STRATEGIES FOR KNOWLEDGE ACQUISITION IN BIONANOTECHNOLOGY

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 specialities, 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.

[1]  Diana Crane,et al.  Invisible colleges. Diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities , 1972, Medical History.

[2]  Daniel A. Levinthal,et al.  ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY: A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON LEARNING AND INNOVATION , 1990 .

[3]  S. Schwartzman,et al.  The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies , 1994 .

[4]  J. S. Katz,et al.  What is research collaboration , 1997 .

[5]  A. Elzinga The New Production of Knowledge. The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies , 1997 .

[6]  Henry Etzkowitz,et al.  The Triple Helix as a model for innovation studies , 1998 .

[7]  B. Godin Writing Performative History: , 1998 .

[8]  Carole L. Palmer,et al.  Structures and Strategies of Interdisciplinary Science , 1999, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci..

[9]  K. Knorr-Cetina,et al.  Epistemic cultures : how the sciences make knowledge , 1999 .

[10]  P. Weingart 2. Interdisciplinarity: The Paradoxical Discourse , 2000 .

[11]  Julie Thompson Klein,et al.  1. A Conceptual Vocabulary of Interdisciplinary Science , 2000 .

[12]  Eric R. Scerri 10. Interdisciplinary Research at the Caltech Beckman Institute , 2000 .

[13]  Grit Laudel,et al.  Collaboration, creativity and rewards: why and how scientists collaborate , 2001, Int. J. Technol. Manag..

[14]  María Bordons,et al.  Interdisciplinarity as a multidimensional concept: its measure in three different research areas , 2001 .

[15]  G. Laudel What do we measure by co-authorships? , 2002 .

[16]  Manfred Schliwa,et al.  Molecular motors , 2003, Nature.

[17]  V. Gewin Joan Roughgarden profile: A plea for diversity , 2003, Nature.

[18]  Mihail C. Roco,et al.  Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance , 2003 .

[19]  Patrick Llerena,et al.  Interdisciplinary Research and the Organization of the University: General Challenges and a Case Study , 2003 .

[20]  Mihail C. Roco,et al.  Converging Technologies for Improving Human Performance: Nanotechnology, Biotechnology, Information Technology and Cognitive Science , 2003 .

[21]  Tibor Braun,et al.  A quantitative view on the coming of age of interdisciplinarity in the sciences 1980-1999 , 2003, Scientometrics.

[22]  Joachim Schummer,et al.  Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and patterns of research collaboration in nanoscience and nanotechnology , 2004, Scientometrics.

[23]  María Bordons,et al.  Analysis of Cross-Disciplinary Research Through Bibliometric Tools , 2004 .

[24]  Jonathon N. Cummings,et al.  Collaborative Research Across Disciplinary and Organizational Boundaries , 2005 .

[25]  Jeremy Phillipson,et al.  Reflexive Interdisciplinary Research: The Making of a Research Programme on the Rural Economy and Land Use , 2006 .

[26]  A. Porter,et al.  Interdisciplinary research: meaning, metrics and nurture , 2006 .

[27]  G. Whitesides The origins and the future of microfluidics , 2006, Nature.

[28]  John M. Walker,et al.  Molecular Motors , 2007, Methods in Molecular Biology™.

[29]  Ismael Rafols,et al.  How cross-disciplinary is bionanotechnology? Explorations in the specialty of molecular motors , 2007, Scientometrics.