What is iGEM Missing?

Human practices efforts from previous iGEM teams have been immense, and we are sure that this year will be no different. As a team we look forward to seeing new and creative ways other teams have strived to implement integrated human practices into their project, and make a genuine effort to ensure their project is good for the world by consulting thousands of stakeholders from around the world. However, throughout our evaluation of the efforts of other teams for inspiration, we noticed one thing that was consistently absent from teams’ evaluation of their human practices - how they, as a team, impact their own project.

Following consulting Dr. Robert Meckin, a President Fellow in the School of Social Sciences at the Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, we landed on exploring the concept of reflexivity. Upon further research into the topic, we came across a thoughtful article written in 2015 by one of iGEM’s own judges, Emma Frow^[1]. Frow posed the question “is it a realistic ambition to think that a competition like iGEM can encourage the development of reflexive biological engineers?”

Since Frow’s article, there have been a couple teams that have implemented a reflexive approach with their project. In 2016, the Imperial College London’s ^[2] team's approach to reflexivity focused more on external consequences of their project rather than personal reflections. Their use of the modified Socio-Technical Integration Research (STIR) protocol was designed to assess the societal, environmental, and ethical impacts of their project. While the STIR protocol involved reflecting on decision-making, their reflexive practices were largely geared towards ensuring the external social impact of their project, rather than deep personal introspection by the team members themselves.

Moreover, in 2019, Tianjin's iGEM ^[3] team's use of the "Reflexivity Principle + Principles of Economics" focused on critically assessing the external factors—such as societal needs, potential applications, and ethical implications. By framing reflexivity around objective measures and outcomes, the team directed their focus toward how their synthetic biology project could influence and be influenced by larger systems like the economy, environment, and public opinion. This contrasts with a more personal introspective reflexivity, where individual team members might have reflected on their personal growth, feelings, or biases. Their approach was, therefore, more practical and outward-facing, aimed at ensuring the project’s broader relevance and sustainability.

While both of these were extremely intriguing projects and offered great value, we still felt as though there was a need for the iGEM Competition to adopt reflexive analysis on individual members of teams. We took up Frow’s question as a challenge.

What is a "Reflexive Ethnography"?

Reflexivity is the practice of reflecting on one's own role and influence in a research process. Researchers are forced to expose any underlying beliefs they may have previously taken for granted and then confront how their position and biases may shape the way they collect, interpret, and present data ^[4]. These examinations of the self encourage researchers to think about their positionality within the wider context of their discipline.

Ethnographies are in-depth studies of cultures, communities, or groups of people ^[5]. Researchers use this method to understand the daily lives, behaviours, and beliefs of the subjects they are studying, often by immersing themselves in that culture for extended periods of time. Ethnographies are common in fields like anthropology and sociology, but can also be applied anywhere people are the focus.

Reflexive ethnography is a research approach where the researcher not only studies a community or cultural group but also reflects on their own role, biases, and influence within the research process. In traditional ethnography, the focus is on observing and describing a group's practices, behaviours, and beliefs ^[6]. Reflexive ethnography goes further by encouraging researchers to think about how their personal background, interactions, and assumptions may shape the findings. It is about being aware of how the researcher’s presence affects the study and constantly questioning their own perspective.

❝I'm so comfortable with working alone that I didn't realise how cold I was being towards team members that were trying to help me, I'm a perfectionist. I was (and maybe still am) convinced that I can produce better work by myself than in a group. Hopefully next week I can work on this to be more receptive to collaboration.❞

Why did we choose to do Reflexive Ethnographies?

Since the core of Integrated Human Practices is to understand how the world around us impacts our research and how our research impacts the world, it would make sense for us to embark on a project like this. Our team consists of various backgrounds including ethnic, socioeconomic and academic. Consequently, we all have vastly different views and approaches to our research. We also realised that for a project like iGEM where we are working near people we might not necessarily choose to work with for a long time; there is a lot of opportunity for growth and development. It would be unreasonable to think that we as a team wouldn’t go through massive changes in our personalities, outlook and decision-making. Naturally, we were curious about documenting these changes in our perspectives and personalities and the impact it had on the progress of our project.

By using weekly diary entries, the team were able to document how small changes, rifts and interactions affected their progress that week in real time. Weekly entries allow participants to document their thoughts, feelings, and experiences as they occur, providing more immediate and authentic insights. This minimises the risk of memory distortion or retrospective bias, which can often occur with methods such as interviews or retrospective surveys ^[7]. Through weekly entries, the team could record genuine and spontaneous reactions rather than filtered or adjusted recollections of events. This proved to be significant for certain events such as team members leaving with little notice, the weekly diary allowed for everyone to express how they truly felt before talking to each other and distorting their views on the event.

Additionally, weekly diaries enabled us to develop a longitudinal perspective and have highly personalised insights into the team's experiences. Since the team was encouraged to share subjective and nuanced data in their own words, we could track small changes in attitudes, emotions and behaviours that seemed insignificant on its own, but when placed within the bigger picture created a narrative of personal development and change. This proved advantageous over other methods like the aforementioned survey which could only provide a snapshot of the teams state at that point in time and did not offer a space for much reflection, whereas the diaries revealed patterns and trends within our team which provided a deeper insight into how external and internal factors influenced the evolution of our project.

Lastly, the diaries had an ease of use that other methods, like weekly interviews, could not provide. The team could engage with the diary at their own pace and in their preferred environment, which makes it a less intrusive method compared to interviews or group discussions. Because it is not bound by the limitations of scheduling or social pressures, diary writing can promote more openness and honesty, especially in sensitive or personal topics. Thus, giving the team ownership over their narrative by allowing them to decide what to focus on and how to express themselves. This led to more genuine and in-depth reflections, which enhanced the overall quality of the data collected.

❝The experience made me realize that mistakes are inevitable, but they shouldn’t stop you from learning from them and being more careful in the future.❞

How did we conduct our research?

Before beginning, we needed to ensure that our practices were in line with the United Kingdom’s General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR). The Data Protection Act 2018 outlines a comprehensive framework for processing personal data and ensuring individuals’ rights regarding their information are respected ^[8]. Key principles include processing personal data fairly and transparently and only using the data for its intended purpose. Additionally, individuals possess rights over their data which include access, erasure and restriction of processing.

Since the team had become “participants,” they signed a consent form in adherence to the Data Protection Act 2018 which outlined the purpose of the diaries, how they’d be conducted and how their data would be processed:

From this point on, the team will be referred to as participants

By securing consent and being transparent with the participants about the way their data is used, it encouraged them to participate more openly in their diaries which ultimately provided richer data and more insightful outcomes.

Furthermore, as part of the preliminary work participants were tasked with completing a form at the beginning and end of the iGEM period.

The form consisted of 5 main sections:

• Self-confidence: Focused on assessing personal skills, growth, and confidence in contributing to participants' goals, as well as how participants handled challenges.
• Confidence in the team: Encouraged reflection on participants' overall dynamics, including collaboration, communication, and trust in team members' abilities.
• Project progress and expectations: Evaluated the clarity and feasibility of the project’s goals, the effectiveness of participants' plan, and any challenges encountered during the process.
• Personal and collective development: Assessed individual skill development, particularly in technical, research, and communication areas, as well as strategies for supporting participants' growth.
• Future outlook: Asked participants to reflect on how the skills and experience gained from the project would benefit their future academic or career goals, and how it shaped their interest in synthetic biology.

The results of the reflexivity form will not be shared, as it was designed to encourage personal self-reflection. The primary goal was to engage in thoughtful consideration of our own long-term growth, contributions, and experiences throughout the project, how our interactions and own biases had affected the progress of the project and in turn, how the progress of the project affected us week by week.

How were the diaries designed?

Originally, the diaries consisted of 5 main sections with the following rationale.

• Participation Observation: Since we, as individuals, were the participants for this project, this section was to describe our roles and activities to promote self-awareness about our contributions and responsibilities within the project. It helped to consider how we engage with the project and participants, to have a deeper connection to our tasks. This also allowed us to track our involvement over time, identifying if roles shift or evolve. Moreover, we have very different personalities. Some of us are more outgoing than others and some prefer working together and some prefer independent work. Such differences may cause some friction and resentment which we have to overcome as a team. By reflecting on these differences and interactions, we are able to monitor how we impact each other and how we learn from each other over time, which may not be fully captured in other forms of documentation.
• Team Dynamics: This section was to reflect on how we interact with each other and what challenges may arise. Since we are all from different cultural and national backgrounds, we have very different social conducts that have been taught to us. Because of this, we might misunderstand each other or not quite understand each other. Moreover, we have very different personalities. Some of us are more outgoing than others and some prefer working together and some prefer independent work. Such differences may cause some friction and resentment which we have to overcome as a team. By documenting collaboration, conflict, and leadership ensured that both positive and negative aspects of teamwork were captured. Identifying these moments helped participants understand how they resolved differences, shared leadership responsibilities, and worked towards common goals. Recording these instances provides a means for continuous improvement and allows us to understand how we learned from each other over time.
• Ethical Considerations: In any collaborative project, ethical dilemmas can arise, particularly in research or experimentation. This section was asking us to reflect on these dilemmas to ensure that they remain conscious of ethical issues and are able to identify when actions might conflict with ethical guidelines. This reflection also promotes personal accountability, helping individuals consider the broader impact of their work, especially when it involves sensitive data, human or animal subjects, or environmental concerns. This type of awareness is crucial in ensuring that the project adheres to professional standards and societal expectations. By prompting participants to record these discussions, the reflexive diary helps capture how ethical concerns are handled within participants. This can reveal how well participants uphold ethical standards and whether there are any areas for improvement in addressing ethical challenges. Furthermore, recording ethical discourse fosters transparency and may be essential for documentation if any issues arise in the future.
• Innovation and Creativity: This section was not just to capture what was done, but how it was done. Prompting us to note innovative or creative methods allows participants to reflect on the strategies they used in tackling complex problems. Innovation is a core component of research projects like iGEM, and documenting creative approaches can serve as a useful record for both participants' internal review and for external communication or presentations. Understanding the dynamics of idea generation and implementation helps teams recognise how collaborative their process is and whether they are effectively utilising all team members' insights. Reflecting on how ideas evolve and are assessed can provide feedback on whether participants have an open, inclusive environment for creativity, or if there are bottlenecks or barriers that prevent some members from contributing equally.
• Reflection and Self-Awareness: This section encouraged us to assess our involvement in the project and critically examine our role within the pool of participants. It promotes awareness of our contributions, helping us to recognise areas where we excelled and areas where we could improve, fostering a sense of accountability. It encouraged honesty and introspection, allowing participants to identify barriers such as lack of confidence, time management, or external pressures. This kind of reflection can help us take proactive steps to overcome these challenges and become more engaged in the project. Furthermore, by reflecting on how our views have changed, we can recognise the impact of new experiences, discussions, or challenges on their thinking. This encourages continuous learning and adaptation, key components of both individual and team success.

❝Teamwork is hard, it's more than project management, it's also managing expectations, emotions and morales of people.❞

...And what went wrong?

During April-May, we conducted a pilot study to test how effective the diaries were and to iron out any apparent issues. What we found was that participants ended up using the diaries as a commentary for the events that transpired that week. There was not much introspection in their responses and overall participants weren’t engaging with them much. The answers would be blank or “N/A”, even though there were definitely scenarios that had occurred that week making that question applicable. Most importantly, no one seemed to be asking the important question of “why”. It became apparent that the act of considering “why” and reflecting on positionality wasn’t merely an act, but a skill which was not a core part of STEM degrees. As a result, the phrasing of the questions, though intended to be open-ended, were not evoking the correct responses as they were targeted at the wrong audience and therefore it was not obvious what was supposed to be written.

Moreover, it was clear that participants could not differentiate between the questions, and were writing similar things. The first question would have a lengthy response, and then nothing in the later questions. Perhaps it was too long and felt like a chore to fill out and participants lost energy towards the end of the diary. Motivation needed to be increased somehow and the diaries made shorter so that information could be gathered from all lines of enquiry.

Consequently, the development of the diaries needed to be a collaborative effort across participants. If they were to be the ones filling it out, they needed to be able to understand exactly what they needed to write and why. Though the direction seemed obvious, this sort of study was a completely new concept to most of the participants. As a group, we decided on changing the due date to the beginning of every week instead of the end, removing some sections, rewording the prompts and changing the font to be more readable as these were all issues during our pilot study.

What Next?

After refining our approach, we designed each section of the diary prompts with specific purposes in mind:

• Participant Observation: This section encouraged team members to reflect on their weekly activities, emotions, challenges, and interactions, promoting self-awareness and personal insight.
• Team Dynamics: Members evaluated collaboration and conflict across the participants, fostering open communication regarding team relationships and the sharing of information.
• Innovation and Creativity: This section focused on problem-solving strategies related to both the project and team dynamics, prompting members to assess their contributions to innovation.
• Collaboration: Team members documented interdisciplinary communication and its impact on decision-making, broadening perspectives and enhancing collaborative efforts.
• Reflection and Self-awareness: This section invited individuals to evaluate their contributions, feelings and fulfilment, and personal biases, encouraging deeper self-reflection.

Our final template to use over the 15 weeks was now ready to use and launch.

How did we analyse the diaries?

Our 15-week period began during the first week of June and ended the second week of September. After which, our Human Practices Team qualitatively analysed the diaries. To begin, we developed a coding framework to identify key themes and indicators. The main themes we wanted to investigate were:

• Awareness of Personal Bias
• Belief in the Team
• Decision Making
• Emotional Control
• Insight Development
• Internal Dialogue
• Mood
• Motivation
• Outlook
• Sense of Purpose
• Social Engagement
• Team Dynamics

Each theme was broken up into relevant sub-themes which then became the codes and metrics we used for the analysis.

Firstly, the diaries were anonymised in accordance with the aforementioned GDPR and instead each member was assigned a name which we decided to base around chocolates in popular British chocolate boxes; Celebrations. Then, the Human Practices Team thoroughly read all the diary entries without taking notes, allowing for the development of a general understanding of the content and the observation of recurring themes and emotional states. Following this initial reading, prominent patterns, such as mood shifts and changes in self-confidence, were noted to guide the approach to coding. During the second reading, a coding scheme was applied to relevant segments of the text to further analyse these themes. The frequency of each code in every diary entry was then recorded and organised in a spreadsheet.

This data was then represented in graphs to clearly visualise the patterns and themes within each category, as well as how they were linked for each individual. Specific categories were also selected for whole-team analysis to explore potential correlations between certain categories.

Our Results

❝Since writing these diaries, I’ve noticed things about myself and have wanted to make a few changes, not only to better myself but also for the benefit of the team.❞

Individual Results

Awareness of Personal Bias

At the start of the period, Galaxy, Maltesers, and Twix show signs of awareness, with higher occurrences of Acknowledged Bias and Acknowledged Weakness, indicating that these individuals are actively reflecting on their actions and recognising areas where they may have biases or weaknesses (Figure 1). Bounty shows some initial awareness as well, but there are fewer instances of Acknowledged Bias and Acknowledged Weakness, suggesting that they may not have been as engaged in self-reflection early on. Instead, there are noticeable spikes in Lack of Awareness, indicating that they were less aware of their actions or their impact on the project during this time. By July, the trend of awareness continues to fluctuate. Galaxy shows several peaks in Acknowledged Bias and Acknowledged Weakness, indicating ongoing self-reflection, though they also experience spikes in Lack of Awareness, suggesting moments where they may have overlooked certain details or aspects of their work. Maltesers show a rise in Acknowledged Weakness, signalling that they may have been feeling less confident in their contributions, while their Lack of Awareness remains steady, suggesting that they could be unaware of certain challenges or blind spots in their work. Bounty shows more frequent instances of Lack of Awareness during this period, particularly around mid-July, indicating that they may have been less aware of their impact on the project or their role within the team. Twix and Snickers show a more mixed pattern, with both Acknowledged Bias and Acknowledged Weakness occurring in tandem with Lack of Awareness, possibly reflecting fluctuating awareness and moments of oversight or misjudgment. Generally, this section is sparse in comparison to the other themes and may be due to the fact that the participants found it difficult to identify where or how their internal biases had affected them during the project.

Belief in Team

As seen in Figure 2, at the start of the iGEM period, Bounty, Galaxy, and Twix exhibit a mix of feelings about their team, with Bounty and Galaxy showing a notable level of Positive Belief in the Team. This suggests initial optimism about collaboration and project goals. In contrast, Mars and Milky Way demonstrate minimal instances of any Beliefs in the Team, indicating a lack of engagement or uncertainty in their roles early on. By July, the trends become more varied. Bounty continues to express a generally Positive Belief in the Team but experiences occasional spikes in Mixed Belief, suggesting some uncertainty about group dynamics or individual contributions. Galaxy shows fluctuating levels of Positive Belief, with several peaks in Negative Belief, indicating that they may be grappling with frustrations or concerns regarding team interactions or overall project progress. Maltesers also exhibit similar fluctuations, alternating between Positive Belief and Mixed Belief, possibly reflecting internal struggles or varying confidence levels within the team context. Snickers shows a consistent presence of Negative Belief throughout July, suggesting persistent doubts or challenges affecting their perception of the team. In contrast, Twix maintains a balance of Positive Belief and Mixed Belief, which may indicate a more stable perspective on their contributions and team dynamics. By August, the team dynamics shifted notably, with many individuals experiencing increased Negative Belief, especially Galaxy, Snickers and Milky Way, reflecting potential frustrations or unresolved issues that may be impacting their confidence in the team. Bounty and Maltesers still show Positive Belief, though with increased instances of Mixed Belief, indicating they may be feeling the pressures of the project while also recognising the value of their team. Twix shows a gradual decline in Positive Belief and an uptick in Mixed Belief, suggesting they might be questioning their place in the group or the project's direction. The team appears to be grappling with varying levels of engagement and confidence, which could influence their collaboration as the project comes to a close.

Decision-Making

At the beginning of our iGEM period, none of the participants were regularly making decisions with confidence (Figure 3). In actuality, Bounty, Galaxy and Milky Way all had spikes in hesitation in making decisions. This could be because the materialisation of the project was still new and there were a lot of complicated decisions to be made about different aspects of the project such as the chosen methodology, strains used and the design of primers. However, as the period progressed, each member saw some rise in Confident Decision-Making. Maltesers show an uptick in both categories, suggesting that they might be facing challenges that prompt them to reevaluate their decisions while also maintaining some confidence in their actions. Snickers exhibits a consistent trend of Indecision, indicating they may be struggling to assert themselves or feel uncertain about their decisions throughout July. Twix shows sporadic occurrences of both Confident Decision-Making and Indecision, suggesting a fluctuating sense of clarity in their role and contributions. By August, Bounty remained stable in Confident Decision-Making, suggesting that they have maintained their assertiveness and clarity throughout the project. Galaxy sees an even further increase in Indecision, possibly indicating a deeper struggle with their involvement or clarity on how to proceed. Maltesers continue to show a balance between confidence and hesitation, hinting at ongoing challenges that prompt them to reflect on their choices; meanwhile Milky Way begins to exhibit some signs of Confident Decision-Making, albeit very limited. Snickers continues to reflect Indecision, suggesting they remain uncertain or disengaged from the decision-making process. Twix has a more balanced presence between both categories but leans slightly towards Indecision, indicating they might be encountering challenges that affect their confidence in decision-making.

Emotional Control

At the start of the period, Bounty, Galaxy, and Twix show a mix of regulated and deregulated emotions (Figure 4). Bounty demonstrates a moderate level of regulated emotions, suggesting they begin by exercising some emotional control. However, Galaxy quickly exhibits both regulated and deregulated emotions, indicating that while they start out somewhat stable, they are also facing internal emotional challenges. Twix remains consistent, with primarily regulated emotions, indicating initial emotional stability. In contrast, Mars and Milky Way show minimal occurrences of both regulated and deregulated emotions, suggesting either detachment from emotional fluctuations or a lack of engagement early on. Maltesers also exhibits relatively few emotions early in the period but shows more activity in the form of deregulated emotions later, indicating rising stress. By July, the emotional dynamics become more varied. Bounty continues to display mostly regulated emotions but begins experiencing spikes in deregulated emotions around late August, suggesting rising tension or frustration. Galaxy fluctuates between regulated and deregulated emotions, with clear spikes in deregulated emotions, indicating they may be struggling with emotional control. Maltesers begin to show more frequent deregulated emotions by August, reflecting growing internal stress or frustration. Twix maintains a mostly stable presence of regulated emotions but begins to experience occasional deregulated emotions in July and August, possibly reflecting growing uncertainty as the project progresses. By the end of August, Emotional Regulation seems to become more challenging, with deregulated emotions increasing for Bounty, Galaxy, and Maltesers. Twix, though mostly regulated, begins to experience occasional emotional disruptions. This suggests rising stress or pressures within the team as deadlines approach, affecting the emotional stability of several team members.

Internal Dialogue

At the beginning of the period, participants Galaxy and Maltesers show a mix of neutral and Negative Moods, suggesting that they might have faced early challenges or personal frustrations while adjusting to their roles within the team (Figure 7). In contrast, Mars started on a positive note, displaying high morale and optimism about the project. Twix also demonstrated a consistently Positive Mood, indicating a smooth early start for them. Bounty, however, faced some negative emotions early on, reflecting possible initial roadblocks or interpersonal tension. July marks a shift in mood for many individuals. Galaxy experiences heightened Negative Moods, possibly feeling stressed by mounting project tasks or collaboration difficulties. Milky Way and Bounty also show signs of frustration, with frequent Negative Mood spikes as parts of the project go wrong and as they shoulder more workload due to the absence of team members. Maltesers face similar challenges, with several instances of Negative Mood, possibly due to growing stress as project milestones approach. Mars remains a standout, consistently showing a Positive Mood, reflecting their satisfaction with their progress and role in the team. Snickers also manages to balance occasional dips into negativity with consistent positive recovery, while Twix continues to maintain a generally positive outlook, though with more variability in late July. By August, the pressure appears to be mounting. Maltesers and Galaxy experience more frequent Negative Mood occurrences, with Maltesers showing a significant peak in negativity towards the end of the month. Bounty shows a mix of moods, though negative instances continue to rise, reflecting growing frustration or exhaustion as deadlines approach.

Motivation

At the start of the period, Galaxy, Maltesers, and Snickers all exhibit High Motivation, jumping into the project with energy and enthusiasm (Figure 8). Mars and Twix also show High Motivation, suggesting they feel excited about their roles and responsibilities. Bounty and Milky Way, however, begin to show signs of fluctuating motivation even early on, hinting at some early doubts or difficulties in maintaining focus. July sees significant fluctuations in motivation across the group. Galaxy experiences several drops in motivation, possibly reflecting frustrations with the project or personal difficulties in staying focused. Bounty also struggles with motivation, alternating between high and low levels, suggesting they may be feeling overwhelmed. Maltesers sees a similar trend, with noticeable dips in motivation mid-July, likely due to project stress. Mars, however, maintains their High Motivation, driving forward with confidence, while Snickers experiences some variability but ultimately continues with mostly High Motivation. Twix has high points of motivation but also some dips, possibly due to increasing workload or stress. As August progresses, Maltesers and Bounty experience a significant drop in motivation, particularly toward the end of the month, signalling that they might be feeling drained or uncertain about their contributions as deadlines approach and work continues to go wrong. Galaxy shows improvement, with a rise in motivation towards the end of the month, perhaps reflecting a renewed focus or resolution of previous obstacles. Twix also recovers with higher motivation as August progresses, indicating resilience. Mars, unsurprisingly, continues with High Motivation, suggesting that they feel confident in their contributions. Snickers similarly maintains a consistent level of motivation, showing determination and drive despite the nearing deadlines.

Outlook

At the start of the project, Galaxy, Maltesers, and Twix show signs of Optimism, feeling hopeful about their work and progress. Bounty, however, has a few instances of Pessimism even early on, hinting at doubts or concerns about the project or their specific responsibilities (Figure 9). By July, Optimism begins to fluctuate. Galaxy experiences several pessimistic moments, possibly due to personal frustrations or perceived project delays. Maltesers also face growing Pessimism, indicating that they might be struggling with the workload or feeling less confident in their contributions. Bounty has a similar outlook, alternating between Optimism and Pessimism, likely reflecting internal doubts about the project’s trajectory. Twix and Snickers show more mixed outlooks, experiencing both Optimism and Pessimism throughout July, possibly reflecting external pressures as the project advances. Whereas Milky Way’s Optimism seems to increase largely by July, perhaps due to being settled in their role in the team and their personal progress within the project. By August, most participants show more frequent instances of Pessimism, suggesting they may be feeling the weight of impending deadlines or unresolved issues within the team. Galaxy, however, recovers with some renewed Optimism, indicating that they may have overcome early challenges or found solutions to problems. Twix shows more variability, alternating between Optimism and Pessimism, reflecting both successes and challenges in their work.

Perceived Team Dynamics

At the start of the project, Galaxy and Maltesers show some early signs of fluctuating team dynamics, possibly reflecting initial struggles in communication or collaboration. Mars and Twix experience good team dynamics, demonstrating a smooth integration into the team and strong collaboration across the group (Figure 10). Bounty begins to show signs of internal challenges, with fluctuating dynamics and some early instances of Teammate Criticism, reflecting the early onset of frustrations within the group. However, Milky Way begins the project with a high level of occurrences of Bad Team Dynamics, however, this is likely due to a couple of our team members leaving the team quite suddenly at the beginning of our iGEM period. In July, team dynamics become more complex as the project progresses and causes for conflict begin to arise. Galaxy and Maltesers experience increasing occurrences of Bad Team Dynamics and criticising other teammates, signalling growing interpersonal conflicts or dissatisfaction with teamwork. Bounty also struggles, with several instances of Repeated Complaints and criticism of their peers, indicating unresolved issues within their team interactions. Mars continues to show strong team dynamics, enjoying a positive work environment with minimal internal conflict. Twix and Snickers display more variability, with moments of Fluctuating Dynamics but generally maintaining a positive team atmosphere. Across the board there is an increase in Positive Team Dynamics after the University of Warwick’s UK Meet-Up. In August, Maltesers and Bounty experienced significant challenges with team dynamics, showing frequent instances of bad dynamics, teammate criticism, and Repeated Complaints. This suggests that tensions have increased as deadlines approach, and some individuals are struggling with unresolved conflicts. Galaxy also faces challenges, with a mix of fluctuating dynamics and criticism. In contrast, Mars maintains Good Team Dynamics, reflecting their continued success in communication and collaboration. Twix and Snickers show some fluctuations, with occasional dips into Bad Dynamics, but they manage to recover with positive team interactions and support from teammates.

Self-Confidence

As shown in Figure 11, at the start of the period Bouty, Galaxy, and Twix exhibit a mix of self-confidence levels, with Bounty showing notable levels of High Self-Confidence. This suggests that Bounty felt an early sense of optimism and assurance in their abilities. In contrast, Mars and Milky Way show minimal instances of any self-confidence, indicating a lack of engagement or uncertainty in their roles early on. By July, trends become more varied. Bounty continues to express generally High Self-Confidence, but there are several instances of Fluctuating Self-Confidence, suggesting moments of uncertainty about their performance. Galaxy begins to experience more Low Self-Confidence, signalling potential struggles or doubts about their work. Maltesers also experience significant fluctuations, moving between high and Low Self-Confidence, possibly reflecting internal conflicts or varying levels of certainty. By August, there is an overall increase in Low Self-Confidence across several individuals, especially Galaxy and Maltesers, suggesting unresolved challenges and growing frustrations. However, Bounty and Mars maintain relatively stable high-confidence, although Twix sees more instances of uncertainty, likely reflecting concerns as the project nears its conclusion. Overall, levels of Self-Confidence fluctuate throughout the project, beginning with high levels of Self-Confidence, but is slowly being overtaken by Low Self-Confidence as the project nears its end.

Sense of Purpose

At the start of the period, Bounty, Galaxy, and Twix exhibit a High Sense of Purpose, indicating early clarity and focus on their goals (Figure 12). However, Mars and Milky Way show very little Sense of Purpose, suggesting either uncertainty or disengagement from the project's objectives. By July, Bounty continues to experience a strong Sense of Purpose, though occasionally dips into a Neutral Sense of Purpose, indicating moments of doubt or distraction. Galaxy shows more fluctuation, with moments of both high and Low Sense of Purpose, which could imply inner conflict or uncertainty regarding the direction of their work. Maltesers experiences similar shifts, oscillating between strong and weak senses of purpose, possibly reflecting internal struggles with motivation. Snickers exhibits a consistent High Sense of Purpose but also sees more frequent occurrences of neutral and low purpose, suggesting wavering focus as the project progresses. Twix shows an early peak in High Sense of Purpose, followed by periods of neutrality, indicating possible burnout or questioning of goals. By August, Bounty and Galaxy continue to alternate between strong and weak senses of purpose, reflecting the pressures of the project. Maltesers experiences a stronger sense of purpose at times but with moments of doubt. Overall, The Sense of Purpose within the team begins strong for some members, particularly Bounty and Twix, but fluctuates considerably for others like Galaxy and Maltesers. Snickers also shows inconsistency, while Mars and Milky Way remain mostly disengaged.

Social Engagement

At the start of the period, Bounty and Twix show active social engagement, suggesting early efforts to collaborate and communicate with the team (Figure 13). By July, Bounty and Galaxy exhibit a mix of active engagement and reliance on social engagement, indicating moments of teamwork but also possible dependence on others for collaboration. Maltesers shows a balance of both types of engagement, though there are occasional instances of social isolation, suggesting struggles with feeling disconnected from the group. Snickers experiences fluctuating engagement levels, with periods of active collaboration but also significant reliance on others. Twix similarly shows periods of high collaboration but also occasional isolation, hinting at internal dynamics that may be impacting their ability to engage with the group fully. By August, Galaxy and Snickers show more consistent reliance on social engagement, while Bounty and Twix still maintain active participation. Milky Way continues to exhibit minimal engagement, indicating that social isolation may be a persistent issue for some members of the team. The social dynamics fluctuate throughout the project, with some members becoming more isolated or reliant on others as time progresses.

Whole Team Statistics

To begin with we decided to graph the whole team averages for the occurrences of the following themes:

• Belief in team: positive, uncertain, and negative
• Mood: positive, neutral, and negative
• Motivation: high, neutral, and low
• Outlook: Optimism and Pessimism
• Self-confidence: high, fluctuating, and low
• Team dynamics: positive, neutral, and negative

By graphing such metrics as averages, we were given insight into the overall morale of the group over time. Through this, we are able to observe trends and patterns that weren’t obvious from the individual feedback. Furthermore, by viewing these metrics as averages, we are able to see the impact of positive and negative events on whole team morale such as Circle Time (See Discussion) or failed experiments.

Unfortunately, when analysing the whole team’s averages team member Mars had to be excluded from the analysis due to an insufficient data set. This resulted in consistent “0” values, which acted as an outlier and skewed the results.

Belief In Team

Positive Belief in the Team shows early peaks and fluctuations, stabilising slightly towards the end (Figure 14). This can be explained by the initial excitement at the beginning of the iGEM period, when team members are enthusiastic about our project and its potential. However, as the project progresses and challenges emerge—such as failed experiments, delays, or team disagreements—belief in the team's success dips. The stabilisation towards the end of the timeline likely reflects the participants finding their rhythm and building confidence as they approach final milestones like the wiki freeze and presentations. Uncertain Belief fluctuates throughout which is typical in a large-scale project where roles and expectations can evolve. Meanwhile, Negative Belief spikes in mid-July and again in early September, reflecting moments of heightened stress, likely when participants faced significant setbacks or intense pressure to meet deadlines.

Mood

Positive Mood shows a gradual improvement from late August into early September, following an initial decline after mid-June (Figure 15). This pattern suggests that while participants may have started optimistically, the rigours of executing their project—whether in the lab or through modelling—dampened their mood. However, as they began to achieve tangible results and progress on key milestones, the mood improved significantly towards the end. Neutral Mood declines over time, as team members' feelings become more polarised, reflecting either positive momentum or growing stress. This decline in Neutral Mood may also be due to team members improving the quality of their diaries and expressing more extreme emotions. Negative Mood is prevalent throughout, especially peaking in late August and September, likely due to the mounting pressure to complete the project. The initial Negative Mood in June may be tied to the overwhelming realisation of the project's complexity, while the sharp rise towards the end likely reflects participants feeling the crunch as final deadlines for submissions loom.

Motivation

Positive motivation steadily rises after early July (all thanks to the University of Warwick's UK Meet Up), peaking towards the end of the project (Figure 16). This suggests that despite early challenges, participants remained driven, particularly as they neared the final stages of their work. The gradual rise in motivation likely correlates with significant breakthroughs or nearing key deliverables, such as completing their experiments and documentation. However, Neutral Motivation remains moderate, reflecting a segment of participants that may have been consistently committed but not strongly swayed by either optimism or stress. Negative motivation spikes in mid-July and again at the end of August and September, signalling burnout or discouragement. This is likely due to the absence of many team members during this period. However, this is common during intense periods of work, where long hours and the weight of unmet deadlines can lead to exhaustion. The late spike in Negative Motivation is particularly indicative of the final push, where some team members might feel overwhelmed by the remaining work, such as finishing the wiki, video presentations, and polishing the project’s final details.

Outlook

Optimism fluctuates with a slight upward trend towards the end, showing more frequent occurrences of positive outlooks over time (Figure 17). There are some stable periods where Optimism remains around the same level (e.g., around early July and mid-August). While Pessimism starts lower, rises, dips, and then sharply increases towards the end of the observation period. The peaks towards the end of August and early September suggest that pessimistic views are becoming more prominent in participants. The growing gap between Pessimism and Optimism towards the end could indicate growing pressure or challenges as participants progresses through their project, potentially leading to stress or frustration.

Self-Confidence

High Self-Confidence starts low, showing that early on, team members were not frequently feeling confident (Figure 18). However, there is a gradual increase, especially towards the end of the period, indicating that confidence is building over time, particularly in the later stages of the project. While Fluctuating Self-Confidence remains relatively steady with small fluctuations. This suggests that certain team members or participants as a whole are consistently experiencing periods of doubt and confidence, without fully stabilising in either direction. However, there are noticeable peaks in Low Self-Confidence, particularly in mid-August and September. This indicates that feelings of doubt or insecurity were increasing towards the end of the observation period. Despite some improvements in confidence, the rise in Low Self-Confidence towards the end could point to increasing project stress or approaching deadlines.

Team Dynamics

Positive Team Dynamics shows a gradual increase, with noticeable peaks in July and again in mid-August (Figure 19). This suggests that at certain points, participants are functioning more collaboratively or cohesively. While Neutral Team Dynamics remains low and stable throughout the timeline, indicating few neutral reflections on team dynamics. Most of the participants' experiences seem to be either positive or negative. However, Negative Team Dynamics fluctuates significantly, with an overall downward trend after a sharp peak in late June, followed by another increase around mid-August and into September. Team dynamics are volatile, with both positive and negative interactions occurring throughout the project. The steady rise in positive dynamics suggests that, despite challenges, participants are improving in their collaboration, but there are still moments of difficulty reflected in the spikes in negative dynamics.

Correlations

After seeing the whole team averages, we noticed a trend and decided to explore potential correlations between specific values. We focused on Mood and Team dynamics, formulating the following hypothesis for testing with Pearson’s correlation coefficient:

“There is a significant positive relationship between mood and team dynamics.”

The results show a moderate positive correlation (r = 0.52) between Positive Mood and Positive Team Dynamics, with a highly significant p-value (1.52e-07). This suggests that as Positive Mood increases, Positive Team Dynamics also improve, supporting the hypothesis that a more Positive Mood leads to improved team dynamics (Figure 20).

In contrast, the relationship between Neutral Mood and Bad Team Dynamics is weak (r = 0.15) and not statistically significant (p = 0.152). This indicates that there is no meaningful association between these variables, providing insufficient evidence to support the hypothesis (Figure 21).

Lastly, there is a moderate positive correlation (r = 0.45) between Negative Mood and Negative Team Dynamics, with a significant p-value (7.34e-06). This supports the hypothesis that as Negative Mood increases, negative team dynamics also tend to increase, showing a significant link between these variables (Figure 22).

Discussion

❝iGEM has also given consistency to my life. Before the summer, my routine was chaotic, to say the least, but being part of the project has created structure and allowed me to organise my time efficiently.❞

At the beginning, participants struggled to engage with the diaries, as this was an unfamiliar process for many of them. Many participants viewed the diaries as more of a chore. The initial entries were often lacklustre, primarily narrative, with little reflection on their actions or interactions. However, over time, as they became more aware of their interactions with each other and their roles within the project, participants began to reflect more deeply on the reasons behind their decision and actions. This shift was largely facilitated by the introduction of reflective prompts designed to encourage deeper consideration of emotional states.

As participants were encouraged to be more mindful of the interactions and behaviours that elicited certain emotions, they were able to identify the specific aspects of these exchanges that upset them.. This ranged from conversations, body language to absences of other team members. This awareness eventually led to the implementation of “Circle Time.” Familiar to some as a primary school activity, this was new to most of the participants and at first made them quite uncomfortable. Circle Time acted as an open forum where participants could openly discuss their feelings about their contributions to the project and the impacts of their interactions with others. During these sessions, participants shared insights about how their emotional experiences influenced their productivity and overall team dynamics. Though it took some time for all of the participants to get comfortable with confronting other team members and discussing their feelings openly, ultimately Circle Time eventually fostered an environment of trust and vulnerability, allowing individuals to voice concerns, provide constructive feedback, and offer support to one another. This open dialogue proved essential in addressing conflicts and misunderstandingsthat had previously gone unspoken, enabling participants to navigate challenges more effectively.

The transition from narrative entries to reflective dialogue represented a significant evolution in the team’s dynamics. As individuals became more comfortable discussing their emotions and experiences, they began to recognise the value of reflexivity in enhancing both personal and team growth. Improved communication skills were evident in the way team members articulated their thoughts and feelings, leading to a more cohesive and supportive atmosphere. However, some became overly confident and comfortable, which occasionally resulted in inflated self-assessments of their abilities. This ultimately caused setbacks in project execution, highlighting the need for ongoing self-reflection and awareness.

It is also important to acknowledge the limitations of this approach. Despite providing a sample diary to guide reflections, some team members continued to struggle with reflection, finding it difficult to articulate their feelings or engage meaningfully in Circle time. Additionally, there were instances of bias in reflections, with some participants focusing primarily on positive experiences while overlooking areas that required improvement. These challenges suggest that further improvements in the method could be made to enhance engagement. Additionally, some team members, as shown previously, barely engaged with the diaries at all. Throughout the iGEM period, diaries were short and lacked detail because of the feeling that the diaries are a chore and somewhat pointless. This could be due to a feeling of low motivation or monotony during the week where doing the same tasks repeatedly diminished the need to create weekly reflections as there was little perceived growth and development happening.

To enhance the effectiveness of future reflexivity projects, implementing a daily dairy session, even if it consists of just 15 to 30 minutes dedicated to noting daily experiences. While it may take away from the fact that a big advantage of diaries is that participants are able to complete them, wherever or whenever they want to, it may minimise recall bias and encourage consistent reflection, ultimately promoting engagement and more accurate self-assessment among team members.

Conclusion

❝I’ve spent almost the entire summer wondering what my place is and where I fit in and "what am I even doing here, what am I contributing" but I do, in fact, have a place and I’ve always had a role.❞

The reflexive diaries were invaluable in enhancing both personal and team development throughout the iGEM project. One of their primary strengths was pushing team members out of their comfort zones and encouraging deep self-reflection, something many of us had not previously engaged in. Reflexivity was a skill we had to develop, and as we progressed, we became more attuned to our thought processes, emotions, and decision-making. This led to greater self-awareness and improved team cohesion. In a project like iGEM, where we are constantly evolving and adjusting our views, these diaries provided a way to document our growth, challenges, and changes in perspective on a weekly basis. They helped us track not only what happened but also how we interpreted events, which in turn enriched our understanding of ourselves and each other.

Our feelings, thoughts, impulses, and ambitions are central to what drives us as human beings. They influence our daily actions, relationships, and responses to challenges, serving as both our greatest assets and potential obstacles. Throughout the diary project, we explored how these internal factors shape not only our individual performance but also the overall progress of the team. Reflexivity highlighted how emotional extremes—whether positive or negative—can directly impact team dynamics. For instance, recognising moments of support from teammates could be overshadowed by reluctance to engage after a disagreement, just as the high of a successful lab result could make earlier setbacks seem insignificant. These emotional highs and lows can distort our perception of progress, making us focus disproportionately on specific moments while overlooking others. Reflexivity helped us become more aware of this complexity and allowed us to consider possibilities and perspectives we hadn’t previously thought of.

As the team became more comfortable with reflexive practice, members began to more readily acknowledge personal biases and understand how these biases shaped their interactions with their work. This awareness was crucial in understanding how our actions influenced team dynamics and led to more constructive feedback and accountability. However, the process also exposed challenges, such as the bias inherent in self-reflection, where some members struggled to balance honest reflection with the desire to present themselves more favourably. Engagement with the process was uneven across the team, but despite these challenges, the reflexive diaries ultimately served as a powerful tool for personal and collective growth. They highlighted that self-awareness and effective communication are not inherent traits but can be actively cultivated through reflection.

To address Frow’s question, "Is it a realistic ambition to think that a competition like iGEM can encourage the development of reflexive biological engineers?"—the answer is a resounding yes! Our experience with reflexive diaries showed that iGEM is a fertile ground for cultivating engineers who are not only technically proficient but also deeply aware of how their personal values, societal context, and interactions shape their engineering decisions. Reflexivity encourages us to think critically about the broader ethical, social, and cultural implications of our work. By incorporating reflection into the engineering process, iGEM can indeed nurture biological engineers who are equipped to navigate complex real-world challenges with self-awareness and ethical consideration.

References

• Frow, E. (2015). Designing reflection at the iGEM Jamboree | Engineering Life. Ed.ac.uk. Available from: https://blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk/engineering-life/2015/11/02/designing-reflection-at-the-igem-jamboree/
• Integrated Practices | Imperial College London - iGEM 2016. iGEM; 2016. Available from: https://2016.igem.org/Team:Imperial_College/Integrated_Practices
• Integrated Practices | Tianjin - iGEM 2019. iGEM; 2019. Available from: https://2019.igem.org/Team:Tianjin/Integrated_Practices
• Olmos-Vega FM, Stalmeijer RE, Varpio L, Kahlke R. A Practical Guide to Reflexivity in Qualitative Research: AMEE Guide no. 149. Medical Teacher. 2022 Apr 7;45(149):1–11. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0142159X.2022.2057287
• Reeves S, Peller J, Goldman J, Kitto S. Ethnography in qualitative educational research: AMEE Guide No. 80. Medical Teacher. 2013 Jun 28;35(8):e1365–79. Available from: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/0142159X.2013.804977
• Whitaker EM, Atkinson P. Reflexive Ethnography. In: Handbuch Soziologische Ethnographie. Wiesbaden: Springer VS; 2022. p. 265–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-26405-5_15
• Fuller R, Lombardini S, Poggi C. How accurate are retrospective survey data? Evidence from rural Ethiopia. Journal of Development Effectiveness. 2023 Apr 9;16(1):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/19439342.2023.2190602
• Information Commissioner's Office. The Data Protection Act. 2019 Jan. Available from: https://ico.org.uk/media/2614158/ico-introduction-to-the-data-protection-bill.pdf