Strategies for Knowledge Acquisition in Bionanotechnology

Abstract

Discourses on convergent technologies claim that fields such as bionanotechnology are interdisciplinary and, therefore, require specific organizational forms, such as laboratories with researchers from many different disciplinary backgrounds. However, empirical investigations challenge the intrinsic interdisciplinarity of these emergent fields, and some analysts criticize the discourses as prescriptive. In order to investigate actual laboratory practices in bionanoscience, this article explores the dynamics of knowledge integration and the knowledge acquisition strategies of 10 research projects in two research specialties, namely biomolecular motors and lab-on-a-chip. The research shows that knowledge integration is, in fact, very asymmetrical: typically, a project will use materials and techniques from various disciplines at a standard level of know-how, but focus its research effort on the unique expertise of the home laboratory. Furthermore, projects use various strategies to acquire knowledge: interdisciplinary practices involving deep collaborations and exchanges between distinct disciplines at either the personal or institutional level are only one strategy to acquire knowledge and, indeed, not the most common. The majority of projects combine different strategies, including service collaboration, limited recruitment and in-house learning. These observations can be explained by a trade-off between the benefits of cognitive diversity set against the costs of team cohesion and learning.

How interdisciplinary is nanotechnology?

“…Still, the integration results are in agreement with case studies of particular nanotechnologies. Some of these technologies represent highly interdisciplinary topics, for example, lab-on-a-chip, merging nanofabrication with microfluidics and biological applications (Rafols 2007). Others appear much more focused, even when the application of this research has implications for very different fields.…”

Perceived incentives to transdisciplinarity in a Japanese university research center

“…Investigations across established disciplinary boundaries require scientists to develop a new set of skills, different from those acquired through traditional research training, and an intimate knowledge of all the perspectives being used (Jacobs & Frickel, 2009;Siedlok & Hibbert, 2014). Furthermore, in the fields at the core of our investigation, scientists need to acquire new scientific capabilities when employing research technologies developed in different fields, especially if their use requires considerable tacit knowledge (Rafols, 2007). Additional constraints emerge in collaborative projects involving researchers with different specializations, when teams must perform mutual adjustments and develop a shared language in order to operate.…”

“…Furthermore, these drawbacks are exacerbated when physical distance impedes the face-to-face interaction on which trustbased relationships are based. Therefore, scientists involved in a multi-institutional collaborative project need to negotiate their priorities, smooth divergences in work practices, and invest in the adoption of appropriate coordination mechanisms (Bridle et al, 2013;Carayol & Thi, 2005;Cummings & Kiesler, 2005, 2007Lauto & Valentin, 2013;Llerena & Meyer-Krahmer, 2003;Lyall & Meagher, 2012;Pohl, 2005;Rafols, 2007;van Rijnsoever & Hessels, 2011).…”

“…The interplay of cognitive and institutional diversity generates a need for coordination of collaborative research that can be addressed by balancing these two dimensions of diversity (Lauto & Valentin, 2013) through the use of appropriate strategies for acquiring and integrating knowledge (Rafols, 2007) and by relying on organizational mechanisms for project coordination (Cummings & Kiesler, 2007).…”

Measuring the performance of research collaborations

“…A number of studies have highlighted the benefits of firms utilising knowledge from external sources (Sammons, 2005; Grevesen and Damanpour, 2007), such as universities (Fabrizio, 2006) and the positive contribution to innovation that can be derived from this knowledge acquisition (Ding and Peters, 2000). In this regard industrial organisations may seek to partner with public sector research organisations or universities that supply research services (Rafols, 2007). This form of technology‐driven innovation has been rising in recent years (Calvert and Patel, 2003; Iuan‐Yuan et al , 2007) and in the case of university‐industry interactions is leading to a need to develop an improved understanding of how to optimally manage research collaborations (Kirkland, 2005).…”