Radical innovation: crossing knowledge boundaries with ...

disciplinary theory bases or terminology. Workshop days were preceded by a dinner,
that all participants were encouraged to attend if possible. This was intended both to
maintain the research team and to establish a social dynamic allowing open
questioning of principles and opinions at the workshop itself.
The workshop structure consisted simply of presentations by each of four expert
witnesses, each of which was followed by open discussion with the research team and
other invited experts. Presentations could take the amount of time that the witness
considered necessary – generally between 40 and 90 minutes. During discussion,
particular care was taken to elicit responses from the other expert witnesses, in order
to explore differences in their perspectives and experiences. The day closed with an
reflective contribution invited from an expert able to identify any overarching
concerns that might not have been anticipated in the way the project concerns had
been framed by the core team.
All presentations and discussion were captured using professional recording
equipment, and professionally transcribed for review and analysis. Members of the
research team also made their own notes, some using a template derived from the
preliminary analytic framework as presented in the graphical overview.
11.5. Rubric for review of transcripts and notes
The majority of team members had a general orientation toward “grounded theory”,
which is to say that source material was taken as the starting point for theory
development, rather than as data against which to test prior hypotheses. The most
important precaution for rigour of analysis is that of “constant comparison” - that
theoretical claims should be tested against the original data from the outset. The
following questions were asked when analysing workshop transcripts.
Reflection on Case Studies: How does this expert witness present themselves? Why
was this study chosen? Could they have chosen something else? Is there any direct
critique of our “framework”? Are there issues raised that are not anticipated in the
framework? Capture any direct guidance, “advice to young people”.
Reflection on Individual Witnesses: Does their questioning of other expert witnesses,
or responses to cross examination, reveal general concerns that extend beyond the
specifics of the case study?
Generation of Cross-Cutting Themes: What was the “tone” of each workshop? What
points of consensus emerged in discussion? What were the centres of debate, or of
provocative interventions? What parts of our framework are emerging as most
significant? What completely new perspectives are not accounted for by any of the
above?
Innovation and Interdisciplinarity 99