Surface – Exploring the “Third Space”: An Invitation to Redefine the Boundaries of Innovation – Part 2 - podcast episode cover

Surface – Exploring the “Third Space”: An Invitation to Redefine the Boundaries of Innovation – Part 2

Feb 23, 202333 minSeason 3Ep. 6
--:--
--:--
Download Metacast podcast app
Listen to this episode in Metacast mobile app
Don't just listen to podcasts. Learn from them with transcripts, summaries, and chapters for every episode. Skim, search, and bookmark insights. Learn more

Episode description

This episode of the NLN Nursing EDge Unscripted Surface track is part two of two featuring guest Matthew Byrne. Dr. Byrne continues the discussion on the concept of the "third space," emphasizing its importance in fostering innovative problem-solving in health care and nursing education. He highlights the need for intentional creation of third spaces and the challenges of naming and defining this concept. The conversation explores how third spaces can address complex issues like the impact of artificial intelligence on education and the importance of including diverse perspectives in these discussions. The episode concludes with reflections on the role of third space professionals and the potential for interdisciplinary collaboration to advance the understanding and application of third spaces.

Dedicated to excellence in nursing, the National League for Nursing is the leading organization for nurse faculty and leaders in nursing education. Find past episodes of the NLN Nursing EDge podcast online. Get instant updates by following the NLN on LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram, Bluesky, and YouTube. For more information, visit NLN.org.

Transcript

[Music]

Welcome back. Last episode we talked with Dr.  Matthew Byrne to explore what it means to innovate   in the third space. Today we return to revisit the  third space and discuss more about opportunities   for health care to problem solve in this creative  and diverse space. Thank you for joining us.   You know when you say that when it doesn't have  a name it's hard to talk about it's hard to   formalize it as an idea as something valuable, it's  hard to build it and create it and foster it.  

But then once you put a name on it then...all of a sudden it loses some of its   magic, maybe? Like then it becomes a thing that  you have to become or thing you have to do and or   thing that people may try to fit into  and maybe it's not as organic and then it becomes   like a like another role, like another thing.  You know what I mean? It can lose some of its...

power? Specialness? Power is the wrong word but yeah. I think  maybe this is connected to boundaries    because when you start to name it, it starts to  become this entity, this thing. Well, an entity and   a thing has boundaries right? It has competencies and yeah exactly it has boundaries.   Right, and the whole way, if I'm hearing  you right Matt and understanding this, is the   whole idea is letting go of those boundaries, right,  and opening our minds to seeing and thinking  

in different ways. So I'm with you Michelle  on this meta thinking here. I think it does...   It's a dilemma. It is a dilemma, but I  think some of the idea here is that when you do   open those boundaries and create that sort of  intellectual diffusion that doesn't mean you  

stay in that state forever. I mean, ideally  you leave that space and return with maybe   reconstructive thinking or a better understanding  of where it's good to have diffuse boundaries and   where it isn't, but also you've maybe expanded  your intellectual footprint because you're now   more empathetic and more understanding of another  person's perspective. I mean, that's part of why  

we do the work we do around building cultural humility. We expose our students to   situations and people that they normally wouldn't  be exposed to to build their empathy and   humility. I think the same thing can happen in the  third space where you want to   expand yourself and expand your comfort zone for  the greater good of whatever you're talking about.   But yeah, it can be tricky and I don't think  it's going to lose specialness by naming it. If  

anything, I think it'll help. It'll help us move  into a situation where we can intentionally   create third spaces to address the thorny problems  we have in front of us, and one of the things   I've been thinking a ton about lately is  this ChatGPT. I don't know if you guys   have heard about that yet. It's basically a piece  of artificial intelligence software you type in -    write me a birthday card in Shakespearean  language and it will spit that out by looking  

at everything on the internet. Well, it's about to  have a radical impact on teaching and learning for   us because students could just type in - write me  a treatise on how Florence Nightingale impacted   modern nursing and it will just go score the  internet and write you a paper about that.  

When I think about third space,  it's like, well I have to approach this problem,   this learning problem, as an academic, as a  technologist, as a philosopher, as an academic   administrator, and figure out like is the  tool inherently evil or is it just a tool?And   how do we navigate this for students? I think this third space is going to become super...it is   super important and will become progressively  more important as our problems become thornier  

and more complex. They're not just a single lane  issue like ChatGPT, they're a multi-lane issue   that requires us to think in really different ways  than we have before about how to address it.  That's a phenomenal example. I appreciate you  sharing that because that brings this to   life more for me to help me understand more about  this concept of third spacings. Looking back I   can recognize moments in time in my career where  I really have...tried to create  

a third space. I don't know whether we  got there or not, or maybe we needed one and   it wasn't totally. There's so much processing and  running for me. I think that I agree with you.   I agree both when you name it, right, then it 

becomes this thing. I also agree that we still   need to name it, right, because we got to name it to  be able to recognize it so that we can figure out   how do we help create more opportunities and  equip people with the skills to be able to   cognitive, it's I think it's a cognitive shift,  right? It's a mindset and then I think about   the cognitive fatigue that goes into that. 

I see a ton of research in this area of just   understanding not only more about it but  how do we help be able to transition into it,   transition out of it? When do we transition  into it, when do we transition out of it?   I think that's what's new in this space  for me. I've been reading all this   multi-disciplinary articles about it  and whatever else. I think there's still a lot of  

conceptual confusion. There's a lot of mixing up  of like what is participatory design, which is a   research approach that might use a third space  to bring participants in, but those are   conflated. I think you see confusion about a third  space professional and a third space where you   might bring third space professionals together  and then you see all these different words.   You see transformative collaboration. 

You see knowledge synergy. You see all this   and I'm even adding to it with my own   co-creative confluence. I think that's some   of the challenges like, what is this thing? Once  we figure out what that thing is we can figure   out how to bring people into it, make it optimally  effective, but also figure out like maybe people   can't sit in that space for more than two hours  because it's going to exhaust their sort of  

cognitive RAM. They only have so much intellectual  capacity to let go of self and professional   boundaries and whatever else. That  is the frontier of this work. How do   we...it's not a light switch, you know? You have  to have the right people and I think that's   what I'm exploring is like, how does  this really work? And I'm looking at things like   what is the environment? Can you do it virtually?  Does it have to be in a room and what does the  

room have to look like? And you have to have the  lights down and what are the personal qualities   people have to have? What are the interprofessional  dynamics that can make it good or bad? And what are   the context because maybe some problems aren't  amenable to a third space discussion. So you   could throw all these different problems out  there and and maybe a ChatGPT isn't amenable  

to a third space discussion. I think it is, but  there's a lot to factor in and I think that's   where there's a lot of gaps in this literature  because of the naming problems, but also because   it's just not something we as nurses or we in  the academic community have talked a lot about.  

This is a really important point this  lexicon because it's going to be a huge   barrier to really advancing the state of knowledge  in this area and I think about something related   in the space of standardized patients and 

simulation. So several years ago I was involved   in some work where we were surveying on a global  scale what was the lexicon that was used around   standardized patients and how different it is and  how conflated it gets and how it's not consistent   and how that can really serve as a barrier  to advancing our knowledge and understanding   of the practice of standardized patients and  simulation. I see that very parallel to this,  

right? If if that lexicon is not teased apart and  we don't have a shared mental model about what   the different words mean and the concepts on a  conceptual definition, on an operational level,   this really could stifle the growth of this.  I'm going to pose a question to you, Matt.  It leads me to think about the folks just  like myself, when I first had the opportunity   and the honor to hear your expertise  in this area. My first question was, where can  

I go to learn more, right? So for those of you,  those who may be listening and thinking, man   this is fascinating. I want to dig my teeth into  this. What recommendations would you have? Where   should they go to really start to unpack this  idea of third spacing in a way that's reliable   so they don't get lost in the conflated  vocabulary? Yeah, okay, so in terms of naming   I had the very great fortune to study under Norma 

Lang. You probably you guys probably don't know   that name, but she was and is one of  the pioneers of nursing informatics. And you've   probably seen the quote that her and Dr. Clark  had in one of their articles about if we can't   name, it we can't fund it, we can't research it,  that comes from her. So I had the great fortune to   study under her. So I think naming is super, super 

important. There's a Shakespearean   contradictory a rose by any other name would smell as  sweet, but when it comes to research, you know   we can tell the concept is immature if it has  a lot of different names and I think this is a   case where there's an immaturity to this concept  because we don't all call it the same thing. We   don't all you know talk about the attributes of  this phenomenon in the same way so there's room to   sort of coalesce the interdisciplinary knowledge 

around it. I think when you do that then it's   easier to fund it, to teach people about it,  to recognize it, to do all those things.    I think naming is super super critical and really  messy right now in terms of where do I learn more.   Just yesterday I found the book I wanted to  write on this topic. There are some...and it was   in an obscure place. It's Hansen, Fourie and Meyer.  They wrote a book called "Third Space, Information   Sharing, and Participatory Design. I read 

as much as I could as quickly as I could. I was   like, well, yeah, this is the book I wanted to  write. It's in some synthesis of lectures   in some esoteric book that's out on the  internet I had to go buy the ebook and   the the marketplace they directed me to said, oh  we don't sell that anymore. You have to go to a   different marketplace, so finding more about  this is not easy because of the name.  

But because you know this isn't like Covid,  so it's not something everybody's   publishing on, but I think if they want to learn  more about it, I think often starting   with something like participatory design, which is  a very mainstream design practice as well as  

something called communities of practice. I don't  know how familiar you guys are with that term but   that's a very academic thing where we bring people  together to talk about different principles and I   think communities of practice there's a lot of  informing of what how a third space can work.   So I've read a lot about communities of practice  and participatory design so I would say those are   very accessible areas of research and   phenomenon where you can dig in and say, okay , 

what is this? What are things adjacent to this  weird mystical third space that is going on? And   on about those two definitely I think you could  read those and get a sense of how you bring   a group together to do really cool things. Participatory design is very us-them. It's the   designers and participants coming together and  trying to create an environment where those end   users, those participants create something special. 

Third space is all these different people gathered   at a table to tackle an issue which is what  makes it a little bit different in terms of just   designers end users. Third space we bring  a whole bunch of interprofessional colleagues   together and talk about even more complex things  and there's not a, hey, I need to gain information   from you. It's that we all need to gain information  from each other and build this completely unique   and different intellectual palace to solve 

whatever thorny problems we have. I don't   know if I got to your question, Rachel. You did, thank you. I don't know if this question is   like dumb or if it's just too out there. This is a safe space  Michelle! This is a safe space! You know, I mean   but here's my question. Do we need a third  space to identify and name the third space? That is so meta, Michelle. Very meta. I would expect you to ask that question. I would expect that to be your question.

That is a meta Michelle question. It's so predictable. It's so predictable. I mean, but seriously though  if you're going to talk about getting a lexicon   around these concepts and the who and the  how and the why and the when and the where.   That's not something because I'm like all  fired up and I'm like, well, let's start naming it.   Let's start doing it, but we're just...that's a bad word, but we're nurses, we need  

all the other people, right? You need the other disciplines to to help us like the   social sciences and the behavioral scientists  and the stuff you know? Right. Right. Am I right   about that? Am I understanding it correctly that  we this isn't something just nursing could be   like, so we like all this and we're gonna just  start using a third space like it needs to be  

collaborative right. I think it does and and I  think where this is what gets tricky and you're   stealing my thunder a little bit because  I'm absolutely very interested in bringing   together multiple disciplinary groups  to talk about third space in the third space.   So I'm very interested in that like I said. I  reached out to colleagues all over the world and   and I think they're just like any of us  who are nerdy researchers or nerdy about whatever.  

They were very excited to talk about these things,  but you have to figure out who to bring   together and let's talk about I think there  are smaller scale models that people can take   away from this to think about. So I'll give you  a good example. I was thinking this morning about   course evaluations and faculty evaluations.   Students have an opportunity to tell us how the   course was and how we did, but it is very rare for  us to bring students in at the front of a course  

and say what do you think? They are  not in a participatory design space. They're   telling us afterwards what worked or didn't work  using an anonymous survey. That is not  

participatory design. A part of me says well, why  aren't we rethinking the way we teach using the   cognitive science, using what we know about online  teaching and taking an instructional designer, some   faculty, some students, some researchers, external  experts, maybe stakeholders that are students,   you know go work at their institution and sitting  down and throwing some thorny questions at them?   So even in academia we don't use a participatory 

design. We just ...'m going to use this word...but sort   of patriarchically say to students, well this  is how I think you need to learn and here's   how it's going to all be laid out before  you. We don't bring them in at the front end. I   mean, there's probably some people that do, but I've  never seen that. I don't read that that's happening.  

We don't do that, so maybe even on a small scale  we can think about even at our home institution   where we can take instructional designers and  faculty and students and whomever else and put   them in a room and talk about a particular topic that's tricky. But I'll give you a good example.   We had a question come up about online 

synchronous class participation. There's   all the students are gathered at 10 am on their  Zoom call the faculties talking about whatever,   maybe they have some breakout rooms,  whatever we were running into challenges with   what do we tell students about how they can  participate and what are the expectations of   engagement. So for example, cameras on or cameras 

off well? Then we get into this debate about, well   some people have body image issues or have stuff  going on at home and they can't have cameras on.  

So it's like okay, well then we can't have that  rule or we can have that rule sometimes so we   really just have been reactionary about some of  these challenging issues in academia and   not necessarily bringing students in at the front  and to address them and to give us feedback about   how was the moulage in this  simulation or how was the unfolding of this for   you? We debriefed the simulation but we don't often  debrief the sort of logistics and the learning  

experience. I think in terms of what can  you do right now that's third spacey I think it's   thinking about bringing together sort of broad  base of stakeholders and creating that safe space   environment that people who do simulation really  understand that creating that environment where   people can talk about things and dream up new  ways of approaching sort of our normal  

teaching or clinical practice work. The entire  time we've been talking I've been making this   parallel to what we know in simulation because I  will never forget the first time I saw students   in a simulation. It was at a community college  down the street. It was very new.   There was no pre-briefing. I don't even think there  was a debriefing. It was just put them in with the   manikin have them do a mock code.   But with that, I was like this  

is something. You felt this kind of like this is  magical. This is an important way to learn and then   we built all the structure around it. We built the  pre-brief and the debrief. We added the theory   and the support and the robustness to  it. I feel like this feels similar. There's   third space. There's magic but...we or somebody or the third space has to   create all the the other stuff and maybe in a way  naming it and reducing that magic is okay to me.  

I'm always skeptical when somebody's  like, oh it was magic, it was a miracle. I'm like, I'm  

a scientist. Yes, I understand we  have limits to humans understanding but typically   when there's something that I would describe  as magical or mystical or that my kids would   I would go well there's probably some science  underneath there somewhere and sure enough there   will be and so in the case of third space I'm  buying demystifying that for myself and others   because I think it can be a powerful tool to  address learning problems. Again. it can't, it's  

not a fit for every problem. Dealing with  an administrative project is not something we're   going to bring students into to solve but  looking at these new innovations like   ChatGPT, that's a great place to bring students in  and go hey are you guys talking about it? What do   you think about it? Where do you see that it  could be used or misused? Then how do we   talk to students about it at the top of  a class. Is it just the new breed of plagiarism?  

Where are you at on that? I think demystifying  third space is great and I think there's a lot   of utility in academia especially because you  have this environment full of interprofessional   colleagues. It's just organically there for you to  pull people together in a conference room and   say you know here's the thing. Let's talk  about it. Here's some of the ground rules.   Go to it and include students in that. 

I think students have been often the   missing ingredient just like patients  have been the missing ingredient in   a lot of patient care problems. We know what's best for you. We know what's best for you. Yeah.   I co-sign on all of that and what's now  becoming even more resounding in my mind is the   inherent importance that everybody that is part  of this third space be in it for the greater good. 

I think that may be in from my perspective  a difference between having an interprofessional   conversation or a conversation with students and  faculty administrators, whoever's around that table.   One important ingredient from transforming it to  that to a third space because I can imagine if   we have a third space and someone is in the third space that does not share   the greater good, what is this perspective for 

the greater good? I imagine that third space now   is not a third space for very much longer,  and all it takes is that one person to sort   of breach that sort of artificial community  that's created. I always think about when you   fly in a plane like it's forced community. You're all stuck together for two hours whether   you like it or not. You're in a forced community  and there are some norms and rules and you have   to adhere to them and when people don't chaos 

ensues and that experience falls apart. I think   the same thing can happen in the third space.  If you have somebody who's there who has very   turf-focused goals like they walk into  this meeting as a nurse and go, I'm here   to protect nursing practice. That's cool that we're  going to talk about something interesting but my   perspective is always going to be nursing, nursing,  nursing, nursing. You can't be in that space then.  

It won't work and that's probably why like my  theory is that that's probably why I haven't been   in a lot of what I would call true third space  experiences. I feel like I can count on   one hand in 20 years when I've been in situations  where I felt that magic where I felt that true   synergy where something greater than the sum 

of its parts actually happened. I know it's a   cheesy word, but I think third space is that true  is a true embodiment of synergy where something   I sitting in my office I could never come up  with or even with sitting in at a table with   a team of people I wouldn't have come up with  it but when all those planets align when that   when those attitudes and shared goals and good group process hygiene occurs. That's when the  

magic happens. I do think naming it, I do think  demystifying, I do think trying to find ways to get   people into that space can be extremely valuable  for all the reasons that we're talking about. Well I really appreciate this conversation because  there's been a lot of times in academia where I  

felt very alone. I felt isolated. I felt like  I had to solve whatever problems at my desk,   with my computer, with my brain ,with my  hands, and it felt and I'm being honest,   it's not always that way but it felt like that a  lot. I think it's because inherently I value   knowing that I can't solve...there's missing  pieces. There's things that my brain   just doesn't gravitate to. There's ideas that I  just can't generate and I need another person.  

So you're either left, I think, currently in  most of the models I see in academia, we're left to   initiate that ourselves and create a committee.  There are committees, right, that is where you   have people come together so it's not that it 

doesn't exist. I'm talking about like at 9:00 AM on   Monday morning, that kind of feeling but you have  to initiate it yourself and you have to extend   yourself and pull people in to solve some of  these problems, but there's not always a structure   in the day-to-day workings of academia to do that 

and that's hard. I've often wondered like   we have so many issues that need administrative  support, can we just have a Friday huddle   where every Friday from 12 to 1 the  administrative doors open and we all can come   together and hash out some stuff with the people, with the student success person,   there with like interprofessionally can we just 

have a space where that can happen. We can   instead of sending the 67 emails to try  to figure out some of these really thorny problems,   can we just have a weekly place a space to do  that? I've always wished for that but that   sort of like how do we do committees and meetings  better is probably a whole other podcast.   There's so much broken about all the ways that we have to communicate   and how incapable we are and terrible we  are at communication. It's sort of laughable that  

we have all these modalities but just really can't  seem to figure it out. I think   the huddles and the interprofessional rounds  that we see in healthcare, I think academia could   really benefit from that in a lot of different  ways, especially as we've become so technology   dependent. I look at what's happening at 

St. Kate's where I teach adjunct. They've moved to   a new course management system and we've really  relied on our instructional design partners to   sort of send out little newsletters and blurbs  saying here's what's happening and here's what's   going on and having those huddles with them about  things they're uncovering as people transition to   this new platform. I think there could  really be value in rethinking how we communicate   and interact and taking some lessons from third 

space because those aren't third spaces. Those are   very specific sort of what I would call team  spaces where you sort of stay for the most   part, stay in your lane and people are trusting  you to stay in your lane and advocate for your   perspective and talk back and forth but there's  probably some good lessons there from the third   space world to how we can do meetings better  and do committees better by letting   go of self sometimes and having maybe a little 

more diffuse boundaries rather than just being so   rigid about what you care about and what  you're what you're advocating for because there's   a time and a space for that, but certain problems that's not the best way to approach it.  Matt, I think you just signed yourself  up for our next conversation! [Laughter]  

Anytime, anytime! This one this has been  super special for me because, like I said, I've   been thinking about this for 20 years and I've  never had an opportunity to like sit down and   talk with it at length with anybody so it's  fun for me to finally get some of this out there   and bounce it off other people. I did want to  come back to what you said Michelle, just for a   moment, because I think the things you named, those  laments about feeling isolated and feeling like I  

have to fix this on my own. Those are the woes of  a third space professional, people who   straddle both worlds and say, wow, this works really  well at Laerdal. This works really well at my   health care employer. Why can't we  do this thing in academia? I need to figure this  

out. I think when you live in that weird world  it's hard to figure out how you solve   problems and you may not have compatriots  who are either able or willing to come to   the table with you and think in that way, in a  different way. I think figuring finding those  

people is always wonderful. I talked about  these two DNP students who found each other   and really reveled and wrote and created  great things from that partnership because they   were, they had very different perspectives but  they valued that transformative   collaboration they found in each other.

I think some of it is finding compatriots who   are able and recognizing who might be be able to  enter a third space-ish conversation with you, if   not create opportunity to to intentionally say, hey,  you're somebody in academic administration, you're   somebody in the budget office, you're somebody in 

sort of our tech back end. Let's all come together   and talk about why we can't solve whatever it is  or to come back to that ChatGPT question, like to   put all the right people together to have an  open and innovative discussion about what we do and then you can maybe move on to the  pragmatics like do we need to write a policy? Do we   need to add this specifically to our plagiarism 

policy? Or whatever else. I think sometimes   going into that open diffuse space it can be  really hard and if it is too hard I   would say you're not in that space. So if you  have people who don't want to be there then it   sort of negates the thinking that we're in this  mystical place. I think those laments  

are very common to third space professionals. All  the books I read and articles I read and even   my own experiences that isolation seems very  commonplace, but I think where I have found value   is finding like-minded folks and I  used to do that very accidentally and now I do  

it very intentionally. I make it a habit  to meet with those folks regularly and when I have   a thorny problem to collaborate with them and  sometimes to put three or four of us on a call   and I didn't used to think of that as third space  work, but I now am very intentionally saying I need   these three different layers of expertise and  sometimes I think it's okay as nurses that it's   all nurses who have maybe different perspectives. 

I think we can expand that definition of third   space and say this can be a nurse researcher  who also does a little bit of stuff in pharma and   this is a nurse educator who's been a hardcore  educator. It can all be nurses and we can use   those lessons and those invitation  points and sort of common goal stuff that   we're learning about third spacing and create  good opportunities to come up with good ideas.

It's been an absolute pleasure. Thank you so much  for sharing your passion for this and really, my   mind feels really blown not to overuse that phrase  of mind feeling blown, but thank you for expanding   my thinking and giving me lots more to think  about. I'm sure Michelle and listeners will feel  

the same, so thank you. Well I appreciate you guys  listening to my geeky rambling because like I   said, I've had 20 years of thinking about this and  really very few opportunities to kind of hash  

it out. I really value that you guys were  willing to play along and to let down   your boundaries and think about how this might  be applied to your personal and professional   life because I do think this is a great  area that we can bring into academia and   clinical practice and even into more niche worlds  like mine in the in the tech development side so   I'm grateful for the opportunity and for  the fun and laughter and melting of ideas.  

Thank you for joining us on this episode  of NLN Nursing EDge Unscripted Surface.   We hope you join us next time. Until then,  remember, whether your water is calm or choppy,   stay connected, get vulnerable,  and dare to go beneath the surface. [Music]

Transcript source: Provided by creator in RSS feed: download file
For the best experience, listen in Metacast app for iOS or Android