Interdisciplinary Research

Transcription

1 Interdisciplinary Research Policy and Practice Report from the event held on 8 December 2016

2 Interdisciplinary Research Policy and Practice Foreword What makes excellent interdisciplinary research (IDR)? How can it be best supported, developed and embedded? How important are structures and culture to getting this right? These important questions were discussed by a combination of researchers, funders and policy makers at the joint HEFCE, Research Councils UK and British Academy event Interdisciplinary Research: Policy and Practice on 8 December in London. From Sir Mark Walport at the beginning of the day to Professor Tom McLeish at the end, we heard of the importance of form following function in research, the additive nature of interdisciplinary working, and the power that lies in our hands as researchers to stimulate and support IDR. The importance of IDR was clear to addressing grand challenges and complex problems, building on deep disciplinary expertise. The UK research base is world-leading on many measures. Interdisciplinary and monodisciplinary research are both fundamental parts of this. I hope that the summary of the day s discussion will prove useful in considering how across our institutions, and as individuals, we can stimulate, support and embed IDR. I would like to thank the speakers, participants and funders of the day for the constructive and stimulating discussions. Professor Judith Petts CBE Chair, Interdisciplinary Research Policy and Practice Vice-Chancellor, University of Plymouth 2 Interdisciplinary Research Policy and Practice

3 Introduction On 8 December 2016, Research Councils UK (RCUK), the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and the British Academy held a joint conference on Interdisciplinary Research: Policy and Practice. The conference aimed to explore the policy for and practice of interdisciplinary research (IDR) across the UK. The day s programme was informed by the findings of the following reports: Crossing Paths: Interdisciplinary Institutions, Careers, Education and Applications Interdisciplinarity: Survey Report for the Global Research Council 2016 A review of the UK s Interdisciplinary Research Using a Citation-Based Approach Landscape Review of Interdisciplinary Research in the UK Case Study Review of Interdisciplinary Research in English Higher Education Institutions Team Science: Improving Recognition of Team Science Contributions in Biomedical Research Careers Interdisciplinary Research: Methodologies for Identification and Assessment. The conference brought together funders, strategic leaders and UK researchers from across disciplines, institution types and career stages. This document summarises the overarching themes that emerged from the day, drawing out structural and cultural elements of the UK research environment that can act as enablers of, or barriers to, IDR. The conditions that facilitate the development of IDR questions, projects and teams depend upon a complex interplay of factors. These factors can be grouped into three broad types, all of which were highlighted during the day s sessions: The national policy context national assessment exercises such as the Research Excellence Framework (REF) and the funding landscape The institutional context how interdisciplinarity is promoted within universities and research institutes The culture of academic research identities of researchers and the way in which they view and treat IDR All of these factors interact in complex ways and need to be considered when seeking to support research which takes place across disciplinary boundaries. It was recognised that many of the factors discussed apply to undertaking excellent research more generally, but that the complexity often presented by work in the interdisciplinary space can intensify the challenge. Interdisciplinary Research Policy and Practice 3

4 Background Wider political context The conference was held at a time when a number of significant changes to the UK research environment were under discussion. The consultation on the second Research Excellence Framework was published on the day of the conference. Further to the Stern review published in July 2016, this technical consultation explicitly seeks better ways to accommodate IDR. The Higher Education and Research Bill was waiting to move to the House of Lords. Measures in this Bill seek to streamline the UK s funding architecture through the creation of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI). Some participants reflected that this might provide opportunities for greater promotion and more effective funding of IDR. Prior to this the UK had voted to leave the EU on 23 June 2016: this was expected to impact on the UK s research base, interdisciplinary and otherwise. What is interdisciplinarity? Throughout the day, the term IDR was used to refer to research activities that cross disciplinary boundaries. The purpose of the day was not to redefine interdisciplinarity. Participants brought a broad understanding of interdisciplinarity to the discussions, with terms such as multidisciplinary, transdisciplinary, and crossdisciplinary highlighted as relevant but potentially distinctive. Why do interdisciplinarity? The idea that form should follow function, emphasised by Sir Mark Walport in his opening keynote remarks, nicely highlighted that IDR should be considered a means to an end, rather than an end in itself. Whether a disciplinary or interdisciplinary approach is needed depends on the research question that is being tackled. IDR is about applying the necessary tools and techniques to attack the question, regardless of their disciplinary origins. Many felt that lots of the most interesting and important questions are by their very nature interdisciplinary. It was emphasised that the most pressing challenges facing society do not present themselves to academics in disciplinary silos. Addressing such grand challenges requires the bringing together of different disciplinary perspectives. International policy context While discussion focussed on the national policy context, there was recognition that UK academia exists in an international context and is affected by international structures and cultures. 4 Interdisciplinary Research Policy and Practice

5 One important incentive structure exogenously imposed on the UK is the international recruitment market, which it was felt increasingly relies on citations. Decisions taken in the UK to incentivise and reward certain types of academic endeavour need to be mindful of the impact that this might have on the UK s role in an international context. The UK must be sensitive to these international constraints in the decisions it makes to better accommodate all kinds of research, including IDR. The national policy context The morning session considered recent policy research, starting with those reports aimed at exploring how IDR is understood, stimulated, supported and embedded. Key themes included: The importance of pump priming funding particularly at institutional level The need to balance top-down and bottom-up approaches Challenges associated with peer-reviewing IDR in a range of contexts The role of disciplinary cultures in setting the landscape for researchers, particularly in the space of careers and development The role of institutions in creating the localised environments to support excellent research The participants were also able to discuss the recent Digital Science report which explored the use and triangulation of research metrics in the identification of interdisciplinarity. The research concluded that proxy indicators of interdisciplinarity, such as those derived from analysis of grant applications or publications, often do not provide consistent results. It was noted that more research is needed to understand the link between the proxies that we choose to identify IDR and what these are actually measuring. Funding A clear message that emerged from discussion is that IDR collaboration is not straightforward. It requires time and the investment of resources to build relationships and allow work across disciplines to be nurtured. Often time can be as important as, if not more important than, the level of investment; some participants raised the value of extending the same volume of investment across a longer time frame. Ultimately, it was agreed that decisions should be made to fund the best research. But it was argued that there is a challenge here for all parts of the research system to be self-critical, recognising that existing research agendas reflect a history which is grounded in existing disciplines. Key issues raised Complexity The role of higher education institutions (HEIs) Flexibility Opportunities Interdisciplinary Research Policy and Practice 5

6 The research councils highlighted that funders do not always sufficiently emphasise the extent of interdisciplinary research they are supporting, or the processes that are in place to encourage it. The crossresearch council funding agreement, for example, has been a successful means of allowing the research councils to fund interdisciplinary work, but the impact of this has not been widely communicated. It was felt that there would be opportunities for IDR through the development of UKRI. However, it was noted that countries such as Germany and the USA, which have single research funding councils, still find that silos can develop within these single bodies. The development of UKRI will need to take this into account in its strategic approach to research funding across the constituent councils. Key issues raised Perceptions of assessment Challenges of peer review Role of HEIs The importance of visible leadership Evaluation The reports from earlier in the day set the scene for discussion. Research shows that those outputs declared as interdisciplinary on submission to the REF, and assessed by peer review, scored equally as well as their single-discipline counterparts. Despite this equity in assessment outcome, IDR was less likely to be submitted to the REF than other kinds of research, given its incidence across the whole of the UK journal article landscape, suggesting that there may be decisions made at an institutional level based on a perception of how different types of research may perform. It was clear that for IDR, the peer review process can be challenging drawing together the mix of academic expertise and interdisciplinary skills and understanding can prove difficult for those assessing research. It was felt that funders through engagement with the community need to be better at developing high quality evaluation and peer review for truly interdisciplinary research. It was also recognised that peer review is a collective process and that it is the academic community that undertakes evaluation including through grants, publications, national assessment and researcher recruitment. The need for a flexible approach is paramount. It is important that peer review panels evolve and that their membership adapts to reflect the changing nature of the grant applications that they receive. There is no one specific model to systematically fund or evaluate IDR. Specific measures proposed for REF2021 to ensure fair and equitable assessment and to encourage the submission of IDR were discussed, including: Appointing IDR champions to each of the assessment panels Introducing a mandatory IDR flag for research outputs that the HEI recognises as IDR Institutional level assessment of IDR impact case studies 6 Interdisciplinary Research Policy and Practice

7 While the participants highlighted that IDR champions on panels would send a clear message that IDR was welcome, they also noted that it is important to establish what tools such champions should have when faced with a monodisciplinary majority. Group dynamics are very important within panels. The REF s Unit of Assessment structure asks institutions to make choices about where they submit research that in turn can affect the nature of disciplines; HEIs should take responsibility for fair treatment of different types of research. Approaches to support IDR through changes to the REF process cannot be considered independently of the broader changes being proposed. Institutional level: University structures Practical measures at the institutional level can make a real difference in terms of stimulating, supporting and delivering interdisciplinary work in the face of whatever policy landscape this is situated in. The importance of making space and time came out very clearly from discussion. Making space means actually making physical space to allow IDR to flourish. Some talked of a culture change in universities to recognise the value of IDR. The role of effective leadership within institutions should not be underplayed in nurturing IDR. The dualsupport funding system which gives institutions the flexibility to make strategic interventions and develop new areas and new ideas from the bottom up was emphasised as important. Key issues raised Financial structures Physical space Shared ethos Structures Skills Several institutional case studies were presented on the day, drawing as widely as possible on different types of institution and approach and taking into account the deep research that had been undertaken through the various reports published by the conference organisers. It is important to note that what works is contextual to the institution concerned; what is effective in a large multi-faculty institution may not work as well in a small and specialist environment and vice versa. Overviews of three of the case studies presented on the day are given below. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine LSHTM is a postgraduate research-intensive medical school with 75% of its research involving international collaboration. Some requirements set by health research funders have meant that IDR has become embedded in the way LSHTM works, for example the requirement to have economics included in any randomised control trial. The shared sense of mission in tackling global health challenges acts as a supportive frame for undertaking IDR in this area. Interdisciplinary Research Policy and Practice 7

8 The School has a partly discipline-based and partly topic based structure with about half the departments being discipline-based. The School Centres make up a matrix across the institution. They aim to create a critical mass of expertise addressing specific topics and seek to address all dimensions of an issue, from whatever discipline is appropriate. Research grants are channelled through the departments where the principal investigators are based but the Centres do receive operational support. LSHTM is also part of the London International Development Centre (LIDC) with SOAS, Royal Veterinary College, Institute of Education and Birkbeck, which was created to enable the individual colleges to go beyond their sectoral expertise. Durham University: The Institute of Advanced Study The Institute of Advanced Study (IAS) aims to provide a space to reflect on how to stimulate, support and embed IDR across the university. As a unit the IAS provides a base for visiting fellows and supports development of IDR across disciplines and throughout the university; it identifies annual broad research themes which are developed through engagement with the research community and which provide the mechanism to attract fellows from multiple disciplines relevant to a theme. However, any interdisciplinary project can seek practical support through the IAS. The Institute of Advanced Study seeks to overcome barriers to IDR, particularly cultural barriers that can result from the tensions between existing disciplines. Its approach acknowledges that all disciplines are equal and seeks to challenge assumptions and stereotypes. The Institute creates cohorts of fellows, who attend an IDR workshop, where they have to articulate the issues of bringing disciplines together, find ways to explain and communicate their disciplinary worldview, and explore how to articulate research questions in an interdisciplinary way. This is done through play and creativity, allowing intellectual freedom and creating social bonds. Exeter University: The Centre for Energy and the Environment Exeter University is a mid-size research-intensive university, with 21,000 students and 4,000 staff, arranged into six colleges with 70 million research income, equally split between STEM and Humanities and Social Science. The Centre for Energy and the Environment, established in 1977, is located in a single building and focused on applied research and consultancy in the area of energy-efficient and environmentally friendly buildings. The Centre works with a wide range of partners in the public and private sectors and delivers much of its impact outside academia. 8 Interdisciplinary Research Policy and Practice

9 The theme of climate change and its impact draws in many disciplines and diverse partners, focused on understanding the global system. The Centre s work has involved collaboration with the Met Office including joint appointments between the Met Office and the University. The Centre was originally established on the basis of PhD and project funding and has developed into a single co-located team that is seeking to expand and integrate more disciplines. Training and career paths There was a dedicated panel on the day addressing researcher development and careers. Career paths were an important thread throughout discussion. While it is helpful in the abstract to think of IDR in terms of form following function in relation to the research question, in practice career reward structures incentivise researchers to pursue certain kinds of research. Key issues raised Timing when to start doing IDR Training Identity Skills for collaboration Many felt that better training was needed for researchers to work across disciplinary boundaries. This training is not necessarily about learning the content of others disciplines, but about learning how to work together in teams and to find a common language with respect to methods etc. The question of when this training should take place was raised, and there was perhaps a tension between the need to inculcate deep disciplinary expertise alongside these more open working methods, especially at an early career stage. Nevertheless, some felt that researchers can be intrinsically interdisciplinary and that different educational routes should be open to these individuals. A funding channel for mid-career research leaders to champion IDR was raised as a potential method for supporting this. A report by the Academy of Medical Sciences was discussed which explicitly highlighted the need for, and the challenges of ensuring, the recognition of researchers contributions when working in a team. The need for transparency and credit for authorship was emphasised. It was noted in the discussion that the pathway for individuals seeking to engage in research which crosses disciplinary boundaries can have very personal consequences. Operating in territory where they may not be considered an expert and developing a background which is not a traditional fit can lead to a sense of isolation, particularly if researchers are not effectively supported or mentored. The need for perseverance emerged as critical, though this can also be true of specialist monodisciplinary areas as well as interdisciplinary areas. The group noted that IDR is not facing these career challenges alone. Many of these issues highlighted are common across international, inter-sectoral, open access and citizen science research. Importantly, it was highlighted that every researcher is different, requiring a diversity of opportunities within academia and between academia and other career paths, without artificial boundaries. Interdisciplinary Research Policy and Practice 9

10 Key issues raised Managing different identities Disciplinary oriented cultures Home Methodological soundness Cultures and identities We were all brought up in disciplines The emotional attachment that many researchers feel towards their disciplines came out strongly throughout the day. It was noted that people manage many different identities and the question was posed as to why the disciplinary identity can be so resistant to welcoming approaches from outside. For many people, disciplines are a feature of life with which they have a deep emotional connection. Researchers often define themselves by their disciplinary origins and speak in their own disciplinary languages. Opening this up depends on the willingness of the research community to address the need to break down the barriers which can result. It is important to note that there are often barriers created by disciplinary-oriented cultures and that career structures within academia are independent of the funding and policy landscape. Perhaps the most challenging culture change that needs to happen is in relation to early career development as well as peer review culture, both of which can be steered so strongly by the perspectives and approaches of established researchers. The metaphor of home was used frequently during the day. Unpacking carefully what is meant by a disciplinary home was felt to be crucial. Some felt that they needed their home to be more permanent and fixed, while others were prepared to be more mobile. Disciplinary homes could be conceived of in terms of administrative and funding structures, or a theoretical foundation on which thinking is based, or methodological training and secureness in particular techniques and approaches, or in terms of a broader community of researchers who can identify together through conferences or particular societies. It was felt that some of these aspects are integral to a disciplinary home, whereas others are optional. Methodological soundness needs to underpin all research, whether it is interdisciplinary or not, but other aspects of a disciplinary home are perhaps less universally true across the disciplinary spread. 10 Interdisciplinary Research Policy and Practice

11 Interdisciplinary Research Policy and Practice conference British Academy, Carlton House Terrace, London 8 December 2016 Agenda Registration Opening remarks Professor Sir Mark Walport, FRS, Government Chief Scientific Adviser Interdisciplinary research: Policy landscape Chair: Professor Judith Petts, CBE, Vice-Chancellor, Plymouth University Panel members Dr Steven Hill, Head of Research Policy and Health Policy, HEFCE Dr Ian Viney, MBE, Director of Strategic Evaluation and Impact, Medical Research Council Professor Anne Ridley, Academy of Medical Science Team Science Working Group Chair, King s College London Professor Graeme Reid, Professor and Science and Research Policy, British Academy Working Group, University College London Lunch Research assessment and funding panel Chair: Professor Ole Petersen, CBE, FRS, Cardiff University Panel members Professor Tony McEnery, FAcSS, FRSA, Director of Research, Economic and Social Research Council Dr Steven Hill, Head of Research Policy and Health Policy, HEFCE Dr Chonnettia Jones, Head of Insight and Analysis, Wellcome Sir Philip Campbell, FRAS, FInstP, Editor in Chief, Nature Interdisciplinary Research Policy and Practice 11

12 Researcher development and careers panel Chair: Dr Lisa Mooney, Pro Vice-Chancellor Research and Knowledge Exchange, University of East London Panel members Professor Colette Fagan, Deputy Dean and Vice Dean Research, University of Manchester Dr Janet Metcalfe, Head of Vitae, Vitae Professor Anne Ridley, Academy of Medical Science Team Science Working Group Chair, King s College London Dr Mina Ryten, Institute of Neurology, University College London Interdisciplinary research: Case study panel Chair: Professor Joyce Tait, CBE, FRSE, The University of Edinburgh Panel members Professor Dame Anne Mills, DCMG, CBE, FMedSci, FRS, Deputy Director and Provost, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine Mr Tony Norton, Head of the Centre for Energy and the Environment, University of Exeter Professor Veronica Strang, Director, Institute of Advance Studies, Durham University Interdisciplinary research: Case study panel Chair: Professor Hilary Lappin-Scott, Senior Pro Vice-Chancellor-Research and External Recognition, Swansea University Panel Members Dr Emma Wakelin, Director of Research and Innovation, Royal School of Art Dr Craig Walker, Director, White Rose University Consortium Professor Hugh McKenna, CBE, FFN RCSI, FEANS, FRCN, FAAN, Dean of Medical School Development, Ulster University Refreshment Break Panel Feedback Interdisciplinary research culture Chair: Professor Judith Petts, CBE, Vice-Chancellor, Plymouth University Speaker: Professor Tom McLeish, CBE, Durham University Closing remarks Professor Judith Petts, CBE, Vice-Chancellor, Plymouth University 12 Interdisciplinary Research Policy and Practice