It's no secret that 'people who stand near the holes in social structure are at higher risk of having good ideas':
The argument is that opinion and behavior are more homogeneous within than between groups, so people connected across groups are more familiar with alternative ways of thinking and behaving, which gives them more options to select and synthesize from alternatives. New ideas emerge from selection and synthesis across the structural holes between groups. (Ronald S Burt, University of Chicago; pdf)
David Weinberger picked up on this Boston Globe report (15 July):
A group of top Harvard University professors issued a striking critique of the university's approach to scientific research and teaching yesterday, saying its antiquated organizational structure based on powerful, insular fiefdoms has become so dysfunctional that it threatens Harvard's leadership in science. … In a 99-page report, the group calls for changes that would encourage collaborations in emerging fields … the authors suggest creating a powerful new coordinating committee, independent of the departments that hire faculty today, and give it the power to hire some 75 new science faculty for research that falls between traditional disciplinary boundaries.
David comments:
Disciplines are ways of knowing held apart by models, methodologies and the power of incumbency. Without 'em we wouldn't know how to know. But, we also recognize there's something artificial about the distinctions introduced by disciplines: The chemistry and the biology of animals are united in the actuality of the animal, as are its math, astrophysics and string theory. The space between the disciplines is useful to explore not only because it is, by definition, what the disciplines ignore, but also because it reminds us that we are the ones who have brought discipline to the unitary cosmos. We don't do so arbitrarily — astrology is not a science — but neither is there only one way that works.
Which made me go back to a conversation earlier this year between Peter Merholz and GK VanPatter in NextD:
GK VanPatter: What did you study in school?
Peter Merholz: A little bit of everything in the humanities and social sciences. In high school, you would have pegged me for a math and sciences nerd, but by the time I started at UC Berkeley, I had committed to the softer sciences. I began by pursuing mass communication, but gave that up in favor of anthropology. Frankly, I was more interested in physical anthropology (essentially the study of human evolution) than cultural anthropology. I don't define myself by my degree, though, because it really was just proof that I survived four years of college.
Looking back, I have wondered if the anthro degree did set me on the user-centered design path. Even though I didn't practice UCD [user-centered design] until a good five to six years after graduation (by way of multimedia production and web development), I suspect I developed a worldview that directed how I approached problems. …
In my junior year at Cal, I realized that I was ill-suited to academia. I'm a synthesist across disciplines, but academia rewards those who plumb single subjects deeply. … I have no interest in learning something "properly." Doing so suggests aligning your epistemology, your worldview, with a particular frame of thought. I feared that doing so would close me off to other perspectives. I work best when drawing from a variety of intellectual sources. …
I have no personal interest in the territorial boundaries of knowledge communities. In fact, I think such barriers are pernicious, and they are exactly why I abandoned academia. I think what we're seeing is that in this world of remix and pattern recognition, the notion of a discrete 'knowledge community' is breaking down. … I decided not to pursue anthropology seriously because anthropological practice, as I observed it in school, meant producing material for other anthropologists. There was little interest in engaging the public, or in engaging other disciplines.
Much resonance in all this with my experience.
Technorati tags: interdisciplinary, Harvard, David Weinberger, Peter Merholz, academia
