Open and Sustainable Innovation Systems (OASIS) Lab working notes

Powered by 🌱Roam Garden

November 24th, 2020

This is an "Orphan" page. Its core content has not been shared: what you see below is a loose collection of pages and page snippets that mention this page, as well as snippets of this page that were quoted elsewhere.

"no other type of information interaction is likely to be [as] efficient and profitable [as interactive discussions with colleagues]" (p. 33-34)

Time to wrap up this thread

Emerging claims

Informal sources play a very large (maybe primary?) role in access/filtering of information across interdisciplinary boundaries (perhaps more so than disciplinary information seeking, which is well-served by IR infrastructure)

There's some magic in the access stage (probably driven by query (re)formulation)

And also some magic in the filtering stage

Subpoint here that we need to break out hte information seeking process into distinct subprocesses, with distinct challenges and solutions from informal sources

All the stuff about structural holes and outsider innovation may not connect directly with scientific work (different worlds), but they can inform!

They do connect to @palmerWorkBoundariesScience2001's ideas about the intermediaries

And also play a nice contrast to conflicting findings about Q: What is the effect of analogical distance of inspirations on creative output?

So where do we go next?

For our analogical search stuff to work well, we'd want to:

plug into this magic (make sure our results can result in a smooth handoff to the right person(s)), and/or

help make this magic happen more often / better

recreate some of the magic that is happening

At minimum, I want to know what the size of this effect is, if any: how much more effective is person-driven search than even a "state of the art" search engine?

it seems like a truism that people would benefit more from analogy if they discuss it with people, but... i don't know if that's been shown? and really analyzed in detail just how differently things play out and in what specific ways?

Maybe conditions:

Vanilla keyword-search

Vanilla keyword-search + analogical search

Interdisciplinary person

Vanilla keyword-search + analogical search + interdisciplinary person

But I also want to have a much better model of what magic is actually happening in these conversations, from a "search" standpoint, so we can bottle it

I haven't yet seen a satisfactory model of this - ideally mapped to an abstracted description of patterns / moves, but also motifs over time (not just "yes, they iterate"; how much?? what does it look like? what's actually happening to the query?)

➰ breadcrumbs we definitely need to keep in parallel:

{{DONE}} Pulling on the lit review thread -->

{{TODO}} Xin Qian Get going on some foraging tasks. Given lists of refs from seeds, draft quick answer + supporting screenshot(s) for the questions they're mapped to, attached to pageref to citekey (~5-10 hrs/wk)

{{DONE}} ➰ breadcrumbs for November 25th, 2020: collect some papers we want to zettel, starting with the old classics in infosci

we don't want to just restrict to science, since i think some of our work should go back to the engineering design stuff (as low-hanging fruit)

{{TODO}} Quick and dirty prototyping to make some of our ideas visible (around idea: sociotechnical analogical connector)

{{TODO}} Maybe a formative study of some kind

maybe run an additional version of the analogy workshop with Bex's lab in 2017

what could we prototype quickly within the iSchool?

a riff on [[Brain dump from Wayne Lutters about P/Synthesis Infrastructure on February 18th, 2020]]?

{{TODO}} Start re-exploring CXL and other possible test beds

e.g.,

it occurs to me that Biologically Inspired Design or biomimicry should be in this vein as well - rather than give you ideas to inspire you, connect you to someone to brainstorm with

last thought before i close for today:

another wrinkle to add is the familiarity of the analogical source to the user

if somewhat familiar (have read a few papers, maybe even cited some), then showing abstracts might be ok

but if completely new, or close to new, then should be exposed to them via an intermediary

it occurs to me that Biologically Inspired Design or biomimicry should be in this vein as well - rather than give you ideas to inspire you, connect you to someone to brainstorm with

could run some experiments with BIOCENE??

November 24th, 2020