Radical innovation: crossing knowledge boundaries with ...

literature (e.g. Klein 1996, Latucca 2001, Miller 1982, Rossini and Porter 1985, e.g.
Tress, Barbel, and Fry 2004, Wickson, Carew, and Russell 2006). The major
characteristics of these models of knowledge exchange are summarized below.
� Multidisciplinarity: Researchers in different disciplines work in parallel and
exchange knowledge in order to work on a shared goal. Each researcher’s
objectives are still determined by their discipline and results are reintegrated
into these separate disciplinary contexts.
� Interdisciplinarity: Researchers in different disciplines work towards a
common goal in such a way that they cross subject boundaries and integrate
knowledge from other disciplines. Disciplinary knowledge is transformed
through this process such that new and independent theories and methods are
created.
� Transdisciplinarity: Involves academic researchers from different disciplines
and non-academic participants who work together towards a common goal.
Like interdisciplinarity ‘integration’ is a key word in accounts of
transdisciplinarity, but here it involves the break down of epistemological
barriers not only at the level of disciplines but also at the level of institutions.
It is interesting to map the experience of our project contributors to these models.
Multidisciplinarity seems to be the dominant mode within medical practice. The ICU
is probably the most dramatic example of a location in which multiple disciplines do
not expect to learn from each other, but interact in defined roles according to a
defined hierarchy. Similarly, oncology research seems to involve a sequence of steps
from science and drug development to clinical trials. There is exchange of knowledge
up and down the chain, but with the intention of re-integrating such knowledge into
the separate work of the stages.
Rodger’s 18 reporting of students working under two supervisors during PhD training
shows that the students do develop multidisciplinary skills and have an impact on the
different disciplines in which they work. By way of contrast, students working under
one supervisor between disciplines tend to develop more as a single discipline
scientist in the gap between disciplines (we call this gap an ‘inter-discipline’). It is an
open question, acknowledged by Rodger whether the students will go on to embrace
interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary research themselves in future.
Interdisciplinary research was the most common model discussed. This reflects of
course our choice of commentators rather than representing widespread research
practice. This is the domain described by Rodden and Baumberg. Interdisciplinary
innovation is the domain of the commercial practitioners (eg Cleevely 19 ), not least
because they do not have the interest in disciplinary epistemology that might lead
them to pursue transdisciplinarity.
18 Expert witness report
19 Expert witness report
Innovation and Interdisciplinarity 37