Crossing Disciplines to Address Urban Sustainability

James Paskins, Sarah Bell, Ben Croxford, Muki Haklay and Simon Julier

University College London

4th September 2010 presentation for Track 20 EASST conference 2010EASST010: Practicing Science and Technology, Performing the Social

Aims of the Bridging the Gaps Programme

• Introduced by the EPSRC (Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council)

• Recognition that some problems benefit from a being approached by different disciplines

• Funding allows a university to explore ways of making interdisciplinary research work

The need for interdisciplinary working

• “The world has its problems, but universities have departments”

• Departments have their advantages– Concentration of expertise– Shared worldview

• Real-world problems often require input from more than one discipline

• Tension between efficiency and freedom

Urban Sustainability

• Context of “sustainable urban spaces” research questions can be:– Socio-cultural– Political– Economic– Psychological

• Not pure engineering or science problems• Problem driven research

Context of the programme

• UCL is a large multi-faculty department, with many departments in central London.

• Lots of equipment, technicians and research groups

About Bridging the Gaps at UCL

• Research has to involve sustainable urban spaces

• Collaborators must come from at least two different departments at UCL– At least cross-departmental if not cross-

disciplinary

• Any UCL department can be involved• Focus on early career researchers

(activities cannot be led by a Professor)

Range of Bridging the Gaps activities

• Open Programme – small initial funding for ideas

• Seminar Funding• Visiting Scholar Award• Staff Exchange• MSc Competition – co supervision of MSc• Sandpit Funding – nanotech and sensors• Escalator Funding – for previous participants• Grant Writing Support• Champion’s Events – Network of

representatives

A wide range of activities are funded

38 Collaborations funded so far, including:• Natural ventilation for greener and healthier buildings • Questioning the sustainability of post-industrial urban

landscapes• Children, Well-being and Disability: Re-visiting India• Community Mapping in Hackney: Community use and

appropriation of Hackney Marsh, London• Climate and Uncertainty Symposium• Duracoat: Using Nanoscience to protect wood• What's my energy footprint?

Feedback from participants

• All the funded collaborations have to provide some feedback

• Feedback has been sought in four areas:– About the people– About the ideas– About Bridging the Gaps funding– About the future

• Part of a continuing feedback programme

About the people

• Some were newcomers to cross-disciplinary work

“it is surprising how little scientists interact with engineers” (DB)

• Others see it as an essential part of their work

“It is essential to work with other departments as most of the research topics involve multi-disciplinary collaboration…” (LC)

“As everyone becomes more and more specialist it is inevitable that more and more cross disciplinary interaction is going to have to take place.” (RB)

• Broadly positive response– Perhaps not surprising: participants interested

enough to apply and they had received funding

• Some negative factors were identified

Collaboration can be “quite frustrating ... there is a reason why there is a gap… sometimes it is impossible to build bridges, people can become entrenched” (NK)

“Cross-disciplinary working can be very time consuming” (NK)

“Researchers may spend time transferring knowledge to cross-disciplinary colleagues ... with no immediate benefit.” (KJ)

Perceived failure of assessment processes • Increasing calls for cross-disciplinary research,

encouraging researchers to network and collaborate

• Frustration that cross-disciplinary work is not matched by cross-disciplinary assessment– Grant proposals– Journal reviewers– RAE/REF“despite [pushing] for more of it ... the research

council peer review system hasn't entirely caught up with the reality of cross-disciplinary research.” (RC)

About the ideas

• Some approaches produce entirely new collaborations

• Some of the ideas were already being pursued before Bridging the Gaps“this project is half related to some ongoing work” (RB)

• Some of the of the ideas require cross-disciplinary collaboration (sandpit groups)– nanotech & networked sensors with urban

sustainabilty“cross-disciplinary collaboration [was] necessary” (AO)

Requirement for expertise or equipment

“Energy efficiency is a function of many factors not studied in computer science departments” (KJ)

“it allowed us to bring in ... staff from other departments [with] skills that we would have been unable to provide ourselves” (PH)

“access to laboratory… to use specialist equipment” (LC)

“the equipment in the two groups is shared and the researcher benefits from it” (JT)

“Collaboration across disciplines and departments is most of the time very fruitful as it provides you with an opportunity to complement skills and knowledge.” (PH)

Further benefits from collaboration• Developing skills

“I have gained ... understanding outside my background” (LC)

“I  also learned how to efficiently prepare for a large funding from my partner” (JT)

“I liked the straightforward way physical scientists approach things” (NK)

•Reaching a wider audience

“It is going to take some of my research into different areas and to a bigger audience, hopefully it will help make the research successful in that we can start to tackle some of the huge challenges we are trying to address.” (RB)

About Bridging the Gaps funding

“[The MSc competition] did provide the incentive … and we might not have been creative enough to think of the idea on our own!” (RC)

“it would have been much harder to get started [without Bridging the Gaps]” (RB)

[it would have been] much more limited with less resources” (PB)

About the future: Continuing collaboration

“[We] now share a PhD student” (JH)

“we will push this [collaboration] in the grant proposals” (DB)

“I think EPSRC funding is the next logical step.” (RB)

“We plan to apply for a larger fund such as FP-7 or EPSRC” (LC)

“the ideas generated during this project has helped me to think about a further proposal which I am currently outlining and will be submitted to the BBSRC” (AO)

Is cross-disciplinary research worth it?

“Without a doubt” (DB)

“Yes, definitely” (PH)

“Possibly, depending on the time spent transferring knowledge and the benefits the cross-disciplinary collaboration” (KJ)

“if the problem is of a truly cross-disciplinary nature ... then the benefits will definitely outweigh the complexities.” (AO)

“very subjective [it is] about one's professional objectives and the things that make one's job worth doing.” (NK)

Conclusions

• Participants open to cross-disciplinary working• Cross-disciplinary research is seen as the

future, or the present, of research• Lack of funding seen as a barrier to novel

collaboration• Time pressure and complexity also act as

barriers• Frustration at discipline based assessment• Given the right problem, collaboration is seen

as worth the difficulties involved

Conclusions

• Cross-disciplinary working can fill a skills gap and provide access to useful equipment

• It can also develop the participant’s skills and expose them to a wider audience

• Small amounts of funding can be enough to initiate a collaboration and begin work on an idea– In some cases leading to larger grant applications

• Information about resources and facilities and potential partners is also valued(Champion’s Network)

www.ucl.ac.uk/btg