This blog provides a reflective account of our experience from the third event of the Cross-Pollinating Perspectives project, following attendance at the Anatomical Society Winter Meeting, held at Anglia Ruskin University, Chelmsford on the 18th of December 2025. This project seeks to extend disciplinary boundaries to enhance understanding of how knowledge is created, communicated and applied across different fields. The ultimate aim is to develop a transferable methodology that supports non-specialists in engaging with unfamiliar disciplines, while also helping specialists design more inclusive and accessible environments.
As reflected in our earlier events, we often reinforce ideas within familiar professional and social circles, a tendency that spans academic, public and private domains. At the heart of the Young Academy of Scotland is a commitment to developing more inclusive and informed approaches to complex societal challenges. In this context, and within the Cross-Pollinating Perspectives project, the Anatomical Society conference, with its focus on education and technology, provided a valuable opportunity to explore how different disciplines approach shared challenges in practice.
As with our previous events, contributions have been structured using the Gibbs reflective cycle to allow for consistency and comparability across participants. In the sections that follow, Brian Connolly, Ourania Varsou and Vitalii Diakov share their experiences of the conference.
A video of YAS members discussing the project may be found here.
Brian Connolly
Description of the Experience
The Anatomical Society’s annual conference took place in Chelmsford between the 17-19th December 2025, with YAS attendance on the 18th December. The day focused on two key areas with exploration of education in anatomy and the consideration of technology. The day featured Professor Gabrielle Finn’s keynote on reframing education research, challenging us to move beyond measuring what is easy to count. Flash talks followed on embedding EDI in anatomy education (Michelle Welsh), the hidden curriculum (Lucy Cowperthwaite), professional practice accreditation (Lauren Clunie), assessing with AI (Anthony Bright), and hands-on versus hands-off learning approaches (Deborah Merrick).Dr Eva Sweeney and Dr Aaron Beger presented the Education Innovation Award talk on virtual escape rooms, demonstrating sophisticated pedagogical design choices. Professor Finn then led a workshop on poetic inquiry, introducing the “listening guide” methodology for constructing I-poems from qualitative data.
The afternoon featured Dr Joseph Harris’s keynote on AI for ultrasound, followed by presentations on large language models in assessment, reflectance transformation imaging, virtual reality workshops, 3D printing of anatomical models, and the evolution of Gray’s Anatomy. As an outsider from innovation ecosystems, I was welcomed into conversations about pedagogy, technology, and inclusion in anatomical education. I also enjoyed visiting a number of the stalls and reviewing the poster presentations visible on the day.
Feelings and Thoughts
Walking into the venue, I experienced a mixture of anticipation and apprehension, placing myself outside my professional comfort zone in a field where I had no knowledge to build from. Professor Finn’s opening keynote resonated strongly – her challenge about measuring what truly matters rather than what’s easy to count applies directly to evaluating innovation programmes.
Michelle Welsh’s EDI presentation was simultaneously inspiring and frustrating, as the challenges she outlined (lack of diverse resources, variability in institutional support, systemic constraints) mirror exactly what we face in innovation ecosystems. Lucy Cowperthwaite’s work on hidden curriculum directly mirrored my own concerns – the concept that our practices communicate implicit messages about whose knowledge counts articulated something I’d sensed but never properly named.
Professor Finn’s poetic inquiry workshop surprised me. I’d have often employed poetic methods in an informal manner, but the listening guide methodology proved more sophisticated than much conventional qualitative analysis. Working through the exercise, I recognised how our typical thematic coding of entrepreneur interviews strips away the specifics of how people describe their experiences. Dr Harris’s honest assessment of AI limitations modelled a refreshingly nuanced approach to technology, contrasting with the binary framings common in innovation discourse.
Evaluation
The conference’s greatest strength lay in treating education as practice worthy of research and innovation. Lauren Clunie’s professional development programme for anatomy educators contrasts sharply with economic development, where we invest heavily in designing initiatives but less in how practitioners learn and improve delivery.
The systematic attention to both “hidden” and “visible” EDI approaches provided a useful framework, though the persistent challenges revealed how difficult genuine transformation remains. Professor Finn’s poetic inquiry workshop was encouragingly rigorous, demonstrating that poetry isn’t merely decorative but a distinct methodology for questions involving lived experience of systemic barriers.
The technology sessions maintained admirable balance between enthusiasm and critical assessment. Dr Harris’s candour about AI struggling with anatomical variations (precisely where human expertise matters most) and Anthony Bright’s thoughtful assessment redesign showed sophisticated thinking about what we’re actually trying to evaluate.
The conference had limitations from my perspective – I occasionally struggled with technical terminology and missed contextual knowledge regular attendees possessed. The technology sessions felt somewhat disconnected from the morning’s emphasis on inclusion, lacking explicit discussion of how emerging technologies might reduce or exacerbate existing inequalities.
Analysis
Several interconnected themes merit deeper consideration. The relationship between tacit and explicit knowledge emerged repeatedly. Anatomical education constantly grapples with teaching spatial reasoning that experienced practitioners have internalised. In innovation ecosystems, much effective practice (spotting promising ideas early, brokering unlikely partnerships, knowing when to push forward or step back) is similarly difficult to articulate. We treat these as innate talents rather than systematically developable capabilities.
The hidden curriculum concept deserves particular attention. When we design funding competitions, host networking events, or celebrate success stories, we communicate implicit messages about whose knowledge counts and what “successful” innovation looks like. This connects directly to Michelle Welsh’s work showing that meaningful inclusion requires examining everyday practices, not just high-level strategies.
Professor Finn’s poetic practice raised fundamental questions about what counts as legitimate knowledge. In economic development, we rely heavily on economic modelling and technocratic language. These tools risk obscuring lived reality – an entrepreneur struggling to access finance involves identity, dignity, hope, and fear, not merely data points. Finding ways to make these experiences visible within policy processes, as Professor Finn’s work does in education research, strikes me as essential.
Conclusions
Deliberate engagement with fields outside my own forces me to question assumptions I didn’t know I was making. The anatomists’ approaches to education, inclusion, and technology adoption aren’t directly transferable to economic development, but they offer challenges I wouldn’t encounter within my usual professional circles. This is precisely the value of Cross-Pollinating Perspectives: developing richer ways of seeing the challenges we face.
Specific insights have direct applicability. The balanced approach to technology adoption offers a model for engaging with emerging technologies whilst remaining clear about limitations. The attention to both visible and hidden dimensions of inclusion demonstrates that equity work requires examination of everyday practices. The use of poetic inquiry suggests we might usefully expand what counts as legitimate knowledge in policy processes. Most significantly, the experience confirmed that systematic attention to practice matters more than abstract frameworks. The anatomists weren’t operating from grand theories imposed from above but from careful observation of what works, systematic evaluation, and willingness to adapt based on evidence.
Action Plan
Following the conference, I plan to explore a more structured approach to making innovation practice more explicit and teachable, drawing on Lauren Clunie’s work on professional development. I’ll identify knowledge that effective practitioners possess and consider how these might be systematically taught.
I will look to consider alternative research methods in upcoming evaluation projects, taking inspiration from Professor Finn’s poetic inquiry. This might involve working with entrepreneurs to create narrative accounts that preserve voice and affect rather than defaulting exclusively to conventional policy analysis.
Over the next six months, I will work with the Cross-Pollinating Perspectives project team to better distribute leadership responsibility, ensuring other members have opportunities to shape project direction. I will also share insights from the conference more widely within Scottish Enterprise and maintain the discipline of attending at least two conferences per year outside my immediate field.
Ourania Varsou
Description
As part of the Young Academy of Scotland Cross-Pollinating Perspectives project, I attended the Anatomical Society Winter Meeting 2025 at Anglia Ruskin University on 18th December 2025 alongside colleagues from different professional backgrounds. The day focused on anatomy education and technological innovation, offering a programme that included keynote talks, presentations and workshops. Educational sessions explored a range of pedagogical approaches. Professor Gabrielle Finn introduced creative and qualitative methodologies, including the use of “love and break-up letters” as reflective tools during the COVID-19 period to explore empathy and the concept of “empathetic dissonance”, describing the tension between expressing empathy and genuinely feeling it. She also presented poetic inquiry as a qualitative method, including forms such as found poetry and researcher-generated poetry, challenging conventional definitions of research methodologies in healthcare professions. Other talks addressed embedding EDI in anatomy education and the use of gamification through virtual escape rooms to support engagement and learning. Technology sessions focused on emerging tools in anatomical and clinical contexts. These included applications of artificial intelligence in ultrasound imaging, particularly in image interpretation, anatomical delineation and the challenges of defining “ground truth” across different raters. Additional presentations explored the use of generative AI in anatomy assessments, virtual reality teaching environments and 3D printing of anatomical models. As part of the Cross-Pollinating Perspectives approach, I prepared and shared a glossary of key anatomical and educational terms in advance to support accessibility and reduce potential disciplinary language barriers for colleagues attending from non-anatomical backgrounds.
Feelings and Thoughts
Attending this event felt both familiar and different, particularly when viewed through an interdisciplinary lens. As someone working within anatomy education, I was comfortable with the content, yet the presence of colleagues from different disciplinary backgrounds shifted how I engaged with the material. I initially found myself more preoccupied with the assumptions embedded in disciplinary language and practice, particularly when observing how others navigated the same sessions. However, it was encouraging to observe, and to hear from colleagues, how accessible the event was to non-specialists and how the content was interpreted as transferable across disciplines. Our post-session discussions highlighted aspects of communication, topic choice and framing as key elements in facilitating this accessibility. On a personal note, Professor Finn’s keynote strongly resonated with my own interests in education and health humanities. The exploration of poetic inquiry was particularly thought-provoking, challenging traditional hierarchies of evidence gathering and prompting reflection on what counts as legitimate knowledge.
Evaluation
A key strength of the conference was its willingness to treat education as an area of innovation and scholarly inquiry in its own right. The integration of creative methodologies, EDI considerations and technological developments demonstrated a field actively engaging with both pedagogical and societal challenges. The technology sessions were particularly strong in presenting a balanced view. Discussions around AI in ultrasound and generative AI in assessment did not position technology as a solution in itself, but instead emphasised limitations, such as bias in training data, variability in defining anatomical boundaries and the importance of human expertise. This nuanced approach aligns closely with responsible AI practices. The effort to support accessibility through the pre-shared glossary was positively reinforced through discussions with colleagues, who noted that this supported them in engaging with the content. However, the experience also highlighted that accessibility is not only about terminology, but also about how concepts are framed and whether space is created for questions and clarification.
Analysis
Several key themes were constructed from this experience. First, the importance of language as both a bridge and a barrier. Even within a familiar discipline, terminology can become exclusionary when engaging with interdisciplinary audiences. The glossary functioned as a simple but effective intervention, reinforcing that accessibility requires intentional and proactive design. Second, the question of what counts as knowledge became central. For example, the use of poetic inquiry challenges traditional assumptions about validity and reliability in research, aligning with broader debates about qualitative methodologies and the representation of lived experiences. This has direct relevance to both educational research and emerging technological areas such as generative AI, where questions of interpretation, bias and meaning are becoming increasingly prominent. Finally, the interdisciplinary nature of the experience highlighted the value of multiple perspectives. Observing how colleagues from different backgrounds engaged with the conference offered new ways of interpreting familiar content. This reinforced how anatomy, as a foundational discipline spanning healthcare and biosciences, provides a strong platform for interdisciplinary dialogue. It demonstrated how established practices within the field can be both accessible and adaptable, while also benefiting from continued reflection through diverse perspectives.
Conclusion
This experience demonstrated that cross-pollination is not only about engaging with unfamiliar disciplines, but also about revisiting familiar ones through different lenses. The Anatomical Society meeting provided a space where established practices in anatomy education could be examined alongside emerging technologies and interdisciplinary perspectives. The reflections shared across participants reinforced that meaningful learning occurs not only through content, but through shared dialogue and interpretation. The combination of educational innovation, technological development and diverse perspectives created a rich environment for critical reflection.
Action Plan
Following this experience, I will continue to integrate interdisciplinary considerations into my teaching and scholarship. This includes maintaining practices that support accessibility, such as providing glossaries or preparatory materials when introducing complex topics. I will further explore creative and qualitative methodologies, including elements of poetic inquiry, as potential approaches within education research and student engagement. In parallel, I will continue to engage critically with the use of generative AI in anatomy education, ensuring that considerations of bias, variability and ethical practice remain central. Finally, I will actively seek opportunities to incorporate interdisciplinary dialogue into my teaching and professional practice, recognising the value of perspectives from outside the discipline in strengthening both educational design and critical thinking.
Vitalii Diakov
Description
I attended the Anatomy Society’s annual conference in the UK as part of the Young Academy of Scotland project, Cross-Pollinating Perspectives. The conference theme this year was teaching anatomy, and the programme explored anatomical education, outreach and public engagement, anatomical research, technology, EDI and the current landscape of ethics in anatomy. I attended alongside colleagues from the Young Academy of Scotland, including Dr Ourania Varsou, who is a professor of anatomy. Coming from a background in law and mediation, I arrived curious and motivated, while also aware that I was stepping into a specialist environment with its own professional language and culture.
Feelings and Thoughts
The conference offered multiple entry points into the theme of teaching anatomy through talks, workshops, networking and meaningful discussions with participants. I had the opportunity to speak with a countrymate, a Ukrainian lecturer from Kharkiv, and that conversation stayed with me as a reminder that education is also a form of continuity and resilience, not only pedagogy.
I took part in a creative workshop using “love letters” and “break-up letters” as a reflective tool in anatomy learning, and I was excited by the topics on the sustainable use of materials in teaching and on the use of escape rooms to design learning activities, presentations, and teaching resources. I also found it fascinating to hear about the legacy of Gray’s Anatomy and how canonical texts continue to shape learning cultures and professional identity.
Throughout the day, I also had conversations with colleagues from the Young Academy of Scotland about how accessible the conference felt for non-anatomists and how much peer support, prior briefing and professional vocabulary shaped our experience.
Evaluation
I notice a clear pedagogical parallel between mediation and anatomy. Anatomy is not only about knowledge acquisition but also about learning “how to learn”. Through observation and practice, students not only strengthen their knowledge but also gain experience that will prepare them for their future profession. While mediation is a relatively new discipline compared to anatomy, it develops its teaching methods similarly. Mediation is equipped with such methods as feedback loops, case analysis, observations, interventions, case scenarios and skills-building practice that can be systematically developed. It is also interesting that both discipline makes steps to adopt AI for teaching purposes, to make learning more accessible, ethical and sustainable. Looking back, I realised how much my engagement depended on the learning culture created around specialist content.
As a non-anatomist, I expected unfamiliar vocabulary to be a significant barrier. The language was at times technical, but the conference did not feel closed. The combination of session design, the openness of discussion, and peer support within our Young Academy of Scotland group made a real difference. Being able to ask what might otherwise feel like “basic” questions, and having colleagues help me translate or clarify terms, shifted my experience from observation to active engagement. It also made me reflect on how interdisciplinary inclusion often depends on how speakers frame concepts and whether questions are welcomed as part of shared learning.
I was also struck by how clearly anatomy educators are grappling with impact and responsibility. Teaching anatomy is not simply about transmitting knowledge – it involves guidance on how learners are supported to manage difficult parts of their training, and how ethical thinking is integrated into professional formation. The aspect of ethics strengthened my views that ethical practice is not only a set of old rules and principles, but a lived discipline shaped by everyday choices, language, and institutional culture.
The attention to EDI across teaching and research themes underlined that inclusion is an important part of that process and helps to engage academics and students in discussions.
The creative workshop and the escape-room sessions made me realise how attached we can be to traditional teaching styles. By contrast, game design and thoughtful use of technology can disrupt the status quo, boost student engagement, and make learning genuinely enjoyable for both lecturers and students. The escape-room approach highlighted how engagement, collaboration, and problem-solving can be designed into teaching, and how a well-planned debrief can turn activity into learning.
The love letter/break-up letter format created a structured way of naming frustration, ambivalence, or resistance toward a subject. It is important to understand that working in anatomy and like mediation we will face difficult moments and experience the inner resilience and emotions. At this stage, caring about students’ wellbeing, we can make that process less stressful and more reflective and meaningful. Both methods felt relevant to my own teaching and facilitation practice, not as “add-ons,” but as tools that can strengthen reflective capacity and deepen understanding.
Analysis
As I synthesised the experience, one idea became a central bridge between anatomy and my own field: both anatomy and mediation are disciplines that study complex structures and the relationships within them. In anatomy, the structure of the human body. It is layered, interdependent, and governed by chains of live connection. In mediation, the structure is communication and relationships, which are also layered, interdependent, and shaped by visible and invisible links between people, histories, emotions, and power dynamics. In both fields, the aim is not simply to identify a single “problem point,” but to understand how the whole system functions, where it is under strain, and what happens when one part is not working.
“In anatomy, the issue rarely remains isolated”. Injury to one area can influence other systems and functions, sometimes immediately, sometimes gradually, and sometimes in ways that are not obvious without careful examination. In mediation, conflict also rarely stays local. A disagreement about a specific event can quickly extend into wider damage to engagement, trust, sense of safety, and the capacity to cooperate.
A “single issue” often turns out to be connected to earlier disagreements or to deeper fears that are activated by the present situation. Just as the body responds to injury with protective mechanisms, individuals in conflict often move into self-preservation. They become vigilant, narrow their focus to what feels threatening, and revert to familiar strategies such as avoidance, defensiveness, blame, or withdrawal. From this viewpoint, mediation becomes a disciplined process of mapping the system, understanding how the damage has spread, and supporting parties to reconnect disrupted chains of communication in a way that is safe enough for trust to begin returning.
The conference gave me a sharper sense of what “AI literacy” should mean in professional contexts that depend on trust. Current regulatory developments are moving toward risk-based obligations and phased implementation. AI use will increasingly come with expectations of transparency, governance, and safeguards. In mediation, the question is not only whether AI can help, but what safeguards are necessary so that trust is not undermined, particularly around confidentiality, informed consent, and how outputs are used in negotiation dynamics.
Conclusion
The conference reinforced for me that cross-pollination is not about becoming an expert in another field; it is about learning how other disciplines teach, communicate, and handle complexity, and then using those insights to strengthen one’s own practice. It is necessary to expand our knowledge and universal principles to teaching, which we can learn from other disciplines and examples of good practices.
Action Plan
I want to bring these insights back to the Young Academy of Scotland in ways that are practical and useful for Cross-Pollinating Perspectives. One immediate step is to share what made this conference accessible to a non-anatomist and to translate it into principles for interdisciplinary work: explicit attention to language, space for questions without judgment, and peer support as part of the learning design rather than something that happens only informally.
In my own teaching and facilitation, I plan to pilot two approaches I encountered at the conference. The first is an escape-room style learning activity to support active engagement and collaborative problem-solving, followed by a structured debrief that makes learning explicit and links it back to professional practice. The second is adapting the love letter/break-up letter format into mediation training as a reflective prompt.
Finally, I would like to propose a small internal discussion within the Young Academy of Scotland that uses anatomy and mediation as parallel case studies for “ethics as lived practice,” with space to explore how different disciplines maintain trust, manage vulnerability, and build inclusive learning environments.
