Interdisciplinary Kent: Three Films

As long time readers of this blog will know, I've been working with Jasper Bouverie of Funder Films to produce three short films celebrating the University's roots in - and on-going support for - interdisciplinarity. The films were finished in time to be premiered at Kent's 50th Anniversary shindig on 5 September, and are now available on its YouTube channel, below:

• Past: youtu.be/S4t0QSG4o84
• Present: youtu.be/CTvVnktO5yA
• Future: youtu.be/k3AUi3cqOG4

In presenting the films, Jasper gave a thoughtful and passionate introduction to the project, to why it was important to him, and why interdisciplinarity is important for us all. Here is a transcript of his words:

Interdisciplinary Kent: Premiere, 5 Sept 2015

An Eastern ARC interdisciplinary sandpit in May

The University of Kent was founded on strong interdisciplinary principles. It harnessed the mood of the time by questioning the siloed nature of learning, and the college structure was an attempt to encourage both staff and students in diverse disciplines to meet and interact. Whilst the departmentalisation of the seventies and eighties led to the loss of some of this serendipitous freedom, the ethos remained. The size of the University, the range of subjects and the concentrated campus encourages academics to meet others outside of their specialism.

Beyond the Safety of the Silo

Earlier this year Nesta and the Technology Strategy Board, now known as Innovate UK, launched the £10-million Longitude Prize. The competition to choose the subject for the prize offered the public a feast of intractable problems, from which it had to select a winner. It was a fairly ghoulish spectacle, akin to an X Factor-style contest to choose the most dangerous Horseman of the Apocalypse. “But how important is dementia, really?” we were asked. “Is it worse than hunger? Or thirst? What about paralysis? Or Pestilence?”

“Pestilence” roared the audience, and the returning officer duly offered up antimicrobial resistance as the Horseman Most in Need of a Good Kicking, or a Christmas Number One, which might be the same thing.

Getting Interdisciplinary Work Published

Inter-Multi-Supra-Cross: grappling with definitions

I’ve talked about the difficulty of interdiscipinarity before (for instance here, here and here; no yawning at the back), but on Tuesday I was at a British Academy funded workshop for early career researchers (ECRs) which wrestled again with the subject. And you know what? There were signs of hope.

I want to focus in particular on the potential for interdisciplinary publishing, and especially the work of Sarah Campbell and Rowman and Littlefield International. Sarah is Editorial Director of this new, small scale academic publisher. She’s done her time in academic publishing, and worked at Continuum for a decade before starting RLI. Whilst it’s linked to a big sister in America, it is editorially independent, and being so has allowed her the freedom to start from scratch and think about how interdisciplinary research can best be served.

Creative Visualisation

Lifting the lid on visualisation

The AHRC has launched a competition for 'designers, graphic artists, software developers, programmers and anyone with an interest in data visualisation' to design graphs and maps showing how grants from the UK’s seven research councils are distributed.

This follows the launch of the excellent Gateway to Research database, which holds information on all the projects that have been funded by the Research Councils.

Whilst, of course, both the database and the visualisation initiative are to be applauded, I can't help but feel that the AHRC is missing a trick here. After all, it is responsible for a huge range of disciplines, and it should be encouraging all, in every discipline (and of course, across-trans-inter-multi discplines) to visualise data in a way that is appropriate to them.

Fundermentals, as ever, is willing to wade in with some suggestions. All part of its public service remit, of course.

• Performance Artists: nothing lends itself to visualisation as much as mime. The AHRC should be encouraged to make a very large grant to someone in a stripey shirt exploring an invisible box full of data.
• Music: plenty of scope here for an opera. Or at least a Broadway musical? If they can make up something about rollerskating trains, then surely there's endless potential in the Repertorium of English Prose Sermons?
• Philosophy: what is data? Why are we looking at it? Who are we anyway?
• Theology and Religion: Visualising data as a religion. All should worship the data god. Atheists and agnostics will be shown pie charts and line graphs until they recant.
• Archaeology: we already talk about data being 'buried', of having to 'dig' for it.All you need is to see the Gateway as some kind of triumphal arch which we need to painstakingly piece together with trowels and very, very small brushes. If you could work Indiana Jones in, that would be a bonus.
• Creative Writing: Can't be too hard to visualise data as a novel. Probably a modernist, stream-of-consciousness thing that doesn't seem to make much sense, but everyone will say is tremendously clever for fear of seeming stupid.

I've only just scratched the surface. Whatever discipline you work in, I would encourage you to go along on the 24 January and heckle: 'This is all very well, but I think it's missing something. Have you thought about incorporating some action morphology? Perhaps with a side order of aesthetic ethnography?'

The Difficulty of Cross-ImeanInter-ImeanTransdisciplinarity

'Say, Prof: what's that word again?'

On Friday I went along to a symposium organised by SHARE that looked at the thorny issue of facilitating transdisciplinarity research. Despite the sweltering heat and the fabulous catering, both of which were very diverting, it was an interesting event, but perhaps not for the reasons that the organisers had originally intended.

The first reason was that the whole thing defied easy labelling. The first twenty minutes were spent on a 'taxonomy' of the label that should be used for work that transcends more than one discipline. In summary:

• Interdisciplinarity: when the techniques from one discpline are used in another;
• Multidisciplinarity: when many disciplines are working together on the same question;
• Crossdisciplinarity: is a generic term which shouldn't be used any more. You have been warned;
• Supradisciplinarity: when new approaches are used to inform a number of disciplines;
• Transdsciplinarity: when the work moves beyond traditionally defined boundaries. 

There were a couple of other definitions, but by then I was having trouble keeping up and noting down the nuances that differentiated these. Others were having similar problems, so that, throughout the day, whenever anyone mentioned working across the disciplinary divide, it was mentioned as 'Cross-ImeanInter-ImeanTransdisciplinarity.' Which was quite a mouthful, and did have the effect of slowing discussion. 

The second, more substantive reason that the day was illuminating was that it became clearer and clearer, to me, that Cross-ImeanInter-ImeanTransdisciplinarity cannot be taught. You either get it or you don't. Those that do, like the first speaker, Dr James Steele (UCL), are slightly perplexed that anyone needs to even ask why they do it, or how.

Much of the questioning following his talk were along the lines of, 'but what skills are needed to do Cross-ImeanInter-ImeanTransdisciplinarity?' Steele would, say, 'well, there are elements of archaeology, and obviously you need medical scanning techniques...' The exasperated questioner would then interrupt: 'No, but what skills did you need to bring all these different disciplines together?' And on they went.

Because for some, it's just what they do. They recognise that to answer the questions that interest them, they need to bring together experts from a range of disciplines. If you artificially try to do this, to try and answer one of the weird and wonderful RCUK calls developed by their Priorities Generator, then you're on a hiding to nothing, and however hard you try, it's just not going to work.

So what's the role of us research development managers in this? The symposium made me recognise that our job is not to artificially jam people from diverse disciplines together in a room and say, 'you're not coming out until you've created something! And make sure it's expensive!' Instead, we need to make sure that the support that we provide and the environment in which the work, are conducive to Cross-ImeanInter-ImeanTransdisciplinary working.

Thus, we might help academics find out what else is going on across campus, or provide information on sources of funding, or make sure that they've thought about how to exploit their pathways to impact, but we can't tell them how, or with whom, they should be working. That is up to those who do this without thinking, those who are the real champions of Cross-ImeanInter-ImeanTransdisciplinarity.

Research Council Priority Generator

Ever wondered how the RCUK chiefs come up with the strategic priorities? Do they sometimes seem - well - slightly random?

Well Fundermentals has managed to get its hands on the software programme that they use to devise their clever, cross-cutting, interdisciplinary programmes. For the first time we, the people, can click RCUK's 'button of power' and create whole new areas of research endeavour.

Go to the 'Research Councils Priority Generator' to have a go.

The Difficulty with Interdisciplinarity

Tim Harford, the self-styled Undercover Economist, wrote an interesting piece on his blog about the need to break out of disciplinary silos. He quoted Andrew Exum, a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security in Washington DC, talking about military intervention in Syria. 'Regional specialists rarely understand military capabilities and options well enough to make an argument for or against, and those who understand military capabilities and options rarely understand the regional dynamics well enough to make an argument for or against.'

This is a neat encapsulation of the argument for interdisciplinary working. A similar line of argument was followed by Prof Rick Rylance, CEO of the AHRC, when he visited the University a couple of weeks back. However, Rylance was frank in his acceptance of the problems that those working in the disciplinary borderlands face. He gave an example from his own work: he's an English scholar by trade, and has worked with a neuroscientist to analyse brain patterns when people read poetry. Interesting stuff, but they had problems getting it published: humanities journals that thought that it was too scientific, and science journals that thought it was a bit too 'kooky.'

I think this won't be solved until the silos that Harford talks about are permanently dismantled, and that's not going to happen any time soon. Part of the problem is the REF (it's becoming a bit of theme today, isn't it?) which reinforces a need to focus strictly on comparing yourself with others in a narrowly defined field. If and when the silos do tumble, there's still the problem of identifying early which areas should be collaborating with which other areas. Harford recognises that it's difficult to have in place the necessary links for problems that cannot be predicted, such as Syria or the Lehman Brothers. However, he seems to be suggesting that cross-silo communication will help to pre-empt this, but I'm not so sure. After all, there's a lot of silos out there, and how do you know you've got on the line to the right one?

Which brings me quite neatly on to the question of Research Council thematic priorities. The Research Councils, as you know, have fully embraced the interdisciplinary agenda. Barely a week goes by without another call for interdisciplinary research. One academic joked with me recently that he imagined a large machine in Death Star House which automatically produced random pairs of abstract nouns, linked by a conjunction, to create the latest priority. 'Health and Wellbeing', 'Culture and Society', 'Science and Justice' etc etc.

But in all seriousness, how are such interdisciplinary areas identified? And what happens to the collaborations that blossom under the RCUK interdisciplinary sun when the weather changes? I think, too, that there is a question of critical mass. Kent was founded on the principles of interdisciplinarity, deliberately avoiding a departmental structure so that cross-disciplinary dialogue would happen in colleges, along corridors where philosophers would be housed next to astrophysicists. However, it had to bow to the inevitable and put all the philosophers together and all the astrophysicists together in separate departments. There is something to be said in having people in the same or similar disciplines together to concentrate their resources, their knowledge, their brain power on solving the issues pertinent to them.

So where does that leave us? Interdisciplinarity is good, but I don't think it's something that can be forced. I'm a little sceptical about calls to encourage collaboration in specific areas. Instead, there should be a broader willingness to accept interdisciplinary work in the mainstream academy, and thus in highly rated journals. In fact, when you think about it, these two concepts may go hand in hand: once the funders stop pushing specific (political?) areas then the scepticism amongst academics might abate, and we might well be left with a more open acceptance of the concept of interdisciplinarity.

The Problems with Multidisciplinarity

An interesting article in the Times Higher this week highlights the problems that peer review has with multidiscliplinary projects. The example they give is of an article, published by Science, reporting the findings of a multidisciplinary project that claimed to have found a way to identify all enzyme activity in a cell. It turned out that the project had made some fundamental mistakes in the chemical analysis, but that these hadn't been picked up in the peer review of the article because no chemists had been asked to look at it. It was just too multidisciplinary, and not all the scientific bases had been covered.

THE's contention is that current peer review systems are not up to the task of assessing multidisciplinary research. It's just too broad for them, and the journal format is not big enough to contain the shades of grey, and the quantity of data, needed to do the research justice.

Some have suggested that journals should adopt the working practice of funders, whereby individual reviewers provide reports, but a decision is made collectively by a panel.

However, my experience has been that multidisciplinary research, whilst encouraged by the CEOs and strategists at the funders, is often sidelined by the panels. Individual panellists tend to either think that they can't comment on a project which falls outside of their expertise, or will not treat it as a priority as its not squarely within their discipline. Mark Walport, Wellcome's chief, makes a similar point: 'you can end up making decisions on the basis of the least imaginative member of the group.'

There are certainly benefits to be had from multidiscplinary working, but also dangers, as was clear from the Grants Factory workshop earlier this term. I guess the lesson to take away from this is to do your homework and be prepared. See who is in the review college or on the panel, and who is likely to take the lead on your reviewing your application. Look at their background and work out whether they will be hostile to or supportive of your proposal, and try and gear your Case for Support towards their interests or understanding. It's tough, I know, to put in this extra effort, but it might just pay dividends when you're asking reviewers to take a punt on a new, interesting - but ultimately risky - collaboration.

EPSRC Collaborative Funding

There seems to be something in the air at the moment: following swiftly on from Henley's call to collaborate at Defra, and our announcement that the next Grants Factory workshop will focus on interdisciplinary and collaborative working, the EPSRC has just announced two calls for research at the boundary of their remit with the ESRC.

Promoting Cross-Disciplinary Research aims to fund a small number of cross-disciplinary projects around:

• Quantitative Aspects of Understanding Behaviours, which could include:
  

• new models of social systems
• understanding behaviours and engineering behavioural change.
• understanding vs. simulation in decision making
• Behaviour could include: social relations, social practices, social structures, organisational behaviour, economic behaviour and social institutions

• Innovation at the Bottom of the Pyramid, which could include:
  

• Novel technologies for developing countries or deprived social systems.
• Disruptive technologies for development
• Optimisation of cutting edge technology
• Technical solutions very different from traditional approaches

Up to £6m has been earmarked for this call and the closing date: 12 October 2010 (though you need to register your intention to submit by 10th September 2010).

Discipline-Hopping will be smaller awards, aimed at encouraging researchers to cross disciplinary boundaries. Up to £1 million has been earmarked for this targeted activity and, subject to the quality of the submissions received, it is anticipated that we will fund approximately 10 proposals. Deadline: 16 September 2010.

Lifelong Health and Wellbeing: Advanced Notice

Five of the seven Research Councils, together with a clutch of government departments, have issued an advanced notice for the third round of the 'Lifelong Health and Wellbeing' programme. This is intended to fund multidisciplinary research to understand, prepare for and encourage healthy living in later life.
Phase 3 will seek proposals on (but not restricted to):

• Mental health and wellbeing, including quality of life, preserving cognitive function;
• Resilience for successful ageing: from cell to society, including life course influences, markers for ageing and processes of ageing;
• Age-related conditions, including frailty and interventions to promote independence in later life.

They're offering both research grants (up to £10m) and pilot grants (£2.5m for 10 projects).
The call itself is due in early May, so have a look at their website and give some thought as to whether you have the necessary collaborations or projects that would be suitable to LLHW funding. If you need any help with this, don't hesitate to get in touch.

Violence Research Group

I went to a very productive meeting of the new 'Violence Research Group' on Tuesday. It was a small gathering - many couldn't make it because of teaching commitments - but there was an obvious enthusiasm for developing the Group as a forum for meeting others with shared or complementary interests around research into violence, for exploring issues and for engaging with people outside the University. Those attending agreed to host two public debates in the New Year: one on religion and violence, and the other on the biological or social causes of violence. They also suggested getting involved in the PVC's Lunchtime Seminars. More details to follow. The Group will be meeting next on 12 January; come along if you are interested in finding out more.

'In Our (Lunch) Time': PVC's Lunchtime Seminars 2009-10

For this year’s Lunchtime Seminars academics themselves are being given the chance to choose the topics and the participants for each event. The academic ‘host’ for each Seminar has chosen a topic that is rooted in their research, but has the potential to be of interest to (and informed by) other disciplines.
The 2009-10 series kicks off on 4 November with a Seminar hosted by Dr Charlotte Sleigh in History. It will focus on ‘the Face of the Expert’, and will explore issues around expertise, authority and communication. Who are (and were) experts? How do they get to be experts? Can they cease to be experts? What are their relationships with lay persons? How do these relationships structure knowledge and society? And as members of academia are we experts or not?
Dr Sleigh will be inviting a panel of academics from across the University to discuss the issue, in a format similar to that used on Radio 4’s ‘In Our Time’.
All are welcome. This year the Seminar itself will be first (at 12:30) with lunch – and further informal discussion – afterwards. Please let me know if you would like to attend, so that I can arrange the catering.

________________

The full list of Lunchtime Seminars 2009-10 is as follows:

• 4 November 2009 (Keynes Seminar Rm 14): 'The Face of the Expert'
  Hosted by Dr Charlotte Sleigh, Senior Lecturer in the History of Science (History).
• 9 December 2009 (Senate Chamber): 'Institutions: the New Economy of Knowledge and Power’
  Hosted by Prof Jeremy Carrette, Professor of Religion & Culture (Secl).
• 27 January 2010 (Keynes Seminar Rm 17): ‘Diagnosing Genetic Diseases in IVF Embryos: Could we? Should we?’
  Hosted by Prof Darren Griffin, Professor of Genetics (Biosciences).
• 10 March 2010 (Senate Chamber): ‘Flesh and the Body’
  Hosted by Patricia Debney, Senior Lecturer in Creative Writing (English).
• 7 April 2010 (Senate Chamber): Topic to be confirmed
  Hosted by Prof Mike Fairhurst, Professor of Computer Vision (Engineering & Digital Arts)
• 5 May 2010 (Senate Chamber): ‘Energy Security’
  Hosted by Dr Amelia Hadfield, Lecturer in European International Relations (Politics and International Relations).
• 2 June 2009 (Senate Chamber): ‘Utopias and Social Change’
  Hosted by Prof Davina Cooper, Professor of Law and Political Theory (Kent Law School).

Happy?

The ESRC, together with the MRC and a clutch of government departments, have launched a funding initiative for an interdisciplinary research group on 'subjective wellbeing', or 'happiness or life satisfaction as reported by individuals,' and how this relates to public policy. The turnaround on this is tight: they want expressions of interest by 16 Oct. However, this need only be a one page summary. Funds of up to £4.4 million (at 100 per cent full economic costing, at current prices) are available over a five year period. More detail here