}). Theories of individual learning are crucial for understanding organizational learning. Psychologists and educators have studied individual learning for decades, but they are still far from fully understanding the workings of the human mind. Likewise, the theory of organizational learning is still in its embryonic stage (^{Lundgren, Säljö and Liberg, 2014}).

Group learning is more complex and dynamic than a mere magnification of individual learning. The level of complexity increases tremendously in the change from a single individual to a large collection of diverse individuals. Issues of motivation and reward, for instance, which are an integral part of human learning, become doubly complicated within groups. Although the meaning of the term “learning” remains essentially the same as in the individual case, the learning process is fundamentally different at the group level.

In the early stages of a group’s existence, group´s learning is often synonymous with individual learning because the group consists of people and has minimal structure. As a group grows, however, a distinction between individual and group learning emerges, and a system for capturing the learning of its individual members evolves. Collective, collaborative and collegial learning are terms often used in the context of joint learning processes. Collaborative learning can be considered as a special type of phenomenon, where the starting point is that all learning is based in social activities. (^{Johnson et al., 2008}). According to ^{Granberg and Ohlsson (2016}) there is a difference between collaborative and collective learning consisting of that in collaborative learning there is group of individuals trying to learn something together but without to specify or clarify the social context. In collective learning, however, it is decisive to try to achieve a common understanding. ^{Ohlsson (1996)} notes, that the collective learning shapes how the individual perceive their practical work and thereby shape the collective learning potential of individual experience. It is important for the collective learning that the experiences are described in the collective so that the community can jointly problematize and reflect on the experience (^{Ohlsson 1996}; ^{Wilhelmson, 1998}). To summarize the aspects of learning above, it can be stated that learning is valued in this study by incorporating both individual and collective learning processes, preferably in balance. Collective learning can then be seen as one of the tools and arena for the acquisition of these knowledge and skills. Interdisciplinary knowledge can even be seen as creation of interdisciplinary values. Hence, it can be interesting to learn more about the processes included in value creation.

1.3 Processes of creation of values

Co-creation or creation of values are the concepts often used in business and management literature and research (Vargo, Maglio and Akaka, 2008). However, this described relationship between the customer and the provider of the product can also be transferred to describe a relationship between a student and a university teacher as well as any group leader and members of the group. In this relationship, the course leaders lead and invite the member into learning process, by continuously following up the process. But how does this co-creation of values emerge in practice, both individually and in collective meaning? Meaning making as a concept is described in psychology, as a process of through which people construe, understand, or make sense of life events, relationships, and the self. (Ignelzi, 2000) Through meaning-making, persons are retaining, reaffirming, revising, or replacing elements of their orienting system to develop more nuanced, complex and useful systems. (e.g. ^{Gillies, Neimeyer and Milman, 2014}) The term is widely used in constructivist approaches. (e.g. ^{Dorpat and Miller, 1992}) and in educational psychology (^{Ingelzi, 2000}).

Sensemaking, however, has been described as a process by which we give meaning to our collective experiences. It is often formally defined as the ongoing retrospective development of plausible images that rationalizes what people are doing (^{Weick, Sutcliffe and Obstfiel, 2005}). The concept was introduced to organizational studies by Karl E. Weick in the 1970s and has since had an impact on both theory and practice. The concept was intended to favour a shift away from the traditional focus of organization theorists on decision-making and aiming towards the processes that constitute the meaning of the decisions that are enacted in behavior. Research on sensemaking has become an important issue in organizational studies and has been growing as more researchers seek answers to how meanings are created in organizations (^{Hernes and Maitlis, 2013}). Weick identified seven properties of sensemaking. Identity and identification, retrospection, people enact the environments they face in dialogues and narratives, sensemaking is a social activity, sensemaking is ongoing process, people extract cues from the context and people favour plausibility over accuracy in accounts of events and contexts (^{Weick, 1995}).

These theoretical aspects, presented above, are used in this study as a foundation for analyzing and understanding the processes involved in the interaction and cooperation between group members and course leaders, specially working with the issues of multi- and interdisciplinarity. Furthermore, these processes can be considered as a framework for understanding the complexity of learning on issues of interdisciplinarity in any group context.

4.1 Learning in the course

Using the data collection from survey, focus group interviews, evaluations, course design and observations, it is possible to conclude, that doctoral course of Philosophy of Science and Methods in Multidisciplinary Research has been promoting students’ learning. Students found that their skills for communication, interaction and reflection has been sharpen and developed increasingly. The skills for working together have also been improved. Students are also aware of the complexity of learning in groups compared studying individually. However, learning in a group is perceived as more rewarding in the long run. It provides broader knowledge when you can share the experiences of others.

The students also state that they can change their positions during group discussions because they are open to the opinions of others. According to students, there is a need of some symmetry between participants in the group, but at the same time the groups cannot be too homogeneous. This course, however, was including students from several different disciplines. This was not experienced by anyone as problematic, nothing that threatened group dynamics. Students are telling that they are used to work in different groups during their education. Working in groups gives more opportunities for solving the problems, according to students. While working as a group, students like to treat the problems at a practical level. They can then achieve a common understanding of phenomena in the whole group. They also pointed out the importance of reading several articles in order to explore several perspectives on multi- and interdisciplinarity. Supporting course design, experienced by the student, was composed by different methods including external lectures, seminars, readings and not at least exercises (interviews, role plays etc.) and discussions in group. Specially the discussions over the ontological and epistemological issues were interesting and rewarding according the students. It was beneficial for learning outcomes that both teachers and course participants came from different disciplines. They could then share different, discipline-specific experiences and conventions to each other’s. Some of the students felt it frustrating not having knowledge enough of perspectives of multi- and interdisciplinarity and philosophy to be able to discuss the issue in a more deeper way. Also, of importance, has been enthusiastic and committed teachers and guest lecturers. Some of the students were very critical of their own contribution in the group because of insufficient time use, due to poor preparations for the tasks or due to the lack of background knowledge. Others, again, pointed to their own way of taking too much place in the group and talking too much. One of the students stated being at the beginning of doctoral studies and saw it as an obstacle to a more contribution in the group. None of the students thought that they contributed to any major scope of the group's learning. Students are further talking about the learning outcomes in the course and point out theoretical foundation they have received in the course of multi- and interdisciplinarity. Awareness of the challenges but also the benefits have been highlighted in the course. Also, deeper understanding for their own multi- and interdisciplinary research, at the moment, is taken up as a learning in the course. Still, there is one student who claims that the course has not given any new knowledge of practical character what so ever. Individual learning is the base for all joint learning. The students' statements testify that the complexity of learning increases with group learning. This both motivates and rewards learning.

The subject of multi- and interdisciplinary can feel overwhelming at the beginning as the whole group reflects on their disciplines, but when the group gets to know each other better, the group becomes an asset for learning. The way this student group learned is similar to a combination of collegial and collaborative learning. The students felt that what created the most learning in the course was the meetings with senior researchers who shared their practical experiences of multi- and interdisciplinary research and international cooperation. Prerequisites, according to ^{Dixon (1994}) for collective learning and value creation are: interaction, communication and reflection, structure of the organization, organizational culture, working methods and ways to inform and communicate. The course design seems to provide good conditions for collective learning and co-creation of values in the student group. Students feel free to express their thoughts in seminar discussions, evaluations, through exercises and examinations. The group size (seven students) enables and requires an equal participation in group discussions (^{Ohlsson 1996}; ^{Wilhelmson, 1998}). The students are not familiar with each other and perhaps this makes them curious about each other's personalities and their disciplinary work and research. Student statements show the maturity of the group in working and learning collectively. They have learnt and understood that diversity in the group can be developing and that the benefits of the group is to be preferred in order to get work done. Students are talking about balancing between permissible and impermissible borders in their group working processes (Ohlsson, 2004). Students also state that there is a need, in long run, to restructure the group in between, to form new constellations, to introduce new members or to break the roles of the group in order to gain group dynamic needed. This is even important for avoiding so called groupthink where the group desires for harmony or conformity and when this then is resulting an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome. Group members try to minimize conflict and reach a consensus decision with critical evaluation of alternative viewpoints. But all in all, these things are depended of the actual working tasks.