What do you think?
The Genesis of Technoscientific Revolutions: Rethinking the Nature and Nurture of Research
Research powers innovation and technoscientific advance, but it is due for a rethink, one consistent with its deeply holistic nature, requiring deeply human nurturing.
Research is a deeply human endeavor that must be nurtured to achieve its full potential. As with tending a garden, care must be taken to organize, plant, feed, and weed―and the manner in which this nurturing is done must be consistent with the nature of what is being nurtured.
In The Genesis of Technoscientific Revolutions , Venkatesh Narayanamurti and Jeffrey Tsao propose a new and holistic system, a rethinking of the nature and nurturing of research. They share lessons from their vast research experience in the physical sciences and engineering, as well as from perspectives drawn from the history and philosophy of science and technology, research policy and management, and the evolutionary biological, complexity, physical, and economic sciences.
Narayanamurti and Tsao argue that research is a recursive, reciprocal process at many between science and technology; between questions and answer finding; and between the consolidation and challenging of conventional wisdom. These fundamental aspects of the nature of research should be reflected in how it is nurtured. To that end, Narayanamurti and Tsao propose aligning organization, funding, and governance with research; embracing a culture of holistic technoscientific exploration; and instructing people with care and accountability.
Research is a deeply human endeavor that must be nurtured to achieve its full potential. As with tending a garden, care must be taken to organize, plant, feed, and weed―and the manner in which this nurturing is done must be consistent with the nature of what is being nurtured.
In The Genesis of Technoscientific Revolutions , Venkatesh Narayanamurti and Jeffrey Tsao propose a new and holistic system, a rethinking of the nature and nurturing of research. They share lessons from their vast research experience in the physical sciences and engineering, as well as from perspectives drawn from the history and philosophy of science and technology, research policy and management, and the evolutionary biological, complexity, physical, and economic sciences.
Narayanamurti and Tsao argue that research is a recursive, reciprocal process at many between science and technology; between questions and answer finding; and between the consolidation and challenging of conventional wisdom. These fundamental aspects of the nature of research should be reflected in how it is nurtured. To that end, Narayanamurti and Tsao propose aligning organization, funding, and governance with research; embracing a culture of holistic technoscientific exploration; and instructing people with care and accountability.
- GenresScienceTechnology
248 pages, Hardcover
Published November 30, 2021
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
January 13, 2022
Research labs 3.0 need informed contrariness.
At the researcher level, informed contrariness requires balancing temperamental extremes: the predisposition to 'think different' yet to rigorously test that 'different thinking'; a passion for the unknown yet respect for the known; comfort with the necessary risk and uncertainty but discomfort with unnecessary risk and uncertainty; and obsession with and curiosity for what one doesn't know and a healthy respect for what one does (or should) know; the self-confidence to trust one's own views yet the self-criticalness also to distrust one's own views; and the personal ambition, the so-called fire in the belly, necessary to question and overturn conventional wisdom but the honesty and integrity to respect truth and change one's own view when warranted.
At the research organization level, informed contrariness requires a similar balancing of extremes. On the one hand, the research organization must encourage new and contrarian ideas even if these ideas are contrary to the organization's own beliefs, and it must protect the quirky and eccentric researchers from whom such ideas often emerge. On the other hand, the research organization must encourage criticism of those ideas to weed out ideas that truly make no sense, or at least no sense to pursue at that moment. Especially when one is being contrary, one needs to be informed, and being informed requires benefiting from others' knowledge and critiques.
At the researcher level, informed contrariness requires balancing temperamental extremes: the predisposition to 'think different' yet to rigorously test that 'different thinking'; a passion for the unknown yet respect for the known; comfort with the necessary risk and uncertainty but discomfort with unnecessary risk and uncertainty; and obsession with and curiosity for what one doesn't know and a healthy respect for what one does (or should) know; the self-confidence to trust one's own views yet the self-criticalness also to distrust one's own views; and the personal ambition, the so-called fire in the belly, necessary to question and overturn conventional wisdom but the honesty and integrity to respect truth and change one's own view when warranted.
At the research organization level, informed contrariness requires a similar balancing of extremes. On the one hand, the research organization must encourage new and contrarian ideas even if these ideas are contrary to the organization's own beliefs, and it must protect the quirky and eccentric researchers from whom such ideas often emerge. On the other hand, the research organization must encourage criticism of those ideas to weed out ideas that truly make no sense, or at least no sense to pursue at that moment. Especially when one is being contrary, one needs to be informed, and being informed requires benefiting from others' knowledge and critiques.
August 6, 2024
The ideas in this book can be good, but the writing style is very poor and unenjoyable. It was written like a very dry research paper. If a reader is not tremendously interested in the topic, how to finish this book?
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews