Radical innovation: crossing knowledge boundaries with ...

independent of one another and co-entangled. Furthermore, they argue that the
notions of multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity all indicate a
particular mode of interdisciplinarity as the integration or synthesis of different
knowledges, and this model of integration does not exhaust the multiple forms that
interdisciplinary research might take. They also describe the ‘subordination-service’
mode of interdisciplinarity, which involves the use of knowledge from one discipline
to serve another. For example, in art-science collaborations they argue that art is often
represented as improving the ability of scientists to communicate their findings to
society. And they also describe an ‘agonistic-antagonistic’ mode of interdisciplinarity
in which different kinds of knowledge are not integrated, but continue to co-exist
productively in dialogue, and mutual critique. The authors argue that neither
interdisciplinary nor disciplinary research should be seen to be intrinsically inventive
or autonomous. In fact they argue that interdisciplinary work can both involve
retaining a level of autonomy, as in the agonistic-antagonistic’ mode, and can be
‘inventive’ in shifting the ontological concepts and objects of research. This article
points to the value of opening interdisciplinarity up for debate so that it does not
appear as a panacea, or an automatic measure of innovation or accountability.
However, this research is limited by its internet based methodology insofar as it does
not involve direct empirical research into how these projects might be organised, run,
or the experience of the researchers involved.
A recent ethnographic research project on an interdisciplinary social science research
centre describes how researchers in this centre continued to work in isolation despite a
management rhetoric of integration (Lin et al. nd). When they did work
collaboratively, for example in co-authoring a paper, different people would work on
different sub-sections of the same article. This research therefore supports Rhoten’s
contention that much of what is labelled as ‘interdisciplinary research’ in fact involves
people working in isolation alongside one another. However, in this case the authors
do not simply argue for more ‘integration’, but instead question what integration
might be and what value it might have for the researchers. This paper raises questions
about the assumption that ‘integration’ will occur spontaneously upon the sharing of
space by different researchers, and the lack of reflection at a management level on the
value of collaboration to the researchers involved. The authors also point to the ways
in which particular kinds of research practices might inhibit or facilitate collaborative
work of different kinds. For example they point out that scientific interdisciplinary
work collaborative interactions often revolve around particular artefacts or tools
which are shared, while in social scientific work the primary tangible tools are
personal computers, which are individually appropriated and used. This study
therefore points towards a need for more in-depth ethnographic research of what
knowledge-sharing and collaboration might actually involve as social and material
processes.
12.7.1 Literature Review Conclusion
Many of the critiques of interdisciplinarity referred to here focus on the way in which
it substitutes for critical reflection and stands for innovation, without the presence of
Innovation and Interdisciplinarity 110