The construction of new scientific norms for solving Grand Challenges

Abstract

There is an increasing recognition that there is a class of problems that society must solve urgently in the twenty-first century if humanity is to survive into the twentysecond century-the so-called 'Grand Challenges'. Science policymakers have been active in recognising these challenges and the attendant need to develop new multidisciplinary ways of working. But embracing multidisciplinarity is not a straightforward choice for scientists, who individually are strongly steered by norms and values inculcated through their past scientific experiences. In this paper, therefore, we ask whether new funding approaches can contribute to creating new ways of working by scientists towards challenge-driven research, specifically by changing scientists' expectations and beliefs. We address this research question with reference to a single new experimental method, the 'research sandpit', implemented experimentally in a single national science system, Norway. Our data are derived from interviews with scientists involved in the five research projects funded as a result of the first sandpit, called 'Idélab' (idea lab) and held in 2014, and with the Research Council of Norway. We conclude that the sandpit approach appeared to shift research perceptions of individual scientists, particularly around long-term belief structures. This implies that, when well managed, the sandpit model can indeed be useful to generate multidisciplinary research as part of a multifaceted approach to funding scientific research.

Overcoming disciplinary divides in higher education: the case of agricultural economics

“…The challenge facing agricultural economics departments is that it can no longer be organized along a core economic discipline, but needs to contend with a peripheral discipline-agribusiness-that does not support the department's core economic mission. Resolving this internal conflict is an important problem not only for departments that house multiple disciplines, but also to ID research (Bammer, 2017;Brandstädter and Sonntag, 2016;Clark and Wallace, 2015;Jacob, 2015;Maxwell and Benneworth, 2018;Mooney et al, 2013;Pedersen, 2016). This is because while disciplines form the foundation of ID approaches (Repko and Szostak, 2017), the advancement of "normal science" promotes a shared commitment that rejects the insights of peripheral disciplines (Becher and Trowler, 2001;Kuhn, 1962;Maxwell and Benneworth, 2018) and thus undermines the very integration sought by ID research.…”

“…Resolving this internal conflict is an important problem not only for departments that house multiple disciplines, but also to ID research (Bammer, 2017;Brandstädter and Sonntag, 2016;Clark and Wallace, 2015;Jacob, 2015;Maxwell and Benneworth, 2018;Mooney et al, 2013;Pedersen, 2016). This is because while disciplines form the foundation of ID approaches (Repko and Szostak, 2017), the advancement of "normal science" promotes a shared commitment that rejects the insights of peripheral disciplines (Becher and Trowler, 2001;Kuhn, 1962;Maxwell and Benneworth, 2018) and thus undermines the very integration sought by ID research. In the case of agricultural economics, this internal conflict motivates the following research problem: How can agricultural economics departments be organized in ways that would facilitate the integration of insights from peripheral as well as core disciplines?…”

“…The advantages of this shared commitment are that it develops a discipline's legitimacy (Kuhn, 1962) and offers a more focused attempt to examining empirical realities without needing to clarify conflicting theories and assumptions (Markoczy and Deeds, 2009). The challenge with this advancement of "normal science" is that it strongly resists or rejects the integration of insights from disciplines that do not share the same commitment (Becher and Trowler, 2001;Kuhn, 1962;Maxwell and Benneworth, 2018). This resistance is borne out in agricultural economics departments.…”

“…This internal conflict speaks to a broader problem faced by many other departments in higher education. Departments on the one hand seek to advance the "normal science" of their disciplinary core, yet at the same time, face institutional pressures to integrate disciplines that do not conform to the "normal science" of their department's core (see also Batie, 2008;Kuhn, 1962;Maxwell and Benneworth, 2018). For instance, agricultural economic departments face institutional pressures from constituents (i.e., student demands, private donors, industry support, employers and academics) to advance teaching and research programs in the peripheral discipline of agribusiness (e.g., Cornell's Food Industry Management Programs, Purdue's International Agribusiness Business Program, Kansas State Agribusiness Management program).…”

The G1000 Firework Dialogue as a Social Learning System: A Community of Practice Approach

“…This also involves shared practices and "rituals" which shape individuals through their participation and serve to define their CoP positionality. Although these characteristics were developed in the context of an insurance claims processing office, the concept has been expanded to a wide range of fields where heterogeneous actors with different value systems and knowledge come together and interact as part of attempts to use each other's knowledge (Gertner et al 2011;Maxwell and Benneworth 2018). According to Ison (2012), participatory dialogue within the field of urban panning "is a process that does not seek consensus, but provides an environment for learning, to think together" (see Woodhill 2010, p. 81).…”