Radical innovation: crossing knowledge boundaries with ...

problems of society are complex - at one of our workshops we heard about the
development of the ‘Social Exclusion Unit’ under Blair’s Labour government, an
organisation formed to address the problems of those people who suffer compound
disadvantages (economic, educational, health, criminal) that effectively exclude them
from society. Social problems cross the boundaries by which public and
organisational life is structured. Nevertheless, the expert knowledge from which
problems are addressed must develop within departmental contexts, where peer
recognition is given for simple stories, because it is so much more persuasive to
describe, publish, advocate and ‘solve’ a simple problem than a messy one.
Furthermore, it is hard to say what the success criteria should be for a messy problem.
It is normally the success criteria that are used to refine the question, so without them,
the question remains unanswerable. Finally experts speak from the structural
perspective of their own expertise, which can produce an answer to the wrong
question. The Social Exclusion Unit faced all of these challenges, but had been
established in part as a demonstration of the value of boundary-crossing, so in our
terms was an experiment in interdisciplinary innovation.
If we contrast this kind of problem with academic research problems, it is clear that
scientific investigation makes only limited contributions. Furthermore, the lack of
boundaries or controls on the problem makes it hard to formulate an analytic or
experimental approach. There is certainly ample opportunity for investigation by
motivated and curious individuals, but the freedom to immerse yourself in complex
problems is not consistent with the conventional administration of scientific research.
Perhaps ironically, the lack of intellectual boundaries around such complex applied
problems means that they might represent more ‘pure’ science, science for its own
sake, than the kinds of science done within an academic career. The opportunity to
engage intellectually with complex problems is a rare privilege, and leaves the
researcher responsible for choice of problems to work on. Complexity therefore
highlights the individual conscience and public awareness of the researcher, and also
brings responsibility to educate and communicate with the public (although this kind
of translation activity is also not seen as being a real part of science).
Intervention and delivery
One response to complex problems is to attempt the construction of a grand
explanatory theory that will integrate the various perspectives for analysis. These
theories tend implicitly to contain within them the assumption of a certain kind of
intervention. Complex systems theories emphasise the possibility of emergent patterns
of behaviour, interacting influences, and the importance of developing appropriate
feedback mechanisms. Economic theories might emphasise the balance and
mobilisation of resources. In all cases, analytic perspectives often bring with them
established disciplinary ownership, and interventions are associated with
organisational delivery structures. The construction of a holistic theory, within an
interdisciplinary collaboration, therefore presumes a certain subordination relationship
between the disciplines involved. Where there is no clear prior disciplinary affiliation,
these theories may be associated with personal expert branding or the adoption of an
Innovation and Interdisciplinarity 23