Hello Mr Musgarve,

Innovation and diversity are  catchy phrases bandied – I am cynical, I hasten to add-- about by management short on ideas on how to genuinely  introduce new products and/or service that  benefit  recipients or customers ; diversity is term used to give everyone in a “cosmopolitan or multi-cultural” population or environment the chance of being considered for jobs and actually offered jobs. I would say that if the percentage of  people who do not belong to  the host population is less than  5% [ arbitrary number or better still, in proportion to their (minorities)] in a work environment, I would opine that diversity is nothing more than a gimmick. There are myriad of factors that prevent  diversity at the level one would hope for, and that means diversity as a concept is not working. Let us be honest here.

Innovation must show novelty – it can be internally generated, or borrowed from elsewhere. Users of the so-called innovation must be able to explain why and how  the “innovation” is truly innovative; let’s not forget we have incremental innovation, radical innovation, and disruptive innovation, and a  few others thrown up by armchair theorists who are often not innovative themselves but feel qualified to pronounce on innovation and innovators. Innovation must make a difference and if users  of innovation, as in your hospital setting must feel that they can and do perform their jobs better, that it becomes easier to do things that need to be done, and that the recipients of whatever service is being offered using or relying on the innovation do see perceptible differences: quicker treatment, more effective treatment. Less waiting or shorter waiting times, could be another effect of innovation. If the staff at  your hospital are unable to explain the nature of the innovation, then they are chanting parrot-fashion what management has told them. I think if I were you, I would ask both senior management and mangers at the point of delivery why they consider what they do or use is innovation.

The comment about “” based on research”” does not impress me and it should not, impress you either. There are hundreds of academics who do “research”, write about their research, which often enough are  not replicated or are  not capable of  being replicated.  Ask them to get off their ivory towers and come to the work-floor and solve a problem – I can bet 90-95% of the times they will not be able to do anything,  blaming “numerous other variables we have not considered”.

I make the above comments as  hands-on innovator with a number of innovations, both incremental and “radical”, and as a  double-blind reviewer of research articles submitted for publication. Really radical? I would not myself use that term, but do so for the purpose here of communication…

The aforesaid should  obliquely suggest  the reason for management's preoccupation with innovation and diversity. CSR ( Corporate Social Responsibility is another idea that is being used  for PR purposes by many firms. However, there are some genuine examples of CSR, I must say.)

I have more to say but do not wish to hog  the space here.

Let us see what others have to say in regards to  my  critical comments. You might want to read my comment on lean management –it is innovation in a sense-  in hospitals, elsewhere on ResearchgGate. Do feel free to contact me for an off-line discussion. Or just respond, please.

Best wishes

Thanks Phil - a very passionate discourse that does exhibit a sense of in-depth  empirical experience.

The daily demands of my work and for those at the sharp-end of care delivery is that healthcare service interventions are fit for purpose and of warrantable quality. However, Regulators are introducing into healthcare a range standards to do with  'innovation' / 'inclusivity' / 'respecting diversity' / 'upholding human rights'.

My observations to do with that trend are that there is little substantive evidence that supports the clinical helpfulness or veracity of that socio-rightist-politico agenda yet they are manifesting with increasing regularity in regulatory standards.

Promoters of that agenda often refer to studies 'that suggest' or 'indicate that there may be' benefits arising from these socio-rightist-politico approaches or that 'there is a correlation found'. However, those terms do not evidence 'proof' and at best indicate that  more rigorous research needs to be done to establish the veracity and objective' fitness for purpose of those socio-rightist-politico innovations. 

Both innovation and diversity practices should create a competitive advantage for the organization, and long term value. Innovation is defined as "the process of making changes, large and small, radical and incremental...that add value to customers and contributes to the knowledge store of the organization.." (O’Sullivan, D., & Dooley, L. 2009. Applying innovation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage). One way of encouraging new thinking in organizations, and new ways of leadership is through diversity at the workplace.

Organizations do have to think however: How do we make sure we encourage initiatives towards innovation? How do we make them successful? How do we make sure the innovations deliver value to our customers, employees and shareholders?

Do we have a culture where new kinds of ideas emerge? Do we have diverse perspectives? Have we been able to create an inclusive culture that benefits from diversity?

Without this readiness on part of the organization, innovation and diversity initiatives would not help. Such initiatives can in fact be disruptive if not managed well.

Innovation means to do the thing differently. Meaning, same thing may be done in such away that one or more factors out of time, material, money, complexity gets reduced. In nutshell, things gets cheaper and simpler

Diversity, is to do different thing. Means whatever you are doing, may either continue the same and additionally do other thing or stop doing the thing and start other thing. Other thing could be altogether of different nature

Thanks MIta for your considered response.

You may find it interesting that in my work no preconditions, value laden assumptions or expectations are made in the first instance about what a proposed innovation should do. The default position is that one must test to see what it does do and move from there.

In terms of diversity and once again empirically, eddies of diversity are often indicators that a practice is no longer is effective (for whatever reason) i.e. the application / work practice is failing (or never really worked sufficiently well) which prompts people to try different approaches to find a solution. Additionally and when an effective new practice is found then practice falls in behind this new effective approach: we see this in just about every aspect of human endeavour.

My initial question seeks to understand and to encourage others to look at belief systems that unquestioningly hold the concepts of  'innovation and diversity' as positive / good / better when fundamentally these concepts are neither good / better or bad / worse.

Life sets a simple but unforgiving and difficult bar to achieve for all (organisations and individuals): that one must be effectively adaptive to change to survive / remain vibrant. How that comes about typically involves some luck and a lot of trail and error.

. 

Thanks Amipara.

I don't entirely follow your chain of thought. However, in regard your view that innovation makes things simpler and cheaper. I can't agree with that fixed directional value. Innovation swings both ways.

For example, the treatment of ulcers has in many ways been simplified the treatment of stomach ulcers since the identification of the H.pyiori bacteria.

However, if we I look at car technology then we find that do-it-yourself car maintenance is virtually impossible now due to the innovation of car technology. I could once keep my car (a lovely Minor 1000 4 door) very safely on the road and pass the Transport tests with nothing more that a spanner (wrench), screw driver, various fluids (oil, brake fluid) and what I called feelers to set the points. Now one needs a computer with diagnostic IT and a set of rather expensive applications and tools.   

I'll come back to you about the diversity comment in a later post.

Mr Manilal,

I am afraid I see diversity in a different light as does Mr Musgrave. Your concept of diversity seems to be different to what was asked in his question. One can do different and diverse things  but that was not the thrust of the question.

Mr Musgrave,

I would agree with  your comments about proof. Much of management research is far removed from practice and are just not implementable as the new circumstances may vary greatly from the circumstances and situations under which the data was collected in the work reported.   You might want to read this paper by Jeffrey Pfeffer:

Pfeffer, J ( 2007): A modest proposal: How we might change the process and product of managerial research. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 1, 1334-1345. In it he points to the inherent limitations of management research, a fact that I alluded to in my response to your question. He suggests what can be done about it. I think very little has changed since his work  was published.

Hi,

If you consider "Business case for diversity approach" , you can find the answer of your question.

Dear Mr Barbonis

Your understanding of my 'message / question' is encouraging and the more so because to date that outcome has been a rare event.

Further background that promoted my original question.

Recently I completed two interesting and challenging 'establish the facts' investigations: one to do with a dramatic death that was not witnessed  and thus came under the focus on regulatory bodies. The other was in connection with a police enquiry into an alleged serious criminal assault. In both cases I was called upon because of the shortcomings that very quickly became evident within the internal clinical nurse investigative team and that of the external regulatory inspectorate. 

The pre-investigation consultations that I always make threw up responses that prompted me the set aside time to look at concepts to do with innovation, diversity and rights in terms of what certain groups are doing re the development 'innovative / diversity / rights' care service evaluation metrics; a process that in the two aforementioned contexts were demonstrably unable to provide  suitable  methodologies to establish the facts to the objective, testable and replicatable rigour of the Coroner's Court or that of Police.

I am still reviewing the various responses to ascertain exactly what is becoming evident but so far it is clear that innovation and diversity have been ascribed very 'directional' and politicised definitions which, in the first instance, need to be better understood  by a wider audience.

Hello James, there is this argument which i quite agree with that diversity drives innovation in organizations. Sylvia Ann Hewlett, Melinda Marshall and Laura Sherbin (2013) in their research argued that a truly diverse organization with the right leadership tend to be more innovative than a less diverse organization. And innovation is even less obvious in organizations whose leadership lacks appreciation of diversity. 

See https://hbr.org/2013/12/how-diversity-can-drive-innovation

You may also want to look at "Fostering innovation through a diverse workforce" http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.inbar.org/resource/resmgr/Conclave/Tolbert_Forbes_Innovation_Th.pdf

Hi James,

I would probably expand this equation a little. Primarily because the outcome of innovation after addition of value to a process requires more than just diversity and innovation (as an input). I would probably suggest that for innovative outcomes, you need to enhance your input. Diversity, as an input, makes sense as it allows for an heterogeneous approach to value creation - approaches that are too homogeneous tend to limit random or unplanned changes (desired). Though consistency in planned changes might suggest a case for homogeneity, the scale of work would render control mechanisms difficult to manage. Planned change is limited.

Diversity is probably key (as various sources suggest), but there needs to be a goal oriented diversity with critical intrinsic values and culture that bind diverse actions towards common goals. Innovation best happens in environments that are created for it - without some form of common space, diversity can also divest resources towards goals. So, it is far more than simply diversity leading to innovation, other factors play a great (if not greater) role in innovative outcomes.

Dear All - thank you for taking the time to the respond.

The most striking feature of the contributions is that, with the exception of Mr Barbonis and to a degree that of Mita Brahma, no one answered the question why they use 'innovation' and 'diversity' as positive performance terms. I was rather keen to be advised of the basis for that usage especially as both are descriptive terms which are 'value neutral'. 

'Innovation' refers to something 'new' which may be better; or worse; or the same; Typically responses to something 'new' are either enthusiastic approval / desirability (e.g. 'this is the latest thing you have to get it') or suspicion (what's that, it's not our regular XYZ, I don't like it).   

However, the content of explanations by those who use the term 'Diversity' to mean that something is better and do so positively correlated i.e. the more diverse the better something is considered to , was anticipated with interest. Especially as diverse simply means differences exist which in turn and re workforce teams et al commonly presents difficult challenges to do with coordination alignment and application.

My sense is that there is a demonstrably discernible socio-politico utility that underpins the use of innovation and diversity as positive performance terms, a development that obfuscates clarity and begs their analytical veracity when used in that manner.

Hi James,

I think you souldn't look at innovation in healthcare domain as per innovation in technological or industrial organisations. Domains are so different, innovation doesn't mean the samething. I include a reference for the meaning of innovation in public healhcare. Not an easy task, but you should look to data bases in health. May be the problem of translation.

Fung, M. R. F., et al. (2011). "Identification of innovation in public health." Journal of Public Health 33(1): 123-130.

Dear James,

In view of your specific queries, will try and address them (I think I've already done so, but let me elucidate):

Your query 1: "no one answered the question why they use 'innovation' and 'diversity' as positive performance terms"

They use innovation (constructive innovation, not disruptive innovation by Christensen, something I think you might be interested in exploring, based on your concluding remarks) because of the rarity of innovative outcomes from predictable processes, especially if these processes are cyclic (for simplified opinion, refer to a good article: http://www.forbes.com/sites/sap/2011/07/25/business-innovation-why-it-is-so-rare-so-prized-and-so-feared/).

As such, with diversity, it is expected that cyclic endeavours will be forced to evolve with different sources of ideas, ways of producing value and creativity. 

Do note, central premise to your query - does diversity always is positively co-related with Innovation? Not necessarily, in my opinion. In your question, you have simply posed a general term 'Diversity'. It is relative to everyone, for me it may mean intellectual context (but you might be referring to cultural, as far as I understand as you've pointed out socio-political factor as one of your points). There is a great definition for diversity, that is intellectual diversity, which may be classified within the definition of cognitive resource of a team (given the differing code of conduct and reasoning), but it is still intellectual. 

Hewlett et al. (2013) are quite clear, that diversity needs to be applied, it does not have intrinsic attributes that makes innovative outcomes imperative (maybe another one of your queries). Refer tp: https://hbr.org/product/how-diversity-can-drive-innovation/F1312B-PDF-ENG

Finally, on your assertion of positive co-relation in all scenarios, it is still a matter of debate (refer to Christensen for the alternative view), Feitler (2014) sums this up quite well (https://hbr.org/2014/03/the-case-for-team-diversity-gets-even-better/) that the hypothesis (that diversity is positively co-related to innovative outcomes) is still a work in progress.

Your query: "I was rather keen to be advised of the basis for that usage especially as both are descriptive terms which are 'value neutral'"

I think I have already covered this part (based on my readings and interest).

Your idea 1: "'Innovation' refers to something 'new' which may be better; or worse; or the same"

I would differentiate my ideas from yours at this juncture - because innovation with worse outcome need not necessarily be categorized in the same outcome category, because, essentially, common sense dictates that it (innovation that leads to 'worse' outcomes) will not be referred to as 'innovation' due to the lack of a positive context. 

Furthermore, I think if the outcome is the 'same' - I believe the better classification for such wastage would be 'redundancy'. So, that, in itself, is another hypothesis altogether, if innovation leads to redundancies...

Your idea 2: "Typically responses to something 'new' are either enthusiastic approval / desirability (e.g. 'this is the latest thing you have to get it') or suspicion (what's that, it's not our regular XYZ, I don't like it)" 

I would beg to differ at this point too because now you have classified perception or stakeholder view that is relative whereas actual objective gains possess some form of measurable attribute. Research suggests that Change is not always (usually, in the high percentile) desirable. As new changes are implemented, opposition is to be expected.

That does not necessarily mean that innovation has failed. Implementation and formulation (not strategy) of policy are distinct areas of business practice. So this is where I differ from your idea 2.

Your assertion 1: "However, the content of explanations by those who use the term 'Diversity' to mean that something is better and do so positively correlated i.e. the more diverse the better something is considered to , was anticipated with interest"

I think the very first paragraph (mine) suggests it to be a work in progress. Diversity alone, as an abstract term, does not have any imperatives. You should probably consider defining the kind of diversity you seek to explore, qualify this attribute in context of your hypothesis. 

Diversity does not always result in innovative outcomes, as my earlier reply to your question suggests, there are other factors that aid the process of innovation generation. For example, in my case, I was curious if Entrepreneurs make better innovation agents, it is a question I am still exploring (no conclusive answers yet).

This idea is thoroughly explored in my earlier reply to you.

Your Idea 3: "Especially as diverse simply means differences exist which in turn and re workforce teams et al commonly presents difficult challenges to do with coordination alignment and application."

You've simply specified what I've been trying to get to (kindly refer to my first post to you, it makes precisely this point). That diversity alone is does not result in innovative outcomes - as there are other factors involved too, some of them (ie culture) might outweigh diversity in importance where innovation is concerned.

Your opinion: "My sense is that there is a demonstrably discernible socio-politico utility that underpins the use of innovation and diversity as positive performance terms, a development that obfuscates clarity and begs their analytical veracity when used in that manner."

Not entirely, I think your premise (innovation is not used with diversity, as diversity is used for innovative outcomes, based on literature review) is far too vague as social-political influences for the proliferation of the use of diversity, while having a legitimate investigative potential, is not necessarily the reason. Do note, a street food vendor in India is as innovative as someone from Silicon Valley, mind you. As your definition (or a lack of) for innovation is rather linear, we ought to explore the premise further because if we go by that quantifier, we're in the murky waters that question things like affirmative action and all that. 

There is legitimate academic/scholarly view of diversity being an attribute that acts as a catalyst to innovative outcomes. It might have social context, so take this question to the lab.

In the world of business, the common fact remains that there is need for people who do and act differently, one of the premises of leadership. This is what leads evolutionary drive, different outcomes for mutation in organic life, its' hard wired in us all. This much is pretty clear.

I do think that there is sufficient evidence for diversity (beyond socio-political impositions, if I may) as being a factor for impacting innovative outcomes, however, as far as my own views (based on readings) go - I don't think it is conclusive yet because diversity is as important as culture, perhaps.

That said, a culture which demands innovation simply ends up producing more innovation than another culture that restricts creativity over other factors.

Hope this has been helpful. 

Dear Santosh

Thanks for the extensive response that contain statements that will open up several new fronts of debate - which sadly work demands (for two specific automated solutions) will not allow me to engage at this juncture.

However, there are three statements expressed within your discourse that do prompt these comments:

• Your phrase: "common sense dictates that it (innovation that leads to 'worse' outcomes) will not be referred to as 'innovation' due to the lack of a positive context".  That expressed view does confirm my original observation of the increasing use of the term innovation to mean something that is 'better / positive / good" .
• Your phrase: "In the world of business, the common fact remains that there is need for people who do and act differently". There is no common or empirical fact that requires people to act differently; however and if the challenge is to be sustainably successful, then there is a need for people (be it in business or any endeavour in Life) to act / respond in a manner that is effective. - which may be achieved by adopting a different behaviour / action or simply doing an existing practice more competently.
• Your phrase: "As your definition (or a lack of) for innovation is rather linear, we ought to explore the premise further because if we go by that quantifier, we're in the murky waters that question things like affirmative action and all that".  This is a composite statement triggers several responses:

A) Asking the question 'why innovation is being used in manner to be that something is better / positive / good' is applicable to any form of innovation, be it linear or non-linear, as both forms of innovation can result in new development that is better or worse. If anything, non-linear innovation is often characterised by spectacular success and just as spectacular failure as opposed to the more incremental highs and lows experienced in linear development initiatives.

B) As the type of innovation (linear and non-linear)  is irrelevant there is no evident   helpful contribution to the discourse by your comment that refers to my definition (or lack of) of innovation being rather linear. Although your phrase does  imply that being 'rather linear' is a 'negative / some how a less worthy'  philosophical position.

C) Can you explain why one would be in "murky waters"  by questioning things like affirmative action?

One final consideration  which may be germane re the variances of view that I have expressed in this discourse; I am not an academic. Yes, I do a lot of research and I have a book published by Simon & Schuster that offers a different  philosophical position from the prevailing 'Independence / Individualism' paradigm championed in modern Western culture; and I am currently writing a new book on dementia that my clinical colleagues assess will strongly challenge elements of existing dementia care models -  but my writing and daily work is disciplined by rather unforgiving  demands  to deliver: strategies that achieve the multi-million £ growth goals that are set; operational applications that work effectively; and fixes that put out the 'fires' 

Dear Mr Musgrave,

Thanks for your response. Reading between the lines I can, sort of,   perceive the appearance of the notions of "diversity", "innovation" in the two cases situation you seem to be involved in presently or most recently. I do not really subscribe to the implied link between the two or their influence on, as perhaps might have been argued for,  by your detractors, or those who want a  "socio-rightist politico approach" in the hospital or healthcare situation.

However, I do feel that one of the reasons why Silicon Valley in California is flourishing is that there is visible and meaningful diversity, and one which is not in place for socio-political reasons but pure economic necessity.  Consider this: The  numbers of STEM ( Science Technology Engineering, Mathematics/Medicine) graduates from among the American population  is not as high as it should be.  The majority population seem to have a preference for the arts/humanities/law while the minorities, often  children of new immigrants or immigrants themselves or would-be immigrants seem to have a great desire to pursue degrees in STEM, which fact makes them job-ready.

The above would seem to run counter to the idea that diversity and innovation are not related as I argued in the first para; that may well be so in the UK healthcare situation you are facing, especially in non-clinical/scientific areas such as in the normal administrative processes.

We can argue till the cows come home about the issues of diversity, innovation and socio-political considerations. But I shall desist and point you to the work of  Professor AnneLee Saxenian:  A Saxenian (2005) From Brain Drain to Brain Circulation: Transnational Communities and Regional Upgrading in India and China. Studies in Comparative International Development, Summer 2005, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp. 35-61

AnnaLee Saxenian (2000).  Silicon Valley’s New Immigrant Entrepreneurs. Center for Comparative Immigration Studies. In this second paper, she starts with these words that seem to have “diversity” undertones : “Debates over the immigration of scientists and engineers to the United States focus primarily on the extent to which foreign-born professionals displace native workers, or on the existence of invisible barriers to mobility, or "glass ceilings," experienced by non-native professionals.”

You can gain ready access to that work here: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/88x6505q. I hope I have not gone off at a tangent with my reference to the work of Saxenian and hope it opens a new vista for you on what I believe is a rather complicated issue.

To close,  your posting has evoked some serious and sometimes  peripheral and even strident views, which is a good thing, particularly when you look at some other postings, where respondents are  happy and contented to mention some paper or article sans (=without) any comment. I think we must also say what we think whether we are right or wrong and let readers make their judgements. Of course, that does not mean something is right or wrong, only inherently complicated  because of the many issues that come into play, and of course time-bound.  Has someone not questioned Einstein's theory recently?

”

Mr Musgrave,

I wonder if you would care to mention the title of your book and  about the new work-in-progress book?

Before I respond to James, would just like to clarify what I perceive (as per my own literature review and understanding) innovation to be: It would be what you do to a process (that may be cyclic or otherwise) so that it produces an outcome that is unpredictable/non-cyclic. To put things into context - I expect a positive context attached to it. Because otherwise, the endeavour is redundant, wasteful and a burden on resources.

And, more importantly, in the lab - there is no difference between a street begger in India/China/Africa using a mobile device (assuming he/she is a handicap) for added mobility to beg against, say, Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook.

In the Science of things, there is no difference (where innovation is concerned) - what differs is the impact of outcome of innovation. Facebook wastes countless hours of everyone's life everyday (subtract that against the superficial friends you have on the medium (or likes?), no real difference in valuation really), is that positive too? So, for me, they are the same thing without context (Begger vs. Founder of Facebook). Consider this stand a generalists' stand. No perspective or ideological influences attached.

Prior to the questions, clarifying on the opinions:

(1) (Innovation only in positive context) - I concur, English is a rather rich Indo-European language! Reason for my definition above.

(2) (Doing things differently) - I would probably emphasize that this is evolution in context (my opinion). We evolve not because we do the same things and get better at it, it is that we do the same things differently for mutated outputs that forces our evolutionary drive. We fly not because we grow wings, it is because we engineer (but I understand that this would probably be more applicable to you, as you're in healthcare). Why is that done differently? Why didn't the Wright brothers simply sell bicycles? There is a genuine link between that reasoning and diversity for growth. 

Dwelling in caves might have been a rather sustainable outcome too. But we did not. We moved on from caves to mud houses to concrete jungles. I think you might agree that there is always a time to really move on from your competencies.

Peter Drucker is quoted to have said: "If you want something new, you have to stop doing something old"

Every biological life-form is a slave to this (whether they do it consciously or otherwise, I've done some work in symbiotic relationships in business entrepreneurship before). In business context, I would also argue against your premise of competency over evolution of value proposition.

Markets are made and destroyed due to new value propositions. No one wants the same old rehashed ideas or solutions, there is no wonder why the cars of the 1800s look differently to cars of the 21st Century. They are only cars just in name, engines have changed, bodies have changed, the concept (fundamental definition of what a car is) has changed.

If it is not new, invisible hand of the market (quoting Adam Smith) rejects it. And, the current conventions are for new product development (even platforms change all the time). Refer to Aberdeen Group's report on the hidden cost of slow development here: https://go.oracle.com/LP=7058?elqCampaignId=15589&src1=SO:BL:OrD:&src2=Eppmblog1

Now, whether this change is derived from having a more diverse workplace, that is a question that needs to be answered conclusively. I have already given you the references that favour this idea (so far, it favours the hypothesis). However, fact remains that a 'Latino' who is an offspring of a migrant (2nd generation) from South America will undoubtedly do things differently from a Anglo Saxon who has had the time (few generations at best) to settle down and become part of the cultural sphere of the United States. Is it the diversity or the culture that produces American innovation? My view is culture followed closely by diversity.

However, given different values, expected diversity in conventions is predictable (based on literature review, that I've supplied earlier). But the reason the migrant might do well (attached positive context to innovation) is because of culture (along with a different approach of doing things) and environment along with a different world view. 

Why I would also argue against effectiveness is due the lifecycle of an approach. Everything has a lifespan - by the time we perfect effectiveness, we lose market positioning and resources. I might agree to the middle ground of limited sustainability as long as lifespan allows - but giving up growth with diverse sources of creativity for increased effectiveness would be another idea altogether (not at all in the premise of innovation / diversity).

(3) Now on to the replies to my 'socio-political' statement (that I don't want to get into by the way):

(A) I agree but the definition you've adopted leaves grey areas because you wish to link both diversity and innovation with positive performance with equal bearing. Hence, my assessment of things. I still think your disregard to innovation, in definition, the premise of diversity (what you actually think of it to be, just people or processes or both or creativity) and the actual organization of performance as an output of application of former two, will make things ambiguous. What we really need is assiduity. 

You wished to conduct a veracious study of this idea, right? It is only right that clarifications are made...

(B) Again, as I stated above. The definitions of this equation are far too linear. It is because the perimeters of your idea are flexible but the variables that you wish to study are concrete. We will never reach a conclusion. It should be the other way around, you need a perimeter around these hypotheses and then you need to conduct a non-linear attribution of your variables in question.

As far as i see things, I see your question as: A (Innovation) + B (Diversity) = +C(Positive Statements)? There are no attributions to the variables! What I suggest is a non-linear approach to this research engagement, that attaches attributes to your concepts A (x1 + x2 + x3) + B (y1 + y2 + y3) =-/+ C ((z1 / z2) / (z3 / z4)) (* Not doing so for any other reason other than to demonstrate my understanding, or the lack of)

So, that suggests that your x variables have values and then you merely derived them based on some feedback mechanism for quantification purposes. Perhaps, C could be your definition of positive outcome that could be tested based on an average score where success variable / attempts could be divided against failures or something. A positive quantity could demonstrate some form of co-relation, maybe?

That's what I mean linear, from where I am at, to me, your definitions are far too linear. And, to be entirely honest, being from my background, I don't think dualism has ever gotten anything right. I don't subscribe to dualistic and utilitarianism (might even challenge the latter if I see it around my sphere of interaction).

(C) Murky waters because:

(i) There are people who have genuinely have had life tough and were limited in potential due to socio-economic-political barriers and they need to be assisted so that they may drop the chains holding them back in the process of getting out of cyclic poverty;

(ii) Civil Rights is an area that I consider to be important as I cannot forget the fact that just about 70-80 years ago (hardly a generation), people couldn't vote/study/live because of absolutely questionable factors, women couldn't vote, one of my alma maters had their first female student (of all things) around that time. There are some harsh realities (consider American Civil Rights/apartheid in SA and Indian Independence Movement , I don't endorse or support Feminism but Women's Rights is probably equivalent to slavery of the 19th century). Not sure of the logical reasoning of keeping them uneducated/enslaved through social conditioning for so many generations;

(iii) Most importantly, because the reasoning involves multi-disciplinary exposure and a wide area to cover. It is far too much work for my limited schedule that is already too stretched.

(iv) Globalization is already here, staring at us in the face... best deal with it. For me, interaction with people of different world views enhances my own (my opinion).

On the conclusion:

Agreed, no worries, the objective was never what was implied (or might be). Focus was more on the ideas behind it. I think Hofstede's Cultural Dimensions will probably put my ideas more concretely across, it is widely accepted (diversity model and mediation of it, if I may).

I have never been a big believer in the classification of personality models due to the limitations they may impose on individual growth (why can't an individual who subscribes to individualism also be a great team player if the cause permits?). On philosophy, I consider myself a pessimist (school of Schopenhauer since he openly subscribes to the Upanishads)  with a maniacally optimistic edge. Contradictions can live side by side.

I was in healthcare for a while, quite the field. But NHS is a completely different cup of tea given that your volumes far exceed (both quantitatively and relatively) ours in Singapore. 

Hope this has helped.

Dear Santosh

Thanks for that detailed response.

In regard to your assumption "You wished to conduct a veracious study of this idea, right? It is only right that clarifications are made...". Actually that was not my intention.

The trigger for what I viewed (and still see) as a straightforward question was prompted during my post-investigation event review of what was termed a suspicious death.

My first impression at the start of the investigative process was one of incredulity that the elements of the sequential cause - effect trajectory  were there to be found but in fragmented form which required some very detailed work to piece together and distil into a coherent picture of the cause and effect trajectory.

Briefly, one can quickly identify and then test the likely 'what-how-why' drivers  that caused / contributed an event from the history of a sequentially coherent care pathway trajectory.

However, a very typical nursing record was before me. This recording style is based on an Activity based paradigm and thus  characterised by voluminous narrative that takes significant periods of the ns' working day recording just about every action that has been done. 

For clarity, an activity based approach is not a Performance / Outcome model i.e. a workflow process  which records work (care needs in this case) demands that have been identified (needs assessment), determines the supply side requirements (care plan interventions), tracks those care interventions, captures the resultant outcomes achieved and then evaluates the  effectiveness of what has been achieved re what needed to be achieved to effectively meet the assessed work demands. Note that  care delivery is an interactive workflow process but is not commonly referred to in that  manner by healthcare professionals.

Also, Compliance to regulatory standards is now the main driver for this activity based manifestation in regulated care environments. Perhaps it is more accurate to state that this activity based model is driven by a palpable concern to avoid being found non-compliant to registration standards.

Returning to activity based record, its narrative was littered with references to actions that were seen as evidence that the care service was promoting  and respecting the individual's: human rights, independence, choice, diversity. Also and during the early phase of my 'establishing the facts' process, Nurses also expressed views  that doing something which was regarded as innovative was seen as a good thing.

In a nutshell, establishing the relationship and role of the care delivery re the event that was initially termed a suspicious death was significantly hindered by the activity / compliance based work model and an attendant value system that unquestioningly viewed (and quickly became defensive when challenged) as good / better all actions / events that were seen as innovative and promoting diversity.

As someone whose work requires an open (i.e. no assumptions are made) and intensely questioning approach of everything encountered, I found that blind acceptance of that specific meaning of innovation / diversity et al as worthy of more 'sounding' what echoed back; hence my question.

Hi James,

Thanks for taking the time for sharing your experiences. I think we have had a similar issue (you can google about 4 deaths at our largest (about 1700-2000 beds) hospital, SGH, they are still investigating it). But this kind of thing here is rare, death due to negligence or simply incompetency is extremely rare (blue moon rare) in Singapore. Nothing beats an irreversible loss like death but then, all I can say is that being from a computing (I was in Healthcare IT Planning) background, its' my job and role to automate (with computing) for innovation! 

With all said and done, based on your experience, if the narrative is voluminous (and despite that that you have to look at the case based on factors connecting the narratives other than testimony), how much of it is justification for truly relevant innovative drive that adheres to a planned framework, and how much of it simply a result of professional lapse? Not to mention qualified experience to actually lead some form of innovation, right? I mean I would love (or probably be too intimidated) to innovate a cardiologists' surgical technique, but being competent enough (as demonstrated by my qualifications/formal work experience) to do it is another matter (regulation with law as a restriction). Every major surgery is technically a risk if you think about it, so competencies play a role in forming that initial spark that initiates some innovation, I think.

My view further is that human rights and ethical considerations are dictated by the law of the land... so, not sure if Nurses (the under appreciated work horses of a hospital, always respected the ladies the most in there, frontline folks who are paid the least amongst medical professionals, not sure how they remain motivated) are not qualified lawyers or have any exposure to legality should be allotting interpretation of legal rights space within their formal duties. Not to mention, medical decisions are undertaken by doctors, care giving duties fall under their domain. Any life-lifestyle decision making should probably by based on a consensus of medical staff who undertaken some form of regulatory framework prior to implementation. Shared accountability, perhaps.

Perhaps a perimeter or the scope of their drive to innovate or that their trade-offs to safety for costs that are borne by another individual for personal ethical / professional advancements need scrutiny. But this is indeed interesting, thanks for sharing, only establishes the fact that human beings (we) are strange and complex animals because to adopt an unsecure mechanism to innovate when the risks are so high with some form of probability of loss does not deter change (my hypothesis on evolutionary drive).

But then, I think we tend to take the most risk when the costs of such risks are borne by others. Someone else's wealth is always easily spent.

Dear Santosh

Many thanks for those thoughts.

BTW and a complete digression; if it is possible for your to disclose, what has been the methodological approach / approaches used in to investigate the four deaths?

Also, I have found the most difficult 'establish-the-facts' investigation to be when the death is not due to negligence or malpractice but rather is a logical outcome of a healthcare profile that was not fully evident to the care team. 

To date I have completed three suspicious death investigations that proved to be NOT due to negligence or malpractice but - in each case - a logical result of the engagement of a set of very rare and unfortunate contributors. However, it was very difficult to establish that finding in each case which in large part was due to the activity based records and the regulatory / statutory compliance model that use structural and process criteria; two types of metrics that are wholly unsuitable when the need is to assess the efficacy of the work performance.

Perhaps the new thread should be considered as a future area for wider discourse.

Regards

James

Both are considered factors to improve business performance.

Diversity-led innovation is a reality. Diversity is recognised as a driver for innovation across the range of business activities. Some of international leading pharmaceuticals companies (multicultural environment), such as Novartis and Roche suggested that new products, services or processes had been developed because of applying a diversity perspective to innovation.

For more information see:

file:///C:/Users/alaa/Downloads/3%20(1).pdf

Achanga et al.(2005) argued that the ability to operate in diverse environments while intending to implement any new initiative is a pre-requisite for managers.

I support to use diversity and innovation as positive performance statements in spite of some considerations related diversity, but we cannot use them as negative performance statements.

Mr Musgrave,

Apropos (of) your mention of metrics, let me comment.

If you have been seeing problems at the NHS, we  here in The Netherlands have had our unrequired share of problems. The news broke on 4th Nov that ENT specialists at the University of Utrecht Medical Centre have been under  time pressure, which of course  could lead to occurrence of errors/missers extra. Time pressure is effectively a reflection of a metric, however defined. See:

http://www.dutchnews.nl/news/archives/2015/11/health-inspectors-probe-climate-of-fear-at-utrecht-hospital/

My cousin sister, a dental surgeon in London has  to deal like all dentists, with  what is called UDAs ( Units of Dental Activity). She has to meet her target  of X number of UDAs, and must not deviate by more than 4%. So, if  a case requires more time, the number of UDAs  handled will obviously decline. Let’s face it complications can  occur randomly. Her practice will be paid by the number of UDAs achieved by each of the dentists at the practice. An extraction is worth 3 UDA, and it typically takes 10-15 minutes. A root canal treatment is worth, you guessed it, 3 UDAs. But, here is the catch:  Root canal treatment takes anything between 1 hour to  2 hours, depending upon the teeth ( molar, incissors, etc) its state of health and of course the patient. I do not need to tell you that dentists would rather NOT do root canals!  That is how your brilliant NHS managers are negatively affecting the quality and breadth of service. Not too long ago, a dental surgeon in the UK was found gulty of fraud -- he apparently saw as many as 40 patients  in  day -- he never changed gloves, and apparently  bypassed standard procedures -- yes he was meeting, no exceeding his metrics!  Mindless  managers, almost always some accountant/business person,  managing by metrics is ruining your,  until recently,  a universally admired NHS.

I hope  that readers and yourself  will comment. I close by citing Godhart’s Law which effectively says once you manage by metrics, the metrics  cease to be useful. That should not surprise you... I wonder what readers themselves think.

Dear All - I have actually moved my focus to other issues having reaped a plethora of insightful responses to my initial question. However, the content and juxtaposition of Ala's comments above re that of Phil Barnbonis prompt me to respond on this topic.

Re Ala's comments - it goes against my somewhat scientific leanings to blindly accept the veracity of paradigms promoted / championed by what is actually opinion. Ala's states that innovation and diversity are:

• 'considered factors to improve business'
• 'some international leading pharmaceuticals..., suggest ...'
• 'Achanga et al argued ...,'

All terms refers to elements of significant uncertainty and lack of definitive proof. Yet Ala's support for the singular use of diversity and innovation as only positive performance statements is made without regard to known 'considerations' related to diversity.

Of course I respect Ala's position on the matter but I assume he realises that his advocacy of diversity and innovation as only positive in character (and devoid of negative attributes) is a statement of 'belief'.

Re Phil Barbonis' latest contribution; this I find helpfully provocative in many ways and really appreciate its submission which prompts these responses:

• I've no issue with the use of metrics per se - intrinsic to understanding is in part reliant on our ability to differentiate and make comparative analysis, metrics are very useful in this regard.
• However, Phil's account very closely describes a serious and growing problem in the UK and Ireland healthcare sectors which is the increasing imposition of metrics based on beliefs that such are good rather than their applicability based on rock solid evidence as to efficacy of those metrics and fitness for purpose.

I have a similar story as contained in Phil's account concerning a very recent discussion / problem review to do with the operation of a surgical out-patient's clinic in Scotland. As this is a current matter I am somewhat constrained by non-disclosure, however, the nub of the problem resides in circa 25% or so of the team's nurses' time per 4 hour session spent on paperwork that - so far - has no benefit or causal relevance to improved patient safety and or promoting better clinical outcomes. Bluntly stated, if the said  activities taking up this 25% of nurses time ceased there would be no negative impacts to patient safety arising from that cessation but there would be significant benefits to patient, clinical benefots imporvement inis occupied  ,   time spent by nurses on

Sorry I hit the submit too early...., to conclude:

I have a similar story as contained in Phil's account concerning a very recent discussion / problem review to do with the operation of a surgical out-patient's clinic in Scotland. As this is a current matter I am somewhat constrained by non-disclosure.

 However, the nub of the problem resides in circa 25% or so of the team's nurses' time per 4 hour session spent on paperwork that - so far - we can find has no benefit or causal relevance to improved patient safety and or promoting better clinical outcomes.

Bluntly stated, if the said activities taking up this 25% of nurses time ceased there is no reliable evidence that shows there would be negative impacts to patient safety arising from that cessation - but so far it is evident that there would be significant benefits to patients, clinical expertise and overall service performance arising from a reallocation of the 25% of nurses' time to direct staff-patient interaction

Sadly though, this type of problem is growing and it is a very hard task to seek to change practice when that process is based on a highly emotive belief system that such is good. The metrics concerned which are wasting 25% of the team's time resource have no basis in evidence but they there because they are 'held / argued / suggested / believed to be' good. 

Hi James, 

The methodology applied is probably multi-tier that ranges from analysis of clinical samples, documented trends and trails (from what I have read). There are multiple fields of expertise involved in the investigation. The infections of the ward were discovered after analysis of a specific frequency of occurrence, so the discovery was made by assessment of repetitive case reports, which probably is based on co-relation with a trend that was studied against what is deemed 'normal' in their renal ward.

On the your case, I am perplexed to find that healthcare background in a single payer unified healthcare system does not record some form of medical trail to verify conditions! I have read the effectiveness of the NHS, is it that bad? How is the perception of NHS amongst healthcare professionals? 

My opinion is that if it has occurred 3 times, it ceases to be rare. 

I don't think you could use standard models to assess the quality of healthcare, since statutory standards are a baseline, they hardly regulate the quality of service. You can comply with the hygienic standards of a first world country but still end up damaging the health of a patient with the wrong practices, so I think, as I mentioned earlier, it seems like a case of qualifications and formal competencies.

That was something I was trying to point out on innovation agents, they have to have some degree of formal training or a good and proven background in their area of expertise. 

Certainly worthy of investigation. You could always drop an email to SGH to know more about how they are addressing this incident, more here:

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/4-deaths-at-renal-ward/2172724.html

Hope this has helped.

Santosh - thanks for your response.

The content of responses is now moving quite significantly away from the focus of my initial question concerning diversity and innovation. However, this new line of discourse is important and thus the best way forward would be to frame a new question.

In regard to aspects of your specific comments, I have not commented on medical trials not expressed a view one way or another what they consist of, how they operate or the veracity of said processes.

Re the UK NHS systems, there is no unified British NHS system. There are now four separate NHS organisations which reflect the move to political drift of regional devolution. The NHS organisations of Northern Ireland and Scotland have always been separate systems.

Historically, England and Wales have been joined at the hip for centuries legally but the tide of devolution has created two systems outcome: NHS Wales was 'created' by transferring its control to the devolved Welsh Government in 1999.

Re England, during 2009 NHS England formalised is constitution which defines its legal relationship, duties and responsibilities to the population of England and all NHS England staff and the myriad of Acute, Primary, Community et al interdependencies that exist therein of.

 Therefore, though all these four systems will have appropriate clinical governance in place the specificity of each these different  NHS cultures vary between what are now four separate jurisdictions.

However and in regard to the death investigations I referred to - those events were not to do with clinical trials nor was there an absence or any shortcomings in clinical governance. The issue was the methodology employed by the Regulator which does not operate within what would be termed the bio-medical paradigm.

Leonidas - perhaps my intellectual limitations are just not sufficient to follow your train of thought in regard to the win-win-win papakonstantinidis model (which I have only scanned - not studied) i.e. I can't connect up the dots in terms of its applicability to my initial innovation / diversity question and or to the latest discourse with the last three contributors.

Hi James,

Apologize for the confusion (thanks for the NHS information, we have it along similar lines here in Singapore, between NHG/Singhealth/Jurong Health etc). This is where you can start connecting the dots (only my points covered):

Your inference lies on the fact that the incidents you've been investigating have led you to question the model of diversity for innovation in context of the positive perception it enjoys. In contrast to this idea, you've found that it has become an alibi or some form of justification for under-performing elements within certain professional undertakings. Particularly in scenarios where one party simply has more to lose than another.

This is a condensation of my points from the very beginning (in point form, so as to not eat up too much of your time):

1. Innovation usually is indeed perceived in a positive context (because semantics are present to define other outcomes).

2. Due to the need for different ideas, cycles need to be broken or elements of change need to be implemented in these work cycles (References in my earlier post).

3. Changes within cyclic processes are important for creativity (References in my earlier post).

4. And, more recently, innovation occurs with a bare-minimum competency skill set, brought by formal education/professional experience or both (not a tested theory).

5. And, most importantly, innovation and diversity form a minor part of the overall environment that contains far more qualifying factors that augment practices that can eventually be 'termed' innovative than otherwise. 

6. Innovation without a positive context is defined as disruptive innovation (but it has a degree of positivism attached to it still).

-- unrelated.

7. It has become a strong justification factor that aids social/non-business/non-management vocations to promote diverse political participation. This has nothing to do with business theories... at all. Its' like saying someone from Labour would make better workers because they form leftist opinions or that the Conservatives would be 'better' bosses for reasons only known to them. You get the drift.

8. NHS has a de-centralized service dispensation model like Singapore and a few bad apples give the entire concept of a single-payer model a bad name.

Hope this was helpful,

Thank you Santosh and Leonidas.

Early on in this forum I made the point about not being an academic which was aired because I did anticipate that this would present difficulties in achieving mutual understanding - particularly when it comes to making assumptions about the motivation that prompted my initial question.

I see a fundamental difference between how my mind has to work to consistently deliver successful real-time practical solutions and the mental processes demanded of the academic. As far back as my memory goes, my intellectual orientation has been probably best described as 'questioningly irreverent' and averse to restriction. There is no fidelity given to any one paradigm - my default position is to establish what is effective / works / appropriately solves the problem.

Academics on the other hand demonstrate an approach to enquiry that adheres / is based on a given paradigm / school of thought and often the resulting proposition can be significantly invested in without any immediate external test of its veracity.

So though I appreciate your (Santosh) view that the incidents I've been investigating have led me to question the model of diversity for innovation in context of the positive perception it enjoys; that isn't the case. My question arises because the work was 'valued' for its innovative characteristics rather than its effectiveness.

This 'does it make sense in terms of effectiveness' way of thinking is not often very well received especially when deemed 'sacrilegious' to trending /  prevailing views. The most poignant  example of that for me arose during a well attended (more than 200 students and guests) economics lecture in the University of Bristol.

As the Professor was winding up he  asked if there were any questions. Raising my hand I said yes Sir - the basis of your assumption about the 'perfect knowledge' characteristics of the market does not make sense and is obviously wrong based on the empirical limitations of real-time e.g. communication networks, differing time zones, technical competency variance within populations etc.... Surely the more useful approach is to regard that markets are made and operated (perhaps rely) on imperfect information which creates an environment of differing competitive positions from which differential advantage is established ..., as almost an after thought I said, surely that is what success in competition is all about i.e. creating competitive advantage over one's competitors? The lecture went absolutely silent as the Professor collected his papers and then slowly looked down at this 1st term 1st year BSc Hons student for what seemed an age. Finally he said, I'll see you later.

I have been a practitioner for twenty five years, and am an academician as well for the last five years, and I have seen the difference between the two perspectives. Academicians have the primary aim of adding to the body of knowledge; they seek to explore, understand, describe, explain or predict, and they deal with generalities. Practitioners use this knowledge, but their chief aim is to solve problems which are immediate and specific.

Practitioners have to use existing generic knowledge, but do a diagnostic on their own organization/ self, and arrive at optimum decisions at a given point of time. While practitioners may recommend a mix of solutions at a given time, they need to review often, as what is an optimum solution goes on changing!

Hi Mita

This discourse continues to move away from my initial  innovation / diversity question.

I appreciate your contribution and its sentiments; and yes, there are differences involved, however, the neat differentiation that you make between academics and practitioners is misleading - things are rather more fuzzy.

If anything the evidence demonstrably shows that the objectives of academics and practitioners are largely shared and that both contribute new knowledge to the existing body of knowledge.

Also, research is research - thus it is artificial and of questionable benefit to differentiate that one approach to research adds new knowledge (that of the academic) and that the other is solely resides  within the bounds of existing knowledge (that conducted by practitioners).

Inventors normally are regarded in the practitioner category as many are / were not academics and or have /  had no formal academic training at all in the formal area of knowledge pertaining to  their invention. Nevertheless, what is common to all is that to varying degrees part of their success relied on discovering a new bit of knowledge as part of the new invention process. In turn those inventions facilitated new academic study to be engaged and subsequently further new knowledge to be found et al.

No doubt some may seek to 'split demarcation hairs' from the following sample that is drawn from a very long list of perhaps the most inventive human tribe on the plant:

• John Napier (from Edinburgh) early 17th century: sometimes referred to as 'revolutionary' re his inventions and there were many but the one that has perhaps had the greatest impact for the least 'size'  is the Decimal Point.
• James Hutton (from Edinburgh) mid 18th century originated the theory of uniformitarianism and is regarded as the father of modern geology yet he was a very hands-on farmer, naturalist, chemist (invented a new form of dye)
• William Nicol (from Edinburgh) early 19th century: Practitioner and Academic: invented the Nicol prism that produces polarised light and invented a technique (Rock sections) which made it possible to view mineral samples by transmitted rather than reflected light - that in turn enabled internal structures of minerals to be seen and studied.
• Alexander Fleming (from Ayrshire SW Scotland) early 20th century: Shipping Clerk, then qualified and practising Medical Doctor with battlefield experience and then further qualified in Bacteriology exemplifies how new  knowledge gained as practitioner re antiseptic use re aerobic and anaerobic variation helped to inform his university academic based research that led to the discovery of penicillin.

Hi James,

On the effectiveness point, I hope to underline the fact that if an outcome is deemed 'innovative', it is done so due to the outcome, as there are other semantics available for standard classification of outcome. Christensen, who argues for disruptive innovation, pretty much outlines the replacement of existing practices over a period of time, perhaps when you're analyzing this innovation (assuming it fits the philosophy/ethical requirements/benchmarks of the concerned organization) at a stage where it is not yet mature (or has not replaced existing mature practices, that have backing from related stakeholders).

Things need time and space to mature.

But in context of your later analogy (University of Bristol incident), I would agree to the context that there is a lack of concrete perimeter around this positive outcome to perceived innovation. But my point has always been that innovation is positive, because it involves a process of qualifying outcomes as being innovative.

So, we can either wait and take a good amount of time before terming a new process being innovative (as data may not justify this classification), or we cease to proliferate a 'concept' of improvisation sold as true innovation?

My opinion is that at Bristol, you were indeed being innovative in your view of market forces - however, it would suit you better (in that environment) to cite your sources, justify your arguments and make your case water tight.

And, I think its' a great position to be in (academic in head/practioner in practice). It gives you the best of both worlds. Something I too aspire to evolve into but its' difficult.

Hi Santosh

Thanks for the re-clarification of your definition of innovation, though I trust you appreciate that it does not exclude or override the definition which those of us who do not ascribe to that singular state of only being positive.

You have my very best wishes with the journey to being 'academic in head / practitioner in practice' - my experience is that it can often be as frustrating as it can be liberating.

Re Bristol University anecdote; intellectually university was a bitter / sweet experience that was heavily influenced by the disappointment that followed disillusionment. My expectation was that university would be a place where one could develop the ability to think freely. That did not prove to be the case especially if one's thinking was ahead of the curve - but the most cardinal sin and condemnation was reserved for those who challenged the trend / in-view / accepted wisdom / dominate paradigm.  I found that reactionary intolerance disappointing yet the cautionary lessons learnt have stood me in good stead ever since.

'The epilogue' to that particular U of B story: I did see the Professor afterwards - summoned to his private quarters that afternoon. He was clearly not happy with me fielding the question but the Q&A that ensued showed that he was excited about it. His focus was to establish the sources that prompted me to frame that argument and what 'research' if any that  I was doing ...., but my answers disappointed him; from memory the key content went something like this:

• Sources? There are none nor are they applicable- this is a product of logical thought coupled with an understanding of the likely impact of empirically  known limitations.
• What do I mean? It's a conclusion reached by a logical evaluation of the relationship constraints and interdependencies with consideration given to the demonstrable capacities / limitations of the entities within that relationship model.

The 'interview' ground to a halt about 10 minutes later but by then I realised that the way forward (if I wanted a good degree) for the next three years would be to 'play the game / don't buck the system'. So, though achieving very high pass course work and exam marks, I dropped economics at the end of that 1st year.

Of course, I accept subject adherence to interpretations, however, perhaps, that is the reason for the misconception in question, right? If we don't lay a baseline, we might never conclude standards.

I also experienced this at university, more of the time, in coursework we tended to blindly refer ideas, at times, for no reason at all. Imagine writing a report and then citing the most basic of arguments just for the sake of arguments! The most basic of ideas! Stuff like, Project success depends on availability of financial backing... this needs references too!

There are ivory towers that simply cannot tolerate challenges in some circles, particularly from sources they think are 'unqualified'. Quite frankly, academia is a domain that wants to control all input (HR) to industry, they want to be the pre-cursor and need to create this barrier between free movement to vocational roles and pathways (and ideas) to vocational roles that they 'create' or earn trust for (perception that exists, that a graduate may perform better than the rest, or that a Harvard graduate may be 'better' than, say, University of Phoenix, two vast ends of the spectrum, if there is one). Trouble is, no one really knows. And we shouldn't be destroying potential... at the same time retaining the recognition of hardwork someone puts into his/her academics. Universities have done a lot of work to reach where they are currently. 

So, it is a question of balance, academia needs to balance itself as a pathway that is not an end to a mean, but a place that instills skills to reach those means...

Personally, I have found the skills (research standards) to be very helpful in my world view and understanding. Rigid academic standards have helped me a great deal. You can tell nonsense from validated ideas (filters via journals and peer reviews).

Your own experiences, well, a good rule of thumb (that I have always practiced) is to wait for class to finish, then pull the Professor and put my views across. I have done so. At University of Sydney, I got into an academic argument with my lecturer. Well, it was about a framework and how I had applied it at a smaller scale, he didn't appreciate it and then wrote it off as inapplicable, I spent a weekend pulling my sources and demonstrating why I was right. Cited a proven industrial source publication which explicitly validated my use... and that helped my case.

It is an academic environment, the tools were there for a reason. So I used them and behold, he claimed that the applications were wrongly applied (by a rather reputable source... that I cited), but at the end of the day, I let it pass, moved on and let the gentleman have it. But he got my drift and quietly accepted my work... and at the end of the day, I always remembered was the learner in that interaction, there is always a line I don't cross, despite apparent curiosity.

Even if I would have argued further, it was not like the gentleman would be in any position to amend knowledge academic ideas... to change them, one needs years and years of work for publication... and an army of citation followers!

So, moral of the story, I don't let wrong ideas pass by, but I don't approach people publically (something I realized, some of these guys have insecurities, whatever they are), I tend to always remember the distinction between a teacher and, in my position, a learner, and, more importantly, why I am engaged in that deliberation  to become a better person at the end of it.

For me that is all that matters, that at the end of it I have to gain knowledge and become better at what I do. Little by little, it accumulates. 

I think everyone has had such experiences with one or more of their lecturers. But at the end of the day, they are also people with their private lives... and limitations, you just have to manage someone who is dealing with hundreds of kids a day... who might have issues during the day that range from bad reviews by kids or their tenure ending and stuff like that. Maybe, that day, the lecturer might have had his paper turned from from a journal or something...

You know how it goes.

I appreciate your good wishes, will be trying, all other things in life (professional application with academic theoretical skills). Thanks,

Thanks Santosh - as enjoyable as this discourse is we are now so far removed from the initial 'innovation / diversity' topic that perhaps any further exchange it is better conducted via our respective email - so this is one last response here on this tangential excursion:

Re the Economics Professor anecdote  - at the time I was a young and d very earnest 1st year student who took (and still do) people at their word so when the Professor asked for questions, I welcomed the opportunity (that I perceived had been offered). Interestingly, we developed a very good relationship and at the end of that 1st year the Professor did his utmost to persuade me to stay with economics.  

Yes, it's important being mindful of the range of protocols that apply within the matrix of human relationships. However and it may have much to do with my 'rebellious Scots / Irish' mind but advancing the credibility of one's argument that is largely reliant on 'other people say so too' (which at its most fundamental is how references are used) never carried much weight in our household as a position arrived at - in the first instance - through demonstrably critical thinking and strong logical evaluation.

It was once a core belief that the World was flat and that sailing off the end of it was a real hazard. It will be interesting to see how many of the currently in vogue 'abundantly referenced' paradigms prove to be of the 'flat earth' ilk.

Well, wait till you hear about us instinctive Anarchist Indians! But yeah, ideas are there to be challenged. I think its' just a matter of how we go about the process, maybe. As long as the lines are not crossed, the world's our oyster! Enjoyed speaking to you!