Well, no. But I for my part am curious about your reasons and would love to hear your opinion.

Couldn’t have said better. I sure see a need for this space.

Well put, Stuart.

Are we supposed to justify our votes?

Right now, we are structured within a set of linear pathways and our incentives are tied to deliver according to pre set goals. This is a recipe for performance within a compliant and controlled space. This is fine for a shoe factory, but not for a scientific institute where innovation is sought.

We need to think outside of the realms of task control, to enter the space where conversation between disciplines begins to shape new possibilities which we then act on. The very nature of conversation becomes important. I would propose that there be an experiment that covers a few things

1) Identify a collaboration space. I would propose to ask a meta research question that begs an answer!
2) Appoint a leader to hold and manage the space wherein researchers and development actors can come together
3) Establish a series of research strands (some classical, some action research) to inquire around specific research questions within the meta research question. These should be relatively short in time duration.
4) Convene dialogic space where research findings are formally shared and tested for resonance across strands; and from this, define new ones. (This is where the coffee comes in)
5) Evaluate this process according to the extent to which it fosters change in livestock holder well being.

This will require a new working space and type, and has the potential to change the way in which we do science if it is shown to be effective. It is more than cinnamon buns and strong coffee. It is an approach that is the essence of collaborative research and action.

Would you just rather keep it a library?

Er… no 🙂

Like 😉