Stuart Cunningham gave the keynote this morning, “Never the twain shall meet?” and while he covered quite a bit, here’s what I took from it.

“The clashing point of two subjects, two disciplines, two cultures – of two galaxies, so far as that goes – ought to produce creative chaos.”

- CP Snow, The Two Cultures, 1959

Stuart started with CP Snow’s notion of two cultures as a way of introducing the challenges and opportunities of bringing together different disciplines. He reminded us that innovation networks are relatively new policy frameworks and are still highly contestable, not least because they challenge traditional neoliberalism. Still, cultures and parallel universes are converging: we’re seeing “fifth generation” innovation (pdf), services based economies and process innovation, and the breaking of the Frascati Manual. He continued to explain that the social sciences have come into their own in this environment, but the arts and humanities have yet to develop a convincing framework for innovation. One issue is different modes of knowledge; they too often oppose scientistic knowledge as too narrow or claim that all creative work is intrinsically innovative. But they are also too often seen as hand-maidens to science, “understanding and managing the consequences” of new science. (See Stuart’s contribution to this panel conversation (pdf) on technology, creativity and policy.) He then went on to provide some evidence for how things are changing, including AHRC, NESTA, GIF, Better by Design, and NZ Humanities Council becoming a division of the Royal Society, and several examples of complex problems that are best served by cross-disciplinary research teams. (See Anne Salmond’s speech on a “new enlightenment” at the Royal Society of New Zealand Fellows dinner in May 2010.)

Of particular interest to me, and something I had really hoped would be given more time at the conference, were Stuart’s examples of hindrances to collaboration, including: cultural/epistemological/methodological differences; rank and file protect disciplinary knowledge; insufficient resourcing and expertise; structural rigidity; little encouragement; significant barriers; lack of recognition and status; lack of mutual respect; lack of patience and imagination; lack of reward structure. He said we need to: promote a new mindset; change research behaviour; educate for greater collaboration; train ‘boundary spanners’; provide leadership training/opportunities for new researchers; coordinate and advocate cross-sectoral collaboration; create more linkage schemes; and build the question of impact (PBRF, ERA & REF) in from the start.

Moving on to innovator profiles, Peter Shepherd argued that NZ has an unhealthy dependence of primary industries (agriculture & tourism) but the environmental impact is enormous. He said we need non-traditional knowledge based industries with low carbon footprints, no trade barriers, high profit margins, protectable IP, high wage job creation. Industries and companies that fit this model include biofuels (Lanzatech), medical devices (Fisher & Paykel), human therapeutics (Pathway) and nanotechologies. He also said that NZ has a lot of work to do to make it happen because the support isn’t here, but the good news is that we can do it–we need to make it happen and not wait for it to happen. Ray Avery talked about applied research as taking some knowledge that is fundamental and applying it to another discipline, and stressed observation as the precursor of innovation. He argued that innovation starts in the field, not the lab, and we need to participate, observe, learn the environment and culture. For example, imagine setting specs by what people can afford instead of what we want or what we think they need.

The rest of the morning session was spent at rapid-fire roundtable discussions. I attended Lesley Middleton‘s table on research collaboration and Tracey McIntosh‘s table on social justice research. Although I found both very interesting, I really would have liked to see more workshop-type opportunities. There was a lot of talking and sharing of experience and nodding in agreement or recognition, but little attention given to practical, actionable information–especially in terms of problem-solving or overcoming barriers.

Previously
Running Hot 2010: Creating Value
Running Hot 2010: Imagining Value
Running Hot 2010: Early Career Researcher Symposium (Pt. 1)
Running Hot 2010: Early Career Researcher Symposium (Pt. 2)

The second session, “Creating Value,” focussed on the presentation of exemplary NZ research.

Richard Blaikie spoke on nano-scale imaging; Rhonda Shaw spoke on organ donation, gifting, reciprocity and sociology of the body; Jonathan Mane-Wheoki spoke on the “problem” of indigenous art; Ngahuia Te Awakotuku spoke on how “blue skies” research has increased public awareness and understanding of Maori culture; and Justin O’Sullivan spoke on the spatial organisation of DNA (how do we get DNA in a cell?!). All the presentations were interesting, but I have to say that Ngahuia Te Awakotuku and Rhonda Shaw impressed and inspired me. Also, Justin O’Sullivan is an awesome science communicator; he uses props!

The keynote for this thread of the conference was delivered by Catherine Mohr, on the topic of surgical technologies. She began by asking what the value of research is and provided a very straight-forward answer: saving lives. Using the example of stone-age trephination, she talked about the people who first performed surgery (applied research) and the people who improved the tools (basic research). The primary challenge of all surgery, she said, is how to heal a body without hurting it at the same time. For example, imagine what a difference it makes to do heart surgery without cracking the sternum. She showed us the potential of lasers, robotic technologies and dyes for highlighting the spread of cancer, or targeting tissues for removal. With these new technologies also come new questions, like how to develop surgical procedures and technologies that are sufficiently precise to solve all sorts of common ailments. In discussion, she explained that “better” surgery sometimes involves better training and sometimes it involves better diagnostic techniques or better instruments; the research goal is to always seek out the “better.” She also made clear that she’s talking about a research platform that will require many big and small contributions from around the world, but said that we will still need to make the case that the value of this research and development is worth its substantial cost. However, this is often a case of being able to think more systemically or holistically and pointing out that values and costs are often more dispersed through time and space than we might immediately recognise. She went on to explain that the first da Vinci surgical systems were not cost effective; it was more a case of “faith-based adoption.” However, she reminded us that new technologies need early adopters, and (old) practices need to be as rigourously evaluated as much as (new) technologies. She also pointed out that these emergent technological systems still require our existing human/clinical infrastructures, and showed some Gapminder World maps to raise the issue of global aging trends as something that will truly test today’s medical infrastructures and tomorrow’s surgical technologies in both developed and developing nations.

I found all of this research quite interesting, but I would have liked to hear more about how research can be valued or, more specifically, how these particular projects create particular kinds of value for particular people. After all, not everyone’s research directly saves lives and that doesn’t mean it doesn’t create value. I’d also hate to think that we only value funded research; the situation is much more complex than that, even when funded research is awesome.

Previously
Running Hot 2010: Imagining Value
Running Hot 2010: Early Career Researcher Symposium (Pt. 1)
Running Hot 2010: Early Career Researcher Symposium (Pt. 2)

In 2007, I had the pleasure of being the discussant for Nigel Thrift‘s keynote at OCAD’s Mobile Nation conference, so I was very much looking forward to hearing this morning’s keynote, “What is Research Value?” I was trying to listen instead of type, and here’s what I ended up taking away from his presentation:

Nigel started by suggesting that “We should be a little bit prouder of what we do and a little bit less defensive” (yes!) and moved on to put research in its broader social context. In the UK and other Western nations, government seeks to connect research funding with economic productivity. But good research, he argued, need not be so directly associated with GDP–indirect contributions and contributions over time are just as valuable. Drawing on Foucault’s notions of governmentality, he pointed out that early universities, and research, produced good citizens or sovereign subjects but have since been taken over by economic rationality. And since homo economicus cannot be divorced from civil society in liberal governmentality, it does us a disservice to treat them as mutually exclusive processes. He also pointed out that we cannot value research in economic terms without also valuing it in civil terms. (See Karin Knorr Cetina’s recent paper, “Complex Global Microstructures” (pdf) and her discussion of modes of living forward.) He also suggested that while the arts and humanities are crucial players in the research arena, they are not good in and of themselves, and he recommended Mark Taylor’s End of the University as We Know It as a solid discussion of what needs to change. (I wish more art and design research engaged this kind of relational thinking.) He warned that validating research with the words “creative” or “innovative” is highly problematic, not least because it is extremely difficult to value or know when they happen or work. Nigel also argued that universities need to be reorganised and generate different (non-government) sorts of income, and in doing so they will be reinvented.

The next session was called “Provocations” and it involved pairs of researchers quickly (and sometimes quite humourously) taking on some, well, provocative statements about research.

Curiosity-driven research is a dead duck (James Dekker & John Reynolds)
Defined as research done without regard for its end-use, or done for its own sake; expensive, difficult to get right and there are better things on the menu. (Yes.) But the search for solutions should not be confused with the search for knowledge. Blue-skies research provides the building blocks for our world and gets us to ask more questions.

The only valuable research is research which has commercial value (Margaret Kilvington & Nick Lewis)
We act as if there is such a thing as non-commercial research; commerce doesn’t just mean trade of goods, it means social intercourse. But public value doesn’t just mean more widgets, and we need other ways of knowing other things.

Publically-funded researchers should have to justify the value of their research (Andrew Kibblewhite & Maria Margh)

Using other people’s hard-earned cash, you have to make a good case. Justification confronts weaknesses and creates linkages. But how do we define public, justification or value? [Note to self: v. interesting, look into these issues.]

Then was a choice of three “Hot Spots” – one on curiosity, one on commercialisation, and one on communication. I chose to attend Brennan Wood‘s session, “Telling the Truth,” even though I was really nervous that someone was actually going to claim that research yields truth. But then he began by saying that if we want to realise the value of research in NZ it means communicating the value of research–in fact, communication can be seen as the primary measure of scientific value. (I think that many of my creative practitioner colleagues would take issue with this but I suspect that’s because they’re quite clued in to the fact that not all forms of communication are equally valued.) Brennan brought up attempts to communicate with aliens as one of the ways in which we have attempted, and failed, to introduce ourselves to others and establish long-term relationships. Following Jackie O, he said we really want science for the love, the money and the companionship, and he said that the companions of scientists are other scientists, funders and citizens–and we need to know how to communicate effectively with each.

Is scientist-to-scientist communication too difficult? What strategies might persuade scientists that communication is less the ‘about’ and more the ‘doing’ of science? What innovative strategies can scientists use to create communication from their work as this work unfolds? How can public communication about science be enhanced in NZ?

We then split into groups to discuss the questions above, and our group focussed on the differences between public communication and publicity. I’m not sure what to take from that, but I did get the sense that NZ cultural expectations favour modesty over anything that could be construed as self-promotion. (Personally I struggle with this, both as a foreigner and a woman who has long been told that greater modesty would make others more comfortable. But this isn’t the time or place to get into that.) I’m also not sure what kind of conversation can happen when people only have 10-15 seconds each to speak; it tended to reduce all our comments to media sound bites (and mine were pretty lame at that). Nonetheless, I hope to run into the man who asked us how we could move beyond disseminating our own research and start creating curiosity in non-researchers, as well as the confidence to seek out information on their own. I thought this was a brilliant question that no one answered.

After lunch, Nigel Thrift and Bryan Crump wrapped up the “Imagining Value” session with a discussion. Nigel pointed out that the future of research will rely on funding from large companies unless the government is able to provide it. This will undoubtedly involve establishing boundaries around things like academic freedom and intellectual property. There will be things like non-disclosure or confidentiality agreements, or 6-month delays on publication so that companies can do something with the research first. Bryan asked how we could provide solutions (applied research) before we had knowledge (basic research), and Nigel simply responded that there would be both. (Does anyone actually argue that we should only pursue basic OR applied research?) However, Nigel also claimed that the corporate sector will (can?) never take over the role of government as the primary research funding source, and he suggested that if only 10% of funding applications succeed there is a serious problem, not least because it’s so demoralising, and that some people think that less than a 30% success rate is a problem. (The Marsden Fund success rate is just under 10% and I know that some researchers have applied every year for 5+ years, and fail to see why they should keep trying.) Nigel also mentioned that role that humility plays in all of this, and I would have loved to hear him say more on this because humility needn’t be equated with modesty.

Previously
Running Hot 2010: Early Career Researcher Symposium (Pt. 1)
Running Hot 2010: Early Career Researcher Symposium (Pt. 2)

The second half of the symposium addressed the need for effective communication of research. Dacia Herbulock and Peter Griffin from the Science Media Centre started with a famous Carl Sagan quote, still relevant fifteen years after he spoke the words:

“We’ve arranged a civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.”

Dacia noted MoRST‘s research into public attitudes to science and explained that communicating our work is important because it supports public awareness and the “public good,” raises researcher profiles for funding, increases academic citations, seeds cross-disciplinary collaborations and improves our capacity to use clear, succinct language for media appearances, commericialisation efforts, grant applications, etc.. When communicating research activities, she advised a focus on what makes our research fascinating, especially in terms of its relevance or real-world application. We should also draw attention to research that calls for change, questions common assumptions or reinforces favoured narratives, as well as work that gives insights into the world and human experience, or can evoke wonder and awe. Whatever the research, she suggested the following strategies:

• Identify your audience
• Use concise, clear language
• Write in active voice
• Break down information, use analogy to explain complex ideas
• Paint mental pictures
• Draw connection to day-to-day life of average person
• Aim for catchy, surprising, humourous or sobering quotes and anecdotes (because you will be edited)

We were then asked to sum up our research for non-experts. I chose to focus on two questions that drive my current research:

1. How can people get more involved in the development and implementation of new technologies?
2. How can imagining the future help us live better today?

But, honestly, the best examples I heard described areas or topics of research–which was more in sync with the next task of describing what we research in seven words or less. I had to take a couple of stabs at this to bring the word count down, but eventually came up with: “Telling the stories of NZ merino wool.”

Peter then went on to stress the value of visualising and engaging research (data) through infographics, iPhone apps, Firefox add-ons, blogs, etc., and I completely agree. Part of what I’ve done for the past eight years is try to find ways of communicating my research–both process and product–online, and visual communication is crucial to my current projects. He also advocated open access to research, including publishing in open access journals and using Creative Commons NZ, which is working with the RSNZ to create New Zealand jurisdiction-specific licenses.

In closing, Lesley Middleton, from the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology, spoke about NZ’s research future, and the relationship between research and policy–a particular interest of mine. (I was also surprised to learn that that 68.8% of science PhDs in NZ do not go on to do direct research, and of those who do, 14.5% work in non-university research, 16.7% become permanent research staff, and 2.6% become professors.) Lesley brought up Steven Johnson‘s observation that “If you look at history, innovation doesn’t come from giving people incentives; it comes from creating environments where ideas can connect” and focussed on how policy changes in NZ have included different arrangements to create more connections and a collaborative mindset, such as Igniting Potential: NZ’s Science and Innovation Pathway and the merging of MoRST and the Foundation for Research Science and Technology to form the new Ministry of Science and Innovation. She also highlighted the Ministry’s Futurewatch programme, which “aims to build government’s alertness to new scientific knowledge and technologies and the sort of implications–opportunities and risks–that they present to New Zealand.” (Apparently this came after 10 years of GM research without the knowledge that people wanted to talk about whether they wanted this science, and not just learn that scientists could make it happen!) Following those links, I also learned about the Futures Trust / Futures Thinking Aotearoa, which provides information for people “looking ahead to identify and prepare for the big changes likely to affect our society.” She also ended with this lovely quote:

“And in today already walks tomorrow.”
- Samuel Taylor Coleridge

Previously
Running Hot 2010: Early Career Researcher Symposium (Pt. 1)

Running Hot! 2010 started this afternoon with an Early Career Researcher Symposium on “careers, communication, and the changing research environment” in NZ.

Di McCarthy, Chief Executive for the Royal Society of New Zealand, opened the event by introducing what the RSNZ does, especially in terms of supporting emerging researchers through the new Rutherford Discovery Fellowships (ace!) and Marsden Fund Fast-Start programme (which funds my Counting Sheep project).

As many academic researchers will tell you, our career paths are rarely straight or straight-forward. Robin Peace spoke about her “convoluted” career, starting with Danny Dorling‘s interesting research on why inequality persists and how her interest in social exclusion led her through university teaching and administration, policy work and evaluation. She explained that researchers are generally expected to be curious, persevering, specialised, disciplined, focussed, creative and independent–although most of us are only some of these things, some of the time. (As an aside, I was thrilled to see her illustrate this point with Theo Ellsworth‘s Capacity!) She suggested that the traditionally elite professoriate are now better understood as part of the global “precariat” and New Zealand would do better to support international, multicultural, interdisciplinary, mobile and collaborative work that combines specialist know-how with soft (people) skills; minutia and big-picture research; modesty, pragmatism and practicality; familiarity with natural and urban environments; as well as a genuine sense of, and value for, practice and craftsmanship in our work.

Lisa Matisoo-Smith began talking about how her “convoluted” life–that is, her inability to give clear answers to the questions “who are you?” and “where are you from?”–led to a “convoluted” career in biological anthropology. (I’m pretty sure this is why most anthropologists become anthropologists!) She discussed her research into how ancient animal DNA can be used to track early human migrations, and how she built a career by “occupying” university space or doing the work, getting the money and doing more work until she found that she had a lab of her own. (I also know a few people who have been quite successful at this approach, so it really can work!) More specifically, she spoke at length about her research into academically unpopular topics such as ancient contact between Polynesia and South America, and how difficult it is to find what we aren’t looking for or don’t believe exists. She emphasised the importance of grounded research that actively engages local communities and how it can result in opening up entirely new areas of knowledge and practice. She also stressed the importance of lifelong learning, multidisciplinary work, thinking about old questions or problems in new ways, talking to new people, asking “stupid” questions and trying new things. And last, but not least, she reminded us of how incredibly important it is to be able to explain our research and its relevance to other people–all sorts of people.

Q: How do we make multidisiciplinary/interdisciplinary research work when it’s not supported?

A: Make it happen! Surround yourself with people who support this way of working. If not officially, do it on the side. Find space, make time. And when you’re in charge, make sure others can do it.