Principles and Methods That Facilitate Convergence

  • Mihail C. RocoEmail author
Living reference work entry


The main benefits of science and technology convergence are increasing creativity, innovation, and productivity. Various methods to improve and expedite convergence aim at adding value in the convergence process and enabling people to more readily use new convergence-enabled competencies. These methods are based on applying five general principles of convergence:
  1. 1.

    Exploiting interdependence among domains: Convergence methods associated with this principle include integrating originally distinct domains and databases of science and technology; forming efficient science and production networks and ecosystems; changing local interactions and guided self-organization in systems to encourage, enable, and reward desired outcomes and governance improvements; supporting system science and team science; and advancing S&T dedicated social networking, holistic management, and interpersonal and intrapersonal education.

  2. 2.

    Improving the convergencedivergence evolutionary cycle: Convergence methods associated with this principle include balancing support for the creative, integration, innovation, and spin-off phases of the process; supporting the cross-domain spiral of innovation; facilitating open collaboration and innovation; combining knowledge and technology pushes from the convergence stage with societal pulls from the divergence stage; and scaling up knowledge and technology diffusion in the divergence stage.

  3. 3.

    System-logic deductive decision making and problem solving: Convergence methods associated with this principle include a holistic approach to problem solving in complex systems; combining deduction with induction, lateral, and time evolution approaches in decision making; balancing bottom-up research with top-down vision; and using knowledge mapping, network visualization, and fractal analysis to identify the relevant cause-and-effect system patterns.

  4. 4.

    Creating and applying high-level cross-domain languages to facilitate transfer of knowledge and new solutions: Convergence methods associated with this principle include using universal languages such as mathematical abstractization, music, and general system architectures and focusing on essential aspects through “simplicity”; promoting technology integrators and benchmarking to facilitate introduction of emerging technologies in multiple areas; and creating and sharing large multidomain databases and trading zones between areas of research and education in distinct areas.

  5. 5.

    Usingvision-inspiredbasic research to address long-term challenges: Convergence methods associated with this principle include forecasting and scenario development; promoting a culture of convergence based on common goals; anticipatory measures for preparing people, tools, organizations, and infrastructure; and reverse mapping and planning.


S&T convergence has the potential to transform the education, research, and production ecosystems. A challenge in proactively guiding the convergence process is to deliberately encourage public and private efforts that currently contribute to the unguided convergence of knowledge and technology to use a systematic approach to convergence that may amplify the most beneficial endeavors in the knowledge society. Illustrations of applying the methods for convergence to research, development, and education governance are discussed.


Methods Multidisciplinarity Science and technology Interdependence Convergence Divergence Science and technology Knowledge diffusion Open innovation Networking Ecosystem Vision-inspired research Higher-level language System logic Decision making Problem solving Creativity Innovation Entrepreneurship Spin-off outcomes 



This manuscript was written in conjunction with the NSF/World Technology Evaluation Center (WTEC) 2013 international study on Convergence of Knowledge, Technology, and Society. The content of this chapter does not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation (NSF) or the US National Science and Technology Council’s Subcommittee on Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology (NSET), which is the principal organizing body for the National Nanotechnology Initiative.


  1. Berman H (2012) The Protein Data Bank. In: Bainbridge WS (ed) Leadership in science and technology. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 661–667Google Scholar
  2. Boardman C, Ponomariov B (2014) Management knowledge and the organization of team science in university research centers. J Technol Trans 39(1):75–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carroll SP, Jørgensen PS, Kinnison MT, Bergstrom CT, Denison RF, Gluckman P, Smith TB, Strauss SY, Tabashnik BE (2014) Applying evolutionary biology to address global challenges. Science Express 346(6207):1245993. doi:10.1126/science.1245993Google Scholar
  4. Chesbrough HW (2003) Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business School Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  5. Djorgovski SG (2012) Data-intensive astronomy. In: Bainbridge WS (ed) Leadership in science and technology. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 611–618Google Scholar
  6. Doyle JC, Csete MC (2011) Architecture, constraints, and behavior. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108(Sup 3):15624–15630. doi:10.1073/pnas.1103557108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gastil J, Knobloch K (2010) Evaluation report to the Oregon State Legislature on the 2010 Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review. Available:
  8. Goodman E (2014) Evolutionary computational research design. Available: /ECResearch.html (last accessed July 3, 2014)
  9. Gorman ME (2003) Expanding the trading zones for converging technologies. In: Roco MC, Bainbridge WS (eds) Converging technologies for improving human performance. Kluwer (now Springer), Dordrecht, pp 424–428Google Scholar
  10. iCorps, NSF Innovation Corps (2014) NSF program announcement,
  11. Kalutkiewicz MJ, Ehman RL (2014) Patents as proxies: NIH hubs of innovation. Nat Biotechnol 32(6):536–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Khatib F, Cooper S, Tyka MD, Xu K, Makedon I, Popović Z, Baker D, Foldit players (2011) Algorithm discovery by protein folding game players. PNAS 108(47):18949–18953. doi:10.1073/pnas.1115898108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Klein JT (2010) Creating interdisciplinary campus cultures: a model for strength and sustainability. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CAGoogle Scholar
  14. Kurzweil R (1999) The age of spiritual machines: when computers exceed human intelligence. Viking, Penguin Group, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Lehrer J (2012) Imagine: how creativity works. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Lester D (2013) Measuring Maslow's hierarchy of needs. Psych Reports 113(1):15–17. doi:10.2466/02.20.PR0.113x16z1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Meadows DH (2008) Thinking in systems. Chelsea Green Publishing, White River JctGoogle Scholar
  18. Nikonov DE, Young IA (2013) Uniform methodology for benchmarking beyond-CMOS logic devices. Overview of beyond-CMOS devices and a uniform methodology for their benchmarking. Proc IEDM 101(12), 2013. Doi: 10.1109/JPROC.2013.2252317Google Scholar
  19. NRC (National Research Council of the National Academies) (2013) Convergence: facilitating transdisciplinary integration of life sciences, physical sciences, engineering, and beyond. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. (Also see NAS websites of the Workshop on Key Challenges in the Implementation of Convergence,, and the National Academies’ Keck Futures Initiative,
  20. NRC (National Research Council of the National Academies) (2014a) Complex operational decision making in networked systems of humans and machines: a multidisciplinary approach. The National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  21. NRC (National Research Council of the National Academies) (2014b) Culture matters: international research collaboration in a changing world. The National Academies Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  22. NRC (National Research Council of the National Academies) (2014c) In: Pellegrino JW, Wilson MR, Koenig JA, Beatty AS (eds) Developing assessments for the next generation science standards. The National Academies Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  23. OECD (2014) Working party on biotechnology, nanotechnology and converging technologies (BNCT). Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry, Paris, France, Available:
  24. Robinson G, Dankowicz H, Whitney T (2014) Beehive study highlights how leaderless complex systems manage to get things done. Video by PBS and NSF,
  25. Roco MC (2002) Coherence and divergence of megatrends in science and engineering. J Nanopart Res 4:9–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Roco MC (2008) Possibilities for global governance of converging technologies. J Nanopart Res 10:11–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Roco MC, Bainbridge WS (eds) (2003) Converging technologies for improving human performance: nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology, and cognitive science. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers (now Springer), DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  28. Roco MC, Bainbridge WS (2013) The new world of discovery, invention, and innovation: convergence of knowledge, technology, and society. J Nanopart Res 15:1946CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Roco MC, Mirkin CA, Hersam MC (2011) Nanotechnology research directions for societal needs in 2020: retrospective and outlook. Available: . Also, Dordrecht and New York: Springer.
  30. Roco MC, Williams RS, Alivisatos P (eds) (2000) Nanotechnology research directions: vision for the next decade. National Science and Technology Council, Washington, DC, (Available: Publ. Springer, Dordrecht
  31. Roco MC, Bainbridge WS, Tonn B, Whitesides G (eds) (2013) Convergence of knowledge, technology, and society: beyond convergence of nano-bio-info-cognitive technologies. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Seelig T (2012) inGenius: a crash course on creativity. Harper Collins, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Sharp PA, Cooney CL, Kastner MA, Lees J, Sasisekharan R, Yaffe MB, Bhatia SN, Jacks TE, Lauffenburger DA, Langer R, Hammond PT, Sur M (2011) The third revolution: the convergence of the life sciences, physical sciences, and engineering. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Washington, DC, [online]. Available:
  34. Sharp PA, Langer R (2011) Promoting convergence in biomedical science. Science 333(6042):527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stokes DE (1997) Pasteur’s quadrant: basic science and technological innovation. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  36. Stokols D, Hall KL, Taylor BK, Moser RP (2008) The science of team science: overview of the field and introduction to the supplement. Am J Prev Med 35(2 Suppl):S77–S89. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2008.05.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tapia A, Ocker R, Rosson M, Blodgett B, Ryan T (2012) The computer tomography virtual organization. In: Bainbridge WS (ed) Leadership in science and technology. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 602–610Google Scholar
  38. Vogel AL, Hall KL, Fiore SM et al (2013) The team science toolkit: enhancing research collaboration through online knowledge sharing. Am J Prevent Med 45(6):787–789, DecCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wildman JL, Bedwell WL (2013) Practicing what we preach: teaching teams using validated team science. Small Group Res 44(4):381–394. doi:10.1177/1046496413486938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Wilson EO (1999) Consilience: the unity of knowledge. Random House, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Woelfle M, Olliaro P, Todd MH (2011) Open science is a research accelerator. Nat Chem 3:745–748. doi:10.1038/nchem.1149CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland (outside the USA) 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Science Foundation and National Nanotechnology InitiativeArlingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations