The Rise of the Academic 'Studies' and the Futility of Silos**

Acton Institute for Policy Research and Innovation

The increasing prevalence of academic fields like "innovation studies" and "management studies" signals a critical shift in how we produce knowledge. This nomenclature highlights the growing futility of protecting rigid disciplinary silos. Unlike traditional disciplines, which are organised around specific theories or methods, these "studies" fields are organised around complex phenomena or real-world problems.

They function as vital intellectual "trading zones," a concept from Peter Galison, allowing specialists from diverse backgrounds to collaborate. This approach institutionalises the "scholarship of integration" and "application" that Ernest Boyer championed in "Scholarship Reconsidered."

This trend has significant implications. It suggests that both universities and public policy bodies must abandon their own siloed structures and incentives. To tackle systemic challenges and remain relevant, they must embrace integrated, problem-focused approaches.

---

Have you ever noticed the specific language we use to describe new fields of academic inquiry? We speak increasingly of 'innovation studies', 'management studies', 'information studies', 'urban studies', or ‘regional studies'. In an earlier era, there was a field known as ‘social studies’. This linguistic pattern is a revealing signal about the changing nature of knowledge and the practical limitations of our traditional university structures.

The very existence of these fields tells us that the most pressing issues of our time do not respect the neat, centuries-old boundaries of legacy disciplines. This trend is not an attack on the disciplines themselves. It is, however, a clear admission of their insufficiency. It highlights the growing futility of maintaining, or even protecting, rigid disciplinary silos in a world defined by complex, interconnected challenges.

The Power and Price of Traditional Disciplines

To understand why, we must first appreciate the traditional discipline. Fields like physics, economics, history, or philosophy are organised around a core set of theories, a distinct history of ideas, and a specific suite of approved methods. They are intellectual communities built on a shared understanding of what constitutes a 'good' question and a 'valid' answer.

The primary function of these disciplines is to provide depth. They are designed to drill down, to achieve high levels of precision, and to advance a specific frontier of knowledge. This model has been extraordinarily successful. It is the engine that powered the scientific revolution and built the deep foundations of specialist expertise that our modern society relies upon.

This specialisation comes at a cost. Disciplines, by their very nature, must erect boundaries. In doing so, they excel at peripheral vision. They define what is 'inside' their domain and, just as importantly, what is 'outside'. Problems that fall in the white space between disciplines are often ignored, dismissed as someone else's concern, or awkwardly forced into a pre-existing theoretical box.

When Problems Overrun the Boundaries

This is where the model begins to show its strain. The greatest challenges in public policy, management, and technology are not disciplinary. They are systemic. Issues like climate change, digital transformation, public health responses, and economic innovation are inherently messy. They are 'wicked problems' that sprawl across social, technical, economic, and political domains.

Take the example of innovation. An economist might analyse innovation through the lens of market incentives and growth models. A sociologist could examine it as a process of social diffusion and network theory. An engineer will see it as a technical problem of design and material science. A public administration scholar might view it through policy levers and institutional design.

Each perspective is valid. Each is also incomplete. No single discipline can claim to 'own' the phenomenon of innovation. An answer that relies only on economic incentives will fail if it ignores the social networks through which new ideas spread. A purely technical solution will fail if it is not economically viable or institutionally supported.

A Pragmatic Response: Organising Around Problems

The "studies" fields emerged from this exact frustration. They are a pragmatic response to the inadequacy of the silos. Their defining characteristic is that they are organised around a phenomenon or a problem, not a specific theory or method. 'Innovation studies' does not ask "what can economics tell us about innovation?". Instead, it asks, "what is innovation, and what tools do we need to understand it?".

This reorients the academic enterprise. These fields are inherently integrative. They are methodologically eclectic, borrowing tools from any discipline that can offer traction on the problem. An innovation studies scholar might simultaneously use economic modelling, sociological case studies, historical analysis, and engineering roadmaps. The phenomenon itself, not a disciplinary tradition, dictates the approach.

This is why these fields are so critical for professional practice in public policy and management. A policy-maker trying to build a robust innovation ecosystem cannot afford to see the world through a single disciplinary lens. They must, by necessity, think like an "innovation studies" scholar, blending insights from multiple domains to create a coherent strategy.

The 'Trading Zone' Concept

A useful way to conceptualise these fields is as intellectual "trading zones". This concept, first articulated by the historian of science Peter Galison, a prominent historian of science at Harvard University, to describe how individuals from different specialisations can collaborate. He studied high-energy physics labs, where experimentalists and theorists, who spoke different mathematical and conceptual languages, had to find a way to work together.

They did so by creating a shared, practical language—a 'pidgin' or 'creole'—that was just robust enough to allow them to coordinate their work on a shared object, like a particle detector. They did not need to agree on deep first principles. They needed to build something that worked.

This is precisely the function of 'management studies' or 'innovation studies'. They are the trading zones of the modern university. They create the necessary space, and the common language, for economists, engineers, political scientists, and sociologists to bring their distinct tools to bear on a shared problem, like "how to scale a new venture" or "how to commercialise public research".

Boyer's Critique of a Narrowing Academy

This perspective aligns powerfully with the work of Ernest Boyer. To appreciate his contribution, we must understand the context in which he was writing. By 1990, the post-war expansion of higher education had firmly entrenched a specific, narrow view of academic excellence. The "research university" model, focused on basic research and disciplinary specialisation, had become the gold standard for all institutions.

This created a powerful incentive structure, often called "publish or perish". Academic prestige, promotion, and funding became almost exclusively tied to one activity: the "scholarship of discovery". This meant publishing original, peer-reviewed research in highly specialised, siloed journals. This model prized deep, narrow expertise above all else.

Boyer, then president of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, saw this as a major problem. He argued this single-minded focus was failing to serve the diverse missions of universities. In his seminal report "Scholarship Reconsidered", he delivered a direct critique of this imbalance, arguing that other vital forms of academic work had been dangerously devalued.

He proposed three other forms of scholarship that deserved equal recognition alongside the "scholarship of discovery." These were the "scholarship of integration," the "scholarship of application," and the "scholarship of teaching."

The 'Studies' Fields as Boyer's Vision

The "studies" fields are the institutional manifestation of Boyer's plea. They are the natural home for the scholarship of integration. This form of scholarship involves synthesising insights from disparate fields, making connections, and drawing out the larger patterns that no single discipline can see. This is the very definition of 'innovation studies'. It is an intellectual pursuit that is about integration.

These fields are also the home of the scholarship of application. Boyer described this as the way "new intellectual understandings can arise out of the very act of application". The "studies" fields break down the artificial wall between 'pure' and 'applied' research. They recognise that deep insight comes from the act of applying a theory to a messy real-world problem and seeing where it fails.

Boyer’s framework gives us a language to legitimise this work. It helps us see that an academic who synthesises economic and sociological models to explain a policy failure is engaging in rigorous scholarship. They are not merely "popularising" or "translating" the work of "real" researchers. They are creating new, integrated knowledge.

Implications for Universities and Government

What, then, does this mean for our universities and our policy institutions? It means we must actively resist the "futility of protecting the silos". This is not a call to abolish the disciplines. Depth and rigour remain essential. We still need world-class economists, physicists, and historians.

However, it is a call to change our institutional structures, incentives, and funding models. We must stop penalising academics who work in the 'white space' between fields. Promotion and tenure criteria, which often rely on publishing in narrow, discipline-specific journals, can actively punish integrative and problem-focused work. They implicitly value the scholarship of discovery above all else.

Research funding bodies, particularly in the Australian context, must also adapt. Funding calls that are neatly divided along traditional disciplinary lines will fail to address the nation's most significant innovation challenges. We need models that explicitly support cross-disciplinary teams, value integrative outputs, and measure impact based on real-world problem-solving.

This logic of integration has significant implications for the machinery of government. Public policy for innovation is almost always fragmented across multiple departments. We have had one department managing science and research, another managing industry and economics, and a third managing education and skills. Often, these bodies operate in their own silos. Quite regularly departments are “shuffled” in a benign of getting “the right” structure.

This structure replicates the problem the university "studies" fields are trying to solve. The result is a fragmented, and often contradictory, approach to innovation. We might have a research council funding basic science with limited connection to the national priorities being funded by an industry-facing body like the National Reconstruction Fund.

An effective innovation policy requires an 'innovation studies' mindset within government. It demands the "trading zone" where public servants from science, industry, and education can create a shared language and a coherent, integrated strategy. It requires policy levers designed to connect, not just to deliver a narrow, departmental outcome.

Embracing a More Complex Reality

The reality is that the problems have already moved on. The "studies" nomenclature is simply a lagging indicator of a shift that has already occurred in the real world. These new fields are not a passing academic fashion. They are a necessary, pragmatic response. The world's most difficult challenges, from building innovation ecosystems to managing public health, are already integrated. Our intellectual structures are merely trying to catch up.

This tells us the most valuable work is no longer at the centre of the old disciplines. It is happening at their chaotic, collaborative, and highly productive edges. This shift redefines what we value as expertise. It places a new premium on the skills of synthesis and integration, not on narrow analytical depth. We need people who can build the bridges, not just those who dig deep in one place.

The rise of the "studies" fields should therefore be seen as an opportunity, not a threat to the old order. It signals a maturation of academic and professional inquiry. It is a confident admission that the world is more complex than our inherited categories. Trying to force messy, systemic problems into neat disciplinary boxes is an exercise in futility. It is a defensive posture that guarantees irrelevance.

To create effective public policy, we must embrace this complexity. The challenge for government and universities is to build our own "trading zones" and actively design the spaces where specialists can meet to forge a common language and integrated solutions. The goal is to move beyond our traditional, isolated comfort zones and privilege integration.

** This Insight is only available to Members or Subscribers to the Acton Institute for Policy Research and Innovation. It will not be posted in a general mail out or on LinkedIn or X. This is intended to promote informed discussion and debate on complex science research and innovation issues. A Members’ chat room will be opened soon. Other “news” type Insights will continue to be published.