Emergent scholarship principles

Emergent scholarship represents a reimagining of scholarly practice for our interconnected world. It recognises that knowledge creation is not bound by institutional walls or disciplinary boundaries. Instead, it arises from the dynamic interplay between diverse participants, technologies, and ideas. This approach doesn’t aim to abolish traditional academic practices, but rather to evolve them – keeping what works while embracing new possibilities.

The principles that follow aim to guide this evolution, providing a framework for scholars who want to maintain intellectual rigour while exploring more open, dynamic, and inclusive ways of creating and sharing knowledge. They are intentionally high-level, allowing for flexible interpretation and application across different contexts and disciplines.

Knowledge through connection

Knowledge is socially constructed through interaction and exchange
Valuable insights emerge at the intersection of different perspectives and disciplines
Understanding develops through both formal and informal exchanges across networks
Collective intelligence surpasses individual efforts in creating robust knowledge

Theoretical foundation: Social constructivism (Vygotsky, Berger & Luckmann) and connectivism (Siemens & Downes)

Information flow through networks

Creating connections that span institutional and disciplinary boundaries
Facilitating the movement of information across diverse contexts and communities
Using scholarly networks to amplify and disseminate important messages
Recognising that good ideas can emerge from anywhere and anyone in the network
Leveraging technology to enhance human cognitive capacities within scholarly networks

Theoretical foundation: Network theory (Barabási, Castells) and diffusion of innovations theory (Rogers)

Identity through community

Building supportive environments that foster collective meaning-making
Creating spaces where scholars develop and transform their professional identities
Developing trusted relationships that enable risk-taking and innovation
Cultivating environments where evaluation becomes developmental rather than judgemental
Valuing collaborative achievements alongside individual contributions

Theoretical foundation: Communities of practice (Wenger) and situated learning theory

Innovation through openness

Making knowledge as open and accessible as possible, respecting ethical considerations
Benefiting from early sharing and continuous feedback on scholarly work
Creating conditions for unexpected connections and emergent insights
Enhancing scholarly integrity through transparency in methods and data
Public engagement enriches scholarly work

Theoretical foundation: Open innovation (Chesbrough), commons-based peer production (Benkler), and knowledge commons theory (Hess & Ostrom)

Meaning through medium

Choosing forms of expression that best serve the knowledge being shared
Recognising that the medium shapes the message and influences how it’s received
Employing diverse formats to enhance understanding and engagement
Methods and outputs can evolve as new possibilities emerge
Technology enables scholarly expression

Theoretical foundation: Media ecology (McLuhan, Postman) and multimodal communication theory

Value through engagement

Developing multiple approaches to evaluating scholarly contributions
Moving beyond citation metrics to more holistic assessments of value
Viewing impact as an ongoing dialogue rather than a terminal outcome
Incorporating diverse stakeholder perspectives in determining significance

Theoretical foundation: Participatory evaluation (Cousins & Whitmore) and values-engaged assessment (Greene)

Resilience through mastery

Developing deep knowledge and skills that enable adaptation to changing contexts
Using disciplinary foundations as launch points for transdisciplinary exploration
Viewing uncertainty as possibility when equipped with robust capabilities
Finding stability in expertise while remaining open to new directions

Theoretical foundation: Adaptive expertise (Hatano & Inagaki) and psychological resilience theory

Sustainability through ecology

Situating scholarship within broader social and environmental ecosystems
Designing practices that contribute to both academic and planetary well-being
Embracing scholarship that remains relevant beyond academic boundaries
Creating knowledge that respects natural limits and regenerative cycles
Systems and processes should promote long-term thinking
Scholarship should enhance rather than deplete human and environmental resources

Theoretical foundation: Social-ecological systems theory (Ostrom, Holling) and regenerative sustainability

These principles aim to guide rather than prescribe. They offer a framework for reimagining scholarship while maintaining its essential purpose: the creation and sharing of knowledge that benefits society.

How is this different to traditional scholarship?

Integration of systems: While individual elements (open access, public engagement, etc.) exist in current scholarship, emergent scholarship uniquely integrates them into a coherent system that acknowledges and works with complexity rather than trying to reduce it.
Shift in primary focus: Traditional scholarship treats things like public engagement and interdisciplinary work as “add-ons” to the “real work” of peer-reviewed publication. These principles fundamentally invert that hierarchy, making engagement and connection primary rather than secondary.
Power dynamics: These principles actively challenge the traditional power structures in academia. While others have criticised these structures, emergent scholarship provides a practical framework for operating differently within (and eventually transforming) them.

Practical differences in outcomes

A scholar following these principles could work differently in several concrete ways:

They might start sharing their thinking publicly through various media while research is in progress, rather than waiting for formal publication
Their research questions might emerge through public engagement rather than solely from the academic literature
They could validate their work through diverse forms of peer review and community feedback, not just traditional peer review
Their outputs might include multiple formats (digital artifacts, community resources, etc.) alongside traditional papers

Head Space