The document discusses the use of the Change Laboratory method to facilitate intersectoral and interdisciplinary boundary crossing. The Change Laboratory brings together university researchers and industry employees to jointly analyze work practices through a series of sessions. This allows knowledge from both sectors and disciplines like safety and process engineering to come together. While challenging to implement due to the time and participation needed, the Change Laboratory acknowledges local expertise, surfaces new data, and helps transform knowledge between university and industry in a way that is part of the research process. It provides a social and collaborative space to lower barriers between sectors and disciplines.

1. University and industry interaction in learning from incidents The Change Laboratory as a means of intersectoral and interdisciplinary boundary crossing Dane Lukic Caledonian Academy Research Seminar Series 10/02/2010

2. Content Idea Intersectoral and Interdisciplinary boundary crossing Intersectoral boundary crossing Interdisciplinary boundary crossing Learning from incident project Change Laboratory Change Laboratory method and intersectoral boundary crossing Change Laboratory method and interdisciplinary boundary crossing Conclusions References

3. 1. Idea INTED 20011 conference, Valencia University and Industry Collaboration SIG Change Laboratories

4. 2. Intersectoral and Interdisciplinary boundary crossing Drive to increase intersectoral and interdisciplinary research collaboration (EC, EUA) Linked with innovation and higher impact Encouraged also in Doctoral education (EUA) Methodological perspective lacking

5. 3. Intersectoral boundary crossing 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) ‘university-industry links’ and ‘university-industry relationships’ (Perkmann & Walsh, 2007)

6. 3. Intersectoral boundary crossing orientation-related barriers transaction-related barriers previous experience of U-I collaboration lowers both types of barriers the breadth of links and interactions lowers the orientation barriers but rises the transactional barrier one of the most efficient ways of lowering barriers is trust (Bruneel et al., 2010) deep understanding of the tacit components and the local context transfer -exploitation of knowledge Transformation-combination with other knowledge within or beyond the firm is more critical to supporting exploration and change (Hedlund, 1992)

7. 4. Interdisciplinary boundary crossing multidisciplinary studies- where the integration of knowledge is minimal and usually involves limited interaction between the researchers during their work interdisciplinary studies- where the researchers collaborate closely and integrate the theories and methods of their disciplinary perspectives transdisciplinary studies-where the collaboration goes beyond all disciplines to a new emerging discipline or a high level of methodological or conceptual synthesis

8. 4. Interdisciplinary boundary crossing Barriers: disciplinary territoriality, communication strategies, characteristics of leadership, group dynamics, characteristics of organisational support, and differing disciplinary criteria for success Enablers: Inclusive rather than exclusionary thinking; Broad, contextually-oriented theorising and research Methodological pluralism Optimism and stamina A welcoming orientation to new perspectives and colleagues from other disciplines Cultivation of good will and cross-disciplinary tolerance through the development of trust and demonstration of respect. (Scott & Hofmeyer, 2007)

9. 4. Interdisciplinary boundary crossing Social aspect 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) Spatial aspect

10. 5. Learning from Incidents project Baseline phase: 37 interviews Intervention phase: Change laboratory method Series of 7 Change Laboratory sessions lasting 2-3h 2 sites at 2 multinational energy sectors Site 1: 2 Change Labs so far Site 2: 3 Change Labs so far

11. 6. Change Laboratory

12. 6. Benefits of the Change Laboratory method Working directly with the beneficiaries Using baseline data as a Mirror Providing historical understanding Integrating action and implementation Validating data and findings Surfacing new data for analysis

13. 6. Challenges of the Change Laboratory method Requiring a great deal of time Identifying the unit of analysis Ensuring proper participation Ensuring management commitment

14. 7. The Change Laboratory and intersectoral boundary crossing the acknowledgement of the local context and expertise Mirror brings university and industry knowledge head to head relationships type of U-I collaboration impact part of the research process transformation of knowledge research impact constantly evaluated Essential for LFI

15. 8. Change Lab method and interdisciplinary boundary crossing Employees partners in research Creates a social platform - social aspect Creates a space for collaboration – spatial aspect Brings together disciplines of health and safety, as well as process engineering on one hand and organisational and workplace learning on the other

16. 9. Conclusions Change Lab has a great potential for intersectoral and interdisciplinary boundary crossing Sectors and disciplines should maintain their diversity but have more permeable boundaries for knowledge creation and innovation

17. 10. References 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 Chesbrough, H.W. (2003). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology, Boston: Harvard Business School Press. 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 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. European Commission (EC), (2010). Flagship initiative. Innovation union. Communication from the Commission. COM(2010) 546 final. SEC(2010) 1161. Brussels 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 Hedlund, G. (1992) ‘A model of knowledge management and the global N-Form corporation’,Research Paper RP 92/10, Stockholm School of Economics. Kim-Godwin, Y., Clarke, P., & Barton, L. (2001). A modelfor the delivery of culturallycompetentcommunitycare. Journal of AdvancedNursing, 35, 918 – 925 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 Scott, C. M., & Hofmeyer, A. T. (2007). Acknowledgingcomplexity: Criticallyanalyzingcontexttounderstandinterdisciplinaryresearch. Journal of InterprofessionalCare, 21(5), 491-501. doi:10.1080/13561820701605474

18. Questions?