Archive for network entrepreneurship
September 29, 2008 at 8:28 pm · Filed under boundary objects, cognitive justice, community interaction design, design ecology, interaction, interdisciplinary, making it public, maps, network entrepreneurship, teaching and learning, watercasting
The first day was organized to enumerate problems and the criteria by which to evaluate responses to those problems. The second day focused on our responses as ‘designers’ and the methods that we could use to find tactical responses to the difficult problems posed by water (and the lack thereof).
We began by discussing what it is that designers do. I asked students what is is that artists and designers do? I asked the students to describe what they felt was their strongest characteristic as an artist/ designer. Surprisingly, almost all of them described characteristics that were domain-free and overwhelmingly social. I showed them Burt’s (2002) concept from sociology of a network entrepreneur, and we used his assessment tool to see how individual personalities and the class as a whole tended towards network entrepreneurship.
We continued by discussing Bowker and Star’s (1999) article about classifications an boundary objects. I expanded the initial discussion by showing them examples according to Star and Griesemer’s four types of boundary objects. We came to realize that boundary objects do and could play an important role in mediating different groups, particularly those that might have conflicting goals.
We concluded the morning session by sharing candidate solutions to the difficult problems posed by water. A couple of these dealt with making groundwater (and its hidden concerns) visible ‘above the ground’. This would be a metaphor to build on later that day.
In the afternoon, I showed them Paris: Invisible City and navigated through the multimedia map- a demonstration of all that helps to construct Paris as a city. With this in hand, we questioned how we come to describe the components of a city and how existing ways of seeing are, perhaps, constrained by existing representations. We discussed sex differences in navigation as one example relating to how maps are rendered and what it means for cognitive justice. We started to see that all of the components of a city- its water systems, street systems, entertainment systems- are constructed in numerous places and not just at the sites of consumption. 
As the afternoon waned, we adjourned to the water cooler in the corner of the room where we were able to have a refreshing drink and a new perspective on the networks that supported our taking that sip. We reflected and surmised deeply all of the actions and passing of signs, documents, and behaviors that are needed to make sure that the water cooler is there when we need it, that it tells a particular story, and what we miss when we take is existence for granted. WE connected it to the electricity plant, to the staff that keep it clean and full of water, to a history associating the color blue with water, to the friendliness of ‘eco friendly’ technology, to the construction people who built the building, to the architects and the central planning board whose permits probably had something to do with the fact that it was in the southwest corner and very near the bathrooms whose water systems run all alongside the building there.
We all shared what technical skills we had after that…from illustration, film shooting and editing, writing, 3-D rendering, and so on. We decided that we would make boundary objects as our designs and solutions for creating awareness and solving problems associated with water’s future. We decided we would make films to share our scenarios because they carry stories and build empathy. We decided that we would be like the tide, starting from shore and moving out to sea, returning to shore with our collections and documentation, moving back out again during the interim, and then back again…to sea what we can see.
September 29, 2008 at 6:49 pm · Filed under boundary objects, cognitive justice, community interaction design, design ecology, interaction, interdisciplinary, making it public, network entrepreneurship, teaching and learning, watercasting
We started by looking at the neologism ‘watercasting’, coined for the purposing of re-imagining what it is that we would be doing in the class. Casting for the purpose of making a mold, a cast that one would find in theatre or film, to broadcast, and even futurecasting were brought up by some of the participants.
We discussed difficult and wicked problems by comparing them to tame ones such as one would find in science and engineering. We formed groups based on complementary zodiac signs (in part to introduce forms of classification and grouping). Students were asked to develop symbols or logos for each of the characteristics of difficult problems as described in Horst and Rittel (1973). This required them not only to have read but to work toward synthesizing that information in the form of a visual response.
We ended the morning session by brainstorming and expanding a list of difficult problems associated with water. Pairs of students articulated the problems and then as a class we grouped them according to the themes they seemed to be suggesting.
After lunch I introduced the students to twitter and kluster, software platforms for 1) assembling a symphony of interactions around water in the case of twitter, and 2) choosing among proposed solutions in the case of kluster.
I asked students to come to the class with examples of good and bad design from around Srishti. They described many instances, and for a minute it seemed as if it would be a ‘crib’ session about the things the students didn’t like. Instead, we found out that things we might perceive as being ‘designed’ were often vestigial or happenstance. We also used examples of so-called bad design to recognize was it is that we value that seemed to be missing. In this way we turned these examples into opportunities as we transitioned into finding a list of criteria that we could use to evaluate or responses to difficult problems over the course of the semester.
We ended the afternoon session by compiling a list of these criteria as a first step towards understanding what kinds of traits our designs should have if they were going to be progressive responses.
June 16, 2008 at 9:31 am · Filed under boundary objects, community interaction design, interdisciplinary, making it public, maps, network entrepreneurship, science, teaching and learning, technology, visual culture, visualization
This is a nice compilation of resources assembled for a course entitled MAPPING CONTROVERSIES in MIT’s STS program. The course focuses “…on developing aptitudes for combining multiple ways of knowing: textual interpretation, intensive search in heterogeneous databases, and design tasks; all of which point to the invention of new tools of representation for an increasingly complex environment.
Sounds fun.
Addendum: you can also view an explanatory video about Mapping Controversies, narrated by Bruno Latour
May 15, 2008 at 8:39 am · Filed under design ecology, interdisciplinary, network entrepreneurship, teaching and learning
At the end of last year Innocentive had one of their many competitions for innovative solutions to difficult problems. Innocentive was developed by an Eli Lilly employee as a way to essentially find the essential skills needed to solve difficult problems, mostly in the area of life science.
Keep in mind that Innocentive’s approach is markedly different from a systems like Kluster which engages a collaborative process that depends on their ability to assemble a diverse group. Innocentive relies only on a large pool of potential solvers to get the expertise they need to solve problems. There is no overt collaborative process in Innocentive’s system.
The Rockefeller Foundation has also supported the initiative and has been using it to find solutions to problems for so-called bottom of the pyramid users, primarily around novel technology for basic living situations.
I submitted a solution to the problem of viral marketing for the purpose of building users of these resources. Because I believe strongly in the ability of diverse groups to engage in creative problem solving (perhaps because of my formative involvement in Future Problem Solvers), I crafted a proposal that I thought might be a difference for them. For these ideas, I drew on the work of Scott Page and Ronald Burt. I share the text of the proposal here:
Many people have the expertise to solve difficult problems, yet they and the organizations that seek their skills lack the ability to sense these opportunities. This is the core service that Innocentive provides. By transforming human capital into social capital, Innocentive can increase its brand awareness and turn post-niche strategy into new market segments. Here are six heuristics:
1. Transform human capital into social capital. This means engaging the contradictions of diverse constituents. For difficult problems, diversity trumps ability (Page 2006). Some (but not all) of Innocentive’s clients and problems require diversity to solve key problems. Find ways for people with alternative expertise to contribute to the problems at hand. Diversity creates opportunities to broaden Innocentive’s solver base.
Innocentive’s current strategy revolves around commercial enterprises, state and local governments, and not-for-profit entities. Why not engage individuals that represent constituencies beyond these boundaries? These solvers could come from all walks of life, not just “highly qualified and creative Solvers recruited from the best research and educational institutions.”
Viral marketing encourages people to pass along a message voluntarily. This need not depend on any particular medium like video or games. Providing ways for people to enhance their own opportunities and leverage their own expertise will transmit the message. Google’s blank page provided enormous opportunity in this respect.
2. Provide social capital solutions for individuals and organizations. Creative problem solving, opportunity sensing, and implementation all rely on the ability of an organization or individual to access social capital. Without clear way to build and leverage social capital they are limited in their opportunities. Innocentive is poised to provide mechanism for individuals and organization to access and assemble diverse social capital with minimal obstacles. For an individual or a small organization, this can provide significant value.
3. Provide social captial solutions for Innocentive by providing ways for individuals to exploit their own existing social capital. For example, many individuals are already seeking solutions to their own problems via their social network. This is cumbersome in some respects and could be improved greatly using Innocentive’s model. With Innocentive providing this free service, individuals can then turn to Innocentive when no opportunity is found within their personal social network. Innocentive becomes the solution. “Innocentive helped me find a solution so maybe they can help me now.” Partnering with a social networking service (especially LinkedIn; see #6) can provide the social networking capabilities while Innocentive provides the opportunities and arrangements.
4. Create microtransactions for bottom-of-the-pyramid expertise. People already have skills. Sometimes someone just needs a simple piece of code written and doesn’t have the skills or someone in their network that can do it. While this may seem overly simple for some, for others it may as well amount to curing cancer. Allowing individuals and organizations the opportunity to offer everyday problems will make up in volume for what it may loose in overall value. Even if a task is small, there are many that could solve it and possibly add to the social capital of Innocentive.
5. Identify network-entrepreneurs. These are individuals that position themselves as hubs within social networks (Burt 2005). They tend to identify opportunities and create social capital. They also have the ability to identify potential problems that could be served by Solvers. Identifying network entrepreneurs may take work, but they tend to use positive and negative words to express ideas, use more words to express ideas, have greater number of days between key contacts, have outstanding evaluations, and have job descriptions other than those commonly listed.
6. Identify and work with a strategic partner. LinkedIn would be an excellent choice. Given their large social network size, emphasis on business and opportunity contacts, and upcoming API availability, they could possibly provide the network through which to leverage the above heuristics. Other partners could be identified as well, but they should provide insight and opportunity that Innocentive does not currently have. Diversity should be the first goal.
December 19, 2007 at 9:29 am · Filed under Design, complex systems, interdisciplinary, network entrepreneurship
Last week I was given the opportunity to participate in a workshop sponsored by the AIDI (Association of Industrial Designers of India). The deliberations of the event were intended to inform the implementation of India’s national design policy. It was a sort of pre-conference workshop held just before the Leadership Through Design conference here in Bangalore (more on that later). Many design professionals and educators came together from across India and the world to develop strategies and actionable recommendations.
There were a handful of breakout groups, each dealing with a different focus area. These were: Education (Srishti was a partner), Design Parks (these are intended to be urban design “hubs”), Branding and Communication of Indian Design (ahh, identity politics), Culture, Environment, Social Development & Effective Public Spending (the ‘everything else’ category), and Competitive Advantage by Design (my group).
All in all, it was interesting to gain a sense of how this is being approached. India is, after all, partially concerned with having a dialogue about such things. Could you even imagine a national design policy in the United States, much less a dialogue about it?!! So in that respect, I have to give those that have put in heir time and energy a LOT of credit. Mind you that this policy is seen as a partial solution to India’s competitiveness on the global scene. My impression is that by having a national design policy, India can put it’s financial, intellectual, and social capital resources into creating better solutions and opportunities…at least that’s what one would hope.
Designing for Competitiveness
Our group was fairly well mixed with Indian-based designers, design managers, and even two professionals from major U.S. design firms. Needless to say there was a lot of expertise willing to put their heads together and try to identify how India could become more competitive in design and design thinking. I hate to say it, but I do think we were hampered a bit by our group facilitator. Given the combined problem-solving techniques that the group had at its disposal, it was a bit disheartening that we took as long as we did to develop heuristics to accomplish the task. Every time we got something going, our facilitator would step in and question the approach, needlessly diverting our efforts. Nonetheless, we took it on and made a lot of progress in the end.
We started by brainstorming challenges and ways to build India’s competitiveness in design. Each of these was placed on a post-it and then one of the group members got the process going by verbally grouping them into common themes (my favorite which got lost in the end was ‘Design for Corruption’). That seemed to work because it got us to the next stage which was to develop further those ideas into specific strategies. We decided to split up into two groups because we were short on time and we had ten themes to work through. At the end of the day, each of the main groups got up and presented their deliberations. I’ll list them at the end, but before I do I want to address two things that really bothered me and that I want to avoid in future interactions like these.
Group Dynamics
The first was that one of the other groups (Design Parks) spent a lot of time deliberating around the issues. I am close friends with on of the participants from that group and he told me that the recommendations that were presented were not actually the ones discussed! It seems that the leader had actually prepared a powerpoint before the day even started with his recommendations and then presented that to the entire assembly. I do remember that the presentation looked way too good, but I didn’t ask. I guess the lesson is that we have to aim and ensure that the deliberations around these kinds of things are genuine. I’m not saying that his were bad ideas. I just don’t know why people’s time was wasted if their work wasn’t going to be represented. I didn’t participate in the group so I really don;t know what happened, but it certainly sends the wrong kind of message.
The second was that we “americans” really did create an imbalance in the conversation. I don’t know if it had to do with language (I doubt it) or what, but our Indian colleagues really backed off. This bothered me. I couldn’t tell if they were following our lead or that they just felt uncomfortable. Not all did of course. When we split into two groups though, one of the groups was entirely composed on people who either were from or worked in the U.S. I don’t think it was intentional, but it certainly was cultural in the sense that I wanted to just get to work and the group that just started doing it seemed to nucleate. Then again, I can’t really say how the other group formed. In any case, I was disappointed because group level diversity is something I try to implement, especially when approaching roblems like these. I don’t know how important it was in the end; you can judge by the recommendations. Can you guess which is which? I’ll give you a hint. One group did five themes; another did four.
Here were our group’s recommendations for how to enhance India’s National Design Policy for the purpose of building India’s global design competitiveness.
Networked Design
I am convinced that two of the themes our group proposed are critical. ‘Human Power’ (or social capital) and ‘Designers and Opportunities’ seem to be the key distinction in terms of what it is that designers actually do. By bringing together concerns, ideas, methods, and interactions from all over, designers leverage their own social capital to bring something into existence. Designers (like artists) do this because they can sense opportunity, much like entrepreneurs. How we develop our abilities to sense these opportunities is what will make new innovation possible. Bringing that innovation into existence only happens when good ideas are encouraged and allowed to form from the opportunities that social capital provides.
Here is an example of how new opportunities could be realized. Hidalgo, et al. (see below) argue that “The Product Space Conditions the Development of Nations”. The authors use a network analysis of the relatedness among products to show that more sophisticated products (such as those exported by industrial, developed nations) are more closely connected. Their assumption is that “the ability of a country to produce a product depends on its ability to produce other ones.” They measure this in part by using the overlap among markets (read: concerns) for exported products. This has definite implications for the artist-designer that seeks to build relationships between people, services, and things as a design strategy. By creating and making dense connections, designers have a greater chance of developing new hybrids or artifacts that satisfy multiple concerns (cute and cuddly, for example). This is the essence of interdisciplinary strategy and approach.
Take a look at these graphs from the Hidalgo, et al. article*. On the far left are all nations combined along with a key. India is in the middle and the US is on the right. The thing to notice from this comparison is the distribution of the squares versus circles. Circles are the overall network. Squares denote the “revealed competitive advantage” for the product for that country. Thus, squares are where the country has an advantage. As you can see products which are more closely related (such as those that form dense clusters) are those that give the U.S. a competitive advantage. In India, the square tend to be at the periphery (in textiles and garments, for instance). The point is that so-called innovation is happening in these dense clusters. If designers begin to form networks and social capital among these disconnected hubs of innovation and expertise, then they may be able to leverage these as opportunities for innovation. Maybe that small metal cluster between garments and textiles needs to be remixed. Bronze kurtas anyone? Better yet, take a look at the electronics cluster and maybe we’ve got electric saris on the way!
*The Product Space Conditions the Development of Nations.
C. A. Hidalgo. R. B. Klinger, A.-L. Barabasi, R. Hausmann.
Science 317, 482-487 (2007)
November 23, 2007 at 5:56 am · Filed under Design, boundary objects, ecology, ecoregionalism, interdisciplinary, network entrepreneurship, technology
How do you take into account the diverse factors that contribute to a product or service’s ecology? How do you determine which factors are more relevant than others? One of the ways to begin this process is by mapping these interactions at a conceptual level. Then, we an begin to map them in individuals, societies, and real-world environments.
June 13, 2007 at 8:38 am · Filed under Design, complex systems, network entrepreneurship, science, teaching and learning
Gregory Bateson defines information as “a difference that makes a difference” (1).
This is why the framing, point of view, or perspective of information is important. Perspective is what allows us to take things into account and recognize for whom these differences matter.
Bateson’s words ideas came to mind as I recently read a news report (2) about a social science study investigating the impact of interdisciplinary education on the STEM disciplines (science, technology, engineering, and math). For a while now, the National Science Foundation (NSF) has supported interdisciplinary graduate education programs. I had the fortunate opportunity to participate as an affiliate of the Evolution, Development, and Genomics IGERT while studying at Indiana University. There is a wide diversity of programs ranging from the aforementioned Evo-Devo program to focused efforts in Complex Systems and Invasive Species Biology and Policy, for example.
My experience with the IGERT at IU was extremely enriching, but I would never have described it as interdisciplinary, per se. The difference I recognized was the attention that evolutionary biologists gave to developmental variation as a source of novelty and the recognition of developmental biologists that a handful of gene-expression profiles was not enough to characterize the variation in a population. I always wondered if there were any truly unique perspectives involved in the mixing of evolution, development an genomics or if it was really about the integration of tools to expand the explanatory power of evolution and genetics.
In the Nature article, Amanda Haag describes the social experiment in which students were organized into two experimental groups based on their functional role (natural science, policy analyst, etc), their stage of education, and those that had received training in an interdisciplinary framework and those that had traditional disciplinary graduate training. A number of smaller sub-groups were then formed based on the charrette model (3) to solve a specific problem. Apparently, the charrette process is used extensively in urban planning and other disciplines that frequently require the involvement of multiple stakeholders. Not surprisingly, the term is thought to come from the École des Beaux-Arts in Paris in the nineteenth century. Contrast this model of design process with Bruno Latour’s Politics of Nature in which he sets out to establish the context for political ecology in the practice of science and policy-making.
The observation that stood out in Haag’s article was that, “To everyone’s surprise, students tackled the problem similarly, irrespective of whether they had interdisciplinary or traditional training.”
The researchers conducting the study have yet to analyze the results, but from my perspective this observation would not be surprising. For one thing, these aren’t very heterogeneous groups. Each of the functional roles maintains that science has the fundamental explanatory power. That’s a pretty specific perspective. Also, what is the real difference in graduate training that occurs through a program like IGERT? Are different perspectives really encountered, or are similar perspectives reinforced by integrating individuals that share the same perspective but use different heuristics and interpretations? Given that the groups are trying to solve problems based on the intersection of human activities and ecosystem services, these could easily be classified as difficult problems that may also require frameworks other than science and policy-making.
I should back up a bit and provide some more background.
I’ve been reading The Difference by Scott Page (5) along with the Complex Systems interdisciplinary workshop here at the University of Michigan. Page is a Professor of Complex Systems, Political Science, and Economics, and his book discusses how “the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies.”
Page’s main argument and finding is that diversity in mental models (aka cognitive approaches) is the premiere source of diversity’s benefit to problem solving.
In order to get to this result, Page categorizes people’s cognitive toolbox into four functional frameworks: perspectives, heuristics, interpretations, and predictive models.
Perspectives are “how we see things…[and]…a map from reality to an internal language such that each distinct object, situation, problem, or event gets mapped to a unique word.” One might easily say that artists frequently contribute different perspectives. Keep in mind that we don’t necessarily have to rely on verbal mappings of perspective.
A heuristic is “a rule applied to an existing solution represented in a perspective that generates a new (and hopefully better) solution or a new set of possible solutions.” I tend to think of these as behaviors. It might entail finding a new idea or solution by simply looking across the aisle in a library after searching for a specific book. This chance operation depends partly on the Dewey decimal system, the layout of the library, and the subject of your initial search.
Interpretations are mappings “from objects, situations, problems, and events to words. In an interpretation, one word can mean many objects.” What’s the difference between a perspective and an interpretation? Using Page’s approach, identifying each of these components (perspectives, heuristics, interpretations, and predictive models) as components of the cognitive toolbox is a perspective. Using predictive models to classify the differences among disciplines is an example of how interpretations can be used. How the interpretation is structured and/or relevant depends on our goal (more on that later).
A predictive model is “an interpretation together with a prediction for each set or category created by the interpretation.” Predicting if an organism is a member of a is a member of particular species might be a good example. One perspective might view genetics as having something to do with species definitions and thus say that certain gene sequences will be able to predict its species. Another perspective might perspective might say that genetics is not involved. In this case, one interpretation might simply say that morphology will predict the species. The non-genetic perspective might also say that the a species is classified depending on whether it was embalmed, trained, a suckling pig, a mermaid, fabulous, a stray dog, or other (6).
Page took all of these tools into account when developing a mathematical proof to show how these differences matter for the problem-solving capacities of groups.
Though I’m only through chapter six, here is what I understand about Page’s results.
The main feature thus far is that one shouldn’t rely on standardized measures of ability alone. In fact, diversity in groups trumps the ability of homogeneous groups. In order for this to happen, a few necessary conditions and assumptions are needed.
One condition is that the problem needs to be sufficiently difficult such that no single member can solve it by themselves. That individuals share the same, similar, or synergistic goals is an important factor in determining a group’s success. Many social problems fall into the category of “difficult” including those that the grad students were faced with in the social science experiment.
Another condition is that each of the problem solvers has some ability to solve the problem. This is where some of my concerns begin. In the book, Page argues that problem solvers in a group cannot create overly rugged landscapes. By this he means that individuals in a group must contribute perspectives that contain knowledge of the causes of X problem. In this sense, he is keeping the perspectives among group members constant while allowing the heuristics and/or interpretations to be the mechanisms of diversity. This is an important assumption and one that has important consequences for interdisciplinary policy.
Page states clearly that this result shows that chemists will not benefit from having a poet or other humanist join them in the lab. I personally think he shouldn’t have been so categorical about this conclusion, given the examples he used (designing products, curing diseases, and improving our educational system). The opportunity for someone to contribute knowledge depends on the problem and its definition. If it is too specific a problem, then perhaps only those with extremely specialized knowledge can contribute. However, the very difficult problems he cites are the product of many different perspectives and causes. Should teachers and educational administrators be the only individuals contributing knowledge about the causes of educational inequity? What about educational standards? In order for the benefits of diverse perspectives to be realized, they must, as Bergson points out, be taken into account. After all, these perspectives may be the differences that matter for a positive solution.
Another one of Page’s assumptions is that people with the same perspective are able to communicate clearly, or, conversely, that people with different perspectives are unable to communicate. This is due to the one-to-one mapping of idea and word that Page’s definition of perspective entails. What happens when we don’t share the same perspective and can still communicate? One might describe this as empathy–i.e. recognizing another’s perspective. It might also be the product of a translator that can provide the mapping between perspectives. If these situations exist (and I know that they do), it is likely that people with wildly different perspectives have contributions that will amplify the beneficial effects of diversity.
All of this is why, when I read the Nature article, I was not surprised that the different groups used similar tactics to solve the problems. The question to ask is at what threshold is there difference enough to create diversity in group perspectives. If we have this diversity among perspectives, are we also confident that the group is addressing the same problem? This may be dependent on some form of communication and/or translation that can bridge perspectives.
“Bridges” is a term used by Diana Rhoten (7) to describe researchers that have many cross-disciplinary connections. She contrasts this with “hubs” which describes researchers with the most overall connections. One could therefore hypothesize that a bridge is much more likely to translate across disciplines or perspectives. This is not dissimilar to Burt’s descriptions of network entrepreneurs as individuals that span structural holes (8). Structural holes separate nonredundant sources of information, and entrepreneurs that span these holes recombine these sources in such a way that makes each of these sources valuable to the other. So if we start to ask what interdisciplinary graduate training is providing, we could focus on those policy efforts that remix differences in perspectives, interpretations, heuristics, and/or predictive models. Which is most likely to be the difference that makes a difference? I’ll put my money on groups that bring together wide arrays of perspectives with individuals that can negotiate, translate and broker these differences to solve difficult problems.
- Bateson, G. (2000). Steps to an Ecology of Mind. University of Chicago Press.
- Haag, A. Environmental science: A testing experience. Nature, Volume 443, Issue 7109, pp. 265-267 (2006).
- More on charrettes from wikipedia
- Latour, B. (2004). Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy. Translated by Catherine Porter. Harvard University Press.
- Page, S. The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools,and Societies. Princeton University Press 2007.
- See Jorge Luis Borges’ Chinese Encyclopedia in Foucault, M. Les mots et les choses, Paris: Gallimard, 1966 (The Order of Things, New York: Vintage, 1973).
- Rhoten , D. (2003) A Multi-Method Analysis of the Social and Technical Conditions for Interdisciplinary Collaboration. The Hybrid Vigor Institute. San Francisco, CA http://hybridvigor.org
- Burt, R. Brokerage and Closure: An Introduction to Social Capital (Oxford University Press, 2005).
June 8, 2007 at 8:32 am · Filed under Design, interdisciplinary, network entrepreneurship, teaching and learning, thesis
My goal is to implement synthesis between the disciplines of art, design, and biology. As a way of reaching this objective, a set of heuristics can be a valuable tool. My attempt is situated within a systems approach to art, which seeks to integrate the development of better decision making and other analytical strategies with creative arts behaviors. I import the heuristic concepts of relational aesthetics, boundary objects, and network entrepreneurship. These ideas of value, form, and behavioral strategy, respectively, can serve as first approximations for how to engage in the ideation and implementation of creative work. These also function as design strategies that take into account differences among disciplines. They may therefore aid in the formation of educational and organizational objectives whose aim is to find positive solutions at the interfaces of art, design, and life science.
1.1.3. Network Entrepreneurship
A third heuristic is the concept of network entrepreneurship. A network entrepreneur is someone who brokers ideas across structural holes in organization and networks (Burt 2003). Burt defines structural holes as areas of emptiness or gaps between social groups. The epistemological and methodological gap between the arts and sciences is a good example. According to Burt, individuals (and possibly groups) that provide vision advantages through network entrepreneurship can be thought of and related to as social capital. The work that these types of individuals do is based on the assumption that within group variation and the diversity of ideas is less than the variation and range of possible solutions achievable between groups.
Network entrepreneurs are positioned (or position themselves) to draw from these different sources of variation while seeking strategic design solutions.
If an individual in involved in designing a boundary object, the degree to which they engage in network entrepreneurship may increase the suitability of that object across different communities. Burt (2003) recognizes four behaviors of network entrepreneurs who engage in information arbitrage:
- Making individuals in one or both groups aware of the interests and difficulties of the other(s), and in the process, mitigate misunderstandings and confusion.
- Transferring practices that have the potential to create value from one group in another group.
- Drawing analogies between things that are seemingly irrelevant to one another.
- Synthesizing new behaviors and beliefs that combine the concerns of multiple groups.
One thing to recognize is how similar the benchmarks for interdisciplinary integration (see Wolfe and Haynes 2003) are with these brokering behaviors. It seems reasonable to consider the processes of network entrepreneurship in the context of strategies for realizing high quality interdisciplinary creative work.
Examples of network entrepreneurship abound and there are varying degrees of the behavior. Someone directly involved in cinema production may reasonably be called a network entrepreneur. Cinema, by virtue of its techniques and conventions, is a collaborative medium and dependent on the actions of individuals to create a relational aesthetic that facilitates production. Recognizing the corresponding needs of the lighting crew and the camera operators is a function of the director of photography. The motion picture is a sort of boundary object, representing the work and input from a variety of individuals, groups, and organizations. In an industrial setting, producers balance the concerns of directors and distributors. On the side of the spectator, cinema appeals to multiple audiences and provides an exceptional level of empathy for the viewer to attach oneself (Koss 2006).
For Soviet filmmaker Sergi Eisenstein, calling attention to the similarity between developing cells in a biological context was akin to his new formalist approach to film editing (Eisenstein 1949). This was a form of network entrepreneurship that facilitated communication and boundary crossing using an analogy.
For students, network entrepreneurship can take the form of an idealized set of behaviors that can facilitate the formation of new ideas.
As a principle of good practice, encouraging network entrepreneurship can communicate high expectations and promote respect for diverse talents and ways of learning.
High expectations are reinforced when standards in one group can be related to standards in another. The high currency placed on writing in the sciences, for example, may carry over into the arts if they are networked. Likewise, the emphatic respect for diversity in the arts may also carry into the sciences as multiple perspectives contribute to new
ideas.
If the goal is to build bridges between art and biology, network entrepreneurs are a key to unlocking new opportunities. By actively promoting connections and translating across these social boundaries, network entrepreneurs establish relationships and build cohesion within and between individuals.
Burt, R. S. Structural Holes and Good Ideas. American Journal of Sociology. 110: (2004). p.349–399.
Eisenstein, S, The Cinematic Principle and the Ideogram in Film Form. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. 1949.
Koss, J. On the Limits of Empathy. The Art Bulletin. 88: (2006). p.139-57.
Wolfe, C. R., and Haynes, C. Interdisciplinary writing assessment profiles. Issues in Integrative Studies 21: (2003). 126–169.
June 4, 2007 at 1:03 pm · Filed under Design, network entrepreneurship
Answers abound…in terms of looking for ideas about how to overcome some of the difficulties associated with developing relationships between systems, design, and public health.
Take a look at DORI’s Moblog where she provides Two Reasons for the Failure of Design Policy . She is a design anthropologist, meaning that she is “tries to understand how the processes and artifacts of design help define what it mean to be human.”
Does that mean that a design biologist tries to understand how the processes and artifacts of design help define what it mean to be human and non-human.
I like that.
I found her research based on a tip from someone I met at the public health and complex systems conference last week. Speaking of social networks, weak connections are valuable.
March 12, 2007 at 10:39 pm · Filed under interdisciplinary, network entrepreneurship, teaching and learning
I want to reflect on some aspects of the conversations from the symposium on Visual Culture and Bioscience and try to reframe the discussion with notes for myself.
A focal point for the discussion has been to discuss the roles artists play in laboratory settings. A good deal of discussion and effort has been directed over the years towards promoting opportunities and understanding the roles that artists perform alongside and/or despite scientists. Suzanne Anker also introduced the notion of “art as invention”–the migration of social spaces in a recent thread dealing with the social and cultural implications of bioscience.
While these are complex topics full of social and methodological implications, I sense a generalizable way of framing the conversation that, I think, warrants some consideration–if only because it might help draw others into the conversation.
Whatever the engagement of art and biology, be it through individuals, groups, and/or at the level of disciplines, there are certain instances of value created by these multifaceted interactions. Many of these have been discussed. However, these are not characteristic of only art and bioscience, but rather they seem to exists at all levels of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship is the practice of sensing opportunities and starting new organizations (of concepts even!) to seize on those opportunities.
Quoting Suzanne Anker:
Novel ways of thinking and doing can be socially, economically and politically beneficial. The wonder of invention is a creative springboard allowing the more adventurous to remix the given. Negotiating territorial discourses and practices requires tenaciousness and makes significant learning demands on the border-crossers…Invention can also be looked upon as incorporating an element of chance…For the artist, recognizing nuance and possibility in the process of making, is part of artistic creation. Another aspect, furthering collaboration and creative process is the random and not so random meeting of various practitioners at cocktail parties, lectures art exhibits and the like.
I like Suzanne’s sentiment–though I have to disagree about the role that chance plays in the interaction. Certainly there is an element of chance, but invention is much more an import/export process: “Negotiating territorial discourses, recognizing nuance and possibility, meeting of various practitioners.” From my point of view, the majority of what counts as interdisciplinary/transdisciplinary practice involves translation, mediation, organization, and consultation. If you are involved in an actively engaged import/export process of exchanging ideas, materials, methods…whatever…you generally increase the odds that chance will fall in your favor. The implications, especially for teaching and learning, are that the import/export process can be learned and developed while chance cannot.
Would you agree that a characteristic of artists is their ability to sense gaps in culture or social structures? Would you also agree that artists are able to bridge these gaps because they maintain affiliations and learning strategies that involve and leveraging the concerns of multiple groups?
I see at least two ways of looking at this:
Behaviorally–that is, what are the behaviors of artists and scientists that seek to make these kinds of bridges and border-crossings? A question to ask here is, “How?”
Functionally–that is, what are the benefits that these behaviors confer both for the individuals involved and for their “other” constituencies? A question to ask here is, “For Whom?”
From the behavior standpoint, this idea of entrepreneurship is critical. I admire the symposium participants’ overriding desire to identify new areas of investigation, their resourcefulness in building a practice and implementing projects, and their dedication–despite conventional “wisdom.”
Woven through this discussion have been themes of
- creating common ground,
- creating new holistic understanding, and
- resolving differences between disciplines through the development of a metaphor–visual or otherwise.
These themes, not coincidentally, characterize Wolfe and Haynes’ criteria for interdisciplinary synthesis (at least in terms of writing). (Wolfe, C. R., and Haynes, C. 2003. Interdisciplinary writing assessment profiles. Issues in Integrative Studies 21, 126–169.)
To what degree are the behaviors, practices, and methods of the artists and scientists involved in this discussion and elsewhere indicative of brokering–such that each is translating, applying metaphors, creating common ground, and resolving differences between groups? This brokering, I think, is a fundamental activity and the research seems to indicate that it can be learned.
For much of my argument about brokering, I am drawing from Ronald Burt’s work on structural holes and network entrepreneurship. Burt recent presented to NESTA on the topic of innovation.
The domain knowledge and landscape is also critical. The fact that so little is known about biology, and for that matter, about art, necessarily creates opportunities. These are amplified by the apparent and real methodological differences between biology and art practices. Thus, one explanation for why this is such a rich area of inquiry lies in the social, cultural, and ethical implications of bioscience–confounded by the social and cultural “holes” created when we try to align the constituencies and interests of biology and art.
Next entries »
