Additional Reflection
When Collaboration Becomes the Learning.
Looking back at my original reflection, I realise that I mainly described what happened in our group, but I did not go deep enough into analysing how we handled collaboration and power dynamics.
In our collaborative group with Diana, we did have discussions and moments of disagreement, even if they were not dramatic conflicts. For example, there were times when we had different visions for how speculative or practical the project should be. Some of us wanted to push the idea further conceptually, while others were more concerned with feasibility and clarity for presentation. At the time, I saw this simply as “normal discussion,” but now I understand that these were moments where power and influence were being negotiated.
I noticed that stronger personalities sometimes shaped the direction of the conversation more quickly. Instead of confronting directly, I tended to observe first and then find a way to re-enter the discussion with a reframed suggestion. Reflecting on this now, I can see elements of informal leadership and soft power at play. Leadership in our group was not officially assigned, but it naturally shifted depending on who felt more confident in that stage of the project. This made me question what kind of leader I want to be in future collaborations – someone who dominates direction, or someone who facilitates space for others.
Diana’s presence as a tutor also influenced our dynamic. At times, her feedback helped ground our ideas and reduce unnecessary tension, because it gave us an external reference point. Instead of debating endlessly between ourselves, we could test our ideas against her critique. This shifted our disagreements from personal preference to something more constructive. In that sense, tension became productive rather than negative.
Another thing I did not reflect on deeply before is how language and disciplinary background affected communication. Even when we understood each other, we sometimes used the same words but meant different things – especially around concepts like “innovation,” “engagement,” or “impact.” This relates to interdisciplinary collaboration theory, where different knowledge systems operate with different assumptions. Recognising this helped me slow down and clarify instead of assuming misunderstanding was incompetence.
I also realized that conflict does not always look like open confrontation. Sometimes it appears as disengagement, silence, or subtle frustration. There were moments when energy dropped in the group, and instead of addressing it directly, we continued working. In future projects, I would try to acknowledge these shifts more openly, because avoiding small tensions can allow them to grow quietly.
Overall, the biggest transformation for me was understanding that collaboration is less about agreement and more about negotiation. The value of the project was not just in the final outcome, but in learning how to sit inside ambiguity, difference, and shifting authority. I now see that those moments of discussion were not obstacles – they were the actual learning process.
Working on the Unit 2 Collaborative project gave me the chance to explore how history, technology, and community can intersect in unexpected ways. Our team set out to revitalize the British Telecom (BT) archive, and we landed on the idea of a city-wide scavenger hunt that would bring BT’s “hidden” history into the streets of London. As a student in the MACC program, I naturally stepped into the role of Research Coordinator, where my job was to make sure our speculative ideas were grounded in the real values and context of the Knowledge Quarter (KQ).
My Role and Approach
Taking on the Research Coordinator role meant I had to balance imagination with evidence. I leaned on systems thinking and complexity mapping – tools that are central to the MACC pathway – to make sure our vision wasn’t just abstract. I began by mapping out the BT archive’s stakeholders, not only historians but also everyday Londoners who unknowingly walk past sites rich with technological history. These maps helped us pinpoint gaps in public engagement and move from a vague idea of “doing something with history” to a concrete 5–10 year strategy for mobile, participatory learning.
One of the hardest lessons was realizing that more data doesn’t automatically mean better engagement. I had to learn to filter the “noise” of the archive and focus on the narratives that could actually stop someone in their tracks and make them notice a piece of history embedded in the city.
Collaboration and Interdisciplinary Challenges
This was my first deep dive into interdisciplinary collaboration at this scale. Our team included students from MAIM and MAAI, and each group brought very different priorities. The MAIM students pushed us to think about service design and user experience, while the MAAI students encouraged speculative creativity and experimental teaching methods.
Negotiating these perspectives wasn’t always easy. For example, when we debated whether the scavenger hunt should be a high-tech AR experience or a more tactile, physical interaction with the city, we had very different opinions. As research lead, I had to practice ethical communication – making sure everyone’s voice was heard while keeping the project’s focus intact. This process helped me move beyond my “MACC-only” mindset and appreciate how service design could make complex maps more accessible to real audiences.
Personal Growth and Learning Outcomes
Looking back, the project taught me that change-making isn’t just about having a clever idea – it’s about embedding that idea in a network of practice. By designing a learning experience that encouraged shared well-being and community discussion, we weren’t just presenting history; we were creating a temporary community of practice in the streets of London.
For LO2 (Enquiry), I realized research isn’t a one-off phase at the start of a project – it’s iterative. The strongest moments came when we used research to test and refine our speculative ideas. The weakest moments were when I over-complicated the data instead of communicating complexity simply. Learning to strip back and focus on clarity was essential, and it shaped our final scavenger hunt pitch.
Ultimately, this project helped me clarify my own values as a researcher. I discovered that I care more about narrative and physical engagement than purely digital information. Defending that position within a diverse team was a big step in my professional development, and it gave me confidence in how I want to approach future projects.