Conference Program

This contribution reflects on my experience in the courses “Research Laboratory on Technology and Organization” and “Research Laboratory on Information Systems” within the Master’s program in Organization, Society and Technology at the University of Trento, both structured according to the Challenge Based Learning (CBL) model (Nichols et al., 2016).

The six-month learning process alternated theoretical lectures, hands-on laboratory activities, applied field research, and discussion with peers, teachers and external stakeholders involved in the project. The expected outcome consisted of a final group report integrating the two components of each laboratory: a qualitative research analysis and a project proposal addressing needs identified throughout the research process. In my case, my group focused on a requalification project promoted by the Municipality of Trento concerning the future opening of a youth center. Through qualitative methods, our group explored the complex tangle of desires, guidelines, and needs expressed by the various actors inhabiting the area and its potential future users. The alternation between theoretical inputs and fieldwork fostered continuous negotiation between conceptual frameworks and empirical complexity, in a process that I later recognized as abductive (Timmermans & Tavory, 2012). Initial uncertainty and ambiguity in the research process gradually became an integral part of our learning, shaping how we approached challenges and negotiated meaning collectively. My group faced challenges in developing a cohesive working approach. The uneven engagement forced me to reflect on my own role within collaborative research and ultimately viewing these dynamics as an integral part of the learning experience. In this sense, even if the outcome did not fully represent the richness of the work, the experience proved deeply formative at an individual level. Reflexive tools, including individual Learning Agreements, a collective Learning Diary and a personal logbook, supported a continuous reflection during the courses that ended in a final position paper. The combination of qualitative methods and the CBL pedagogical structure created an open learning process that helped me engage with the challenge while fostering reflexive awareness of the research process, shifting attention from the final output to the process itself. Furthermore, tasks were not evaluated through formal grades but through continuous feedback that allowed us to learn from our mistakes and encouraged the growth of tacit knowledge (Polanyi, 1966). Rather than seeking a final, static truth, the investigation evolved into an open-ended dialogue among the researcher, the field and the research process. The classroom became a space for negotiating theory and practice within an open and democratic structure that embraced uncertainty, enabling critical reflection, fostering innovative experimentation and engaging with real-world contexts.