Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Gaps and Bridges in Interdisciplinary Knowledge Integration

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
e-Research Collaboration

Abstract

By definition, e-Research is one of the largest and most diverse laboratories pursuing interdisciplinary knowledge integration. Using a qualitative analysis of a prototypical e-Research collaboration, this chapter presents a theoretical model of knowledge integration across professional cultures. This model, supported by the theory of epistemic cultures, highlights three types of “gaps”: a collaborative gap results from cultural differences among innovators and entrepreneurial users; an entrepreneurial gap stemming from cognitive discrepancies between entrepreneurial users and mainstream adopters; and a systemic gap that is rooted in paradigmatic differences across fields of practice. Accommodating these gaps are three “bridges”, individuals, organizations and technologies that connect the otherwise separate cultures and facilitate the transfer of knowledge. Implications of gaps and bridges to e-Research and recommendations to technology development are suggested.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Anderson, P., & Tushman, M. L. (1990). Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: A cyclical model of technological change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 604–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkins, D. E., Droegemeier, K. K., Feldman, S. I., Garcia-Molina, H., Klein, M. L., Messerschmitt, D. G., Messina, P., et al. (2003). Revolutionizing science and engineering through cyber-infrastructure. Report of the National Science Foundation blue-ribbon advisory panel on cyberinfrastructure, National Science Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barjak, F., Lane, L., Kertcher, Z., Poschen, M., Procter, R., & Robinson, S. (2009). Case studies of e-infrastructure adoption. Social Science Computer Review, 27, 583–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berman, F. D., Brady, H. E., & National Science Foundation. (2005). Final report NSF SBE-CISE workshop on cyberinfrastructure and the social sciences. National Science Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowker, G. C., & Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. Cambridge, MA: MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2001). Knowledge and organization: A social-practice perspective. Organization Science, 12, 198–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation. In J. Law (Ed.), Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay (pp. 196–233). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlile, P. R. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15, 555–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cummings, J. N., & Kiesler, S. (2005). Collaborative research across disciplinary and organizational boundaries. Social Studies of Science, 35, 703–722.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. A reader on strategizing, 48, 147–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dosi, G. (1982). Technological paradigms and technological trajectories. Research Policy, 11, 147–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dosi, G. (1988). Sources, procedures, and microeconomic effects of innovation. Journal of Economic Literature, 26, 1120–1171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, L. (2001). Recombinant uncertainty in technological search. Management Science, 47, 117–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster, I. (2005). Service-oriented science. Science, 308, 814–817.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galison, P. L. (1997). Image and logic: A material culture of microphysics. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galison, P. L., & Hevly, B. W. (1992). Big science: The growth of large-scale research. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garud, R., & Karnøe, P. (2003). Bricolage versus breakthrough: Distributed and embedded agency in technology entrepreneurship. Research Policy, 32, 277–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goble, C., & De Roure, D. (2002). The grid: An application of the Semantic Web. ACM SIGMOD Record, 31, 65–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goble, C., & De Roure, D. (2004). The Semantic grid. Myth Busting and Bridge Building, 16, 1129–1135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hey, T., & Trefethen, A. E. (2005). Cyberinfrastructure for e-science. Science, 308, 817–821.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jirotka, M., Procter, R., Harstwood, M., Slack, R., Simpson, A., Coopmans, C., Hinds, C., et al. (2005). Collaboration and trust in healthcare innovation: The eDiaMoND case study. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 14, 369–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonard-Barton, D. (1995). Wellsprings of knowledge: Building and sustaining the sources of innovation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, G. A. (2002). Crossing the chasm: Marketing and selling disruptive products to mainstream customers. New York, NY: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action; public goods and the theory of groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen-Smith, J., & Powell, W. W. (2004). Knowledge networks as channels and conduits: The effects of spillovers in the Boston biotechnology community. Organization Science, 15, 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: Free.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C., & Hamel, G. (1990). The core competencies of the firm. Harvard Business Review, 66, 79–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1942). Socialism, capitalism and democracy. New York: Harper and Brothers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, translations' and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907–39. Social Studies of Science, 19, 387–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Hippel, E. (1986). Lead users: a source of novel product concepts. Management Science, 32, 791–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wouters, P., & Schröder, P. (2003). Promise and practice in data sharing. Amsterdam: Networked Research and Digital Information (Nerdi), NIWI-KNAW.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerman, A. S. (2008). New knowledge from old data: The role of standards in the sharing and reuse of ecological data. Science, Technology and Human Values, 33, 631–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Part of this work was supported by the National Opinion Research Center/University of Chicago through a grant from the European Commission (30-CE-0066163/00-39). I am grateful to informants interviewed for this study for contributing their time and sharing their deliberations. Special thanks to Julia Lane for her enduring support during this project. Any omissions or error are mine.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, University of Chicago, 1126 East 59th Street, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA

    Zack Kertcher

Authors
  1. Zack Kertcher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zack Kertcher .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. Management, Drexel University, 32nd & Chestnut Streets, Philadelphia, 19104, USA

    Murugan Anandarajan

  2. Dept. Management, Drexel University, 32nd & Chestnut Streets, Philadelphia, 19104, USA

    Murugan Anandarajan

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kertcher, Z. (2010). Gaps and Bridges in Interdisciplinary Knowledge Integration. In: Anandarajan, M., Anandarajan, M. (eds) e-Research Collaboration. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12257-6_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation