1 INDIVIDUAL STATEMENT: EXEMPLAR 2 When I began this unit, I found it hard to identify my ways of thinking according to the Legitimation Code Theory (LCT), and I couldn't locate where on the specialization plane my discipline's methods of learning and thinking stood. On reflection, I think this made it difficult for me to identify why my ways of thinking and doing sometimes clashed with other members of my group. While some areas of my Politics and International relations discipline emphasize strong epistemic relations, most of the content involves theories and methods intended to help an individual researcher shape their gaze of the surrounding world. I think that this influences my ways of thinking to be dictated by weak epistemic relations and strong social relations, placing me more often in the 'knower code' quadrant (Maton, 2019, p.4-5). This is reflected by the way that I first approached our problem question by reading broadly about not only the impacts of COVID-19 on industries but also the far-reaching social and political implications that may not be overtly visible through economic statistics. Through reading into the experiences of different groups of people, placing value on the subjective knowledge held by different knowers, I brought to the group a rich understanding of lived human experiences. I did struggle to engage with team members from the 'knowledge code' as they began their research by first outlining methodological approaches that they felt were necessary to shape our research and prevent subjective bias. I struggled to engage with the emphasis on objectivity as I believe that a researcher must address the contextual subjective experiences surrounding data. For instance, a team member presented that COVID-19 had caused the production of mobile phones and devices to decline. Without acknowledging the context, it was assumed that access to mobile phones was perhaps also declining, and this may impact consumers' ability to access e-commerce. However, as China is already one of the most mobile and internet-connected places in the world, access to e-commerce would probably not be severely impacted. The statistic demonstrates that large industries faced detrimental shutdowns in China that caused financial strain on the Chinese economy, and the prosperity of China was a stressor on many lives. This statistic, therefore, indicated to us that not only were there production and supply chain disruptions but also emotional impacts on consumer confidence that our brand would have to navigate. While members from the 'knowledge code' were sometimes restricted by their objective research being too reductive, my 'knower code' ways of thinking could equally be too broad and too anecdotal. In instances like this, we were able to supplement the limitations of each other's ways of thinking to achieve a well-consolidated evaluation of data. 2 While it has been easy to relate to team members from the same code as me, despite coming from different disciplines, it has been challenging to adjust to other ways of thinking. I found that I had a code match with Alsion as we both position ourselves in the 'knower code' valuing human experiences from different lenses (Maton, 2019, p.4-5). I focused on the consumer experience of COVID-19 through a social and political lens, and Alison investigated it through a technological perspective. We were both able to relate our ideas and critically reflect and engage with the relationships between our sources. The biggest problem we faced as a consequence of working with different types of thinkers was the fragmentation of the group that I can now identify as a code clash. Team members from disciplines of statistics, business and commerce, demonstrate 'knowledge code' ways of thinking that prioritize raw data and analysis using specific textbook defined techniques and methodological approaches (ibid, p.21). I found it hard to not only navigate the jargon that they used but also to adjust my thinking to fit within their specific frameworks and methodologies. At first this systematic approach made me feel as though my research was more of an anecdotal secondary resource that couldn't be used as supporting evidence, but I later realized that we were just unable to understand each other's approaches. Typically, my research process is quite fluid; however, in this type of project, I have found that to be limiting as the question requires a solution that is supported by tangible evidence rather than theoretical claims. To mediate these differences, I managed to find many parallels between our processes. The SWOT analysis and PEST analysis tools presented by group members analysed content that was similar to my research focus but arranged it in a systematic way that could produce a solution. By framing my perspectives in a way that other team members were familiar with it was easier to relate to each other. Further, now I can identify that, while my ways of thinking might not be the most effective in systematically determining the best solution, it can guide the direction of research and prevent our scope from being too narrow or reductive. For instance, when we initially decided on bringing a breakfast brand to the Chinese market, the students from the 'knowledge code' narrowed in and provided essential data on breakfast food companies in China. It wasn't until we investigated social trends and the changing experience of consumers in China that we realized there was a demand for snack foods and hence an opportunity for breakfast foods to be marketed as snacks. By finding common ground and identifying ways to relate within our different codes, it will allow us to prevent code clashes and team divisions from happening. We must overcome 3 these divisions as both perspectives are equally important and valuable to the outcome of our task. Interdisciplinary learning is described as an integrative learning process that allows for the synthesis of many disciplines (Ashby & Exeter, 2018, p.202-3). During the project, our team has been able to achieve interdisciplinary learning in some areas. However, there have been some significant barriers. One example of successfully integrated learning occurred in the early stages of our project. In our research, I found that health was a critical social and political concern for the Chinese population with the institution of a national Nutrition Plan that had changed social attitudes towards nutrition. Alison's research found that in the Chinese market, consumer expectations around tech would be higher than in Australia and brands are expected to provide a level of customization. Together we devised that social concerns and consumer demands could be combined to create a food product with ingredients customized to the consumer's specific health and lifestyle needs. We then were able to take this information to Maria, who comes from a discipline of medical science. She investigated how nutrients could be customized in fortified food products in a way that is not only ethically allowed but also is appealing to the lifestyle of consumers and accessible through technology. In this case, we were successfully able to integrate our disciplinary knowledge in a way that transcended the limitations of our disciplines to create a new innovative solution. From here, however, we struggled to achieve interdisciplinary learning with the rest of the group. We reverted to more of a cross-disciplinary process of suggesting ideas that we were unable to integrate in a meaningful way (ibid, p.203). I think that while there were some overt hurdles, such as language barriers, the main reason we failed to achieve meaningful interdisciplinary learning was due to our approach as a team. Firstly, we divided our group plan up into sections for each person. Doing this prevented us from being able to share and synthesize information and eventually resulted in a disjointed final product. Secondly, we didn't devise a way to address the language barriers that already existed in the group. Upon reflection, it is easy to see now that by allotting everyone individual writing tasks, we were isolating the members of our group that were not confident with writing large amounts of text. While we intended to do this to save time, both these two factors made us less efficient as we did not anticipate the amount of final editing that would be required to gel our work together. When we were left to amend this last minute, I voluntarily took on the role of editing, which left me to rewrite most of the submission. While at the time I thought that I 4 was helpful, I can see now that this was detrimental as it stopped other team members from having their perspective heard and may have made them feel like their contribution was not valid. To manage this in future, we should work more closely together throughout the entire process and work to find common ground to share our perspectives to allow us as a team to synthesize disciplinary knowledge (ibid, 205). References Ashby, I, & Exter, M 2019, ‘Designing for Interdisciplinarity in Higher Education: Considerations for Instructional Designers’, TechTrends, vol.63, pp. 202-208. Maton, K 2019, ‘Specialization from Legitimation Code Theory: How the basis of achievement shapes student success’, in Martin, J. R., Maton, K., & Doran, Y.J. (eds) Academic Discourse: Systemic functional linguistics and Legitimation Code Theory, London, Routledge, pp.1-21. Feedback Thoughtful reflection on ways of thinking represented in your group and how different codes have contributed to the project. Some canvassing of how these interacted but a more developed discussion of strengths and limitations would be useful. Really thoughtful insights on challenges experienced by your team in relation to different ways of thinking. Need to define concepts when you introduce these (e.g. code clash/match). Also, some further attention to strategies would be useful. Provides detailed examples of disciplines in interaction in your group. This could have been enhanced with more detailed engagement with the reading, for example, by differentiating between cross-, multi- and trans- disciplinary learning. But some excellent reflection on how other diversity factors such as language also affect interdisciplinary learning in groups. Very well written and systematic treatment of the questions. Good referencing practice. Note, ibid is not consistent with intext citation.