The Hidden Boundaries of Expertise

Deep knowledge is critical for ecosystems, but it shouldn‘t lead.

Last week, we had the opportunity to facilitate a workshop with research leaders at the University of Memphis—smart, dedicated people doing incredible work at the frontiers of their disciplines. The goal of our session was to help them think more intentionally about how their research could connect to broader regional development efforts. What we discovered together is a challenge I see across the country: how do we balance deep expertise with the need for broader interconnection when engaging in ecosystem-building work?

For example, a principal investigator on a large research grant may naturally assume they should take the lead on ecosystem-building simply because they hold the grant. But their expertise—say, in a specific STEM discipline—may not be the most productive framing for building a broader regional development strategy. The challenge isn’t about the value of expertise—it’s about recognizing when to lead with it and when to lead through relationships.

Naturally, in university-engaged ecosystems, expertise and deep knowledge are central—and they should be. A primary mission of universities is to advance knowledge. When institutions are invited to connect with the ecosystem, though, they often show up with an offer of knowledge—but not necessarily with a strategy for engagement.

There is a gap between expertise-led and boundary-spanning thinking and collaboration in ecosystems, and it‘s not just in ecosystems that include universities.

Expertise is the Engine—But It’s Not the Ecosystem

An expertise-led approach to ecosystem building tends to focus on assets. Universities and other actors in the ecosystem come to the table with perspectives like these:

• Here’s what we know.

• Here’s what we can do.

• Here’s the technology we’ve developed.

This is important and valuable work—central to advancing the research mission of the institution. At the same time, this approach can inadvertently reinforce silos, centering individual institutions or organizations rather than the network—focusing on what each party has to offer rather than how they’re connected.

Boundary-spanning thinking adds another perspective to the orientation. Instead of leading with research questions, it leads with curiosity about the system/larger context:

• Who else is working on this?

• What’s already happening in the community?

• What are the needs and the assets across the ecosystem? Where do individuals and organizations fit in?

• Where are the trust gaps? The friction points? The shared aspirations?

It’s not that expertise goes away—it’s that it becomes contextualized by relationships.

The Shift We Need

In Memphis, we had rich conversations addressing questions like:

• What does our research mean for this region, beyond the data and findings?

• What kinds of outcomes are important beyond what’s promised in the grant proposal, and beyond publication?

• What would it look like to co-create solutions with community partners instead of offering solutions to them?

These aren’t easy questions. But they’re essential ones.

If we want to build truly resilient, inclusive innovation and regional development ecosystems, we have to move beyond institutional boundaries, disciplinary silos, and traditional hierarchies of knowledge. We need spaces where we can practice a different kind of engagement. (Check out information below about our C•CUBE Peer Learning Roundtables for an example of such spaces.)

Expertise is necessary to advancing ecosystems. But it’s not sufficient. Ecosystems grow at the edges—where people, ideas, and intentions meet. Boundary-spanning is where the real work of regional development begins.