Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Disciplinarity and value commitments

Electronic data

View graph of relations

Disciplinarity and value commitments: interdisciplinary approach to knowledge and innovation assessment (discussion paper)

Research output: Working paperDiscussion paper

Published

Standard

Disciplinarity and value commitments: interdisciplinary approach to knowledge and innovation assessment (discussion paper). / Gunnarsdottir, Kristrun; Dijk, Niels van.
Lancaster University, 2013.

Research output: Working paperDiscussion paper

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex

@techreport{37529aa36039453aaf4b9d7f6bcec6c5,
title = "Disciplinarity and value commitments: interdisciplinary approach to knowledge and innovation assessment (discussion paper)",
abstract = "The Horizon 2020 framework programme for research and innovation is promoting an approach referred to as Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). Mandates to implement and mainstream RRI are already evident, whereby interdisciplinarity and integration are treated as pre-given in accounts of what the RRI approach is in practice. In this paper, our point of departure is to ask what to expect realistically when experts and professionals are brought together across disciplines, institutions and national borders in practical attempts to achieve interdisciplinarity and integration of approach to innovation. We revisit Woolgar's and Ashmore's treatise on social epistemology in their development of the reflexive thesis in the late 1980s, and we revisit the turn to practice in STS in the early 2000s. We present our analysis of commitment to matters of practical sensitivity and reflexivity in reference to the philosophical influences and study objectives of the reflexive thesis and the practice turn and we consider how sociological studies have articulated expert practices and the use of knowledge and skill. We address the epistemological challenges innovation assessments face in justifying the relationship they draw between study objects, observation, interpretation and representation and in justifying ideologically and methodologically their own production of knowledge about how others produce knowledge. We address the implications this work has for the development of interdisciplinarity and integration in case studies we have observed, of evaluating new-emerging innovation domains. We argue that the consequences of advancing reflexivity (or awareness of it) as a progressive step forward, rather than a problem to remedy, is critical in shaping a more balanced approach to innovation, even though achieving interdisciplinarity and integration is fragmented and partial.",
keywords = "Disciplinarity, Epistemology, Discourse, Innovation, STS, SSK, Reflexive thesis, Practice turn",
author = "Kristrun Gunnarsdottir and Dijk, {Niels van}",
year = "2013",
language = "English",
volume = "(Based on EPINET working paper, Deliverable D2.1, Dec 2012)",
publisher = "Lancaster University",
type = "WorkingPaper",
institution = "Lancaster University",

}

RIS

TY - UNPB

T1 - Disciplinarity and value commitments

T2 - interdisciplinary approach to knowledge and innovation assessment (discussion paper)

AU - Gunnarsdottir, Kristrun

AU - Dijk, Niels van

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - The Horizon 2020 framework programme for research and innovation is promoting an approach referred to as Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). Mandates to implement and mainstream RRI are already evident, whereby interdisciplinarity and integration are treated as pre-given in accounts of what the RRI approach is in practice. In this paper, our point of departure is to ask what to expect realistically when experts and professionals are brought together across disciplines, institutions and national borders in practical attempts to achieve interdisciplinarity and integration of approach to innovation. We revisit Woolgar's and Ashmore's treatise on social epistemology in their development of the reflexive thesis in the late 1980s, and we revisit the turn to practice in STS in the early 2000s. We present our analysis of commitment to matters of practical sensitivity and reflexivity in reference to the philosophical influences and study objectives of the reflexive thesis and the practice turn and we consider how sociological studies have articulated expert practices and the use of knowledge and skill. We address the epistemological challenges innovation assessments face in justifying the relationship they draw between study objects, observation, interpretation and representation and in justifying ideologically and methodologically their own production of knowledge about how others produce knowledge. We address the implications this work has for the development of interdisciplinarity and integration in case studies we have observed, of evaluating new-emerging innovation domains. We argue that the consequences of advancing reflexivity (or awareness of it) as a progressive step forward, rather than a problem to remedy, is critical in shaping a more balanced approach to innovation, even though achieving interdisciplinarity and integration is fragmented and partial.

AB - The Horizon 2020 framework programme for research and innovation is promoting an approach referred to as Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI). Mandates to implement and mainstream RRI are already evident, whereby interdisciplinarity and integration are treated as pre-given in accounts of what the RRI approach is in practice. In this paper, our point of departure is to ask what to expect realistically when experts and professionals are brought together across disciplines, institutions and national borders in practical attempts to achieve interdisciplinarity and integration of approach to innovation. We revisit Woolgar's and Ashmore's treatise on social epistemology in their development of the reflexive thesis in the late 1980s, and we revisit the turn to practice in STS in the early 2000s. We present our analysis of commitment to matters of practical sensitivity and reflexivity in reference to the philosophical influences and study objectives of the reflexive thesis and the practice turn and we consider how sociological studies have articulated expert practices and the use of knowledge and skill. We address the epistemological challenges innovation assessments face in justifying the relationship they draw between study objects, observation, interpretation and representation and in justifying ideologically and methodologically their own production of knowledge about how others produce knowledge. We address the implications this work has for the development of interdisciplinarity and integration in case studies we have observed, of evaluating new-emerging innovation domains. We argue that the consequences of advancing reflexivity (or awareness of it) as a progressive step forward, rather than a problem to remedy, is critical in shaping a more balanced approach to innovation, even though achieving interdisciplinarity and integration is fragmented and partial.

KW - Disciplinarity

KW - Epistemology

KW - Discourse

KW - Innovation

KW - STS

KW - SSK

KW - Reflexive thesis

KW - Practice turn

M3 - Discussion paper

VL - (Based on EPINET working paper, Deliverable D2.1, Dec 2012)

BT - Disciplinarity and value commitments

PB - Lancaster University

ER -