Good Ideas Come From Here

When I read Steven Johnson's Where Good Ideas Come From: The Natural History of Innovation a few months ago, it occurred to me that the book could serve as a framework for design of an academic library's research commons. Or perhaps, to fully explore Johnson's ideas, I should call it a "research reef." For anyone thinking about fostering innovation, I highly recommend the book.

I've just finished re-reading the book, this time taking notes and thinking specifically about how it might be used for planning library spaces. Johnson's main point is that environments matter to the development of new ideas. The coral reef, the city, and the World Wide Web all stand as exemplars of environments where innovation thrives. In a nutshell, innovation typically involves a new combination, pieced together from the "adjacent possible" (existing pieces). Ideas frequently emerge over time, held as "slow hunches" until the other pieces fall into place. Networks are needed to bring people/ideas together, and a "liquid" state allows for a randomness in the collisions between ideas. Serendipity brings possibly beneficial solutions together, sometimes helping a person see that what has seemed like error is in fact the answer to a completely different question. "Exaptation," a term from evolutionary biology, describes the borrowing of a trait intended for one purpose for a completely different use. Johnson gives the example of Gutenberg's adaptation of the screw press from the wine industry for his printing press. These kinds of exaptations are more likely in "a world where a diverse mix of distinct professions and passions overlap" (p. 162). A platform for innovation is typically built as a stack of ideas or technologies, with openness a trait which generally fosters more creativity.

"Research commons" is a rather amorphous phrase, and describes an intention more than a particular type of space and/or set of services. It is a needed reaction to a decade of focus on undergraduate learning spaces and noble attempts to create one-stop triage for basic undergraduate needs, all embodied in the "information commons" movement. The new nomenclature points to a desire to embed our work deeper into the process, to get beyond the role of dispensary of information, and into a role as partners in the research process.

As the research commons movement matures, a leading conceptual framework is the "research lifecycle." This is a useful, structural approach to designing services (including space as a service). It provides a checklist of possible service options, facilitates identification of complimentary (or competing) programs on campus and potential partners, and highlights gaps in the support network for faculty members, graduate students, and undergraduate researchers. A recent, thoroughly researched report from the Ohio State University Libraries takes this approach, referring to the model as a "services focus" approach, as compared to an "innovative space" model or a "research lab" profile. The OSU report points to a particularly well-done "Research Lifecycle" graphic from the University of Central Florida Libraries. The UCF graphic clearly illustrates, at an institutional level, the services currently available, services not yet offered, and the links between these services. Again, I really like this way of thinking through support for research.

I do have two concerns about relying solely on this model. First, it puts a lot of focus on a traditional research process. Even though there are new elements, such as data management, this model doesn't directly address alternative forms of scholarship, or the types of support which might be needed, such as video production, digital humanities expertise, GIS services, makerspaces, etc. My second concern is that this model is too utilitarian to sell. The model likely makes sense to a provost or head of research. And if these leaders have the pockets to fully fund the project, maybe this is enough. If, however, a library needs donor or legislator support to make the research commons a reality, this model will likely fall short. It is practical, but lacks a theoretical, and more to the point, an inspirational angle.

This is where I see Johnson's book helping us make the case. I think we need to talk about the research library as a suite of spaces, services, and programs which serves as a platform for innovation. The RC should bring together a diverse mix of expertise, a variety of perspectives, to create the "weak ties" (Granovetter, 1973) that help ideas spread and recombine in a network. The RC should be a space that serves as an incubator for new networks. The RC should be a combination of spaces which is the right mix to find the "liquid" state between the inert solid (librarians hidden away behind office walls) and the chaos of a gas (welding torches and drills next door to the special collections reading room, perhaps?). The RC should be an interdisciplinary coral reef, a city of academic subcultures, an ever widening web of connections. The RC should foster the "gradual but relentless probing of the adjacent possible, each new innovation opening up new paths to explore" (Johnson, p. 33). The RC should be "a  world where a diverse mix of distinct professions and passions overlap...where exaptations thrive" (p. 162).

If we revisit the structural research lifecycle model in light of Johnson's text, what jumps out at me is how the lifecycle privileges the status quo. It assumes the library plays a servant role, injecting support into an existing and rather static academic dialog. The focus is on the researcher(s), not on the conversation; on saving the time of the researcher (yes, a fundamental library value), but failing to assert a library role facilitating new conversations between new partners. This is the opportunity of the research commons -- creating spaces, services, and programs that draw in expertise from many fields, and create the collisions of ideas that, on occasion, shift paradigms and create something entirely new.


Works cited:

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. The American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.

Johnson, S. (2010). Where good ideas come from: The natural history of innovation. New York: Riverhead Books.

Research Commons Task Force. (2013). Research Commons Task Force Findings and Recommendations. Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University Libraries. Retrieved from http://go.osu.edu/ResearchCommonsReport

University of Central Florida Libraries Research Lifecycle Committee. (2012). The research lifecycle at UCF. University of Central Florida Libraries. Retrieved from http://library.ucf.edu/ScholarlyCommunication/ResearchLifecycleUCF.php