Ca research seminar 2 10 02-2011


Published on

UNIVERSITY AND INDUSTRY INTERACTION IN LEARNING FROM INCIDENTS:The Change Laboratory as a means of intersectoral and interdisciplinary boundary crossing

Caledonian Academy Research seminar series. Glasgow Caledonian University. 10-02-2011

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Ca research seminar 2 10 02-2011

  1. 1. University and industry interaction in learning from incidents<br />The Change Laboratory as a means of intersectoral and interdisciplinary boundary crossing<br />Dane Lukic<br />Caledonian Academy<br />Research Seminar Series<br />10/02/2010<br />
  2. 2. Content<br />Idea<br />Intersectoral and Interdisciplinary boundary crossing<br />Intersectoral boundary crossing<br />Interdisciplinary boundary crossing<br />Learning from incident project<br />Change Laboratory<br />Change Laboratory method and intersectoral boundary crossing<br />Change Laboratory method and interdisciplinary boundary crossing<br />Conclusions<br />References<br />
  3. 3. 1. Idea<br />INTED 20011 conference, Valencia<br />University and Industry Collaboration SIG<br />Change Laboratories<br />
  4. 4. 2. Intersectoral and Interdisciplinary boundary crossing<br />Drive to increase intersectoral and interdisciplinary research collaboration (EC, EUA)<br />Linked with innovation and higher impact<br />Encouraged also in Doctoral education (EUA)<br />Methodological perspective lacking<br />
  5. 5. 3. Intersectoral boundary crossing<br />open innovation- The idea of open innovation expresses the ambition to make greater productive use of knowledge, technologies and related resources available outside an organisation in order to augment the organisations’ own potential (Chesbrough, 2003)<br />‘university-industry links’ and ‘university-industry relationships’ (Perkmann & Walsh, 2007)<br />
  6. 6. 3. Intersectoral boundary crossing<br />orientation-related barriers <br />transaction-related barriers<br />previous experience of U-I collaboration lowers both types of barriers<br />the breadth of links and interactions lowers the orientation barriers but rises the transactional barrier <br />one of the most efficient ways of lowering barriers is trust (Bruneel et al., 2010)<br />deep understanding of the tacit components and the local context<br />transfer -exploitation of knowledge<br />Transformation-combination with other knowledge within or beyond the firm is more critical to supporting exploration and change (Hedlund, 1992)<br />
  7. 7. 4. Interdisciplinary boundary crossing<br />multidisciplinary studies- where the integration of knowledge is minimal and usually involves limited interaction between the researchers during their work<br />interdisciplinary studies- where the researchers collaborate closely and integrate the theories and methods of their disciplinary perspectives<br />transdisciplinary studies-where the collaboration goes beyond all disciplines to a new emerging discipline or a high level of methodological or conceptual synthesis<br />
  8. 8. 4. Interdisciplinary boundary crossing<br />Barriers: disciplinary territoriality, communication strategies, characteristics of leadership, group dynamics, characteristics of organisational support, and differing disciplinary criteria for success<br />Enablers:<br />Inclusive rather than exclusionary thinking;<br />Broad, contextually-oriented theorising and research<br />Methodological pluralism<br />Optimism and stamina<br />A welcoming orientation to new perspectives and colleagues from other disciplines<br />Cultivation of good will and cross-disciplinary tolerance through the development of trust and demonstration of respect. (Scott & Hofmeyer, 2007)<br />
  9. 9. 4. Interdisciplinary boundary crossing<br />Social aspect<br />Crossing disciplinary borders is described as being akin to negotiating different cultures. Disciplines conceptualised as knowledge cultures are (re)formed through language, practice, structures of power and justice, and archives ‘of narratives of identity and tradition’ . Overcoming cultural conflicts that are manifest in disciplinary territoriality means developing levels of cultural competence that can enhance mutual respect, understanding and interaction (Scott & Hofmeyer, 2007; Kim-Godwin et al., 2001)<br />Spatial aspect<br />
  10. 10. 5. Learning from Incidents project<br />Baseline phase: 37 interviews<br />Intervention phase: Change laboratory method<br />Series of 7 Change Laboratory sessions lasting 2-3h<br />2 sites at 2 multinational energy sectors<br />Site 1: 2 Change Labs so far<br />Site 2: 3 Change Labs so far<br />
  11. 11. 6. Change Laboratory<br />
  12. 12. 6. Benefits of the Change Laboratory method<br />Working directly with the beneficiaries<br />Using baseline data as a Mirror<br />Providing historical understanding<br />Integrating action and implementation<br />Validating data and findings<br />Surfacing new data for analysis<br />
  13. 13. 6. Challenges of the Change Laboratory method<br />Requiring a great deal of time<br />Identifying the unit of analysis<br />Ensuring proper participation<br />Ensuring management commitment<br />
  14. 14. 7. The Change Laboratory and intersectoral boundary crossing <br />the acknowledgement of the local context and expertise<br />Mirror brings university and industry knowledge head to head<br />relationships type of U-I collaboration<br />impact part of the research process<br />transformation of knowledge<br />research impact constantly evaluated<br />Essential for LFI<br />
  15. 15. 8. Change Lab method and interdisciplinary boundary crossing<br />Employees partners in research<br />Creates a social platform - social aspect <br />Creates a space for collaboration – spatial aspect<br />Brings together disciplines of health and safety, as well as process engineering on one hand and organisational and workplace learning on the other<br />
  16. 16. 9. Conclusions<br />Change Lab has a great potential for intersectoral and interdisciplinary boundary crossing<br />Sectors and disciplines should maintain their diversity but have more permeable boundaries for knowledge creation and innovation<br />
  17. 17. 10. References<br />Bruneel, J., D’Este, P. and Salter, A., (2010). Investigating the factors that diminish the barriers to university–industry collaboration. Research Policy 39 pp. 858-868<br />Chesbrough, H.W. (2003). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology, Boston: Harvard Business School Press.<br />EIRMA , EUA, ProTon Europe and EARTO (2009) EUA joining forces. In a world of open innovation: Guidelines For collaborative research and knowledge transfer between science and industry. Brussels<br />Engeström, Y., Virkkunen, J., Helle, M., Pihlaja, J., Poikela, R. (1996), "The change laboratory as a tool for transforming work", Life Long Learning in Europe, Vol. 2 pp.10-17.<br />European Commission (EC), (2010). Flagship initiative. Innovation union. Communication from the Commission. COM(2010) 546 final. SEC(2010) 1161. Brussels<br />European Commission (EC), (2006). Creating an Innovative Europe. Report of the Independent Expert Group on R&D and innovation appointed following the Hampton Court Summit. EUR 22005. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities<br />Hedlund, G. (1992) ‘A model of knowledge management and the global N-Form corporation’,Research Paper RP 92/10, Stockholm School of Economics.<br />Kim-Godwin, Y., Clarke, P., & Barton, L. (2001). A modelfor the delivery of culturallycompetentcommunitycare. Journal of AdvancedNursing, 35, 918 – 925<br />Perkmann, M. and Walsh, K. (2007). University–industry relationships and open innovation: Towards a research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews. Volume 9 Issue 4 pp. 259–280<br />Scott, C. M., & Hofmeyer, A. T. (2007). Acknowledgingcomplexity: Criticallyanalyzingcontexttounderstandinterdisciplinaryresearch. Journal of InterprofessionalCare, 21(5), 491-501. doi:10.1080/13561820701605474<br />
  18. 18. Questions?<br />