Research Frontiers and Border-Crossings: Methodology and the Knowledge Industry

  • Patrick BrownleeEmail author
  • Jude Irwin
Part of the Methodos Series book series (METH, volume 9)


This chapter closes this volume by contextualising the preceding conversations about methodological choice and epistemology within the constraints and pres-sures researchers face as knowledge workers rather than as scholars. These con-straints can and do affect methodological choice and therefore methodological provenance and evolution. The chapter borrows the metaphor of the ‘knowledge frontier’ to both locate researchers in social work and education at a crossroads between servicing stakeholders and the academy, and to present the research exer-cise as an eternal frontier. To illustrate, a case study is presented inviting the reader to consider the social scientific approaches available, under what circum-stances one approach might be brought to bear over another, and the range of in-formation or data that might be collected and for whom, questioning the relation-ship between social complexity as a contemporary phenomenological condition for social science research, knowledge production and transdisciplinarity.


Young People Social Complexity Tradable Commodity Productivity Commission Resident Participation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bauman, Z. (1999). In search of politics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Toward a new modernity. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Beck, U. & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002). Individualization: Institutionalized individualism and its social and political consequences. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Burton-Jones, A. (1999). Knowledge capitalism: Business, work and learning in the new economy. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  5. Castells, I. M. (2000). The rise of the network society, the information age: Economy, society and culture Vol. I (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA; Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  6. Connell, R. (2009). Southern theory: The global dynamics of knowledge in social science. Sydney, NSW: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  7. Cope, B. & Kalantzis, M. (1997). Productive diversity – Work and management in diverse communities and global markets. Sydney, NSW: Pluto.Google Scholar
  8. Drahos, P. & Braithwaite, J. (2002). Information feudalism: Who owns the knowledge economy? London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  9. ERC (2010). European Research Council, President’s Statement. Retrieved June 11, 2010, from
  10. Etzkowitz, H. & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and ‘Mode 2’ to a triple helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29, 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  12. Franklin, S. (2007). Visions of frontier knowledge: An interview with Helga Nowotny. Biosocieties, 2, 375–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Giddens, A. (1992) The Transformation of intimacy: Sexuality, love and eroticism in modern societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. .Google Scholar
  14. Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. London: SageGoogle Scholar
  15. Giroux, H. (2005). The terror of neoliberalism: Authoritarianism and the eclipse of democracy. Boulder, CO: Paradigm.Google Scholar
  16. Haigh, G. (2006). The nelson touch – research funding: The new censorship. The Monthly, May, (12).Google Scholar
  17. Hannerz, U. (1992). Cultural complexity: Studies in the social organization of meaning. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Luhmann, N. (1995). Social systems. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Marginson, S. (1997). Markets in education, St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  22. Marginson, S. (2008). Academic creativity under new public management: Foundations for an investigation. Educational Theory, 58(3), 269–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Markauskaite, L., Freebody, P., & Irwin, J. (2010). Bridging and blending disciplines of inquiry: Doing science and changing practice and policy. In Markauskaite, L., Freebody, P., & Irwin, J. (Eds.), Methodological choice and design: Scholarship, policy and practice in social and educational research. New York, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Moed, H. F. (2008). UK research assessment exercises: Informed judgments on research quality or quantity? Scientometrics, 74(1), 153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nelson, R. R. (1993). National innovation systems: A comparative analysis. New York: OUP.Google Scholar
  26. Nowotny, H. (2003). Dilemma of expertise: Democratising expertise and socially robust knowledge. Science and Public Policy, 30(3) 151–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nowotny, H. (2005). The increase of complexity and its reduction: Emergent interfaces between the natural sciences, humanities and social sciences. Theory, Culture, Society, 22(5) 15–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nowotny, H. (2007). How many policy rooms are there: Evidence-based and other kinds of science policies. Science, Technology and Human Values, 32, 479–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nowotny, H. (2008). Insatiable curiosity: Innovation in a fragile future. (M. Cohen, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  30. Nowotny, H., Scott P, & Gibbons, M. (2001). Re- thinking science. Knowledge and the public in an age of uncertainty, Cambridge: Polity PressGoogle Scholar
  31. OECD. (1996). The knowledge based economy. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  32. Productivity Commission (2007). Public support for science and innovation. Canberra, ACT: Australian Government.Google Scholar
  33. Sawyer, R. K. (Ed.), (2006). The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Slaughter, S. & Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy: Markets, state and higher education. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Smith, M. J. (2003). Producing and consuming knowledge, working paper, Open University, UK. Retrieved June 4, 2010, from
  36. Smith, M. J. (Ed.). (2005). Scientific Knowledge as a Social Product. Philosophy and Methodology of the Social Sciences, 3. London, UK: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  37. University of Western Australia (UWA) v Gray (No 20) (2008). Federal Court of Australia 49.Google Scholar
  38. Urry, J. (2003). Global complexity. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  39. Urry, J. (2005). The complexities of the global. Theory, Culture & Society, 22(5) 235–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Valimaa, J. & Hoffman, D. (2008). Knowledge society discourse and higher education. Higher Education, 56, 265–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Weiler, H. N. (2009). Whose knowledge matters? Development and the politics of knowledge. In T. Hanf, H. N. Weiler, & H. Dickow (Eds.), Entwicklung als Beruf: Festschrift für Peter Molt (Development as a Profession: Festschrift for Peter Molt) Baden-Baden: Nomos Englishn version Retrieved June 4, 2010, from˜weiler/Texts09/Weiler_Molt_09.pdf
  42. Weiss, C. (1979). The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review, 39, 426–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Education and Social WorkThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations