Summary: "The Potential of Transdiciplinarity," Gibbons and Novotny

Unique among our readings, this article is the transcript of a keynote speech given by two scholars regarding their recent book. In this unusual format, Gibbons and Novotny give a dialectical presentation, arranged into broad categories related to Mode 2 science and the transformations of knowledge production in society. Gibbons explicitly intended this speech to better clarify what he and Novotny meant in their new book, The New Production of Knowledge, “particularly as [it] bears on the issue of transdisciplinarity.” Interestingly, I did not get the sense that this piece was overwhelmingly focused on transdisciplinarity; however, it was clearly framed in that way and its content could easily be further elaborated on in that direction.

First, a quick bit about the authors. As the beginning of the article/ chapter states, Michael Gibbons is the Secretary General of the Association of Commonwealth Universities in London, and Helga Nowotny is Chair of the Philosophy and Social Studies of Sciences departments at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich. It seems to me that their transnational origin is relevant, as it reinforces the worldwide scale of the many developments we have been studying.

Because it was in essence a conversation between scholars rather than a single, coherent speech, I would like to take a different approach with this analytical summary. It occurred to me about half way through reading it that, while it is not in traditional essay format, it is chock full of primary messages or main themes (evidenced by a set of keywords) that the authors each come back to frequently. Therefore, I would like to present a list/outline of keywords that I took from the piece, and quick, accessible explanations or definitions for most of them. Hopefully, this (admittedly less analytical approach) will help provide a springboard/ baseline understanding for our comparative discussion of the articles for this week in class.

• Transdisciplinarity: an operational form of knowledge production wherein disciplinary structures are dismissed and institutional boundaries are blurred, frameworks of intellectual activity are negotiated, and “new lines of intellectual endeavor emerge and development, so that one set of conversations in the context of application leads to another and another and another.”
• Transgressiveness of knowledge: that knowledge knows no bounds; it is rarely contained in one place very long; operates multilaterally, e.g. between science and society and society and science.
• Mode 2 Science (specifically): a kind of second phase of science that incorporates these many key themes, and wherein “a forum is generated that provides a distinctive focus for intellectual endeavor,” and yet combines multiple contexts “in a coherent way” to open up new pathways to knowledge production.
• Vs. Mode 1: the “fundamental” or “original” science, if you will, around which universities have been traditionally organized, where the “whole epistemology… is based on a very clear separation of science from society…. And the idea of discrete areas of specialization structured on a particular model of communication.”
• Context & Contextualization: one of the key characteristics of Mode 2 knowledge production; the place in which “contemporary research is being carried out,” “set by a process of communication between various stakeholders”; it centers on the “people” purpose of knowledge production and situates sciences more squarely within a society to which its knowledge will be applied.
• Society/ Societal institutions: it has and continues to dramatically change, becoming increasingly more differentiated and diffuse yet interconnected and democratized. This has vast implications for the way science is carried out (in a Mode 2) and the ultimate “people” purpose of science.
• Multiple Stakeholders: a key feature of Mode 2 science; they carry with them multiple interests and establish multiple centers of research activity – which is very challenging for universities as the traditional centers of research; furthermore, they “bring an essential heterogeneity of skills and expertise to the problem solving process."
•  E.g. the federal government
• Problem Solving: a process around which multiple stakeholders negotiate the terms of their engagement
• Patience: required for the problem solving process and transdisciplinarity in general, since the larger processes involved have high viscosity (physics reference intended).
•  Language: a necessary medium through which to communicate, established accountability, etc. Gibbons and Novotny emphasize that another language is need (that transcends the currently utilized one) following the recent transformation of knowledge production/ Mode 2 science society has witnessed.
• Accountability: refers to the hybrid of individual and institutional responsibility, necessary to establish to that the different stakeholders in a Mode 2 science endeavor so that “understanding how scientific knowledge is being produced opens up.”
• Quality control: a criterion including not only “scientific excellence” but also efforts that are fundamentally “value-integrated."
• Obstacles [to transdisciplinary efforts]
• E.g. “Discussions over questions of quality”

My Questions

What other obstacles can you imagine are associated with transdisciplinarity/ Mode 2 science?

What will be required to arrive a new language, if the contexts of application are continually evolving and transgressing disciplinary bounds?

P.S. Does anyone else find it interesting that Word does not recognize the words interdisciplinarity or transdisciplinarity the first times you type them? I always think it must be meaningful what Word does and does not know yet.

Hessels L. and Lente H. (2008) “Re-thinking new knowledge production: A literature review and a research agenda” Week 5 Mode 2 science discussion

In this literature review, Hessels and Lente attempt to identify a promising approach to studying changes in science systems by examining how Mode 2 knowledge production—the most famous theoretical account of science system changes—compares with alternative theories and how it has been received by scholars. Hessels and Lante explain that Mode 2 is not only the most widely accepted theory on science system changes, but is also notable for it’s breadth.

Mode 2 knowledge production is characterized by five attributes, which Hessels and Lente break down as diagnosing seven changes in science system characteristics—more than is addressed by any of the alternative theories examined. And only one of the alternative theories diagnoses a characteristic change not also covered by Mode 2. They do not say this breadth necessarily speaks to the strength of Mode 2. But it would seem to contribute to its utility in identifying the most likely claims for science system changes.

Hessel and Lente’s effort to identify which Mode 2 diagnosed changes are most likely is a bit quixotic. The empirical evidence ranges from very little to zero. With little empirical evidence, they use a method of evaluation you may or may not put much stock in depending on your faith in theorizing scholars as a collective brain. Their evaluation has two parts. Part one compares Mode 2 with alternative theories looking for agreement. Here, the authors conclude two Mode 2 diagnosed changes are likely. The first is a change in the orientation of research agendas toward relevance and applicability in terms of innovation and policy. The second is a change towards more interactions between science and other social actors such as government and industry.

I don’t find this way of determining the most likely diagnosed changes particularly convincing. They also point out that these two claims happen to pretty much be the only claims around which there a few bits of empirical evidence. So perhaps theoretical attention has gravitated around what we can measure, rather than what is most likely true.

In the second step of their evaluation, they synthesize and weigh in on scholarly critiques of Mode 2. Here they conclude the biggest flaw in Mode 2, as Gibbons et al have conceptualized it, is the idea that Mode 2 attributes necessarily correlate. While Gibbons et al depict the attributes as part of a coherent set representing a newly emerging type of knowledge production, Hessel and Lente argue the attributes more likely represent separate trends. On a related point, they also argue Gibbons et al tell an artificially linear story about Mode 2 and how it relates to a traditional mode of knowledge production (referred to by Gibbons et al as Mode 1).

I find this point particularly convincing with respect to the attributes Gibbons et al describe as “knowledge produced in the context of application” and “social accountability and reflexivity”. I think it likely that these are characteristics have waxed and waned in the science system depending on the availability of resources for science and how grumpy or positivistic society is feeling about science.

            Did Hessel and Lente succeed in their attempt to outline a more promising approach for studying changes in science systems? I think they’ve made clear that when it comes to understanding the changes taking place in the production of knowledge we’re mostly just doing a lot of theorizing and guessing. I don’t think that based on their first set of findings we should focus more research effort on changes in the orientation of research agendas toward relevance or science’s interactions with other social spheres. But their evaluation of scholarly critiques raised provocative questions and they provide an assessment of the theoretical landscape at a time when perhaps too many scholars have herded around a single concept of change without question.  

About the authors: Lauren Hessels studied Environmental Chemistry and Philosophy of Science at the University of Amsterdam. Today he works with the Rathenau Institute, an institute in the Netherlands that “studies developments in science and technology, interprets their potential impact on society and policy, and fosters dialogue and debate in support of decision-making on science and technology”. Hessels publishes widely on scientific collaboration, coordination and the practical applications of research.

Harro van Lente studied physics and philosophy. He also resides in the Netherlands, where he works as an Associate Professor of Emerging Technologies at Utrecht University and Professor of Philosophy of Sustainable Development at Maastrict University. He publishes widely on emerging technologies, including nanotechnology and hydrogen and medical technologies.

Week #4 Summary Notes: STS Seminar/Spring 2014/Interdisciplinarity/02.14.2014

·         Proposed structure for discussions going forward: get down the basic points (3-4 key insights) of each of the assigned readings and look for connections and debates, then proceed with a substantive conversation about each (chalkboard exercise with Greg)

·         Klein, Hackett, Weingart, Rhoten, Frodeman et al., Sa, Jacobs et al.

o   Klein:

§  history of science 101 "Plato to NATO"

§  tension between universal knowledge vs. specialization

§  endogenous (organization of knowledge) vs. exogenous (society, social problems, industry)

§  ideal vs. evaluation

o   Hackett:

§  functional approach

§  bold vs. effective 

§  Interdisciplinarity as political

§  community, the way you decide what to pursue and how to evaluate it is that there has to be a community of practitioners; an administrator in the NSF sees their job not just as making things happen but building and sustaining community 

§  problems with measurement

§  talking about what's happening today, real political constraints and concerns and constraints

§  (Daniel) in Hackett, the issue of workshops comes up, does Interdisciplinarity come from the top down?  He is trying to assert that it comes from the bottom up.

o   Weingart:

§  identifies longstanding paradox in the way people talk about interdisciplinary research 

§  contradiction

§  despite the rhetoric of Interdisciplinarity (positive for innovation) science is becoming more specialized

§  sees Interdisciplinarity as new type of specialization with its own blind spots

§  questions whether innovation comes from Interdisciplinarity because science still comes from gatekeepers

§  tension between tradition and change 

§  no effort to really change structures

§  you can't have disciplinary without interdisciplinary (dialectic); every time you try to pin down one you get pushed to the other one; any claim for each is doomed to failure because they are tied to this dance 

§  the reason, he claims, it’s a paradox, is because people see them as inherently separate

§  (Daniel)  these interdisciplinary fields are not constructed out of thin air, they come out of disciplines themselves 

§  (Greg)  differs from Klein in that "this year’s Interdisciplinarity is next year’s discipline

o   Rhoten:

§  more hopeful

§  does the empirical data collection that Weingart calls for 

§  ethnographic

§  looks at how Interdisciplinarity is enacted in interdisciplinary research centers 

§  sees the failure coming from some sort of systemic failure: no lack of funding or attention, but doesn't see the research centers structured in a way that makes this work effective

§  strategies: thinks innovation comes from Interdisciplinarity and that it is different from that 

§  talk: walk |  walk: talk…. scholars are still working in isolation, not getting reward for collaboration

§  need to restructure graduate ed and physically restructure centers, smaller, where scholars stay for a while

§  she was commissioned to do a study

§  the university research center becomes the unit of analysis (vs. community as unit of analysis in Hackett)

§  idea that face to face interaction is important 

o   Frodeman et al.:

§  summary: "blow it all up"

§  arguing for critical Interdisciplinarity, we need to rethink it as broad but deep, needs to be engaged with public, private, and community

§  integrate knowledge but in an action-based context 

§  (Daniel) does the public orientation come across in the other readings? 

o   Sa:

§  a study (100 university documents and visit to 5 unis)

§  to understand strategies universities are using to promote Interdisciplinarity

§  Incentive grants, faculty recruitment, etc.

§  these strategies don't necessarily go against the disciplinary structure of the university

§  point where he questions top-down vs. bottom-up

§  focus within the university 

§  suggests there is not a lot of empirical evidence within these strategies to understand what's happening within campus-wide institutes:  what do faculty who are hired into these clusters think, what is it like to work in them, what work is actually being done (per Daniel, great topic for a paper and the information is there on the cluster hires at UW) 

§  there is a web site on the clusters and who the head of the cluster is; they didn't actually budget enough money; argument over whether there should be sunset processes; structural deficit identified years ago; initially all the money was coming centrally, but now cost-sharing and because nobody has money it’s in question how well it works/will work

§  (Greg) when does something interdisciplinary become disciplinary; when does it become customary (not innovative anymore) and what does that mean for the funding and support; cluster hires came from? 

§  (Daniel) Greg highlighted sunset and innovation, these themes run through all papers; but Greg brings up people who were hired into specific interdisciplinary centers; 

§  Sa - innovation means things on two levels:  normative goal of creating something new (cluster hire, interdisciplinary X), but on the other hand, how do you pursue innovation (UW - cluster hire, WID, Nelson); different universities pursue different innovative strategies, how do you make sure those strategies work? NSF - make sure your program is "the thing"

§  (Daniel) similarities between Sa and Rhoten; methodologically they are quite different; think about this as you study phenomenon

o   Jacobs et al (most recent piece - look at this piece to mine endnotes; great piece on the state of the field right now)

§  staking out Interdisciplinarity as an object of study within the field of sociology

§  the study of Interdisciplinarity needs to be a thing, because current studies (i.e. sociology of knowledge) aren't quite good enough

§  review a lot of the work we've read

§  study citation patterns in journals and hiring patterns

§  they deploy Interdisciplinarity as viewed as a social movement 

§  focus back on the phenomenon of "what is Interdisciplinarity" (Jacobs et al. as sociological view and Klein as a historical view) 

§  (Daniel) thinks authors are skeptical of Interdisciplinarity, projects make limited gains and those that are successful lead to new rounds of inquiry leading to new areas of differentiation

§  Interdisciplinarity reasserted itself in early 2000s as well; good article to turn to for sources 

·         Post-article summary group discussion:

o   Daniel: now we can talk about cross-cutting themes 

§  Relations

§  Organizational Forms-strategies

§  Evaluation/Efficacy

§  Methods for studying 

§  Meta-problem 

o   interesting to look at the relationship between disc/interdisc go back and forth

o   it's all slippery; "interdisciplinary" incorporates the word discipline

o   terms used interchangeably 

o   (Daniel) Bourdieu (science as any other "field"; an ongoing struggle; instability)

o   (Greg) Klein published this in the 90s; OECD reports fresher in people's minds in  70s, literature focused the conversation on undergraduate education 

o   (Greg) look at the board, there are assumptions about the most effective route to get to Interdisciplinarity (put the word in a black box); in late 1970s, how you make it happen is that you create an interdisciplinary major or a center on interdisciplinary education 

o   What do you think are the most productive or bold strategies for producing Interdisciplinarity? What should we be doing?

§  Rhoten explicit about strategies (like a managerial perspective, someone should lead, someone who can act as a brand of a community; two terms "star" and "connector")

§  (Daniel)  Top-Down, Bottom Up; read Inside Wisconsin every time it is published; we are a bottom up uni but we are at a very top-down moment with the University getting instructions from Obama on scientific imperatives

§  Weingart: (Greg) talks about metaphors (territorial and geographic metaphors) metaphors of bridging, defending territory; the way we talk about this suggests what we need to make it happen 

§  (Meredith): connected to what Hackett was saying that people don't even know what they’re talking about, not arguing on common ground; connectors and bridgers may be able to obviate this; producing a translation and people who can translate (going back to metaphor of community) 

§  (Jen) and boundary objects from Rhoten; gives example of the interdisciplinary research she is working on; the science professor and the education professor differ in how they want to get the research out; sees tension in the goals of the project; catch-all themes (sustainability) but every researcher has different goals for the project;

§  (Daniel) prompts two issues (Sa article talks about interdisciplinary tenure guidelines, these people are still part of their departments, maybe at this university you need to give interdisciplinary scholars more time; opportunity costs (if you are used to publishing 5 articles a year and you are working with scholars on other publishing timelines)

§  Jen (Seed money) - when it runs out, people are figuring out how to scale up the project; (Daniel) (seed money in graduate school competition only for 1 year); expectations; can't expect that all of these will produce a workable outcomes

o   (June) language in terms of different methodologies; in Jacobs article they see terminology used in different fields; how do you evaluate Interdisciplinarity on truly embracing interdisciplinary theory 

o   Meredith: can you be interdisciplinary in your own discipline? 

o   (Greg) Klein piece points to Area Studies program as exemplars of Interdisciplinarity which was a big claim for its time; Area studies wouldn't come up today; why don't we see them now (Daniel: great research topic, this U was a leader in Area Studies, you could do a case study, which disciplines were drawn into this and why)...next week we read Mode II where claims to Interdisciplinarity are about problem-oriented work/Area studies was the same but the focus was understanding the "problem of the area" (example used "Southeast" Asia)

o   (Meredith) half of the reading sees innovation as an end in itself; rhetoric of why? is missing; (Matt) Frodeman would say the reason would be putting the university to work in the public interest; (Daniel) this is a pretty basic question- what is the goal of Interdisciplinarity and could we achieve the same with just disciplines?

o   To what degree is everything we are talking about in its own field of study; thinking about the bias of every author we have is shaping how we are approaching Interdisciplinarity; simply the bias as wanting to problematize Interdisciplinarity (tinge of belaboring the problem) 

o   Greg: there is a lot of churning discussion - there is not much more out there that is missed by these pieces

o   using interdisciplinary discourse as a strategy toward biomedical technology?

o   (Daniel) comes down to the question of "why are we studying this"; studying this is a meta-problem, how do we structure knowledge and is there a way to assess; Sigrid makes important point; when I started I thought one of the things about the university is that it creates a space where scholars can do things that the market can’t/won’t do; it creates a space for putting a critical lens on the society in which we live; a space where a kind of critique is possible that isn't as possible in other areas; if you look at a change in University leadership from the 60s; point about medical research and Interdisciplinarity; a huge amount of it is translational research; NIH would be a pretty interesting space 

o   (June) interdisciplinary research as a social product; in line with social structure; meaning of that term doesn't need to be static 

o   (Greg): hoping our projects will operationalize circularity of thoughts to a particular case 

BREAK

·         Daniel: it's easy to move into abstraction (a lot of repeated themes throughout the semester); the changes in higher ed repeat certain words over and over again; how do we process this information going forward?

·         Need to discipline ourselves to get at what are the three most important things being said on each article; do people agree? (yes)

·         Could we do summaries at the very least including the three main points (process going forward

·         (Greg) jumpstarting last 30 minutes:  Why are these authors writing these articles? or How would someone use one of these articles?  Scenario: UW Madison experience funding cuts; we are all faculty members here; out of the shrinking pie; the state is very interested in information technology and they are going to build a big interdisciplinary building dedicated to IT; it's innovative and interdisciplinary; resources that could go to your programs?  What tools from these articles help us mobilize a response to this; 

o   Rhoten would say build it small; and a building to be re-used later once that problem is solved; Daniel: another good project (size and space): WID is a giant space, not as giant as some but it is proposed to promote or obviate individual isolation (metric for big and small buildings would be interesting

o   who are your stars and connectors

o   Sa would say, other universities have done similar things and are hiring interdisciplinary people to get things off the ground; but there isn't enough empirical evidence

o   Greg's blog post "knowledge to action" [may be helpful to read]

o   location of the funding matters (it's reallocation of base university funds) 

o   what do the readings say about how a stakeholder in the community would react to this:

o   Weingart would say who would regulate how interdisciplinary the work is; is it a top-down evaluation or a bottom-up evaluation or is evaluation never going to happen?

o   Hackett points out that communities write the terms of these proposals so we would want to know what scale of conversations were had before the Institute was formally proposed 

o   Gets back to the question about at what scale these operate?