Interdisciplinarity Reflected in the Policy
Documents of Funding Bodies of INTREPID
Members
Report of a scoping study conducted for the EU COST Action INTREPID (Working
Group 1) by Mrs Justyna Bandola-Gill and Professor Catherine Lyall, The University
of Edinburgh
November 2015Mrs Justyna Bandola-Gill
University of Edinburgh
Justyna.Bandola-Gill@ed.ac.uk
Professor Catherine Lyall
University of Edinburgh
c.lyall@ed.ac.uk
Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ... 1 2. RESULTS ... 2 2.1. Interdisciplinarity in context ... 2 2.2. Definitions ... 4
2.3. Guidance on application and peer review ... 5
2.4. Interdisciplinarity as a separate field ... 6
3. SUMMARY ... 7
4. BIBLIOGRAPHY ... 7
5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... 7
APPENDIX 1: List of documents analysed in the report ... 8
Publication and citation
Justyna Bandola-Gill and Catherine Lyall retain the right to publish academic articles based on this report
Please cite this report as: Bandola-Gill, J. and Lyall, C. (2015), Interdisciplinarity Reflected in the Policy Documents of Funding Bodies of INTREPID Members, University of Edinburgh,
Bandola-Gill and Lyall, November 2015 1
1. INTRODUCTION
This scoping study analysed policy documents regulating the funding of research projects in EU member states represented within the INTREPID COST Action network1. The main focus of the study was an exploration of how interdisciplinarity (ID) is presented and managed by the main research funding organisations in the 28 EU member countries represented within INTREPID. The initial selection of documents, reflected in the call for submissions sent to INTREPID members2, limited the focus of the research to two main areas of interdisciplinary research:
1) the promotion and funding of interdisciplinary research;
2) guidance on the peer review processes that these agencies adopt for interdisciplinary research proposals.
As a result of the call, we have collected 42 documents from 14 countries. In order to try to ensure comparability of documents and the data fit of the documents to the research questions, we have conducted an initial selection of the documents. We have chosen strategic documents that include an overview of the issue of interdisciplinarity (as opposed to documents presenting examples of research projects implementing the strategy) and guidelines regarding the application for, and assessment of, funding. Furthermore, four of the Management Committee teams prepared reports summarising the funding schemes in their countries. These were: Ireland, compiled by Doris Alexander and Allen White, Portugal compiled by Helena Guimares and Marta Varanda, Spain compiled by Marite Guevara and Denmark compiled by Theresa Norn. The final set of documents that form the basis of this report is presented in Appendix 1. The framework of analysis of the documents was based on a set of guiding questions, as follows:
1. Is ID mentioned in the policy documents? 2. What is the definition of ID (if any)?
3. Is there a separate area/scientific field called ID in national funding agencies to which applicants submit research proposals?
4. Is there specific guidance on peer review?
1 INTREPID (COST Action TD1408) - Interdisciplinarity in research programming and funding cycles.
2 Email from Professor C Lyall to all Management Committee members dated 11 July 2015 and subsequent follow up
emails from Justyna Bandola-Gill and INTREPID Network Manager, Natacha Mesquita.
2. RESULTS
2.1. Interdisciplinarity in context
The majority (23 out of 26) of documents included in this analysis mention the term “interdisciplinarity”. In a few documents, the terms “transdisciplinarity”, “cross-disciplinarity” and “multidisciplinarity” were mentioned, sometimes interchangeably with interdisciplinarity, and with no clear differentiation of these terms.
The contexts in which the term “interdisciplinarity” was cited varied but can be categorised in three groups:
• Interdisciplinarity as a way to enhance the quality of research. Illustrative quotes: o “To enhance the quality and impact of research, we are committed to […]
supporting the renewal of research, multidisciplinarity, new approaches and potential scientific breakthroughs.” (Finland)
o “The best researchers come from dynamic, scientific environments that cooperate internationally, often across dividing lines between disciplines.” (Norway)
• Interdisciplinarity as a way to tackle the challenges of the modern world. Illustrative quotes:
o “The RIVM Strategic Programme (SPR) contributes to solutions to societal challenges through interdisciplinary research, and by supporting innovation and capacity building at RIVM.” (Netherlands)
o “The new challenge-based approach will require researchers to propose research solutions to defined major societal challenges; the multi-disciplinary nature of these societal challenges will require a new team based approach by the NCPs to deliver the maximum participation from Ireland. The multi-disciplinary research and innovation required to effectively tackle these challenges in a sustainable way entails pooling complementary knowledge and resources, including the active involvement of socio-economic disciplines.” (Ireland)
• Interdisciplinarity as a way to enhance innovation or break-through research. Illustrative quotes:
o “Innovation lies in the multidisciplinary approach where we integrate technical information from media analysis, social information on cultural cognition with communication techniques of social marketing.” (Netherlands)
Bandola-Gill and Lyall, November 2015 3
o “Strengthen investment in long-term, breakthrough, basic research by encouraging interdisciplinarity and designing new support and selection methods.” (Norway).
o “Innovation and technological change are also driven by research across disciplinary boundaries. We will continue to facilitate research across and between disciplines and shape the UK’s research infrastructure.” (UK)
Similar declarations have been made at a European level. For example, Science Europe, an association of European Research Funding Organisations and Research Performing Organisations, highlights fostering interdisciplinarity as one of the areas where the organisation aims to make a contribution:
• “Supporting borderless science – by helping to build stronger links with market players and other sectors of society, and by fostering the interdisciplinarity needed to tackle societal challenges.” (Science Europe, 2013, p. 25).
Additionally, the organisation sees interdisciplinarity as a means to facilitate cross-border cooperation:
• “A scientific environment without geographic, disciplinary or sectoral borders requires enhanced collaboration, mobility and interdisciplinarity.” (Science Europe, 2013, p. 3)
2.2. Definitions
Despite the quite broad presence of the references to interdisciplinarity, this term is not conscientiously defined in the documents produced by the funding bodies of the European countries that we analysed. Only four (15%) of documents include an explicit definition of the term interdisciplinarity or the conditions that have to be met in order for the project to qualify as interdisciplinary (Figure 1). Only one respondent highlighted the use of OECD Frascati definitions (OECD, 2015, 1972) in their member state’s policy documents.
Figure 1. Definitions and mentions of interdisciplinarity in policy documents, % of documents (N=26).
Examples of definitions included in the documents are:
• “The term 'interdisciplinarity' is generally used to describe the situation in which representatives of different disciplines work together on research.” (Germany)
• "The panels are also evaluating interdisciplinary research (crossing subject boundaries) and transdisciplinary research (bridging research and societal boundaries).” (Sweden) • “An application is considered as interdisciplinary if the following three requirements are
cumulatively met: (1) The research topic includes two or more scientific disciplines. (2) The research requires reciprocal interaction between two or more disciplines. (3) The scientific approach of the project entails that all disciplines involved make reference to shared theoretical concepts and methods or jointly engage in developing concepts and methods.” (Switzerland)
• “Interdisciplinarity is concerned with the study of a research topic within multiple disciplines, and with the transfer of methods from one discipline to another. The research topic integrates different disciplinary approaches and methods.” (Finland)
88% 12%
Men3ons of ID
Men3on ID Do not men3on ID 15% 85%Defini3ons of ID
Include defini3on Do not include defini3on
Bandola-Gill and Lyall, November 2015 5
2.3. Guidance on application and peer review
Despite quite ubiquitous declarations of support for interdisciplinary research, the exact criteria and guidance for managing and assessing interdisciplinary research projects are quite sparse in the documents we examined. The guidance for peer review (or any alternative assessment procedure) is almost non-existent in the collected documents. The lack of guidelines in strategic documents does not imply that such guidelines do not exist at all. A previous analysis of peer-review guidelines collected by the Global Research Council3 has shown that three out of 19 countries analysed in the report have detailed guidance on the peer review of interdisciplinary proposals (Lyall & King, 2013).
Our analysis has shown that in cases in which guidelines are issued (38% of documents), recommendations are limited to composition of the assessment panel or include general recommendations for assuring sufficient expertise. For example:
• “Quality, significance, and relevance of the proposed research, including value for money and the potential to advance knowledge and understanding within its own field or across different fields”. (Ireland)
• “New devices and processes to address the challenge of appropriately allocating and treating cross-disciplinary research proposals should be developed by the Board on top of the existing mechanisms. The ‘matrix committee’ for inter-disciplinary selection is a first constructive step to address this challenge.” (Denmark)
There are some specific strategies used in individual cases. For example, evaluation panels for Swedish Formas include stakeholders that are non-academic in order to assess societal impact of research and are assessed by problem-oriented panels. The call for Norwegian centres of excellence includes an opportunity for assessment by a second academic committee and an interdisciplinary project might include an additional summary for the second committee.
2.4. Interdisciplinarity as a separate field
The majority (81%) of the documents did not distinguish a specific field called “interdisciplinarity” in their funding schemes. Even for those that do, the processes and definitions are not entirely unambiguous. However, this does not mean that interdisciplinary projects are completely overlooked by the funding bodies. In a few cases (e.g. Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, UK), there are separate calls for ID projects (including individual project grants, funding programmes, centres, etc.). Alternatively, (e.g. Norway, Denmark), the projects funded within the disciplinary areas have a strong and often encouraged ID dimension.
There are cases of funding of programmes or projects that are explicitly aimed at interdisciplinary projects. For example:
• The NIAS-Lorentz Program (Netherlands) – funded by Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Science (KNAW) and the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO); its aims to bridge the humanities, social science, natural science and technology4;
• BIONÆR (Sustainable Innovation in Food and Bio-based Industries) and MILJO2015 programme (Norwegian Environmental Research Toward 2015) – programmes that have explicit prerequisite for interdisciplinarity.
This might suggest that interdisciplinarity is not emerging as parallel to disciplinary areas, but is a unique field that requires a specific approach to funding. Evidence from previous studies (e.g. Lyall and King, 2013) suggests that interdisciplinary research fares better when it is the subject of a separate, dedicated call.
4 Source: http://www.nias-lorentz.nl/program.html [accessed: 2.11.2015]
Bandola-Gill and Lyall, November 2015 7
3. SUMMARY
4. BIBLIOGRAPHY
Lyall, C., & King, E. (2013). International good practice in the peer review of interdisciplinary research. Report of a scoping study conducted for the RCUK Research Group (available to download from www.tinyurl.com/idwiki)
OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2015), Frascati Manual. Guidelines for collecting and reporting data on Research and Experimental Development, www.oecd.org/sti/inno/Frascati-Manual.htm (accessed 17/11/15)
OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (1972), Interdisciplinarity: problems of teaching and research in universities. Paris: OECD
Science Europe (2013), Science Europe Roadmap, www.scienceeurope.org/policy/policy-2/roadmap (accessed 17/11/15)
5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of INTREPID members in supplying data for this study and also the role of Ms Natacha Mesquita, INTREPID Network Manager in facilitating this.
ANALYSIS HIGHLIGHTS
• 42 documents were collected and 26 documents were analysed as part of the study
• These documents come from 14 European countries
• 23 (88%) of the documents have mentioned “interdisciplinarity” • 4 (15%) have an explicit definition of interdisciplinarity
• ID was mentioned in the following contexts: enhancement of quality of research, promotion of innovativeness, tackling “wicked problems” of modernity
• 10 (38%) include guidance on assessment of interdisciplinary projects
APPENDIX 1: List of documents analysed in the report
COUNTRY TITLE OF A DOCUMENT/WEBSITE CONTENT
Cyprus DESMI
Denmark Processing of cross-council applications
Denmark Evaluation of The Danish National Research Foundation Denmark Evaluation of the Danish Council for Independent Research
Estonia Estonian Research and Development and Innovation Strategy 2014-2020
Finland Academy of Finland strategy
Germany Federal Ministry of Education and Research - Funding Germany Interdisciplinarity: Reviewing Across Discipline Boundaries Ireland National Strategy and Targets for Participation in Horizon 2020 Ireland SFI Investigator Grant Call
Macedonia Information provided by respondent about Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Macedonia
Netherlands RIVM Strategic Programme 2015-2018 Netherlands Strategic Research RIVM 2011-2014
Netherlands Building a scientific EMF infrastructure in The Netherlands Netherlands The Netherlands National Science Organisation Strategy
Netherlands The Netherlands National Science Organisation Programmes and calls
Norway Evaluation of interdisciplinary proposals Norway The Centres of Excellence Scheme - call 2015
Norway Research for Innovation and Sustainability. Strategy for the Research Council of Norway 2015-2020
Portugal FCT planning document 2014 Portugal FCT guidelines
Spain Spanish National Plan for Scientific and Technical Research and Innovation 2013-2016
Sweden Formas annual open call 2015
Switzerland Swiss National Science Foundation - Interdisciplinary projects Switzerland Swiss National Science Foundation - National Research
Programmes (NRPs)
