Executive Summary
1.
This
review focuses on the seed-corn funding mechanisms utilised by the UK Research
Councils’ Rural Economy and Land Use programme (RELU) (Capacity Building
Awards, Scoping Studies, Development Awards and Networking Awards). The key
overarching objectives of the evaluation were: (1) To review how the seed corn
funding mechanisms have contributed to the RELU programme and objectives and (2)
To review how the awards have contributed to broader interdisciplinary capacity
in this field. A Framework of Core Questions eliciting information toward these
ends was designed to guide and integrate the several methodologies used:
document analysis (end-of-award reports), survey of researchers (65 returned
surveys), and semi-structured interviews (22 in addition to RELU leaders,
including researchers, stakeholders, individuals with overview perspectives and
senior figures in other interdisciplinary programmes).
2.
Overall,
the Review
found RELU’s seed-corn scheme to be effective in addressing its
aims. The Review supports the nearly unanimous opinion of survey respondents
and interviewees that seed-corn funding can play very important roles in
catalysing interdisciplinarity and the building of interdisciplinary
communities with increased capacity to tackle complex problems.
3.
The
seed-corn awards mobilised interest in the RELU programme, engaging diverse
researchers in its issues. Many researchers viewed the awards as opportunities
to address their desire to conduct interdisciplinary work; in fact many were
already involved in interdisciplinary work. In contributing to the programme’s
aims, the scheme also contributed to broader interdisciplinary capacity in
related fields, with seed-corn researchers in many cases increasing their
commitment to and/or competence at interdisciplinary working.
4.
At
various stages (pre-award, award, post-award), a variety of “linking”
activities were facilitated by awards,
including informal links and networks between researchers, and between
researchers and other stakeholders, cross-disciplinary meetings,
visits/exchanges, cross-disciplinary interactions with stakeholders,
interdisciplinary publications, subsequent bids to RELU and other funders,
links within/between institutions and involvement in other cross-disciplinary
initiatives.
5.
Hallmarks
of the awards were the linkages between researchers and between disciplines
that were forged or strengthened. Indeed, a great many researchers continue to
be involved in interdisciplinary research spanning social and natural science,
with an enhanced understanding of other disciplines. Some linkages with
stakeholders and across institutions were forged or strengthened, with some
continuing. Follow-on activity includes full-project bids to RELU, which in
many cases appear to have been strengthened by seed-corn experience, and to
other sources, although it is still too early to tell if success there has been
affected.
6.
RELU’s
funding mechanisms appear effective, in a general comparison with those used in
several other interdisciplinary programmes. Some administrative aspects could
have been improved, primarily the speed with which calls and awards were
announced and, especially, the timing of calls for full proposals relative to
very young seed-corn projects. Issues of assessment appropriate to
interdisciplinary bids also arose. Some
other programmes appear to make a point of bringing together their seed-corn
counterparts to share concerns and good practice as to processes involved; some
may give their seed-corn projects a somewhat higher profile within their
overarching initiative.
7.
While
the different award types addressed slightly different aims, division of RELU’s
seed-corn scheme into four funding mechanisms seemed unnecessary. It might be
preferable to offer one more generalised, flexible scheme of seed-corn awards,
which could be clearly defined to encompass the several types of nature/aim,
instead of artificially “forcing” distinctions among different award streams.
8.
An
important contribution of the scheme has been the enhancement of researchers’
ability to participate in other, future interdisciplinary collaborations.
Lessons learned through the RELU seed-corn experience indicate that researchers
conducting seed-corn projects can become more successful at building
interdisciplinary skills and community, if they come to understand the
processes involved in so doing. (Such processes are illustrated, for example,
by this Review’s explication of the flow of activities dominating the various
stages of bid-writing, conducting the award, post-award.) Examples of overarching lessons learned about
building interdisciplinary research capacity and mobilising new research
communities include: length of time and degree of effort needed; the importance
of prospects for follow-on activity and funding; the importance of clear,
shared objectives; the need to understand necessary processes and steps; and
the identification of a number of issues and challenges arising during
interdisciplinary research.
9.
A
number of lessons learned were offered as suggestions to funders or leaders of
seed-corn schemes in future research programmes on complex topics. Some were
analogous to messages to seed-corn project leaders, e.g. take the extra time
needed to design and establish the scheme and capture and share lessons learned
across funding bodies, as well as across researchers. Individuals were keenly
aware of the importance of assessment issues, particularly the need to select
or train assessors who can place appropriate value on proposals showing genuine
interdisciplinarity.
10.
At
a time when society looks to interdisciplinary research to tackle its complex
problems, this practical learning thus represents a national resource to which
the RELU seed-corn scheme has contributed. There is a general appetite for this
sort of learning, such that sharing it could help to avoid reinvention of
wheels and unnecessary problems in pursuing or funding seed-corn projects. We hope that this Review of RELU’s seed-corn
scheme will contribute to both these reservoirs of organisational learning.
1. Introduction: Objectives, Methods
Objectives
1.1
The
key overarching objectives of the evaluation were:
Ø To review how the
awards have contributed to the RELU programme and objectives
Ø To review how the
awards have contributed to broader interdisciplinary capacity in this field
and the principal
questions addressed by the review are detailed in
|
1.
To what extent were the awards successful in mobilising
interest in the RELU programme from across the social, environmental and
biosciences, and in bringing together these different research communities? 2.
Did the funding mechanisms enhance levels of
interdisciplinary research capacity? If so, in what ways has this been
realised during and after proposals/projects? a.
Have the awards informed the broader development of the
programme? If so how? b.
What linkages were forged or strengthened between
researchers, disciplines, institutions or with stakeholders? To what extent
were these collaborations entirely new or did they build on existing
links? Did the awards alter
understanding of other disciplines and Research Councils and did they lead to
more or less favourable attitudes towards collaboration across disciplines
between the natural and social sciences? c.
What subsequent activities were facilitated amongst
applicants (joint-initiatives, publications, funding bids, research awards,
institutionalised links, career progression of investigators and researchers
and other forms of collaboration)? To what extent are the award holders and
researchers engaged on projects still involved in inter-disciplinary research
between the natural or social sciences and/or still in contact with new
collaborators involved in the RELU project? Were there any other lasting
effects? 3.
Did the awards strengthen
the quality and integration of natural and social sciences in proposals for
larger research projects in subsequent calls for funding? 4.
What lessons can be captured for building
interdisciplinary capacity in the future, more generally? a.
What were the overarching lessons that can be
identified regarding the building of interdisciplinary research capacity
between the natural and social sciences, and the mobilisation of a new
research community (including the capacity building effects of the bidding process
itself)? b.
How might the funding mechanisms be enhanced in future
if other research programmes were to apply them (including questions
concerning scale and duration)? Which mechanisms were most successful and
cost effective? How does RELU’s funding mechanisms compare with those used in
other interdisciplinary programmes? |
Methods
1.2
The
reviewers captured the principal questions of the review and developed them
into a Framework of Core Questions which underpinned all of the methodologies
employed. This common framework enabled integration across methods to address
the central aims of the review.
Document
Analysis
1.3
End-of-award
Reports were analysed to identify useful examples, key points and practical
lessons learned. Results were captured as:
·
examples
of roles played by seed corn grants
·
examples
of interdisciplinary groupings
·
illustrative
types of stakeholder involvement
·
examples
of interactions within RELU
·
challenges
faced by seed corn projects
·
lessons
learned regarding the promotion of interdisciplinarity
·
lessons
learned regarding the inclusion of stakeholders
·
and other relevant points arising.
The document analysis
thus provided important qualitative input from award-holders into the
integrative Review and background information for the telephone interviews.
Surveys
1.4
A
four-page questionnaire comprising a mix of Lickert scale, pre-coded and free
text response modes was designed in consultation with RELU staff (see Annex A)
and elicited information relevant to the Framework of Core Questions. An email contacts database for this
evaluation was provided by the RELU office.
This database included all 34 award-holders (PIs), as well as
co-investigators and others associated with the awards. Once the database had been cleaned (duplicates
removed, names omitted where no email address had been provided or where the
address was no longer valid, etc.), this yielded a sample of 120 names[1]. Surveys were distributed electronically on 13
and 14 November 2006, two reminders were sent and the data collection was
closed on 11 December.
|
1.5
The overall
response rate was 54% (65 completed surveys) with a 74% (25 out of 34)
response rate from PIs. The breakdown
of respondents was PI 38%, Co-I 46%, Research assistant 14%, Other 2%. |
|
1.6
Responses
were entered into a database and histograms and percentage figures produced for
each question[2] (Annex B). In addition, responses were analysed (i) by
type of award, (ii) by role, (iii) by discipline, and (iv) by
whether or not the respondent was still working in an interdisciplinary
environment (Annex C). Where any obvious
differences were apparent between these different categories of response these
are noted in the following commentary.
Interviews
1.7
Semi-structured
interviews were conducted, based upon the Framework of Core Questions. Coded
interview transcripts were analysed to identify common themes and resulting
conceptual clusters were utilised to inform and structure Section 3 of this
Report. (In order to add a level of richness of understanding, and a flavour of
the participants’ input, verbatim or near-verbatim quotations are on occasion
captured in quotation marks in the report text.) Between 27 November and 19
December, twenty-two telephone interviews (in addition to discussion with RELU
leadership) gathered input from a deliberate mix of perspectives. Some
interviews were held with awardholders of different types of seed corn
projects; some were held with stakeholders with an informed view of the scheme;
some were held with individuals having an overview of the scheme; and some were
held with directors or senior figures in other programmes oriented toward
interdisciplinarity (e.g. government (primarily UK) funding schemes, centres or
multi-node programmes) (Table 1).
|
PIs
|
7 |
|
Stakeholders
|
5 |
|
Overview
|
3 |
|
Senior
Figures re Other Programs |
7 |
|
TOTAL
Interviews |
22
(+RELU leadership) |
Table 1: Interviews
conducted
Analysis
1.8
Input
from all three methods has been analysed and integrated into this review. Section
2 reports data from surveys (signalled by references to “respondents”), augmented
by analysis of input from interviewees and from end-of-award reports. Section 3
on Lessons Learned and Recommendations draws primarily on insights elicited
during interviews, augmented by free text responses to the survey.
2. Value Added: Impacts of Catalytic, Seed-Corn Funding Mechanisms
Background information
2.1
The
RELU ‘seed-corn’ funding mechanisms were intended to mobilise interest in the
programme across diverse research communities in the social, environmental and
biosciences. The awards, made initially as part of the programme’s first
funding call, aimed to facilitate the development of interdisciplinary research
capacity and new interdisciplinary research collaborations between natural and
social scientists, with a view, in part, to strengthening proposals for larger
research projects in subsequent funding calls. Specific funding modes were also
designed to encourage innovative higher risk/adventurous interdisciplinary
research and to facilitate greater engagement of non-academic
stakeholders. The 34 awards (selected
from 94 proposals) are listed in Annex E and comprised:
Funds were available for awards focusing on any of
the RELU themes, up to a maximum of £50k, to facilitate the development of
interdisciplinary research capacity over a 12 month period.
SCOPING STUDIES
(14 awards from 50 proposals, 28% success rate)
Funds were available for awards focusing on any of
the RELU themes, up to a maximum of £50k. Applicants had to demonstrate the
interdisciplinary nature of the proposed research. Awards could be up to 12
months in duration.
DEVELOPMENT
ACTIVITY AWARDS (8 awards from 18 proposals, 44% success rate)
Awards of up to £20k were available for activities
designed to facilitate the development of the RELU programme and/or demonstrate
its value and potential.
NETWORKING AWARDS
(7 awards from 12 proposals, 58% success rate)
Awards of up to £5k to facilitate the development
of proposals under the second call, to fund consortium and travel and meeting
costs.
Did the seed-corn mechanisms mobilise interest and
engage researchers?
2.2
In
considering a key objective of the RELU programme, the review sought to assess
the extent to which awards had been successful in mobilising interest in the
RELU programme from across the social, environmental and biosciences and in
bringing together these different research communities.
|
2.3
Survey
respondents identified themselves as coming mainly from the social sciences
(46%) and the environmental sciences (38%) with only 3% from the biosciences[3]. |
|
|
2.4
The breakdown
of awards held by respondents was |
|
|
2.5
There was general agreement that the award had brought
together researchers from the social and natural sciences (52% strongly
agree; 38% agree) with the environmental scientists (ES) being slightly more
positive than the social scientists (SS) (ES 68% strongly agree; SS 47%
strongly agree). |
|
2.6
Interviewees
contributed insights into how researchers were brought together from across
social and natural sciences. Mixing of disciplines was quite motivating but
researchers also recognised the challenges of bringing people together (see
Section 3, lessons learned).
|
2.7
The prospect of gaining an award stimulated interest
and potential engagement amongst respondents regarding the RELU programme
(43% strongly agree; 45% agree) although they were less certain as to whether
the awards had stimulated other collaborators’ interest and potential
engagement (25% strongly agree; 51% agree; 20% neutral). |
|
|
2.8
Opinion was slightly more mixed on whether others
(beyond the award-holders, researchers and stakeholders who might have been
involved in the bidding process) had been drawn into the funded activities
(26% strongly agree; 40% agree; 20% neutral; 12% disagree). (For some, but
not all, of the seed-corn projects, additional stakeholders and/or
researchers were involved as a deliberate part of the plan, e.g. through
large workshops.) |
|
2.9
Interviewees
generally agreed that the prospect of gaining even a seed-corn award stimulated
interest and potential engagement, with some feeling that the opportunity
addressed a long pent-up wish to do interdisciplinary work and/or to address a
particular complex problem. (Of course, the potential of even more funding in
the full project stage was motivational for some participants.) Many recognised
that the degree to which seed-corn grants (as opposed to full project grants)
could accomplish desired ends was of necessity limited, since processes of
genuine integration take time. In this regard, one interviewee recommended
expectation management with awareness of developmental stages before, during,
and after seed-corn projects.
What
sorts of activities helped to build interdisciplinarity, through what
developmental stages?
2.10
The
seed-corn funds facilitated a range of activities amongst applicants at
different stages (during the bid-writing process, during the actual project and
after the project had been completed).
Such activities, which may have helped to solidify interdisciplinary
collaboration and capacity-building between the natural and social sciences,
included:
·
Informal
links and networks between researchers
·
Informal
links and networks between researchers and other stakeholders
·
Cross-disciplinary
meetings
·
Visits/exchanges
of postgrads, postdocs, senior staff between research groups involved in the
award
·
Cross-disciplinary
interactions with stakeholders
·
Publications
spanning the social and natural sciences
·
Subsequent
applications to RELU programme
·
Subsequent
applications to another funder
·
Other
cross-disciplinary initiatives
·
Links
between researchers in the award-holders own institution
·
Links
with other research institutions
2.11
In
terms of indicating some sort of developmental timeframe, the top five
activities identified by respondents at each stage were as follows Table 2 (see
Annex B for full details):
|
Activity |
Freq. |
|
During bid |
|
|
Links between
researchers |
75% |
|
Cross-disciplinary
meetings |
45% |
|
Links within own
institution |
32% |
|
Links with other
institutions |
32% |
|
Links between
researchers and stakeholders |
31% |
|
During project |
|
|
Links between
researchers |
86% |
|
Links between
researchers and stakeholders |
82% |
|
Cross-disciplinary
meetings |
78% |
|
Cross-disciplinary
interactions with stakeholders |
60% |
|
Links with other
institutions |
60% |
|
After award |
|
|
Interdisciplinary
publications |
57% |
|
Links between
researchers |
54% |
|
Links between
researchers and stakeholders |
46% |
|
Links with other
institutions |
46% |
|
Further application
to RELU (unsuccessful) |
35% |
Table 2: Main
activities at each stage of award
2.12
Responses
show a degree of variation when analysed by type of award held (Table 3)
although the most popular activities are broadly similar in each case. Likewise, respondents from different
disciplines (environmental science vs. social science) showed minimal
variation.
CBA (N= 16) |
SS (N= 34) |
DA (N= 9) |
NA (N= 8) |
||||
|
During bid: |
|||||||
|
Links researchers |
81% |
Links researchers |
74% |
Links researchers |
56% |
Links researchers |
100% |
|
Cross-disc mtgs |
56% |
Cross-disc mtgs |
41% |
Links researchers & s/h |
22% |
Cross-disc mtgs |
75% |
|
Links researchers & s/h |
50% |
Links own institution |
29% |
Cross-disc mtgs |
22% |
Links researchers & s/h |
63% |
|
Links own institution |
44% |
Links other institution |
26% |
Links other institution |
22% |
Links own institution |
63% |
|
Links other institution |
44% |
Links researchers & s/h |
21% |
Interactions with s/h |
11% |
Links other institution |
63% |
|
During project: |
|||||||
|
Links researchers |
94% |
Links researchers & s/h |
82% |
Links researchers |
100% |
Links researchers |
88% |
|
Links researchers & s/h |
94% |
Links researchers |
79% |
Cross-disc mtgs |
89% |
Cross-disc mtgs |
88% |
|
Interactions with s/h |
88% |
Cross-disc mtgs |
74% |
Links researchers & s/h |
67% |
Links researchers & s/h |
75% |
|
Cross-disc mtgs |
81% |
Interactions with s/h |
62% |
Links other institution |
56% |
Links own institution |
75% |
|
Links other institution |
81% |
Links other institution |
50% |
Links own institution |
44% |
Links other institution |
75% |
|
After project: |
|||||||
|
Links researchers |
81% |
ID publications |
62% |
Unsuccessful RELU |
67% |
Links researchers |
50% |
|
Links researchers & s/h |
75% |
Links researchers |
44% |
Links researchers |
56% |
Links researchers & s/h |
50% |
|
Links other institution |
75% |
Links other institution |
38% |
ID publications |
56% |
Unsuccessful RELU |
50% |
|
Interactions with s/h |
63% |
Links researchers & s/h |
35% |
Links researchers & s/h |
44% |
Links other institution |
50% |
|
ID publications |
63% |
Links own institution |
35% |
Interactions with s/h |
44% |
ID publications |
38% |
Table 3: Comparison
of most popular activities facilitated by award, broken down by type of award
held by respondent
2.13
When
the four types of awards are looked at separately, “linkages across
researchers” is clearly the hallmark of the award, cited in first place by all
types during the bid process and in either first or second place in the later
two stages. Similarly, over all the types of awards, this was identified by
three-quarters of respondents for the bid process, 86% for during the project,
yet down to 54% after the award, indicating that, naturally, some but not all
linkages continue.
2.14
When
looking at the four types of awards, arising from the bid stage, the activity
“linkages between researchers and stakeholders” is placed higher during the
project (a first place for Scoping Studies, a second and two third places),
falling back at the post-award stage. Across awards, the picture is quite
clear: links between researchers and stakeholders grew considerably (to 82%)
during the project but fall to less than half (46%) afterwards. At 60% during
the project across all respondents, when the four types of awards are considered
actual “interactions with stakeholders” do not appear during the bid writing
stage, and appear only at 3rd and 4th place during the
project, and at 4th and 5th place afterwards.
2.15
After
the project, not surprisingly, “cross-disciplinary meetings” fall out of the
picture as framed by top rankings. However, two new activities emerge at this
stage: Interdisciplinary Publications (cited by over half of the respondents,
overall) and Unsuccessful RELU bids.
2.16
Linkages
within a respondent’s own institution decline in importance during and after
the project, while linkages with other institutions rose during the project and
fell a bit by the last stage, but, in a pattern similar to links with
stakeholders, still came in at nearly half of the respondents (46%) as opposed
to less than a third (31%) prior to the project, seeming to indicate some
lasting success at broadening collaborations.
2.17
Interestingly,
for each activity, Environmental Scientists were “more positive” than Social
Scientists (Table 4). One possibility might be that social scientists tend to
be more demanding when they consider whether or not to cite processes as
effective.
|
ES (N= 25) |
SS (N= 30) |
||
|
During bid: |
|
||
|
Links researchers |
88% |
Links researchers |
74% |
|
Links researchers
& s/h |
48% |
Cross-disc mtgs |
41% |
|
Links other
institution |
48% |
Links own
institution |
29% |
|
Cross-disc mtgs |
44% |
Links other
institution |
26% |
|
Links own
institution |
44% |
Links researchers
& s/h |
21% |
|
During project: |
|
||
|
Links researchers |
92% |
Links researchers
& s/h |
82% |
|
Links researchers
& s/h |
88% |
Links researchers |
79% |
|
Cross-disc mtgs |
84% |
Cross-disc mtgs |
74% |
|
Interactions with
s/h |
68% |
Interactions with
s/h |
62% |
|
Links other
institution |
64% |
Links other
institution |
50% |
|
After project: |
|
||
|
ID publications |
68% |
ID publications |
62% |
|
Links researchers |
60% |
Links researchers |
44% |
|
Links other
institution |
56% |
Links other
institution |
38% |
|
Links own
institution |
52% |
Links researchers
& s/h |
35% |
|
Links researchers
& s/h |
48% |
Links own
institution |
35% |
Table 4: Comparison
of most popular activities facilitated by award, broken down by discipline of
respondent
Did the awards help to forge new linkages and/or
strengthen existing ones?
2.18
The
evaluation further sought evidence of any contributions these funding
mechanisms had been able to make to enhancing levels of interdisciplinary
research capacity. Of necessity, this
evidence often lies in the informed views of those most involved with the
mechanisms – those who essentially represent the capacity being developed.
|
2.19
Respondents agreed that the awards had helped to forge
or strengthen linkages -
between researchers (31% strongly agree; 40% agree; 25%
neutral) -
between institutions (11% strongly agree; 34% agree;
42% neutral) -
between researchers and stakeholders (17% strongly
agree; 43% agree; 31% neutral) but, as these figures
show, respondents were more positive about the links between researchers than
about cross-institutional links.
Moreover, 57% of these collaborations between researchers were in
existence prior to the award. |
|
2.20
Award-holders
for Capacity Building Awards were generally more positive
than others about the beneficial linkages engendered by the award.
|
2.21
Interestingly, there was a degree of variation in the
views of those from the environmental and social sciences. When asked to respond to the statement
“Linkages were forged or strengthened between social and natural science
disciplines as a result of the award” -
ES responses: 24% strongly agree; 60% agree; 12%
neutral -
SS responses: 30% strongly agree; 23% agree; 40%
neutral |
|
What if any effects of seed-corn funding persist?
|
2.22
Looking across all respondents, when asked specifically
about the lasting effects, fifty-eight (89%) are still involved in some form
of interdisciplinary research between the social and natural sciences
following this award and 75% of respondents said that their collaborators in
the seed-corn project are also still involved in this type of work (20% of
them did not know). Over two-thirds
(68%) of respondents are still collaborating with participants from the
seed-corn award. While of course there may well be a bias in that those
making the effort to respond to the survey may be more likely to still be
involved in interdisciplinary work (“the faithful”), these figures do suggest
a lasting influence of the seed-corn bids. |
|
|
2.23
More than half agreed that they would be doing their
current interdisciplinary work even without the seed-corn award (28% strongly
agree; 29% agree; 20% neutral). While
this would indicate that the seed-corn award did not necessarily catalyse new
interdisciplinary work in all cases, it certainly did so for some. Moreover,
it provided individuals already committed to interdisciplinary work with an
opportunity to pursue it, with money and credibility. |
|
2.24
Most,
if not all interviewees, were positive as to the role of seed-corn grants. They noted that:
·
they
encouraged links across disciplines
·
engaged
people with the interests of RELU and improved development of full projects
·
helped
in developing new conceptual frameworks, and
·
increased learning as to what
does and does not work in interdisciplinary efforts.
It was noted that it
is inevitably difficult to sort out the exact proportionality of seed-corn
activities’ contribution to overall RELU objectives (which were of course also
addressed by programme-wide activities and full projects).
|
2.25
Respondents from both the environmental and social
sciences were predominantly neutral on the question of whether a new research
community is emerging around the interdisciplinary area addressed by their
seed-corn award (total sample 11% strongly agree; 28% agree; 43%
neutral). (Some interviewees spoke
more in terms of changes in their own personal sense of allegiance to
different communities, either RELU broadly or sub-topics under the RELU
umbrella.) |
|
|
2.26
However, there was general agreement that the awards
had improved respondents’ understanding of other disciplines (18% strongly
agree; 57% agree) and, to a lesser extent, familiarity with the research
agendas of other Research Councils (11% strongly agree; 49% agree; 31%
neutral). |
|
2.27
Survey
respondents felt that the greatest benefits they had derived from their
experience of the award were (most popular first):
·
expertise
gained in managing/facilitating interdisciplinary collaborations
·
an
enhanced ability to cross-fertilise ideas and concepts
·
an
enhanced ability to frame a problem beyond the confines of any one discipline
·
trust-building across participants
from different disciplines.
Interviewees
described a “ripple effect” as they are invited to
·
advise
other RELU projects
·
receive
contacts by prospective colleagues finding them via websites or publications
·
give
papers in new fora
·
spread
new paradigms
·
publish
papers in influential journals
·
host international conferences thereby
extending networks.
Has expertise in interdisciplinary working grown?
|
2.28
Respondents generally agreed that their level of
expertise in interdisciplinary working had increased as a result of the award
(17% strongly agree; 52% agree; 18% neutral) and almost two-thirds felt that
they would be more likely to collaborate across disciplines in the future as
a result of the award (22% strongly agree; 40% agree; 23% neutral). On these two points both environmental and
social scientists responded in very similar ways. Illustrations of expertise
gained are included in Section 3. |
|
Did awards encourage involvement
of external stakeholders?
|
2.29
Almost half of respondents felt that the awards had
encouraged more involvement by external stakeholders (14% strongly agree; 35%
agree) but 40% of respondents were neutral on this. Award-holders for Capacity Building Awards
were generally more positive than others about this, with 75% agreeing or
strongly agreeing that the awards had encouraged stakeholder involvement.
End-of-award reports cited multiple examples of involvement of stakeholders
in activities. Involvement ranged from simple invitations to workshops to
core roles in shaping draft proposals, from award-holders disseminating
bulletins on research results to genuinely seeking more feedback through
deeper consultation. Interviewees also provided a range of comments on issues
in stakeholder involvement, with many including stakeholders in workshops,
etc. Not all felt that genuine, in-depth stakeholder involvement had been
achieved during the short seed-corn grants. |
|
Have seed-corn awards opened up subsequent
possibilities for participants?
|
2.30
A minority of respondents thought that the award had a
beneficial impact on their careers (18% strongly agree; 20% agree; 43%
neutral). (Some half dozen respondents commented that they felt their RELU
award had helped them to get a job.) However, just under half did indicate
that they had undertaken one or more new, “professional service” activities
as a result of working on their seed-corn project; for example, 22% had been a
referee for a Research Council, 23% had been a referee for RELU and 22% had
been a referee for an interdisciplinary journal. |
|
|
|
2.32
The
evaluation also sought to assess whether the awards had strengthened the
quality and integration of natural and social sciences in proposals for larger
research projects in subsequent calls for funding. During the course of the award over a third
of award-holders had submitted a further successful (15%) or unsuccessful (22%)
bid to RELU and following the seed-corn award 15% of respondents had submitted
a successful RELU bid, 35% had submitted an unsuccessful RELU bid and 12% had
submitted bids to other funders. Of the 163 researchers involved in seed corn
projects, 50 eventually participated in full projects (nearly one-third). Those
with seed corn experience appeared to have an advantage in subsequent RELU
bids: for example, 22% of the 139 seed corn co-investigators were successful in
applying at outline stage for the second call of full proposals (compared to
only 12% of new entrants and 6% of unsuccessful applicants for earlier seed
corn funding). Of the 17 full proposals for the second call, four were funded
(nearly 1 in 4), compared to the overall success rate of 1 in 8. Finally, of
full proposals for the third call, three of the 12 applications developed from
earlier seed corn projects were successful (1 in 4, compared to an overall
success rate of 1 in 10).[4] It
is too early to assess impact of RELU seed-corn funding on bids to other
funders, but it is a positive indicator that such bids are in fact being submitted.
2.33
Some
interviewees noted that the full project RELU bids they submitted were not
identical to, or a direct linear progression from, their seed-corn grants. Interviewees highlighted the benefits interdisciplinary
seed-corn teams gained, for example being able to take advantage of a wider
range of opportunities but several sounded a cautionary note, fearing that
embedded attitudes and reviewing conventions within Research Councils will not
be friendly to interdisciplinarity.
|
2.34
Almost half of respondents felt that the awards had
encouraged risk taking in terms of more adventurous research (11% strongly
agree; 37% agree). |
|
2.35
Some
interviewees expressed concern that reviewers may have leaned toward
conventional assessments of quality. Other comments made in interviews,
however, highlighted the fact that seed-corn activities were often inherently
“risky”, as they often started without teams in place or without having a
fully-fledged problem defined for their focus. Some initial ideas proved to be
sound; some did not. However, seed-corn grants were seen as often providing
opportunities for adventurous research that would not at the outset receive
funding as a big project. Furthermore, it would seem that conducting a
seed-corn activity could potentially generate evidence of feasibility that
would reassure prospective funders of follow-on large projects, with such
evidence presumably being particularly desirable if full proposals seem
adventurous.
3. Lessons Learned & Messages for Future Schemes
Background information
3.1
One
of the intangible but important contributions made by the seed corn scheme was
a particular sort of capacity-building: an increase in expertise in
interdisciplinary working. This is, in effect, the development of a resource
that will last beyond the scheme. To
help others benefit from this resource, this section draws primarily on
insights elicited during interviews, augmented by end-of award reports and free
text responses to the survey, and seeks to address the following issues:
·
Mobilising
a new research community
·
Building
interdisciplinary research capacity between the natural and social sciences
·
Priority
issues or obstacles encountered in the pursuit of interdisciplinary research
capacity
·
Value-added
by a particular funding mechanism.
Mobilising a new research community
3.2
Trust-building
was cited as a key benefit in the survey and interviews: because participants
in interdisciplinary teams need to acknowledge what they don’t know, thus
displaying vulnerability, trust within a research team is key
for capacity-building. Interviews suggested that seed-corn funding was often
valuable in mobilising new groupings of researchers – in part but not entirely
due to the attractiveness which any new funding opportunity automatically
possesses. Working together toward a follow-on bid effectively extends the
capacity building process. Face-to-face contact was important: meetings,
workshops, travel support all helped people to gain fresh perspectives. Another
contribution was the credibility conferred by actually getting a grant, in
these RAE-aware times.
3.3
Many
insights had to do with shared understanding of goals. One interviewee
emphasised the importance of developing a coalition of the willing, where
people really want to work together in an interdisciplinary way, because being
forced together doesn’t work. Another has learned that “it requires a very
clear understanding amongst individual scientists of their shared set of
ambitions for the project… why they want to do the work, as everybody will have
different reasons… it is important to have discussions, to say ‘this is why I
want to do research; this is what I want to explore’, even if it is difficult
to do so”. In similar vein, yet another interviewee spoke feelingly of the need
to be very clear about the motivations of your colleagues, when you form an
interdisciplinary team, noting difficulties encountered when a previously
unknown member of the team appeared to demonstrate interest in the initial grant
only as a possible pathway to future money so did not participate in the
process of capacity-building. This advice was highlighted in the face of a
frequently observed phenomenon --- interdisciplinary work is more difficult and
time-consuming than mono-disciplinary research. A preliminary award can allow
the scope to build the necessary common commitment.
Building interdisciplinary research capacity
between the natural and social sciences
3.4
An
inevitable aspect of building interdisciplinary research capacity,
is the realisation that no one is an expert. Overcoming barriers caused by this
discomfort is important when building capacity among researchers who are used
to thinking of themselves as experts. For example, an interviewee offered a
useful tactic, analogous to involving external stakeholders – making “site
visits” to “internal stakeholders” in the various disciplines involved, so that
others can learn about each discipline and its approaches. One recommended use
of an external advisory board, including some people from other projects, to
facilitate learning across projects. Many interviewees reiterated the
importance of continuing dialogue and this was also illustrated in end-of-award
reports, for example:
“If there is to be
integration between scientists and social scientists this should be from an
early stage in the research process. This is to ensure that data appropriate
for use by all parties is collected. The dialogue between scientists and social
scientists should be ongoing, from the involvement of social scientists in the
experimental design stages, to the involvement of science in the policy design
stages. This is not an easy process but has the potential to prevent some of
the difficulties encountered in interdisciplinary working.”
3.5
Rejecting
polarisation as the defining dynamic of interdisciplinarity, a leader of
another interdisciplinary programme notes that “understanding the commonalities
between the members of an interdisciplinary team is as important, if not more,
than becoming aware of their differences”.
3.6
Stepping
back from individual seed-corn grants, the yearly RELU conference and other
occasions for interactions between projects were praised. (For example, seed
corn leaders often presented work in early conferences and workshops,
participated in “linkage maps” illuminating potential for connectivity, and, if
selected through peer review, contributed to the special journal issue put
together from the first round of RELU projects. However, despite the existence
of overlap, there could be additional deliberate mechanisms for following-up
across projects, what one interviewee called “some sort of formalised flow”. In
at least one case, for example, a PI of a seed-corn award participated in
another award; the PI collaborated with the PI of another award to write a
joint paper. Similarly, understanding gained, as through Development Awards,
could inform the future management of the overall programme.
Priority issues or obstacles encountered
3.7
Potentially
influencing future endeavours beyond the RELU programme, interviewees were also
able to pass along their expertise by identifying certain key messages that
illustrate the seed corn scheme’s contributions to interdisciplinary
understanding. For example, a tension for funders and for academics allocating
their own efforts lies in the relative “value” of bigger grants supporting
substantive products that could provide research benefits, versus small
seed-corn grants that may cover networking and other such processes that build
perhaps less tangible products such as “capacity”. A parallel tension noted for
the holders of seed-corn grants was whether they should emphasise processes
(such as team-building across the disciplines involved) or try to deliver
conventional research outputs.
3.8
Nonetheless,
the very process of working together across disciplines is challenging, with
multiple hurdles posed by the necessity of thrashing out differences in
language, views, ways of working, approaches to writing papers and so on.
3.9
Meetings,
interactive workshops, informal face-to-face time, regular project meetings,
discussion forums, field trips, dialogue, self-evaluation and learning sessions
are among mechanisms seen as useful for essential communication, commitment and
trust-building. Key research steps need
to be taken together: formulating common research goals, early planning for
data management, and continuing cross-referencing as the project proceeds from
methods to results. More broadly, as one author of an end-of-award report
suggests:
“The key to a
more holistic approach, perhaps, is for the project team to collectively
develop an appreciation of the methodological rigour that exists at the heart
of the research itself, regardless of discipline…. Researchers should strive to
make their disciplinary contribution mutually intelligible so that common
understandings can be achieved, offering an opportunity for disciplinary
research strands to be integrated.”
3.10
Several
lessons were offered regarding stakeholder involvement which may be
particularly critical for many interdisciplinary efforts. At least one
stakeholder interviewee thinks that the whole purpose of interdisciplinary
research is applied research. From the stakeholder viewpoint, at least, a key
bit of advice would be that programmes engage with stakeholders, as early as
possible, even at the idea and formulation stage, and provide ongoing feedback,
otherwise as one researcher acknowledged, “they feel that their contribution
has not been valued and they are less inclined to contribute in the future, and
furthermore what you do will be of less relevance to them”. [5]
3.11
Practical
lessons offered in end-of-award reports for building relationships with
stakeholders included:
·
the
importance of taking the time to ensure good communication and team-building
·
the
usefulness of “boundary-spanners” who understand the involved stakeholders in
facilitating relationships
·
the
need for careful planning in organising multi-stakeholder (often controversial)
meetings
·
the role that small informal meetings - perhaps
even site visits - can play in developing a common vocabulary and understanding.
Interestingly, one
seed-corn project’s end-of-award report described a deliberate fusion of
natural and social sciences for working with stakeholders, an adaptive learning
process “designed to engage different disciplines using both qualitative and
quantitative methods at different stages of the research process in order to
combine the knowledge of natural and social scientists with the knowledge and
experience of a wide variety of stakeholders”.
3.12
An
issue that can arise, perhaps particularly for less well-established academics,
is that of getting credit for interdisciplinary work in these times of keen
RAE-awareness. An important potential obstacle to interdisciplinary work
tackling real-world problems is the contrast between the extra time that it
takes to conduct and the low value placed on it by many academics. A widely
learned lesson is that researchers need to be prepared for this, captured by
one interviewee in the following way:
“So, while it
is good that policymakers see it as important, so that there are lots of
opportunities for funding interdisciplinarity, those researchers who take
advantage of the funding promoted by policymakers also have to be prepared to
accept that their work may be regarded by many as being of less quality, by virtue
of being interdisciplinary. Often, interdisciplinary work may be published in
what are seen as lesser journals, often tackling real-world problems rather
than theory.”
3.13
Since
forewarned is forearmed, generic challenges identified from end-of-award reports
are captured here for the benefit of others undertaking interdisciplinary work
in the future.
·
the
time (and energy)-consuming nature of interdisciplinary work
·
discomfort
caused by embedded differences in approach, e.g. to complexity, or in
priorities as to the most important research questions
·
personal
barriers, such as conflicts with being a recognised “expert” in one discipline
·
practical
barriers including different literature,
accessibility of data
·
institutional
barriers such as personnel or budgetary management
·
differences
in spatial and temporal scales used by different disciplines, and by
stakeholders
·
language including “the epistemological and
ontological assumptions” behind the words.
·
Need
for techniques to integrate data from across disciplines
·
Career
prospects
·
Competition
with mono-disciplinary research
·
Recruitment
and retention of staff for small, short-term projects.
3.14
In
free text responses, when survey respondents described “the most important
lesson learnt” through their seed-corn activity: by far the most prominent
lesson had to do with the extensive time required to build interdisciplinary
communities (often including stakeholders) (Table 5). Many stressed the
importance of continuity and momentum, for trust relationships and for staff,
such that follow-on funding, or longer periods of seed-corn funding, were
desired. Clarity, and commonality, of purpose were seen as important, so much
so that several recommended working with people already known to each other.
Several respondents suggested key steps, such as maintaining dialogue or
managing data, while several others stated firmly the importance of selecting
and/or training reviewers to assess interdisciplinary bids fairly and
appropriately. Understanding of
interdisciplinary processes was seen as a good thing, along with appreciation
for obstacles and all-too-frequent “irrelevance” of interdisciplinarity to
career progression. Some stated accomplishments of the seed-corn grants, e.g.
“they work well, generate research output in their own right, and reduce the
risks and transaction costs for subsequent major bids”.
|
Lesson |
Freq. |
|
Interdisciplinary research takes more time |
10 |
|
Importance of follow-on £, activity |
8 |
|
Clarity of purpose, knowing team members |
5, 3 |
|
Process, steps |
6 |
|
Assessment appropriate to interdisciplinary
bids |
6 |
|
Knowledge of interdisciplinarity |
4 |
|
Obstacles |
3 |
|
Accomplishments, Coverage |
3 |
|
Unrecognised value in career |
2 |
Table 5: Topic
distribution of lessons learned cited by survey respondents
3.15
On
occasion, some issues were raised regarding the management and, in particular,
the assessment of the funding awards. One interviewee expressed disappointment
that, in their view, there had not been more risk-taking in the awarding of the
small grants. Of course, at some level, risk-taking may be integral to any interdisciplinary
endeavour. A perhaps related comment about the level of caution among assessors
come in the complaint of a stakeholder interviewee, familiar with the bid
assessment process, when bids that were to him “obviously” useful research were
often discounted by academic reviewers as not sufficiently cutting-edge in the
various disciplines involved.
3.16
Some
felt that the RELU assessment process should properly give extra weight to
interdisciplinary ambition or capacity in bids for seed-corn projects and/or
follow-on full project bids (e.g. awarding “points” to those showing that a
strong interdisciplinary potential exists, ideally showing proof of interaction
or some level of contact). As an example, one interviewee with experience in
reviewing bids for RELU observed that the really good proposals had some
equality of intellectual input between the natural and social sciences, rather
than one arena being just an add-on. Assessment of interdisciplinary bids is an
intrinsically contentious issue. Whatever the criteria, their clear
communication is of course important.
3.17
In
terms of practical aspects of managing the seed-corn grants, a mis-match was
perceived between Research Councils’ wish to allocate the money to a tight timescale,
and the extra time required for the process of building interdisciplinary
teams. Several end-of-award reports described the pressures in preparing applications
for full projects while at the same time running the seed-corn project. One
researcher interviewee noted that the sudden need to hurry and write a full
project proposal necessitated deepening relationships among just a handful of
team members rather than building up a broad capacity across wider communities
over a longer period of time, as originally planned. Some processes, e.g.
notification of awards and processing of contracts,
were sometimes felt to be slower than would be optimal. The length of a
seed-corn grant may have implications for recruitment and retention of
individuals (and vice versa, for short-term projects).
3.18
There
was a sense that funders or leaders of initiatives/schemes could contribute
advice on key processes (such as building trust, developing interdisciplinary
relationships) to make seed-corn projects more successful, in other words
disseminating lessons such as those learned through the RELU seed-corn scheme
to wider audiences.
Value-added
3.19
Survey
responses across the four award types are generally quite similar, suggesting
not much differentiation between the different mechanisms in terms of outputs
or value-added. Relatively few interviewees made fine-tuned distinctions
between the four types of seed-corn funding (of course, most were only involved
directly with one or at most two types).
On the other hand, one PI interviewee particularly praised RELU’s
approach of providing a portfolio of different types of seed-corn funding. However, while also raising the usefulness of
having different modalities, another interviewee did suggest that this was
sometimes confusing. One interviewee made the distinction between a capacity
building grant, oriented toward processes of people learning from each other at
workshops and presentations, and a scoping grant, of necessity very
problem-focused on developing a research project (and bid) for later funding
and thus deferring the ability to help people really interact via an integrated
model. Another described the limit in team size natural to a development award
and its small funding, making them more like think pieces rather than proto-team
developing activities. Finally, one
interviewee with a broad perspective viewed the networking awards as least
successful, receiving very low funding and infrequently gaining follow-on
grants – often the furthest away from being able to involve people, help them
work together and put in a competent bid[6].
Other seed-corn programmes
3.20
Interviews
with senior figures in other programmes, as well as with RELU-related
interviewees aware of other programmes, elicited insights as to seed-corn
mechanisms generally. RELU appears to sit comfortably within the range of
activities and levels of funding (although some of its awards are at the small
end of the spectrum). Different programmes may use different names, e.g.
“cluster grants” bringing together new clusters of researchers, but they share
with RELU what seem to be key seed-corn objectives: promotion of capacity to
conduct interdisciplinary research, catalysis of research linkages and
collaborations, generation of a greater critical mass of researchers tackling
key issues, (often) involvement of stakeholders and encouragement of
risk-taking.
3.21
There
is a strong sense among other programme leaders that the experience of having
had seed-corn funds strengthens researchers’ proposals for full projects. One
programme leader observed for example that two-thirds of their phase two grants
are led by individuals who were either PIs or participants in their phase one
(seed-corn) grants. There is a sense that seed-corn awards may limit risk, by
taking the risks when funding is relatively low, prior to full-stage funding.
There is also a hope that even seed-corn experience will give researchers
advantages in other competitions, such as EU funding, when
relationship-building is required.
Messages for future seed-corn funding schemes
3.22
As
with the accumulation of lessons learned that can be utilised by others
undertaking diverse seed-corn interdisciplinary research projects in the future, the RELU seed-corn funding scheme also gave
rise to useful messages for others funding or leading seed-corn schemes in the future. This is another
form of capacity-building by RELU. Perhaps the most important message is that
91% of all survey respondents, and a similar proportion of interviewees, would
recommend seed-corn funding as a means of building interdisciplinary capacity
(and this figure was fairly consistent across disciplines, role, award type and
whether or not the respondent was still working in an interdisciplinary
environment). Clearly seed-corn funding is regarded as an important catalyst
for interdisciplinarity. However, many qualified their comments by articulating
what they saw to be appropriate objectives or essential features of a seed-corn
grant scheme; offering suggestions for improved delivery of seed-corn grant
schemes; discussing issues or emphasising the broader context within which
seed-corn grants would have to sit to be effective. Highlights of suggestions
stemming from these comments follow.
3.23
Clearly,
just as researchers can benefit from a reservoir of lessons learned by other
researchers attempting interdisciplinarity, so can funding bodies learn from
each other’s experiences in other seed-corn schemes.
For example, if several funding bodies are involved, they should expect to take
more time than for a conventional mono-disciplinary programme to design a joint
seed-corn scheme, define common objectives and expend more energy streamlining
administrative burdens. In fact, a senior figure of another programme indicated
that their programme learned from RELU’s funding scheme and consequently spent
more time getting all the funding partners on board and jointly designing the
programme. And in turn, the early design of the RELU seed-corn scheme had
apparently been influenced by NERC’s small proof of concept grants for larger consortium
grants.
3.24
Some
other recommendations pertained to:
·
effective
management of seed-corn funding schemes; for example: design schemes to meet
clearly defined objectives
·
communicating
criteria clearly in calls for proposals
·
helping
researchers to meet and share ideas and good practice across projects;
·
allowing sufficient time for seed-corn
projects to conduct time-consuming processes such as relationship-building or
development of a common language (for example, waiting before calling for full
project proposals).
3.25
Other
key roles recommended for leaders of initiatives or schemes were communication
to researchers as to the importance of processes in the seed-corn stage and
provision of advice or sharing of lessons learned as to good practice in those
processes (such as lessons learned through RELU). Formative evaluation during a
scheme was recommended, and would contribute to these roles.
3.26
Assessment
appears frequently as a critical issue in the catalysis of interdisciplinarity.
Future funders and leaders of schemes are encouraged to:
·
develop
appropriate assessment processes
·
use
criteria and weighting that suit interdisciplinarity
·
select or train assessors who understand
interdisciplinarity.
3.27
Including
assessors who understand the importance of interdisciplinarity-building, and
helping other assessors to learn about such processes, will sensitise
assessment procedures to telling indicators of likely success, whether in
awarding seed-corn funds or follow-on funding. So, for example, as the RELU
programme moved on, assessment panel members became more experienced,
systematic efforts were made to familiarise them with the nature of
interdisciplinary goals for projects and assessment panels were specifically
directed to make distinct assessments of the interdisciplinary ambition of
proposed projects.
3.28
Funders
were challenged to think through the prospects for researchers on risk-taking
seed-corn projects, both in terms of immediate possibilities for full project
funding and also, more systemically, in terms of improving funding and related
career trajectories for interdisciplinary researchers.
4. Conclusions
Summary of findings
4.1
The
awards did mobilise interest in the RELU programme and its issues from across
the social, environmental and biological sciences. The prospect of gaining
seed-corn awards successfully stimulated interest and potential engagement,
with researchers often finding this to be an opportunity to address a pent-up
desire to do interdisciplinary work and/or to tackle problems of particular interest
to them. Environmental scientists were slightly more positive about this
mobilising effect than were social scientists.
4.2
The
awards have enhanced levels of interdisciplinary research capacity. Researchers
have participated in interdisciplinary work and have learned lessons about
processes involved. Effectively the hallmark of the award, linkages have been
forged or strengthened between researchers and between disciplines, very often
building on earlier relationships. To a lesser extent, linkages were formed
with stakeholders.
4.3
At
various stages (pre-award or bid-writing, award, post-award), a variety of
“linking” activities were facilitated by the awards, ranging from informal
networks to workshops to publications and follow-on proposals.
4.4
There
appear to have been lasting effects of the linkages forged: almost ninety per
cent of the survey respondents are still involved in interdisciplinary research
spanning social and natural scientists, with most believing that their
collaborators also continue to do this sort of work. The awards seemed to lead toward somewhat more
favourable attitudes toward interdisciplinary collaboration, although many if
not most of the researchers entering into the seed-corn projects were already
favourably inclined.
4.5
Some
linkages have been forged or strengthened with stakeholders and across
institutions, with some of these linkages remaining more intense than prior to
the awards.
4.6
A
variety of opportunities and/or subsequent activities were facilitated,
primarily in the form of interdisciplinary publications and continuing research
linkages, with some joint proposals being written to RELU and elsewhere, while
lasting institutionalised links did not appear to be as frequent. It may well be that future interdisciplinary
bids may benefit from lessons learned about processes as well as from building
of specific relationships within a team. Although some participants saw the experience
as contributing to their securing of subsequent positions, many raised concerns
over the general issue of lack of career progression prospects for
interdisciplinary researchers. Other lasting effects include the increased
ability of seed-corn researchers to participate in interdisciplinary
collaborations in the future. This practical learning among a cadre of
researchers represents a national resource to which the RELU seed-corn scheme
has contributed. “Lessons learned” presented in this Review illustrate this
growth in understanding as to the processes through which interdisciplinary
research can be developed and optimised.
4.7
Quite
practical lessons were learned regarding the building of interdisciplinary
capacity in the future. This enhancement of understanding represents a
contribution by the RELU seed-corn scheme to the future of both individual
researchers’ efforts and also to seed-corn schemes run by others in the future.
Examples of overarching lessons
regarding the building of interdisciplinary research capacity between the
natural and social sciences, and the mobilisation of a new research community
include:
·
length
of time and degree of effort needed
·
the
importance of prospects for follow-on activity and funding
·
the
importance of clear, shared objectives
·
the
need to understand necessary processes and steps
·
the identification of a number of issues and
challenges arising during interdisciplinary research.
4.8
In
terms of the four different seed-corn funding mechanisms, the nature and
impacts of capacity building and scoping awards were not readily
distinguishable. Development awards
appeared to perform a useful service by informing the programme overall about
interdisciplinarity per se, along with related questions. Networking awards
appeared to have by far the least lasting impact, perhaps as they were very
short-term and very modestly funded, without, it seemed, the degree of focus
possessed by the other mechanisms. Results
suggest that the division into four mechanisms seemed unnecessary. Rather, it
might be preferable to offer one more generalised, flexible scheme of seed-corn
awards, which could be clearly defined to encompass the several types of
nature/aim, rather than to artificially “force” distinctions among different
award streams.
4.9
RELU’s
funding mechanisms appear effective, in a general comparison with those used in
other interdisciplinary programmes (although of course these other programmes
were not reviewed in comparable detail). Some administrative aspects could have
been improved, primarily the speed with which calls and awards were announced
and, especially, the timing of calls for full proposals relative to very young
seed-corn projects. Issues of assessment appropriate to interdisciplinary bids (e.g.
those following after seed-corn projects) also arose. Some other programmes
appear to make a point of bringing together their seed-corn counterparts to
share concerns and good practice as to processes involved; some may give their
seed-corn projects a somewhat higher profile within their overarching
initiative, although RELU’s seed-corn projects were highly visible in the
programme’s early years. Most seed-corn schemes, like RELU’s, aimed for both
enriched understanding of complex issues and development of effective
interdisciplinary teams and ways of working.
4.10
Another
contribution made by RELU’s pioneering work lies in a number of lessons learned
that were offered as suggestions to funders or leaders of seed-corn schemes in
future research programmes on complex topics. Some were analogous to messages
to seed-corn project leaders, e.g. take the extra time needed to design and
establish the scheme and capture and share lessons learned across funding
bodies, as well as across researchers. Assessment issues were raised,
particularly the need to select or train assessors who can place appropriate
value on proposals showing genuine interdisciplinarity, thus allowing seed-corn
projects that have achieved this aim to be successful in follow-on funding. In
the broadest picture, funders were encouraged to consider future funding and
career prospects for those participating in interdisciplinary seed-corn projects.
Reviewers’ final comments
4.11
In
summary, the Reviewers found RELU’s seed-corn scheme to be effective in
addressing its aims. While the data gathered from our survey of award-holders are
almost entirely positive, the more nuanced understanding provided by the
interviews does, however, hint at a slight regret that stakeholders had not
been more intimately involved and that assessment processes were not always
sufficiently attuned to interdisciplinary risk-taking, coupled with a rather
elusive sense that, somehow, hopes for the scheme had been just a bit higher.
(This may be accounted for at least in part by the foreshortening that occurred
when many seed-corn award-holders had to rush into writing full-project
proposals.) However, the RELU seed-corn scheme was certainly sufficiently
successful to demonstrate that seed-corn funding can play very important roles
in catalysing interdisciplinarity and the building of capacity and communities
to tackle tough problems.
4.12
Not
only did the seed-corn scheme contribute to the RELU programme, in doing so it also
contributed to broader interdisciplinary capacity in its field. Seed-corn researchers have in many cases
increased their commitment to and/or competence at interdisciplinary working –
they thus represent a resource for interdisciplinary work of the future.
(Indeed they, and others associated with RELU, will in many cases be better
able not only to publish “respectable” interdisciplinary articles but also to
assess interdisciplinary proposals, functions critical to the growth of
interdisciplinarity practice and capacity.)
4.13
Lessons
learned through the RELU seed-corn experience indicate that it is indeed
possible for researchers conducting seed-corn projects to become more
successful at building interdisciplinary skills and community, if they come to
understand the processes involved. (Such processes are illustrated, for
example, by this Review’s explication of the flow of activities dominating the
various stages of bid-writing, conducting the award, post-award.) There is a
general appetite for this sort of learning, such that sharing it could help to
avoid reinvention of wheels and unnecessary problems in pursuing seed-corn
projects. Similarly, funders of the
future can learn from others’ experiences with seed-corn schemes, for example
the challenges of managing assessment for interdisciplinary proposals, so that
they contribute effectively to desired impacts. We hope that this Review of
RELU’s seed-corn scheme will contribute to both these reservoirs of organisational
learning.