Episode 6

[00:00] Sarah: Welcome to This Multidisciplinary Life, a podcast exploring the nuance and uniqueness of multidisciplinary teams. Each episode, I‘ll be speaking with experts who are leading and involved in multidisciplinary teams. Research from Harvard Business Review tells us that multidisciplinary teams outperform homogenous teams over time.

[00:21] I want to understand how and why this is the case.

[00:31] My guest today is someone you‘ve met previously. Back in episode two, it‘s Professor Julian Webb. Julian is a professor of law at the University of Melbourne and teaches in the areas of legal ethics, civil procedure and regulatory theory. He has previously held chairs at the University of Southampton and Westminster in the UK.

[00:55] He‘s also been a visiting professor at the University of Exeter. University College, London, the Southampton Institute and Cleveland Marshall College of Law in the US. He‘s also been a visiting senior research fellow at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies at the University of London. If you listened to episode two, you‘ll know that towards the end of our conversation, Julian said something that stopped me in my tracks.

[01:20] He mentioned that professionals may not own their expertise anymore. He described the term connected professionalism and relational processes, two terms that I‘m very keen to unpack with him in this conversation and find out what they mean, why they‘re important, maybe what‘s wrong with them, and why it‘s important that we know about them.

[01:43] Let‘s get into it. Julian, I‘m so excited that we‘re having this conversation. I think in the last episode when you mentioned connected professionalism, I just, I was like, Yeah,

[01:57] Julian: I‘ve been doing a bit of pausing since. I‘m almost regretting I mentioned it, but here we are. We‘re back again. We‘re back. See what we can do with it.

[02:06] Sarah: Wonderful. So I think starting with the why is going to be really important. Why do we need to know what connected professionalism is? What does it mean? Why is that important? Obviously we need to define it. We need to understand what it means. So let‘s absolutely go down that path.

[02:25] Julian: Okay.

[02:26] Sarah: And I expect we‘re going to also look at how come this is important to understand and to, and what can we learn from it?

[02:35] What, what is the so what? What do we take from that?

[02:38] Julian: Yeah. No, I think the so what question is always a great question. Always one of my favorites and and cause it keeps me in. is not a good answer. So we‘ll, I‘ll see if I can do a bit better than that.

[02:52] Sarah: All right. So let‘s kick off with the why.

[02:55] Let‘s really understand why is this topic an interesting one, a useful one? Why do we need to know about it?

[03:02] Julian: In a way it goes back to the big ‘P‘ word. So professionalism is not just about connected professionalism. It‘s about why we ever talk about professionalism. And I think the sort of what‘s at stake here is a really great place to start.

[03:18] And I think there are probably four things that we could talk about whenever you talk about professionalism. And I don‘t think we‘ll necessarily talk about all of them today. But there are things about. What we pay attention to in education and training. So the idea of what is a professional and what a professional does, should logically be reflected in the preparation process that goes into making that professional, whether it‘s a lawyer, accountant, or whatever.

[03:48] And sometimes those differences are really useful in understanding what distinguishes one profession from another. There‘s the regulatory question. Who‘s being regulated, by whom, for what purposes. And regulation again is a big kind of defining feature of professions. I think where connected professionalism really starts to bite is because that‘s one that‘s starting to get us to really seriously think about how we organize the work.

[04:23] And how. The way in which changes in the work may actually have a kind of reflexive effect, may bounce back and have an impact on how we view our roles, how we define roles in relation to that work. So we‘re saying, historically the views tended to be that professionalism is a way of controlling work and identifying work, but we‘re also going, oh, hang on, there‘s another side to this here because there‘s ways in which the work and changes in the work can maybe start to redefine what we understand by. Professionalism.

[05:02] Sarah: I see.

[05:02] Julian: The way in which the work is done

[05:04] Sarah: And the work being, say for example, a lawyer as a professional.

[05:09] Julian: Yeah.

[05:09] Sarah: The work is the work of a lawyer. So legal advice. Legal services. Right? And everything that comes under that professional banner. Yeah. Of it being protected. Yes. Within the profession.

[05:22] Julian: Yeah. And so that, which is a great example, because there you see, you‘ve got the regulation and the scope of work, doing work together to define the core of being a lawyer.

[05:33] And you‘ve got that values dimension that kind of kicks in there as well. And we might say that values conversation is also another aspect of what‘s at stake. So it almost goes to professional identity as well.

[05:48] Sarah: Yes, and when you say values, do you mean the individual? Values of a lawyer or do you mean the values of the profession as a whole, or is it both?

[05:58] Julian: Could be, to an extent. Can be both, I think. And I think, again, because we‘re thinking about the way the work is changing.

[06:05] Maybe there‘s also an increasingly important intermediate. in all of that, which is the organization that you‘re working in. So we think increasingly as well about the role of organizational behaviors, organizational values in shaping our idea of professionalism as well.

[06:24] Sarah: Firm purpose.

[06:26] Julian: Precisely.

[06:27] Sarah: You make a really interesting point around values of the individual, values of the profession, even thinking about values of the firm, and looking at the work, and how do we organize the work, and how do we talk about the work. Let‘s dive into what connected professionalism means.

[06:47] What does that term actually mean? If we can define it.

[06:52] Julian: Yeah, I think it‘s a great if. It‘s a hard question. And look, there is a real problem here. I think one of the things that I mentioned in, Last time, the, in a way, the guy we‘re talking about here, Mirko Noordegraaf, Professor of Organizations at Utrecht.

[07:10] Sarah: Extensive research in this space. As well. Extensive research.

[07:13] Julian: He‘s been working on varieties of professionalism for a long time and this is where that work has led him. And quite a lot of people actually have been quite critical of this turn in his work.

[07:24] And one of the things they‘ve been a bit. critical of is there‘s a little bit of nice label. What does it mean? So what is it? It‘s a great, it‘s a great word because it‘s actually a bit slippery.

[07:35] It‘s hard to define. He, and one thing he does do is he uses the term in two very different ways. He uses it descriptively to say some things that are quite interesting about what‘s going on now.

[07:48] But he‘s also really interested in using it normatively, so in a way he uses connected or connective, and again he varies his terminology, varies, sorry, his terminology a little bit around those two things. As, a way in which I think he sees professions responding to the challenges. So he‘s saying we‘ve got to become more connected rather than just using it as a descriptive label.

[08:16] But really what he‘s doing and the starting point, I think, to defining it, this is one of those academic answers I‘m going to give you.

[08:24] Sarah: We‘ll break it down.

[08:25] Julian: Sorry. Yeah.

[08:27] Sarah: We‘ll break it down.

[08:28] Julian: In a way, what he‘s doing is he‘s setting up this model of connected professionalism in opposition to what he sees as the problems that traditional professionalism are facing.

[08:41] And one way of thinking about Professions, which sociologists have done and has shaped the conversation, academic conversation for a long time, is to frame them, and it‘s a lovely phrase that comes from a guy called, another guy called Andrew Abbott, an American sociologist who‘s done a huge amount of work in this space.

[09:03] That is, talks about professions as things of boundaries. So we‘re almost defined by the boundaries of the work.

[09:12] Sarah: Yep.

[09:13] Julian: More than necessarily the substance of it. So it‘s all about Jurisdiction. And he uses that word as a sociologist, which is great for us as lawyers because we know all about jurisdictions.

[09:25] It‘s a term we use a lot. And so what he‘s saying is that a lot of what professions do is create and protect jurisdiction. Use regulation.

[09:36] They use their relationships with other professions and the way in which you, you try and control and limit turf wars or engage with turf wars with other professions as a way of defining and delimiting those boundaries.

[09:51] And to some extent, creating and protecting your own turf.

[09:54] Sarah: Interesting.

[09:55] Julian: So it‘s all about, also about market control and supply creation and everything else around, around that in economic terms as well.

[10:05] Sarah: And if we think about that in the context of the legal profession, we‘re thinking about, say corporate lawyers in law firms working within a series of boundaries.

[10:17] So there‘s professional boundaries, there‘s regulation, there‘s all sorts of duties that we learn in law school and are then applied in practice very explicitly. And so all those elements create boundaries, which as you just, as you say, then actually the work sits within those boundaries.

[10:39] Yeah. Interesting, really fascinating. And then obviously those lawyers use their networks to speak and engage with other lawyers, but also other professions, even accountants.

[10:49] Julian: Yeah.

[10:50] Sarah: Okay.

[10:51] Julian: Now it‘s that part of it, it‘s that last part that you‘ve just touched on that, that Nordegraaf‘s really interested in.

[10:57] Because what he sees changing is that the old story of professionalism was all about autonomy, exclusivity and control.

[11:05] Sarah: Yep. Exactly.

[11:06] Julian: Whereas what he‘s saying is there‘s a whole bunch of drivers now, which are so central to the work that we‘re doing, that they‘re starting to change the nature of professionalism at that kind of root level.

[11:24] They‘re starting to take us away from thinking about exclusivity, autonomy and control to thinking more about network and relationship and connection. And that, in its very simplest terms, is where he‘s focusing with that label connected professionalism. So there is a sense in which, it does what it says on the can.

[11:52] Sarah: Yeah.

[11:53] Julian: But then there‘s a certain okay, is there more to it than that? Are there hidden depths or not? And that‘s where we start to see some of the academic debates going hang on. Great label when it‘s not sure. That you‘re saying something that‘s so radically different from what professions are, in fact, already doing.

[12:10] There‘s a little bit of a so what question about it.

[12:13] Sarah: Yeah, and it‘s interesting because is it actually becoming more pronounced now than it ever used to be?

[12:23] Julian: That‘s, I think that‘s where Noordegraaf in some ways is hanging his hook in saying that it is more pronounced. And that there‘s a bunch of factors going on that, that, that might help explain that.

[12:35] So different client and stakeholder expectations of lawyers particularly. What other things? Sorry. Technological change, of course, is a big one. And the things like this are actually not just sort of small ripples in the way things are done, they‘re potential game changers. And that‘s why he‘s saying we‘ve got to start thinking about, um, not just the work, but the big ideas behind it in a different way.

[13:04] Sarah: It‘s a really interesting insight around changing client expectations. End. The notion of connected professionalism, because even in some of the other episodes that we‘ve looked at during this season, we are noticing that client expectations have been changing for quite a few years now, where the expectations of a client‘s lawyer is not what it used to be.

[13:32] The concept of whole of business advice or the profile of risk and lawyers needing to think about I can‘t just give this very siloed and singular piece of advice. I need to be thinking about options and what does the client really need in this case and coming back to values, are we aligned on values to know that we can advise well and is this going to work.

[13:57] Julian: Yeah.

[13:58] Sarah: And that‘s really interesting in the context of connected professionalism and then needing to draw on other expertise who you‘d want to be values aligned with to ensure that the offering and the advice going to the client adds up and makes sense.

[14:12] Julian: It does. And I think to that extent, we can say he‘s onto something which is absolutely why we‘re having this conversation.

[14:23] Yeah. And this, is where Noordegraaf‘s normative side comes in as well. Because really he‘s saying, given what you‘ve just described there, what do professions really need to be thinking about and doing if they‘re going to survive? As as we know them, or are we in fact at one of those kind of big tipping points where something else different is going to emerge?

[14:49] Sarah: Yeah.

[14:50] Julian: I think he would like professions, at least in some recognizable form, to survive. So he‘s much more interested in the transition than the I suppose in a sense A good response to disruption that isn‘t destruction.

[15:08] Sarah: Yes.

[15:09] Julian: Quite an important distinction for us. Definitely. Definitely. So being professional, I think in, in Noordegraaf‘s view, in this new world of connective professionalism that he‘s describing, is much more about, processes and relationships than it is about control over the work and control particularly over, what has often been at the center, particularly for the elite professions like law and medicine, which is control, exclusive control over an expert body of knowledge.

[15:45] So knowledge is quite a big part of this story, and that‘s the segue back to what you rightly described as a bit of a mic drop. Out of our last conversation. Oh, it was. It wasn‘t it? It was. I may not be able to repeat that one today. Just in case anyone out there is, I may have set the expectations a bit high there.

[16:09] But yeah, this idea that we no longer may have exclusive control over the use of our knowledge, but its creation as well. So there‘s a little bit of an even idea that professional knowledge itself is falling apart from what it used to be.

[16:25] Sarah: Yeah. Yeah. From the very clear, explicit boundaries that were created and the siloed nature of professional work.

[16:34] Julian: Yeah.

[16:35] Sarah: There are, as you described, there‘s less silos.

[16:39] Julian: Yeah.

[16:40] Sarah: That all the distinction of silos is changing. And you mentioned processes and relationships. Yes. In the context alongside control. Yeah. When you talk about relationships, are they human relationships or are they kind of relationships between things and work and other elements? What does that mean?

[17:00] Julian: It‘s a really great question. I think predominantly we‘re talking about human relationships, so there is a sense obviously in which a lot of that‘s mediated by organizations as well, some relationships between organizations. So it may be, relationships between collections of humans in some way.

[17:20] Sarah: Yeah.

[17:21] Julian: Maybe as important, if not more important than the one on one.

[17:24] And again, the traditional focus in professions has tended to be on the bespoke one on one relationship, which we see is so crucial to sort of client, rain making and client handling, client management skills.

[17:39] Sarah: Yeah.

[17:40] Julian: And I think those things are important in a way Noordegraaf is saying. They‘re probably even more important than we‘ve realized.

[17:48] But in terms of the knowledge, then I think that‘s one area where relationship with things is a really important angle. And Noordegraaf talks about digital transformation a bit, but quite a lot of his Publications in that area are pre 2020.

[18:10] So the game has changed quite a bit from there. I‘m starting to think that in a way the digital is probably way more important than his work has acknowledged to date. In, in, in this, because I think what we‘re seeing in terms of the use of technological tools is quite central to to the way in which professionalism is changing.

[18:32] Sarah: What do you mean by that when you describe the digitization and the processes, can we, what does that mean?

[18:40] Julian: I almost have to go a little bit matrix on it, the idea that we‘re moving possibly from, brains to brains in vats. But if you think about, if you think about it, the classic model of professional knowledge...

[18:52] Sarah: it‘s in a human brain.

[18:52] Julian: This is where it resides. It‘s in the human brain. And of course the problem of that, which I think again is something we touched on very briefly last time, is it means your primary asset, your knowledge asset can just leave by the front door and never return. So that‘s a vulnerability. It‘s a serious vulnerability for professional organizations.

[19:11] It‘s one reason you might argue why professionals get paid as much as they do because it‘s a license fee for keeping control over that particular brain.

[19:22] Sarah: And the knowledge they carry is valuable.

[19:24] Julian: Yeah, absolutely. It‘s where most of the value resides. So if we start thinking about digital digitalization of knowledge, then of course what we‘re doing is starting to think about how, as an organization, we can transfer that

[19:44] knowledge from the human brain into the equivalent of the brain in the vat. Which of course is the, IT. It‘s the computer these days. What we‘re, what the IT is doing now of course is becoming more and more sophisticated in the way it not just holds knowledge. Which is in a way what a lot of initial IR stuff is doing, we‘re talking big databases.

[20:09] We‘re talking more personalized and specific databasing. So things like precedent banks now are a way, of course, in which a lot of firms personalize. And can generalize, make available within the organization some of that specialist knowledge. You can see the use of playbooks as being a similar way of trying to control.

[20:35] Both process and knowledge. But of course the really interesting one that‘s going to be on the horizon here is AI. And the extent to which we really need to think about artificial intelligence even at the level of generative AI as an externalation. That‘s a good one, wasn‘t it? An externalization tool.

[20:58] par excellence. Always a good idea if you‘re going to come and talk to these things, you know how to say the words first.

[21:08] So what a, and I‘m going to be a little bit dystopian for a moment.

[21:16] Sarah: Okay.

[21:16] Julian: I‘m going to say some of the things that really bother me about AI. So this is a bit of an angst dump from Julian here. I think the idea that we might become heavily reliant AI is something I find quite scary.

[21:33] And it scares me for three particular reasons. Not just in the professional context more generally, but I think it‘s key in the professional context as well.

[21:43] Sarah: Do you think it‘s a real possibility?

[21:46] Julian: We‘re not at the level, I‘m not talking about the level of the robots taking over. I think it‘s way more subtle than that, and that‘s also why it‘s problematic.

[21:57] I think we might be better at putting up the kind of guardrails that stop the robots from taking over.

[22:05] I‘m not sure I rely on us to put up the guardrails that basically fundamentally impair our ability to think as professionals in the way we have done.

[22:16] Sarah: Okay.

[22:18] You mentioned three things. What are they?

[22:19] Julian: Three things. Yeah. Good pick up. Firstly, I think we‘ve got, we‘ve genuinely got a risk of a degradation of the ability to challenge the authority of AI. Almost intrinsic in the tools, and particularly in the design, the conversational design of Gen AI tools, who Who, I said it, you know who I personalized a thing.

[22:41] They are built to persuade us that they have human qualities. . The way in which the chat box function, although it can be a bit clunky, a little bit geeky in the way they use language they are conversational agents and that conversational feature I is a crucial part of the design.

[22:59] . This is how we get Google employees thinking that they are sentient. What more can I say? That‘s, so that‘s one. Okay. Second one, and I think we‘re starting to already see this in schools and universities. So this is on the way. Is that we‘re going to see some loss of the ability to write.

[23:23] That is an interesting one. The handwriting ability. Or actually thinking critically.

[23:28] This is the thing because of the way those two things are connected. If you actually think about how most of us, particularly in complex professional stuff, not the day to day stuff so much, there‘s a very strong connection between writing and thinking.

[23:43] You start to disrupt the process of writing and you start to substitute human writing for computer generated versions thereof. You‘re not just interrupting the writing process, you‘re interrupting the thinking process. That‘s quite deeply disruptive potentially. That‘s something we need to think about.

[24:07] The kind of guardrails we want and how we train people. I think about when and where it‘s appropriate to use AI. And I think there‘s another connection there, which is I am worried about. A reduction in human capacity of ethical discrimination, which is a really pompous way of putting something, so I apologize now.

[24:33] Sounds really technical. What I really mean in plain terms by this is again about understanding when it‘s safe and appropriate to use these tools.

[24:43] Sarah: As in, will we understand?

[24:45] Julian: Yeah. Yeah.

[24:45] Sarah: Or will our judgment become blurred?

[24:48] Julian: Yeah. And partly because of just a habit of reliance on the technology, and partly because I think the technology and the tech developers are encouraging us to rely on the guardrails in the technology to do that.

[25:06] And so that also relieves us in one sense of the problem of thinking about it.

[25:14] Sarah: And critically analysing it.

[25:15] Julian: And critically analysing it. And that in itself is a problem.

[25:18] Sarah: It‘s interesting, your third point just now goes back to your first point around the fact that AI, or the suggestion that AI is being built to, for us to believe that it is Sentient, I think you described it as, but it, thinking it is essentially good or human or...

[25:39] Julian: And that it can reason

[25:41] Sarah: And that it can reason.

[25:42] And yeah, those three points you‘ve described are all very much connected.

[25:48] Julian: Absolutely connected. Absolutely. And so that‘s and there‘s. I‘d hesitate to say there‘s a cascade relationship between them, but there could possibly be. That may be me being a bit too pessimistic. It‘s an occupational hazard.

[26:04] Sarah: It‘s insightful though, because even in my conversation with Mick Sheehy, he described one of the roles that they are hiring for very proactively at the moment is a legal prompt engineer. And I was at a conference a few months ago and panelists were talking about that role.

[26:25] Being the most so in demand and Mick was saying the same thing.

[26:29] It‘s it‘s such an in demand role in law firms now. And it‘s really interesting to your three points around AI and the concerns around that being, having that role come into law firms and develop those skills. There‘s something, it‘s it‘s, there‘s something to watch there. How does that evolve?

[26:47] Julian: It‘s a great example. There absolutely is. I would say if you‘re hiring a prompt engineer, you don‘t need only to be asking about their tech competence. What are their ethical competences? How good are they at judging and saying, actually this, you can ask that question and you can ask it this way.

[27:06] But should you be asking that question? That‘s a really That‘s a really interesting one in the legal space because unless your prompt engineer is also a lawyer you‘ve got immediately, you‘ve got one of these, one of these hybridity problems. You‘ve got two bits of expertise working with each other, but each still with elements of exclusive, possibly exclusive knowledge, where the hybridity may create a problem of what falls in the gap.

[27:38] What falls in the gap between what the prompt engineer knows to do and what the lawyer knows to do and what they think they know about what the other person is doing.

[27:49] Sarah: Exactly. Exactly. That‘s really fascinating. And I‘m just thinking about when Amber O‘Meara was talking about the digital academy that Minter Ellison have built and how it is a really fascinating initiative in building digital capability and digital knowledge within the team.

[28:08] And where that is going to go, because obviously it will uplift the knowledge and capability of lawyers in a team and thinking about that in that hybrid knowledge aspect of technology, digital AI components in there and AI and prompts, but also all the lawyer training, the legal training and boundaries that you work in as a lawyer.

[28:35] Yeah, we can see this being applied, like we can see this playing out in not just the theoretical domain, but very much the professional domain.

[28:43] Julian: It truly is a real time process at the moment. And the example of the work that a number of the big firms are doing like that is a really good one again. Because you‘ve got that. Very positive side to it.

[28:56] You‘ve got potential for big efficiency gains. I hope if firms are applying this kind of stuff appropriately, then there‘s, I think there‘s potential for lawyers to start regaining a bit of work life balance through some of those gains.

[29:13] Sarah: Yeah. Lots of efficiency.

[29:14] Julian: It shouldn‘t just be about the firms making more money, but bringing a bit of quality back into what lawyers do.

[29:20] Sarah: And genuinely learning to work smarter. Not necessarily harder.

[29:24] Julian: Exactly. Yeah. Exactly that. And and indeed, focusing resources where they ought to be focused, which is on the stuff that is out there that is still fundamentally bespoke work that cannot be digitalized in, in quite the same way.

[29:37] Sarah: Yeah. That‘s really fascinating. It reminds me of my conversation with Molly Trigillis, who we were talking about the idea of T shaped lawyers and I shaped lawyers, that real specialist domain that will probably never go away because at some point you will need someone at the tip of the spear. Really specialized and carrying a lot of knowledge on a particular problem.

[30:02] But increasingly, we will require T shaped lawyers because that breadth of skill and that breadth of knowledge is only becoming more important.

[30:12] Julian: Yeah. And there‘s a great link back to, I think, what Noordegraaf is saying.

[30:16] I think it‘s one area where I think he‘s absolutely spot on, which is the skills we‘re talking about when we‘re talking about the T shaped lawyer are very different in some respects from the skills we‘ve traditionally talked about and a key part of that. is that human interaction side of it.

[30:34] We might say that, the future lawyer is increasingly going to be the lawyer is cyborg. The technology is supported, technology assisted, technology enhanced lawyer. But the thing that‘s still going to really distinguish the great lawyer Is going to be those human skills that the technology can‘t recreate.

[31:00] Which are the relational, networking, empathic, ethical. Cause trust me, Gen AI is absolutely rubbish at ethics. I‘m okay for a while yet. Because that is going to be the thing that distinguishes the human service. From what the digital can do.

[31:20] Sarah: Yeah. Yeah. Which is encouraging and really interesting in terms of career pathways, which we could go off on a whole other tangent about thinking about if you are going down the path of a professional and building a career, whether it is in law or medicine or finance or somewhere along one of those areas, that ability to think critically and use sound judgment and continue to develop those muscles is only going to become more important.

[31:51] Julian: It is. And that‘s where the tension is going to be as well with the technology. And so far as the technology, the advanced technologies will also have built in them a kind of drive to weaken some of those capabilities rather than strengthen them. So we‘ve gotta find structural ways of managing that tension.

[32:10] Sarah: Yeah. And to that point, how do law firms and partners in law firms who are looking at the overall. business strategy of a firm and what does that firm look like over time? How do they balance that tension day to day?

[32:27] Because that‘s going to become a real challenge if it‘s, it‘s not already.

[32:31] Julian, this has been thoroughly fascinating. I think I‘ve learnt so much in the short space of this conversation. Thank you for breaking down connected professionalism. It‘s really interesting that it‘s an academic term.

[32:49] However, we can see it playing out in practice, particularly with lawyers and law firms and teams and how that is evolving over time. It also sounds like though it‘s a real academic challenge as well as a practical challenge. Of where it‘s going to go and how it‘s going to evolve over time.

[33:09] Julian: Or indeed whether that is the best way to describe what‘s going on.

[33:13] Sarah: Will we find a new phrase?

[33:14] Julian: Almost certainly. What you have to keep people like me around for.

[33:21] Sarah: Of course. Thank you, Julian.

[33:24] Julian: It‘s been my pleasure.

[33:31] Sarah: That wraps up our episode of This Multidisciplinary Life. If you enjoyed this podcast, please give it a thumbs up, a you know the drill, and subscribe for more episodes. And if you‘re interested in being a guest on the show to share your multidisciplinary life, you can get in touch with us through the links in the show notes.

[33:47] This podcast was recorded on Wurundjeri land and brought to you by Sarah El-Atm, researcher, consultant, and speaker on multidisciplinary teams. It is created in collaboration with Balloon Tree Productions and Marketing Expertise from August, with special mentions to Daniel Banik, Andrew O‘Keefe, Mike McCusker, Nina Wan, and Stefan Imbesi.

[34:07] This Multidisciplinary Life wouldn‘t be possible without the support from the wonderful guests who share their stories and perspectives.