What Are Polarities?

Polarities go by many names, including paradoxes, chronic tensions, and dilemmas (Polarity Partnerships, n.d.). No matter the label, the underlying concept is the same: A polarity is a pair of opposing forces that are each essential and yet cannot exist at the same time. You cannot choose one and eliminate the other without creating negative consequences.

A classic example is breathing. Inhaling and exhaling are opposing actions, yet both are necessary. You cannot do them simultaneously, nor can you survive by doing only one. Health comes from moving back and forth between them in a dynamic rhythm. This simple biological example provides a useful entry point into more complex polarities we encounter in everyday life, such as freedom and control or short-term and long-term thinking.

Polarities have always existed, but the Polarity Management Model most widely used today was developed by Barry Johnson in the mid-1970s. Johnson (2014) describes polarities as “unsolvable problems” – not because they are impossible to address, but because they cannot be resolved once and for all.

A key point about polarities is that they are not problems to solve, but rather situations to manage (Johnson, 2014). For instance, in the polarity of activity and rest, there is no permanent solution that allows us to maximize the benefits of both simultaneously. Instead, wellness comes from managing the movement between the two; gaining the upsides of each while avoiding the downsides that occur when we overstay in one pole. Doing this well requires awareness, reflection, and sensitivity to context.

Polarities in Facilitation: A Closer Look

When you start looking through a polarity lens, facilitation quickly emerges as a field rich with polarities. In fact, much of a facilitator’s role can be understood as actively managing these ongoing tensions in service of the group and its goals. Skilled facilitation is less about choosing the “right” side and more about sensing when to lean into one pole and when to shift toward the other. Below are just a few examples of polarities that I often see in facilitation accompanied by visual polarity maps.

Focus on Divergence & Focus on Convergence: This fundamental polarity within the Creative Problem-Solving (CPS) process underscores the importance of balancing idea generation (divergence) with idea selection and refinement (convergence). While participants often lean toward the perceived comfort and closure of convergence, facilitators must ensure ample time and energy are dedicated to exploring a wide range of ideas before narrowing down the options.

Responsive to Client Concerns & True to the Process: Facilitators often face the challenge of balancing their expertise in a structured process with the need to address client feedback and requests, especially when they differ from the planned approach. This polarity requires careful consideration of both the facilitator’s knowledge of effective techniques and the client’s content expertise. Open communication and a willingness to adapt while staying true to the core principles of the process are crucial.

Giving Lots of Guidance & Letting Things Flow: The level of guidance provided to participants presents another significant polarity. Excessive instruction can stifle creativity and limit independent exploration, while insufficient guidance can lead to confusion and lack of direction. Skilled facilitators find the sweet spot by providing clear instructions while allowing space for autonomy and emergent discoveries.

Keeping to Time & Allowing for Conversations: Facilitators are constantly navigating the balance between adhering to the planned agenda and embracing valuable, spontaneous discussions that enhance learning and idea generation. While time management is essential, rigidly sticking to a schedule can stifle insightful conversations and make participants feel rushed. Effectively managing this polarity involves recognizing the potential of unplanned interactions while ensuring the overall goals of the session are met.

---

Incubation & Conversation: This polarity emphasizes the importance of balancing individual reflection time (incubation) with collaborative discussion (conversation) throughout the creative process. Facilitators should provide structured opportunities for both, recognizing that individuals may have different preferences and needs.

Recognizing and managing polarities can remarkably enhance a facilitator’s effectiveness. While managing polarities can take significant thought and effort; with practice and experience it becomes second nature – just like the polarity of inhaling and exhaling.

For organizations and collaborations that include government agencies, a shutdown introduces immediate and very real uncertainty. Participation becomes unclear. Travel plans shift. Funding questions loom. And yet, the scientific questions and societal challenges these groups are working on do not pause.

Looking back on that period offers a useful opportunity to reflect—not on the disruption itself, but on what it takes to design and facilitate collaborative work when external conditions are unstable.

Below are three brief case studies from that period, followed by a few cross-cutting lessons that continue to shape how we approach our work today.

Shared Conditions Across the Projects

Although these projects spanned astrobiology, ecology, and water security, they were shaped by a similar set of constraints:

• Uncertainty around who would be able to participate, and when
• Rapid changes to logistics, locations, and available resources
• Participants carrying not just professional disruption, but personal and institutional stress
• A need to balance flexibility with clarity so the work could still move forward

Rather than treating these challenges as one-off problems to solve, we approached them as design conditions or factors to acknowledge explicitly and plan around.

Shared Conditions Across the Projects

Looking across these experiences, a few consistent lessons stand out:

• Name uncertainty early and often. Acknowledging external conditions builds trust and reduces unspoken tension.
• Design for flexibility without losing purpose. Clear goals allow processes to adapt without drifting.

Treat disruption as a design constraint, not a failure. Constraints can surface new opportunities for learning and connection.

Looking Ahead

Large collaborations – especially those that span government, academia, and other sectors – often operate within complex and shifting environments. Policy changes, funding dynamics, and institutional pressures can all shape how and when people are able to participate. Experiences like these have influenced how we think about planning, facilitation, and co-design in uncertain contexts. They continue to inform how we approach future engagements with government agencies, academic researchers, and cross-sector partners.

We’re grateful to work with clients and participants who bring curiosity, flexibility, and care to their collaborations – even when the path forward isn’t entirely clear.

The Biomedical Data Science Innovation Lab (BDSIL) is an annual program that rotates its meeting location each year. One of the program’s progenitors, John Darrell Van Horn, a professor of Data Science at UVA, explains that the meeting place is moved around the country – he reels off a list of locations including  Oregon, California, Washington State, North Carolina – to keep the Innovation Lab accessible. 

Accessibility is a key component of the Foundations of Biomedical Data Science Seminar Series, a lengthy and ongoing series of virtual speaker talks hosted on the UVA website. The informational videos are accessible to anyone participating in an upcoming BDSIL – and to anyone interested in, for example, ethical use of AI in medicine, biomedical implications of data polution, the COVID pandemic’s impact on other influenza strains, or any of a number of other topics recently featured.

Building the Library

The series aims to help bridge the knowledge gaps between participants in upcoming Innovation Labs, which by their very nature involve collaboration between individuals in different fields, namely biomedical researchers and data scientists. The seminar series also exists as a free-to-use and curated collection of the work of some of the brightest minds working in both fields. Or, as Van Horn so succinctly puts it, “by and large, it’s like a Master Class” on biomedical data science. 

“That’s the general idea, to build this body of work, and to give the people who are coming to the lab the opportunity to get up to a base level of awareness on the topic we’re covering,” says Tim Dunne, a facilitator at KI. “They’re trying to build the library.”

That library is a useful tool, possibly even essential, to help get participants up to speed on the issues inherent in the intersection of the different scientific branches of Biomedical and Data Science research. One of Van Horn’s key conditions for success is beginning with a diverse group of potential participants. They must also be willing – and able – to work together, in concert, to articulate answers to complex questions. 

The Right Team for the Challenge

This means they will face a number of initial challenges to communication, though communication is a necessary factor for a successful Innovation Lab; the library of videos helps participants overcome the challenge of their different scientific backgrounds. “In the quantitative sciences, they usually like to think about it for a while; it’s a little slower paced,” he explains. “So bringing those people together makes it an intense environment, but it’s also one where I think that team science element can emerge. That’s one of the things we’re really trying to do. We specifically try to bring people in who are in these diverse fields. We try not to bring too many people who are from the same institutions, so we get the broadest representation possible.”

“Who are the best team members?” Van Horn ponders, before offering an answer, “They really want to make new partnerships and form new interdisciplinary, cross-disciplinary teams.”

Where Innovation Happens

Van Horn explains that such a willingness to be a part of the team is vital to the success of the mission, as it enables the creative approaches to problem-solving the event aims to produce. The BDSIL involves a large number of professionals doing interdisciplinary work, and, as Van Horn mentioned earlier, the process can be somewhat intense. Especially, he explains, that working through the creative process is itself a step in that selfsame process.

“The innovation doesn’t just happen,” Van Horn explains. “You have to be in a place where it’s ideally positioned, that it has to happen, and the Innovation Lab really tries to get people to that place in a concentrated period of time. It’s not just collaboration, it’s cooperation. It’s really magical to see how that process plays out.” 

Explore Topics

The Creative Education Foundation’s Creative Problem Solving Institute (CPSI) is the world’s longest-running creativity conference, in operation for more than 60 years, since its first iteration was held at the University of Buffalo in 1955. CPSI takes inspiration from the Creative Problem-Solving process developed by Alex Osborn and Sidney Parnes in the 1950s, and, though it might have been first, it is far from the only event or organization helping participants practice creativity. There is also CREA in Italy, Mindcamp in Canada, and a bevy of various other creativity conferences, each with its own distinctive approach, but each conference informed by the tenets of creative problem-solving.

A Nomadic Community Takes Shape

As such, a nomadic, borderless village, of sorts, has sprung up around the aforementioned conferences. It is not a village identifiable on any map, but rather one united by a common perspective. It is a group of people – facilitators, educators, academics, scientists, business people, and performing arts professionals – linked together by a shared experience and, more importantly, a shared appreciation for the tools offered by creative problem-solving. Tim Dunne calls it the “Village of Creative Practitioners.”

“There have been so many creativity conferences spawned from CPSI,” says Dunne, a facilitator at KI. Dunne has an undergraduate degree in economics and an MBA in finance from the University of Rochester and is co-author of a 2014 book entitled Never Be Closing: How to Sell Better Without Screwing Your Clients, Your Colleagues, or Yourself. 

“They all overlap,” Dunne continues, pointing out that though each conference has its individual style, the underlying themes and values are similar. So, while one conference might offer an event that is more experiential, versus another conference that might be more academic and presentation-focused, the differences are ones of aesthetics more than of content. Likewise, the facilitators, educators, and other creative professionals who frequent the events can sometimes be found as attendees, volunteers, or as passionate believers.

Values That Travel Across Disciplines

Dunne, one such person, who has found himself on both the facilitator and participant side of the fence, is also the treasurer of the Summer Stars Foundation, the organization behind the Summer Stars Camp for the Performing Arts – and an organization that has been changed by its proximity to the creative community. “There are undercurrents of the same village values – defer judgment, seek the unusual, listen – or culture at Summer Stars as there are at CPSI because it’s performing arts and creative, and because of the people who are on the board and impacting what happens there,” Dunne says. “It’s another example of a meteor that passed close enough to the CPSI family planet that it affected its trajectory.” For Summer Stars, Dunne adds: support the person taking a risk, leave everyone’s dignity intact in any interaction, take a risk, and try something new.

The shared values Dunne mentions, perhaps themselves an outgrowth of the set of creative problem-solving tools embraced by each conference, helps create the shared foundation for the Village of Creative Practitioners. Those sets of tools – or values – translate well to other disciplines. Much as Summer Stars emerged from the CPSI community and carved out a place for itself by adapting the techniques of creative problem-solving to the world of performing arts, Knowinnovation’s origin story can also be traced back to the CPSI community. KI was born out of the need to adapt the tenets of creative problem-solving to interdisciplinary science.

“The thing that stays with me now, having been going for a full generation, is the real ‘village’ component of it,” Dunne says. “If you meet someone who’s connected to the community, you know you’re going to know people in common.”

There exists a cross-generational component to the “Village,” as well. It is a community that values mentorship, and where family members are as likely to attend as coworkers. The village grows, and the younger generation is welcomed into the fold. The experience rewards a full immersion, attention, engagement, and presence in a way that is not always the case in a world where attention is increasingly viewed as a scarce commodity, yet another way that the experience of accessing one’s creative imagination forms intimate and meaningful connections. 

The relationships built on the principles of deferred judgment, listening, and presence tend to be lasting ones, even lifelong friendships. No matter how frequently someone moves, they can still keep a home in the Village of Creative Practitioners. “The longevity of the community means we also mourn together,” Dunne says. “Some of my mentors in the village have passed. They are remembered and acknowledged as we build on what we learned from them.”

Building Lasting Connections

As in a real brick-and-mortar village, the members of the Village of Creative Practitioners all have different careers and backgrounds, but they form enduring connections. “It’s a place where people become vulnerable, so ties get built more deeply and more quickly,” Dunne explains. The result is the formation of a highly invested community of diverse individuals. 

With patience and careful tending, the village grows.

Explore Topics

ALS, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, is a devastating, incurable neurodegenerative disease the causes of which are not known. Over time, the disease robs its victims of the ability to control their muscles and most experience a slow, excruciating decline. It is also devastating for the victim’s loved ones who do all they can to alleviate suffering but are, in the end, powerless to stop the disease’s progression. Mike Piscotty, an “IT guy” at Lawrence Livermore National Lab (LLNL), was thrown into this world of pain and grief when his wife, Gretchen, was diagnosed and, ultimately, passed away from ALS. While others may have been incapacitated by this loss, Mike chose to act.

From Grief to Action

Mike is not a doctor nor a medical researcher, but he is persistent and passionate in his efforts to support work toward a cure for ALS. He wanted to understand more about the disease and why it was such an intractable problem. He searched the internet for information, read relevant research papers, and attended conferences of medical researchers to better understand the current state of the research. He soon realized that while there were researchers around the globe working to unravel the mysteries of ALS, there was no strategic, coordinated plan of attack to understand and cure the disease. He also read reports of work at LLNL that used the lab’s supercomputers to model processes related to cancer and traumatic brain injury and wondered if these approaches might apply to ALS.

Mike worked with colleagues at LLNL Foundation to secure funding to inform other LLNL researchers about ALS who then used the lab’s supercomputer to model PDP43, a key protein found in 95% of ALS cases. While this was an important step, Mike realized that curing ALS would require the efforts of researchers from diverse fields and expertise and that those efforts needed to be aligned in order to make significant progress. A colleague at the LLNL Foundation knew of Knowinnovation (KI) and encouraged Mike to reach out.

Building the Roadmap

Mike founded the ALS Cure project (https://www.alscure.org/) and has worked with KI to host three virtual international symposia with the goal of finding a cure for ALS in the shortest time frame possible. Mike urged symposium attendees “to harness the passion and hate that each of us feels for ALS and turn that into innovative thinking and collaboration.” A defining output from the first symposium is the “Roadmap to Cure ALS” that identifies key milestones and multiple research paths that can be pursued to achieve those milestones (see figure). Symposium participants at subsequent gatherings have refined the roadmap as new knowledge emerges. The roadmap has also served as an organizing structure for seed funding for which international teams of symposium participants can apply.

The Power of Global Coordination

An essential element of the symposia is the active participation of researchers from different disciplines and different countries. As Mike points out, “International collaboration is critical. ALS is somewhat rare and there is a limited amount of data and funding available. Countries tend to spend money on diseases that more people are impacted by. This disease is far too complex to be working on just one part of “the elephant.” Leveraging resources around the world gives us hope to achieve a cure.” The symposia are designed to foster conversations between diverse researchers that will lead to innovative approaches to accelerate research that can lead to a cure.

Dr. Jonathan Cooper-Knock, a researcher at Sheffield University in the UK, has participated in all three symposia and served on the ALS Cure Project research council. His participation in the symposia has led to new research collaborations. “The thing that’s most valuable for me are those discussion groups. Every time I’ve been, it’s changed my research. It’s given me ideas and collaborations have come from it. That’s the real game changer.” He adds that the roadmap “crystallizes a set of priorities” and allows researchers to make explicit connections between different elements of the field that may, in turn, lead to changes to the map.

Through the ALS Cure Project, Mike continues to raise funds that will support on-going, collaborative, coordinated research into the ALS disease mechanisms and biomarkers that are essential for developing a cure for ALS. He looks forward to “A day when a person contracting ALS is quickly diagnosed and treated with the ALS cure to stop progression.”

Explore Topics

Interdisciplinary research has gained popularity across research institutions over the past few decades due to its necessity in today’s complex world. As highlighted by Moirano et al. (2020) and Rhoten (2003), today’s world is characterized by volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity. Essentially, society faces multifaceted problems that defy simple solutions. In order to face these challenges, society must collaborate across different expertise, drawing knowledge from all areas, which is where IDR shines. Its popularity is evident in the push for more interdisciplinary research efforts by various institutions and the establishment of fields dedicated to enhancing collaboration such as the science of team science (SciTS) (Hall et al., 2018).

Knowledge Integration:

To understand the difficulties faced by IDR, it’s helpful to think about the three levels of creative collaboration: individual, collective, and environmental. The individual level refers to the unique characteristics of the individuals in the group. The collective level refers to the intricate ways in which individuals within a group interact and collaborate. Lastly, the environmental level refers to all the factors in the physical and non-physical environment that impact the group (Moriano et al. 2020; Pinkow, 2023). What makes IDR unique from general group collaboration, is the diversity of disciplines, which affects the collective level. To understand the difficulties of IDR, we need to dive into the unique challenges of IDR at the collective level, which leads us to the concept of knowledge integration.

Among the myriad challenges faced by interdisciplinary teams, knowledge integration emerges as a major hurdle. Integrating knowledge involves effectively communicating knowledge across disciplines in order to reach a shared understanding of the challenge and goal of the group (Edmondson & Harvey, 2018; Miller, 2016; Stokols et al., 2008). Knowledge integration is essential for effective collaboration; however, it is more challenging than it seems on the surface. In order to understand why this is the case, we must first discuss three elements of knowledge integration: knowledge diversity, properties of knowledge, and boundaries to knowledge integration.

Knowledge Diversity:

The concept of knowledge diversity, as discussed by Edmondson & Harvey (2018) and Moirano et al. (2020), involves three key dimensions. Firstly, there is “variety,” encompassing differences in knowledge content, background, and experience within interdisciplinary teams. Beyond variety, there is “disparity,” reflecting differences in assets and resources like income, power, and status, influenced by environmental factors. Lastly, “separation” pertains to differences in opinions, beliefs, and attitudes, delving into the intangible aspects of diversity. Edmondson and Harvey (2018) emphasize that having knowledge variety in IDR is what makes it uniquely valuable. The whole reason that IDR is so essential is because it brings together unique views from various disciplines. However, you can’t have knowledge variety without also having disparity and separation because the three are so interconnected. Therefore, it is essential to look at all three elements of knowledge diversity when trying to understand the challenges of knowledge integration.

Properties of Knowledge:

Examining the role of knowledge in organizations, Carlile (2002) and Edmondson and Harvey (2018) describe three key properties of knowledge: localized, embedded, and invested. Localized knowledge, specific to a context or problem within a discipline, proves challenging to share due to its dependence on background knowledge and deep understanding. Embedded knowledge, characterized by its tacit nature acquired through experience, becomes difficult to articulate explicitly to team members lacking similar field experiences. Lastly, invested knowledge, costly to develop or redevelop, poses a challenge not in sharing but in disputing. Questioning invested knowledge can lead to emotional responses and relational conflict, hindering creativity and collaboration. These properties are not mutually exclusive, and navigating their unique challenges is crucial for overcoming barriers to knowledge integration in organizations.

Boundaries to Integrating Knowledge:

In addition to the challenges posed by knowledge properties, integrating knowledge faces specific barriers due to group diversity, as outlined by Carlile (2002) and Edmondson and Harvey (2018). Three main boundaries are identified: syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic. Syntactic boundaries arise from language differences between disciplines, causing confusion and miscommunication. Semantic boundaries result from varying systems of interpretation among disciplines, making it challenging to agree on a common understanding. Thicker boundaries occur when disciplines are further apart, thinning as disciplines become closer. Pragmatic boundaries involve differences in group members’ interests or goals, with hidden or conflicting goals posing significant challenges. Overcoming these boundaries is crucial for effective collaboration, as they impact a group’s ability to achieve a shared understanding and common goals, essential for knowledge integration.

Putting the Pieces Together:

When considering the contributing factors of knowledge diversity, the properties of knowledge, and the boundaries to knowledge integration, it becomes clear why knowledge integration as a whole presents such a challenge. Looking at all these pieces together two related but distinct broad challenges become apparent. 

On one hand, there are the practical challenges to knowledge integration. These include the very real barriers to sharing knowledge across disciplines that have historically worked in their own silos (Stichweh, 1992). Because disciplines have been separated and specialized, each has its own unique language and systems of interpretation that can be difficult to communicate to other disciplines (semantic and syntactic boundaries). Furthermore, IDR requires the integration of knowledge and therefore the properties of knowledge add an additional layer of complexity. The profound separation of disciplines means that interdisciplinary teams often need to share knowledge that is deeply localized or embedded which we know can be difficult.

On the other hand, we have the more human challenges related to interdisciplinary collaboration. Any group working together may face difficulties with emotional tension; however, there are certain elements of IDR and knowledge integration that bring about unique challenges. Knowledge separation and disparity, pragmatic challenges, and the invested nature of knowledge all contribute in various ways to the emotional strain on a group. According to Young et al. (2014), relationship conflict within interdisciplinary teams negatively impacts creativity and collaboration. Understanding these two broad areas of practical challenges and human challenges offers us unique insight into some of the challenges of IDR on a collective level. 

The overarching goal remains to make IDR more accessible and effective. Acknowledging and understanding the challenges, as highlighted in this post, is a crucial first step. Moving forward, the focus will shift towards strategies to overcome these barriers.

References:

Carlile, P. R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13(4), 442-455.

Choi, B. C. K., & Pak, A. W. P. (2006). Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy: 1. Definitions, objectives, and evidence of effectiveness. Clinical and Investigative Medicine. Médecine Clinique et Experimentale, 29(6), 351–364.

Edmondson, A. C., & Harvey, J. F. (2018). Cross-boundary teaming for innovation: Integrating research on teams and knowledge in organizations. Human Resource Management Review, 28(4), 347-360.

Hall, K. L., Vogel, A. L., Huang, G. C., Serrano, K. J., Rice, E. L., Tsakraklides, S. P., & Fiore, S. M. (2018). The science of team science: A review of the empirical evidence and research gaps on collaboration in science. American Psychologist, 73(4), 532.

Miller, C. Z. (2016). Towards transdisciplinarity: Liminality and the transitions inherent in pluridisciplinary collaborative work. Journal of Business Anthropology, 35-57.

Moirano, R., Sánchez, M. A., & Štěpánek, L. (2020). Creative interdisciplinary collaboration: A systematic literature review. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 35, 100626.

Pinkow, F. (2023). Creative cognition: A multidisciplinary and integrative framework of creative thinking. Creativity and Innovation Management, 32(3), 472-492.

Rhoten, D. (2003). A multi-method analysis of the social and technical conditions for interdisciplinary collaboration. Final Report, National Science Foundation BCS-0129573.

Stichweh, R. (1992). The sociology of scientific disciplines: On the genesis and stability of the disciplinary structure of modern science. Science in Context, 5(1), 3-15.

Stokols, D., Hall, K. L., Taylor, B. K., & Moser, R. P. (2008). The science of team science: overview of the field and introduction to the supplement. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35(2), S77-S89.Yong, K., Sauer, S. J., & Mannix, E. A. (2014). Conflict and creativity in interdisciplinary teams. Small Group Research, 45(3), 266-289.

Explore Topics

In the United Kingdom, only 25 percent of cancers are detected at stage 1. Cancer Research UK (CRUK) has been holding Sandpit Workshops since 2018 focusing on the early detection of cancer. Sandpits, which are known as Ideas Labs in the U.S., are intense experiences that bring together researchers from disparate fields and use the tenants of collaborative creativity to spur innovation. In this blog post for CRUK, writer Phil Prime and Sandpit participants share what it’s like to be a part of these events and the promising research that has come from them — research that is moving the world closer to earlier detection of cancer.

Explore Topics

One thing we love about working with scientists is that they are motivated by trying to make the world a better place. They see problems, such as the need to apply the latest in data science to improve public health in Africa, and they step up. That’s what Harnessing Data Science for Health Discovery and Innovation in Africa (DS-I Africa) is all about. The new program is run by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Common Fund. The kick-off event for the program was a meeting scheduled for June 2020 in Uganda with about 350 scientists. And then pandemic struck, COVID-related travel restrictions went into place, the meeting was converted into a virtual one — and registration grew to more than1600 participants.

Innovating at Scale

At KI, we’re always ready to step into uncharted territory with our clients. But, truth be told, as we watched the number of registrants climb, we had to scramble; inventing technology, creating new virtual networking tools and devising ways to keep the event interactive. Our largest virtual event at that time had included about 400 participants and NIH’s largest event had about 250 participants. So, we did what we do best: we got creative.

We designed interactive sessions built around scientific presentations and moderated Q&A, and added interactive poll questions, small breakout groups, and a networking platform in KIStorm to allow participants to get to know each other and engage with nearly 100 potential partner organizations like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and Data Science Africa.

We also created a unique Partnership and Innovation Marketplace during which participants had the choice of joining a meet-up via Zoom with representatives from 30 organizations; a Markov Mixer (a.k.a. Speed Networking); a Regional Collaboration breakout session or visiting a casual networking lounge for pre-arranged appointments or random conversations. During the three-hour live Partnership and Innovation Marketplace, participants could also stop by virtual booths to meet other researchers looking to form collaborations.

Smiling Faces 

The virtual Symposium was a seven-day event held over the span of two weeks from August 10 through August 21, 2020 in which participants met for two hours a day. Laura Povlich, Ph.D. is a Program Officer at the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) Fogarty International Center and the coordinator for DS-I Africa. Povlich admits she was skeptical that participants would be willing to network and engage. 

“Seeing how much enjoyment people got out of that networking aspect of it and seeing the smiling faces was really gratifying for me and totally changed my mind about whether the virtual format is worth the effort.” Still, Povlich pointed out that virtual events are not for everyone. Some people struggle with technology, others struggle with networking. But for those who are comfortable with both, the payoff is worth the time and effort. 

The Symposium was the first in a series of events to highlight funding opportunities, help researchers form new collaborations and introduce researchers to potential partners. Amit Mistry, Ph.D., is Senior Scientist at NIH’s Fogarty International Center and in charge of planning the event. “Overall I think we did a lot more than people expected,” Mistry says. 

Getting the Word Out

Mistry says the leadership behind DS-I Africa had three goals from their in-person meeting which they worked to achieve with the virtual Symposium. “One of our goals was to promote the new program and its new funding opportunities. We also wanted people to know our priorities so that we’d get stronger applications. We also wanted to study the state of the field to get a baseline we’ll be able to use as we assess our impact down the road.” Going virtual, Mistry says, a third goal became creating space for people to network and meet each other; something that would have happened naturally at an in-person meeting. “We especially wanted people to come together across different disciplines, across different sectors and across different geographies,” Mistry says. 

Povlich says this networking is crucial to getting the kind of applications for which the program is looking. “There’s a significant expertise in data science in Africa, but there’s not a strong network. And so we hoped this event would help spur the formation of a more collaborative network.”

Forming New Collaborations

Organizers say that all of the goals for the in-person meeting were met by the virtual one, including networking amongst participants that lead to the formation of new research collaborations. Lillian Prince is one of those researchers. Prince is a Ph.D. student studying epidemiology at the University of Chicago. She is part of a research team headed by Ayman Al-Hendy, M.D., Ph.D., a professor and director of translational research from the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Illinois/Chicago. The team studies, among other conditions, uterine fibroids. African-American women are three to four times more likely to have these non-cancerous tumors and experience pain, anemia and decreased fertility as a result. (A bill addressing the need for research and education, particularly of minority women, currently sits before the U.S. Congress called the Uterine Fibroid Research and Education Act of 2020.)

“African-American women are disproportionately affected by these tumors,” Prince says. “We’re really trying to understand why that is. Is it something in their environment? Is it genetics? Is it diet? It could be a multitude of those factors that influence the development of those tumors.” The University of Chicago team participated in the Symposium hoping to find additional colleagues in Africa with whom they could potentially partner with to apply for a grant that would establish a research hub in Africa dedicated to studying uterine fibroids. The hope is that what they discover would help shed light on why African and African-American women are more likely to suffer from uterine fibroids. 

During the Partnership and Innovation Marketplace, Prince met Kwasi Hgbleke, Ph.D., who is from Ghana and runs two non-profit organizations there. He and his colleagues from Harvard where he recently completed a postdoc, and MIT are now collaborating with Al-Hendy’s team. “DS-I Africa (Symposium) was instrumental in introducing people who otherwise may not have met to do this important research, especially on the African continent,” Prince says.

Leveraging Data Science

Emile Chimusa, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology at the University of Cape Town. Chimusa research focuses on applying machine learning to omics data to understand human variation. Ultimately, he is working toward developing risk assessments for various cancer types based on genome-wide association data in African populations. 

As one of the presenters in the Partnership and Innovation Marketplace, Chimusa came to the virtual event looking for collaborators. He found two potential collaborators: William Hersch, MD, of the Oregon Health and Science University and Subha Madhavan, Ph.D., of Georgetown University. Currently, few genetic risk assessments are based on African populations. The team hopes to change that, Chimusa says. “We want to come up with a computer-based clinical decision support tool that is based on African data.”

Here to Stay

Following the Symposium, DS-I Africa has hosted a weekly State of Data Science series. Registration for all events is now up to 2236 participants. In December, KI will facilitate a Landscape Workshop to glean key learnings from the entire virtual DS-I Africa experience.

The clients and participants we talk to about virtual events like this one all agree: there’s no substitute for an in-person meeting. But, as events like DS-I Africa are proving, there are creative ways to make virtual meetings interactive and engaging — all while working to make the world a better place.

Explore Topics