Following Klein’s ‘principle of variance’, there are countless ways to achieve interdisciplinary integration in team science and beyond (Klein, 2012). This immense variety presents challenges for integration theorists and practitioners. Identifying integrative instances, describing them, facilitating integrative processes, and evaluating their merit, worth, and significance are extremely difficult if integration looks different wherever it occurs. Varieties of integration multiply when they are linked into integrative pathways with multiple steps or parts (Laursen, 2024). Yet, such complex integrations are common and desirable; many difficult problems and questions must be addressed through gradual processing of disciplinary contributions rather than in a single, giant leap. Integration theorists and practitioners are thus faced with an undifferentiated mass of complex integrations and few reliable, feasible methodologies for grasping these. Integrative topologies are a conceptual and visual tool designed to address this challenge (Laursen, 2024). This presentation presents a research plan to analyze the utility of integrative topologies for diverse purposes through six examples.

The presentation first reviews the input-process-output (IPO) model of integration as a methodological foundation for theorizing and implementing complex integrations. The IPO model proposes that all integrations bring two or more inputs into integrative relations with each other, resulting in integrated outputs. Laursen (2024) proposed that single IPO integrations can link into integrative pathways, and these have constrained structures called ‘integrative topologies’. She presented specific topologies including a weave, zipper, and chain and noted these can be combined to form even more complex pathways. The topologies are thus customizable models that can be used conceptually and practically in working with complex integrations. Laursen demonstrated a conceptual use by analyzing integrations reported in the literature. In addition, Laursen indicated potential ways integrative topologies might be useful, but additional uses have not yet been reported. Questions therefore remain about what makes integrative topologies useful for different purposes in different settings.

This presentation proposes a plan to address these questions with several novel use cases. One case will use the topologies for a theoretical task: describing a ‘typical’ integrative pathway in object-oriented interdisciplinarity, as it can be found in social robotics. Another case will analyze integration in information policy research. A third example will use topologies as an intervention to help researchers in second language acquisition reflect on their integrative practices. A fourth example will use integrative topologies to plan a pathway of facilitative support for a translational health research team. A final case will use integrative topologies as a science facilitation tool to prepare team leaders. Each example will describe the case setting and goal for using integrative topologies; show how the tool was used; and reflect on what worked well, what was difficult, and what these experiences indicate for future uses of the tool. The presentation will seek audience feedback on how each case should be described and what types of lessons learned or evidence will be useful to future readers, including scholars and practitioners. The presentation thus contributes pragmatic, theory-driven insights to further develop the methodological foundations of integration research and practice.