(no title)
SanchoPanda | 2 years ago
The methodology is cool, the scale of the experiment is very cool (16k meetings), the conclusion is kinda workmanlike - as if the question was specifically 'is shared knowledge necessary to generate new ideas'.
"Overall, this study takes a critical step towards identifying the processes that explain when serendipitous encounters shape knowledge production outcomes among innovating individuals.
We show that brief, information-rich interactions between people with some overlapping knowledge interests can have a productive effect on knowledge transfer, creation and diffusion."
"Third, we make methodological contributions by highlighting the benefits of long-term studies that amalgamate multiple forms and uses of data. Prospective experiments can support multiple lines of investigation involving both near-term and long-term outcomes that may not be possible in retrospective, archival studies and suggests the use of multiple sources of data for unpacking the dynamics of knowledge production."
gregw2|2 years ago
I thought it was actually pretty interesting.
The take away I got was that people whose fields are too similar don’t knowledge share and generate good knowledge creation nearly as well as situations where the knowledge transfer is with someone with only “some” overlapping interests.
Ie there is a Goldilocks zone for knowledge creation that involves some, but not too many, overlapping interests between collaborators.
It kinda makes sense once you think about it, but was nice to see the sophistication they took to show it experimentally. (But I’m not an expert, this isn’t my field and I only spent 5 minutes skimming the first portions of it.)
Considering that yesterday in a meeting I was casually arguing for peer groups within an scattered enterprise, perhaps time would be better spent with something less rivalrous like semi-peer groups? Too much of a shared interest is actually a bad thing? Worth thinking about.
riwsky|2 years ago