Dear Robb,
"Participatory Innovation Research" strikes me as an intellectual commitment to a thematic concern — that remains largely undefined. This is perfectly reasonable, but now I'd think you'd be getting on with the hard work of empirical research or theory building. Whether or not it's "new" will depend on how well you solve problems or mysteries that existing approaches fail to do.
I find it odd for the stated ambition of an endeavor to be to establish a new field. Shouldn't one be focused on a problem or a mystery, and then allow the chips to fall where they may? How is academic entrepreneurship a virtuous effort?
There is already a staggeringly large — and already interdisciplinary — agenda on participatory research, action research, and related matters. There is also one on innovation. If you are suggesting that there is some space there for filling an intellectual gap, then I think you need to prove it through a research paper and a comprehensive literature review that explains how key concerns are not being attended to by existing efforts. The idea that you want to establish a new field is not — to my mind — compelling. Because it will be ignored and overshadowed from the start by existing, and deeper, traditions if they are actually attending to the same matters.
Likewise, the effort to "compare our Centre" with "comparable projects or institutions" doesn't seem to align with the aspiration to "establish a field." How does knowing how your centre is the same or different from another project or place help establish an intellectual field? Market research, sure. But intellectual contribution? No.
There is a desperate need for serious cooperation on innovation for the social good that I would like to see some serious attention to core thinking up front, not later. So I am enticed by your research interests. But I am not sold on whether the ideas hang together yet.
Here is the paper we just wrote on "evidence-based programme design". It's thematic focus is on a security issue can be largely overlooked by those who don't know much about it. But what you'll see here is a serious agenda to create a conceptual framework for solving a problem by making certain analytical moves about the state of "evidence-based programming" or policymaking generally — finding a gap — and using that as a platform to create a new agenda of work. That took a year.
It did not create a new field or try to.
Despite my concerns, I do think there's tremendous value to found in your pursuit, but not as you've presented it so far.
Derek B. Miller
http://www.academia.edu/1899674/A_Framework_Document_for_Evidence-Based_Programme_Design_on_Reintegration
_________________
Dr. Derek B. Miller
Director
The Policy Lab®
321 Columbus Ave.
Seventh Floor of the Electric Carriage House
Boston, MA 02116
United States of America
Phone
+1 617 440 4409
Twitter
@Policylabtweets
Web
www.thepolicylab.org
This e-mail includes proprietary and confidential information belonging to The Policy Lab, Ltd. All rights reserved.
On Oct 18, 2012, at 9:50 AM, Robb Mitchell wrote:
> Good day!
>
> I am looking into making (possibly rather informal) comparisons between our SPIRE Centre for Participatory Innovation Research and one or more other broadly (probably very broadly) comparable projects or institutions.
> I would like to ask the list for help please in locating something or somewhere with which to make a comparison.
>
> Can you suggest a project or centre that comes at least close to fulfilling at least 3 of the following criteria?
>
> - Ambition: to establish a new field
>
> - Interdisciplinary-ness: involving researchers from at least 3 or 4 distinct disciplines
> - Duration: 3 - 10 years
> - Size: around 15 - 25 researchers
> - Wildcard: perhaps you can think of some other reason why SPIRE should look towards a particular place or project?
>
>
> Particularly interested in hearing about "finished" projects/centres or if the project is still live, then projects that have been running for at least three years. Design, innovation and participation related endeavours are of most interest, but all sorts of other suggestions most appreciated too.
>
> Also, it would be great to hear from anyone who has undertaken any sort of "benchmarking" exercise (however brief) within this kind of area.
>
> Thanks and best wishes
>
> Robb
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
> Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
