Radical innovation: crossing knowledge boundaries with ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

academics to work on both research relevant to users and work which crosses disciplinary boundaries” (HM Treasury 2004:11). The two are now run together as being unproblematic, in large funding initiatives such as the EPSRC Digital Economy programme, which calls for ‘multidisciplinary user-focused research’. The Australian Council for Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences report on ‘Collaboration across sectors: The relationships between the humanities, arts and social sciences (HASS) and science, technology, engineering and medicine (STEM) sectors’ establishes that collaboration across sectors helps industries make their products appropriate to their markets, enables them to develop new products for these markets, and enables more effective engagement of the public or industry in research projects and outcomes. It quotes from a representative of a government science organisation: Interdisciplinary research is very good at getting to answers that incorporate the social context of the question. In reality, most of our ‘science’ questions do, to various degrees, need to be considered in the broader context… it makes a lot of sense first up to use interdisciplinary measures to frame these research questions or broader research agendas (Metcalf et al. 2006:28). 5.8. And finally … evaluation How do we know whether an innovative interdisciplinary enterprise has been successful? We might describe success in terms of (intrinsic) quality as perceived by the stakeholders, including sponsors, in the enterprise itself, or (extrinsic) impact of the enterprise beyond those directly involved. 5.8.1 Conventional measures: impact and peer review Extrinsic impact has already been discussed in terms of public value, or benefit to wider society from professional activity. UK academics are increasingly being asked to specify at the outset of a research project what extrinsic impact they expect, most notably in the ‘impact statement’ recently introduced as a mandatory component of funding proposals submitted to EPSRC. Even academics at the core of established disciplines have objected to this development, pointing out that it is inconsistent with the traditional divide between public funded ‘blue sky’ research whose primary goal is to generate new knowledge, and ‘applied’ research which in capitalist society is expected to generate a profit for somebody, who might thus be expected to invest in it at the outset. Most academics and science policy commentators already recognize that the applied outcomes of blue sky research, though potentially large, may be unexpected. But there is seldom any question that once they have arisen, it will be possible to measure them (whether in the activity of new industries or in statistical change in public health). Intrinsic quality resulting from a research enterprise with clear disciplinary boundaries Innovation and Interdisciplinarity 60
is conventionally assessed in terms of the standards associated with that discipline – in an academic context, through processes of academic peer review. But it is difficult to evaluate the intrinsic quality of interdisciplinary research through traditional routes of peer-review precisely, precisely because it transgresses disciplinary boundaries. Certainly, it seems that metrication of research quality or productivity will tend to recognise only incrementally innovative research (especially where it stays within the general boundaries of science and technology), and not the kinds of research that engage with users, social contexts or public, redefining the goals or interpretation of scientific and technological research results. 5.8.2 The problem of assessment Even those who are engaged in interdisciplinary research find it hard to evaluate outcomes, as reported by Rose Luckin 35 , and in larger studies: Mansilla and Gardner found “a lack of conceptual clarity about the nature of interdisciplinary work and its assessment, recognizing the need for a more systematic reflection in this regard” (Mansilla and Gardner 2006:2). They recommend a dynamic process involving the interplay of three different fundamental grounds for assessment: � the way in which the work stands vis a vis what researchers know and find tenable in the disciplines involved (consistency with multiple separate disciplinary antecedents) � the way in which the work stands together as a generative and coherent whole (balance in weaving together perspectives) � the way in which the integration advances the goals that researchers set for their pursuits and the methods they use (effectiveness in advancing understanding) (Mansilla and Gardner 2006:2). Marilyn Strathern suggests that the lack of clear measures means that interdisciplinarity has itself become a measure for valid knowledge (Strathern 2004a) - the moral imperative that Geoff Crossick observed 36 . Because interdisciplinarity is associated with the ability to communicate and disseminate knowledge across boundaries, it is often conflated with gaining an understanding of social context. It therefore itself becomes an automatic index of accountability, to ‘take society into account’. But if interdisciplinarity is to be encouraged as an end in itself, rather than emerging as required in the course of solving problems, it is difficult to make this work visible and account for the time devoted to it (Strathern 2005). This point reflects the argument in the NESTA report on ‘hidden innovation’ that government assessments are inadequate for making networks and collaborations visible, but it is questionable whether such everyday interactions can usefully be made an object of inspection. 35 Expert witness report 36 Expert witness report Innovation and Interdisciplinarity 61
Page 1 and 2:
Technical Report Number 760 Radical
Page 3 and 4:
Radical innovation: crossing knowle
Page 5 and 6:
1.2. Contents 1.1. Executive summar
Page 7 and 8:
2. Introduction Innovation is not a
Page 9 and 10: 2.1. Definitions Several readers of
Page 11 and 12: perhaps by exploiting emerging tech
Page 13 and 14: 3.1.1 A key enabler: the ‘pole-st
Page 15 and 16: ought together. � The collective
Page 17 and 18: these perceptions of lack of discip
Page 19 and 20: ecause they reconfigure existing ma
Page 21 and 22: develop and deliver based on the te
Page 23 and 24: problems of society are complex - a
Page 25 and 26: analytic consistency. Although not
Page 27 and 28: expertise might be better utilised.
Page 29 and 30: intellectual approaches. It is not
Page 31 and 32: The need for and management of inte
Page 33 and 34: different language). Rather, they h
Page 35 and 36: 4. Wedding Creativity and Knowledge
Page 37 and 38: literature (e.g. Klein 1996, Latucc
Page 39 and 40: our project, if it were possible to
Page 41 and 42: transmitted to it’, through ‘cr
Page 43 and 44: e seen as invalid because of the fa
Page 45 and 46: period of time, both because it is
Page 47 and 48: where I do not know and like my nei
Page 49 and 50: interdisciplinary projects. It is a
Page 51 and 52: developed to stimulate creativity w
Page 53 and 54: the work of artists (or perhaps pri
Page 55 and 56: ideological advances. Many projects
Page 57 and 58: designers. Peter Guthrie 32 and the
Page 59: own right, and its ethical foundati
Page 63 and 64: igour that can be assessed objectiv
Page 65 and 66: obliquely or in passing as their
Page 67 and 68: the people who ‘identify the obvi
Page 69 and 70: order to obtain funding and employm
Page 71 and 72: 7. Obstacles to interdisciplinary i
Page 73 and 74: advancement within the elite hierar
Page 75 and 76: New fields of study often arise in
Page 77 and 78: Metrication would not be necessary
Page 79 and 80: kinds of knowledge led to negotiati
Page 81 and 82: 8. Innovation policy - policy for i
Page 83 and 84: impact. Extrinsic impact involves s
Page 85 and 86: One important role for the public p
Page 87 and 88: 9. Contributors and Acknowledgement
Page 89 and 90: 10. Bibliography Adams, J., Jackson
Page 91 and 92: Hallam, E. and Ingold, T. (eds.) (2
Page 93 and 94: Merton, P., and E. Barber. (2004).
Page 95 and 96: Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of p
Page 97 and 98: are expected to be meaningful to th
Page 99 and 100: disciplinary theory bases or termin
Page 101 and 102: argued that the well-developed SET
Page 103 and 104: these disciplines to a subsidiary o
Page 105 and 106: In a later article on the subject N
Page 107 and 108: One interesting discovery was that
Page 109 and 110: innovation might take in practice t
Page 111 and 112:
any in-depth analysis into how and
Page 113 and 114:
interdisciplinarity as presented to
Page 115 and 116:
14. Appendix D: Advice on how to do
Page 117 and 118:
technical innovation � utilize ex
Page 119 and 120:
� need not have a clear business
Page 121 and 122:
� successful researchers have spa
Page 123 and 124:
� use visualisation and visual st
show all

Radical innovation: crossing knowledge boundaries with ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?