Connective knowledge: what we need to know about other fields to ‘envision’ cross-disciplinary collaboration

Abstract

This paper centralises the question of what academics in higher education settings need to know about other fields to stimulate cross-disciplinary collaborative work. The concept of 'knowledge', while recognised as important within cross-disciplinary studies, has failed to be properly problematized. Little attention has been paid to what cross-disciplinary knowledge actors should possess, the purposes that knowledge might serve and few pause to consider the concept of collaboration itself, as an inherent source of situated learning. The result is recommendations about what researchers should 'know' that cannot be operationalised in practice. Highlighting a distinction between 'Of-Knowledge', entailing a detailed understanding of a field, and 'About-Knowledge', a rudimentary form of knowledge about fields, we explore two key points of the cross-disciplinary collaborative lifecycle to evaluate the needs, purposes, limits and possibilities of knowing. Noting that cross-disciplinary learning is a long process, and for which no pre-packaged 'knowledge' emerges to address the kinds of cognitive deficits that researchers typically identify, we argue that collaboration itself provides a non-substitutable venue for crossdisciplinary learning. In contrast, focusing on the point of 'envisioning' where specialisms are 'scoped out' and collaborative horizons 'mapped', we argue for efforts to be placed in enhancing researchers' 'About-Knowledge', a form of connective knowledge that extends researchers' basic knowledge about other fields prior to constructing collaborative projects. Critical for the aspirations of futures research, and the importance of fostering global, national, regional and local collaboration, we highlight how a little knowledge can go a long way.

Building Inter-Personal Competence in Architecture and Urban Design Students through Smart Cities at a Higher Education Institution

“…Two notable articles are provided. First, Priaulx et al [22] analyzed the current state of interdisciplinary collaborations and recommended breaking the preconceived idea of cross-disciplinary collaboration into the cycle and type of knowledge expected from interdisciplinary collaboration. This perspective outlined new and fresh aspects from which to approach interdisciplinary education.…”

“…In the case of architecture and urban design collaborations at HEIs, as with most interdisciplinary collaborations, teaching an interdisciplinary approach tends to be dominated by single discipline and used to prove superiority over other disciplines [29,33,34]. As a response to this HE-level problem [25,27], Priaulx et al (2018) provided a completely different perspective by examining the problem of interdisciplinary education by splitting the knowledge acquired by interdisciplinary education into two types of knowledge-of-knowledge and about-knowledge [22]. This suggestion instantly relieves the pressure from designing an interdisciplinary collaboration to impart all available disciple-specific knowledge within a limited period of time.…”

“…However, Priaulx et al did not negate or undermine the whole institution approach to deliver and reinforce of-knowledge-centric initiatives and events to influence the students and faculty; however, citing structural and cultural limitations of this approach, much lighter and "rudimentary connective knowledge" between distant disciplines would offer a long-lasting motivation to university students who are in the formation stages, Priaulx et al wrote where the aim is innovative futures research, we need to widen horizons and possibilities beyond the obvious, close-by, familiar, comfortable and tried and tested-and for that, we need to enable researchers to achieve insight "beyond current borders and thereby generate novel solutions to complex problems" [22], p. 11. Many studies reinforced the importance of sustainable education at the university level to create a new culture of sustainable thinking and acting [22,24,26,27]. ESD scholars have long advocated for the creation of a generation of researchers and practitioners who will lead societal transformation in dealing with the 'wicked' problem of the uncertainty of the future of our environment.…”

“…This notion of growth and change in circumstances translates is a collaborative life-cycle of researchers and practitioners, as described by Prioulx et al, "we drew a distinction between "of-knowledge" and "about-knowledge" with respect to other fields, in order to conceptualize the different kinds of knowing that might prove necessary at different points of the collaborative life-cycle. In response to claims that individual researchers should "know more" field-specific knowledge to enhance collaborative work, we highlighted a range of concerns in respect of a level of cognition that is far too demanding in practice" [22], p. 15.…”

“…Although most of these studies helped to identify competencies for SD in various settings and formats, the results often provided lists of a varying number of competencies ranging from 5 to 19. For this research, a concise and novel effort by Wiek et al (2011), featured also in the seminal literature on ESD, Handbook of Sustainable Development in Higher Education (2016), was chosen as it represents a principal set of competency framework for ESD [22]. The five competencies identified by Wiek are System Thinking, Future Thinking or Anticipatory, Values Thinking or Normative, Strategic Thinking or Action-orientated, and Collaborative or Inter-personal.…”