University efforts to support interdisciplinary research
Leadership and unintended consequences
John Pisapia, Tony Townsend and Jamila Razzaq
Working Papers m 2013:03
Adam Smith Research Foundation
Working Papers Series 2013:03
The Working Papers series is intended to reflect the diverse range of interdisciplinary research
interests of staff in the College of Social Sciences at the University of Glasgow. By publishing papers
as works in progress, it aims to encourage and promote the interdisciplinary research work of
members of the College, and to provide a forum in which to share innovative ideas and approaches
on interdisciplinary topics, and elicit feedback from peers before submitting to more formal refereed
peer review in the form of conference papers or journal articles. To this end, the author’s contact
details for correspondence are normally provided in each paper.
Submissions: Papers authored by one or more members of College staff can be submitted to the
ASRF (via the email address below) to be considered for publication. Texts should normally be no
longer than 8,000 words, and should be submitted in a Microsoft Word-compatible (.doc or .rtf) file
format. Authors are advised to keep in mind the generalist audience of the Working Papers series
and avoid technical language and extensive footnotes as much as possible.
m
The Adam Smith Research Foundation (ASRF) is based within the College of Social Sciences at
the University of Glasgow, and aims to promote and sustain research within the UK, European and
international arenas. The Foundation promotes the engagement of staff in key policy debates and
in shaping policy for the future. It provides the environment in which to foster further links between
the College’s disciplines and supports the development of interdisciplinary research both within and
beyond the University.
The Foundation seeks to honour the Enlightenment legacy of Adam Smith (1723-1790) with
independent, original research that impartially advances knowledge in the Information Age. It aims
to support and encourage interdisciplinary research and collaboration within seven cross-College
Research Themes:
.
Globalisation, Competitiveness and Sustainability
.
Governance, Policy, Accountability and Risk Management
.
Health and Wellbeing
.
Inequalities, Inclusion, Identities and Social Change
.
Justice, Rights, Security and Conflict
.
People, Places, Engagement and Change
.
Learning Across the Professions
Adam Smith Research Foundation
College of Social Sciences
University of Glasgow
66 Oakfield Avenue
Glasgow G12 8LS
Tel: +44 (0)141 330 7656 / 3494
email: [email protected]
www.glasgow.ac.uk/asrf
© University of Glasgow 2013
The University of Glasgow, charity number SC004401
Working Papers m 2013:03
University efforts to support interdisciplinary research
Leadership and unintended consequences
John Pisapia, Tony Townsend and Jamila Razzaq
March 2013
Adam Smith Research Foundation . Working Papers Series
Abstract: The aim of this working paper is to describe the nature of actions to foster interdisciplinary research efforts at a major United Kingdom university. The focus was placed on the
structures and processes that strengthen and inhibit interdisciplinary research in universities
through the lens of leadership theory.
The study employed a descriptive mixed method case study approach to collecting and analyzing the data used to draw its conclusions. A survey was constructed around dispositions,
processes and practices, which facilitate or impede interdisciplinary research, gathered from the
literature and initial interviews. The survey included open ended questions from which narrative
data were collected. One hundred and twenty seven academic staff responded to the survey.
The results of the survey were verified by 25 interviews with heads of colleges, heads of schools,
research coordinators, research team leaders, and team members. These interviews were supported by document review to support the findings and draw conclusions from the study.
Leadership is important. The ability to establish direction, alignment and commitment, and
develop community is often the difference between success and failure. At the University direction has been established, commitment is partially established, but alignment and community
development lag behind.
There seems to be a working consensus recognising the importance of interdisciplinary research
to solve the most intractable societal problems. There is less of a consensus as to whether the
approach to accomplishing this should be forced or engineered.
Good leadership and good decision making is required for interdisciplinary research to thrive.
The University has done well with most of the big structures that enrich and support interdisciplinarity, institutes, centres and networks. Positive examples are noted in the text. However,
the prevailing position is that clusters have made management easier but has not necessarily
supported teaching and research. In this effort ‘small’ structures such as clarity of meaning,
motivation of staff, misalignment of old structures, time and workload, and loss of identify have
impeded the move to university wide interdisciplinarity.
Three recommendations are suggested to move the interdisciplinary project forward: stay clear on
focus, extend the benefits of serendipity to more people, and remember that one size does not fit all.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to express their gratitude to the Adam Smith Foundation, University of Glasgow, UK for the
support of this research.
About the authors
John Pisapia, Professor, Department of Educational Leadership and Research Methodology, Florida Atlantic
University, and Adam Smith Visiting Research Fellow, Florida, USA
Tony Townsend, Professor and Chair, Public Service, Educational Leadership and Management, University of
Glasgow
Jamila Razzaq, Research Associate, University of Glasgow
Address for correspondence
<[email protected]>
“
“
It is hardly possible to overrate the value … of placing human
beings in contact with persons dissimilar to themselves, and
with modes of thought and action unlike those with which they
are familiar. … Such communication has always been, and is
particularly in the present age, one of the primary sources of
progress.”
John Stuart Mill (1848)
Crossing boundaries is a defining characteristic of our age.”
Julie Thompson Klein (1996:1)
M
uch has happened between 1848 when John Stuart Mill claimed that the primary source
of progress was bringing diverse people together and 1996 when Julie Thompson Klein
claimed that crossing boundaries was a defining characteristic of our age. Mill was prescient
of what Klein observed. Collaboration and integration, they believed were the keys to progress. In the
Academy this belief has emerged as a focus on interdisciplinary research.
The purpose of this work is not to elevate
interdisciplinary research over disciplinary research
even though interdisciplinary thinking is rapidly
becoming an integral feature of research as a result
of the inherent complexity of nature and society, the
need to solve societal problems, and the power of
new technologies. These conditions have led funders
of academic research and policy makers to accept
the necessity of interdisciplinary research to deal
with the complex problems facing society (Fayard
2010). In turn, these funders and policy makers have
increasingly called upon universities to produce
collaborative, interdisciplinary research focused on the
larger societal needs (National Science Foundation
2004; Rhoten, 2003). This research reveals the
manner in which The Great Western University1 in the
United Kingdom responded to these tensions and the
unintended consequences of their response.
The Great Western University has vigorously
and proactively moved forward to enhance
interdisciplinarity in its research and teaching
portfolios. As early as 2006 the notions of
interdisciplinarity found their way into Great Western
University’s strategic goals.
approach which is flexible and responsive to the
dynamic nature of inter-disciplinary research, and
supports the long-term sustainability of such activities
(Ness, June 2006, p.6).
Out of this suggestion for flexibility and responsiveness
interdisciplinary research networks were formed and
through these voluntary interdisciplinary associations,
research and teaching were enhanced.
In 2010, still in a proactive mode, the university issued
its proposals for organisational change to support
interdisciplinary research (Great Western University,
2010). The focus was clearly on students’ and research
funders’ needs, minimising bureaucracy, extending
global reach, and encouraging multi-disciplinary
approaches by supporting and developing networks
of researchers. “We’ll create world leading, multidisciplinary research institutes that meet our funders’
strategic needs.” With this gallant statement of intent
Across broad spectra of the University’s research
portfolio, from Arts and Humanities to Science
and Engineering, new and dynamic research is
increasingly taking place at the interfaces between
traditional academic disciplines. Recognising and
responding to these opportunities requires a proactive
1 Pseudonym
3
Adam Smith Research Foundation . Working Papers Series
Great Western University moved boldly to restructure its
colleges to support the development of interdisciplinary
research; in many cases eliminating department
structures, and predictably ran into dissent.
Study Aims
The purpose of this mixed methods descriptive
case study was to examine the role of leadership in
conducting and nurturing interdisciplinary research.
One central question guided the research:
How is interdisciplinary research, at the Great
Western University, organised, led, supported, and
received?
The results of this study will be of particular importance
to universities for several reasons, not at least
among them is the fact that academics tend to live
in worlds where individual accomplishment is more
recognised than service to colleagues, institutions,
and students. While many scholars believe that the
boundaries where disciplines intersect lead to new
knowledge, and innovative approaches to problem
solving (Fischer 2004: p.157; Huutoniemi et al. 2010:
p. 85; National Academy of Science, 2004; p. 39),
little empirical research has been conducted on the
leadership practices and processes which support it.
Theoretical Considerations
Constructs are lenses that people use to understand
phenomena and guide their efforts in bringing about
personal and organisational change. We have chosen
to look at our data through the lens of leadership which
we believe has special potential to assist universities
seeking to create an interdisciplinary focus.
Leadership, in its simplest form, involves establishing
direction and supporting individuals that work together
to move in that direction. Historically, leadership theory
framed the tasks as the relationship between leaders,
followers, and common goals (Burns, 1978; Bass,
1990; Blake & Mouton, 1961; Fiedler, 1967; Fu & Yukl,
2000; Hershey & Blanchard, 1988; House, 1971;
Triandis, 1995). This theoretical position has served
well in leading people in vertical relationships (e.g.,
leader – follower – common goals) where command,
control and persuasion tactics are the levers of
change. It serves less well in leading people and
groups in horizontal relationships where collaboration,
co-creation, coordination, minimum specifications,
4
chunking change, and generative processes are the
levers of change (Pisapia, 2009).
A much less robust set of studies frame horizontal
leadership theory, which involves individuals working
together in a collective effort. The move toward
horizontal leadership requires skills to create direction,
alignment and commitment, to work in teams, and to
develop community, which is suggested by distributed
leadership theory (Cox, Pearce, & Perry, 2003; Gronn,
2002; Pearce & Conger, 2003); complexity science
(Goldstein, Hazy, & Lichtenstein, 2010; Lichtenstein,
Uhl-Bien, Marion, Seers, Orten, & Schreiber. 2006;
Uhl-Bien, Marion, & McKelvey, 2007); and relational
theories (Drath, 2001; McNamee & Gergen, 1999; UhlBien, 2006).
In the postmodern non-linear world increasingly found
in university environments, linear change efforts,
and command and control behaviours of leaders
are less effective (Kezar, 2001; Kezar & Eckel, 2004).
What seems to be effective are leaders working in
command and coordination roles, or coordination
and collaboration roles. The closer the leader is to
the people who do the work, in this case academic
staff, the more they should lean to coordination and
collaboration influence actions that bring colleagues
together around a common set of values and goals
to rise above the individual differences and see the
enterprise as a whole, and work with people rather
than things.
What this suggests for interdisciplinary research team
and network leaders is that a key to success is to
organise around the concept of a working alliance
where there is agreement on direction, tasks and
commitment (Drath et al. 2008; Pisapia 2009) and
where leaders execute coordination and collaboration
actions by focusing on the process more than the
content of the work to engage their colleagues in the
work rather than telling them what to do (Basadur,
2004). Such alliances are composed of individuals
who interact interdependently and adaptively to
achieve specified shared and valued objectives (Day,
Gronn, & Salas, 2004; MacBeath & Townsend, 2011;
Malhotra, Majchrzak & Rosen, 2007). Working in an
alliance is different than working in a group. Within
a group, participation is defined by professional
roles. While there is a common function or focus
no one person can speak for others. In an alliance,
participation is based on a shared common purpose
to which team members hold themselves mutually
accountable to other members, thus individual
members can speak for the others. For these alliances
University efforts to support interdisciplinary research . Pisapia et al.
to be successful, professionals must learn to work with
each other and to learn from each other as they move
from individual and group work to teamwork. This
discussion leads us to the following proposition:
P1 – The leader’s ability to create direction,
alignment and commitment, and develop
community are important process skills to lead an
interdisciplinary research team, an interdisciplinary
research network, or a university.
Method
Using a constructivist mindset we used a mixed
method descriptive case study to examine the
interdisciplinary dispositions of academic staff,
and the processes and practices used to nurture
interdisciplinary research at Great Western University.
The Research Setting
This study was conducted on the campus of Great
Western University in the United Kingdom. The
university is a broad-based, research intensive
institution with a global reach that is situated in an
urban environment. The institution is in the top 1% of
the world’s universities. It welcomes students from
120 countries worldwide who rate the university near
the top in the UK for international student satisfaction.
There are more than 23,000 undergraduate and
postgraduate students who are served by around
6,000 staff.
Great Western University, foreseeing an increasingly
competitive environment and government and private
funders who want their funds to be spent supporting
‘major social challenges’ with ‘research that has
impact’, recently underwent a restructuring exercise
to, as they say, ‘enhance our position as one of
the world’s great, broad based, research intensive
universities’. The big structures that comprised a main
focus of their framework were Institutes, Centres,
Networks, and Clusters. Departments for the most
part were eliminated. The stated impetus for such a
dramatic restructuring was that it had ‘relatively poor
international and postgraduate student numbers,
research which was not consistently published in
journals with high impact factors’.
on the working of interdisciplinary research teams
at the university and college levels, the fact that the
restructuring efforts were only in their second year at
the time of collection of our data added a confounding
variable to our interpretations of the data, therefore
the current study focuses on how interdisciplinary
research was organised, led, supported, and
received..
Research Design
The case study method allowed for an intensive and
rich description of the steps the University had taken to
foster interdisciplinary research. This approach is most
appropriate when the phenomenon of interest has a
level of complexity that requires multiple data sources
and methods to gain an in-depth understanding (Yin,
2003).
In executing this design we followed Cresswell’s (2009:
22) suggestions. We began by collecting quantitative
and narrative data with a broad survey. Quantitative
survey data and narrative data were collected through
an 18 question survey of academic staff based on the
literature and initial interviews. The sampling strategy
was purposeful in that participants were chosen for
their relevance to the research question (Miles &
Huberman, 1994) and the fact that we were not looking
to generalise to all Universities. All research active
academic staff in three of the university’s four colleges
were invited to complete the survey. One hundred
twenty seven surveys were returned for analysis. All
respondents were promised confidentiality.
Second, qualitative open-ended interviews were
used to collect detailed views from participants in
order to explore our results in more depth. Twenty
five administrative and academic staff within the
university were interviewed. Four interviews were held
at the University level and included the vice principal
of research and heads of three of the four colleges
Interdisciplinarity was a feature of Great Western’s
profile prior to the restructuring but became a focal
point as a result. While the focus of this research is
5
Adam Smith Research Foundation . Working Papers Series
in the university. Interviews were also held with five
school heads in the College sponsoring this research.
Additional interviews were held with college level
research coordinators (2) and school level research
coordinators (2). Six interviews were held with research
team leaders and six with research team members.
Yin (2003) describes interviews as essential sources
of case study information and suggests they should
appear to be guided conversations. Prior to the
research being conducted an interview guide was
created around three general questions related to
interdisciplinary research (a) how were interdisciplinary
initiatives formed, (b) what makes them work or not
work, and (c) what was done to nurture and support
them? During the hour long interview, the interviewer
provided an overview of the research project and then
posed the three general questions and used items on
the interview guide to probe responses. This style was
chosen to allow for a more informal conversational
approach, to gather participants’ insights and to help
illuminate findings from the survey (Yin, 2003).
Archival data, collected from university websites,
publications, and official university documents such
as descriptions of institutes, centres, networks and
clusters, as well as official university strategic plans
and implementing documents and presentations to the
governing board was the third source of data utilised.
Data analysis for this study was guided by the
conceptual framework, the research questions, and
Yin’s (2009: 126) advice that data analysis “consists
of examining, categorising, tabulating, testing, or
otherwise recombining evidence, to draw empirically
based conclusions.” Data analysis began as the
data were collected. Survey, narrative, and interview
data were coded by respondent group. This coded
data and the archival data were then grouped to the
research question prompt by the research team to
form three evidence sheets. Themes that emerged
from the survey, interviews and written narratives were
triangulated with documents and the researchers
looked for patterns and themes as well as contrasts
and paradoxes (Coffey, Holbrook & Atkinson, 1996).
When the evidence sheets were finalised, the research
team used a process of constant comparison to
identify findings under each of the research questions
and then to identify the evidence that supported the
finding. Findings were identified when the evidence
from survey, interviews, and narratives extended
beyond any one academic staff member.
6
This research design contains several features that
strengthened the validity of the findings. In particular,
we obtained the data from three different sources:
(a) academic staff, (b) work unit managers, and (c)
organisational archival data, to reduce the likelihood of
common method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, &
Podsakoff, 2003) and strengthen the internal validity of
findings. Moreover, we obtained data at three different
time points to strengthen the evidence supporting the
findings.
Results2
The results are organised as follows. First the sample
is described; then the findings are presented.
Verbatim quotes and other rich narrative data are
provided in the findings to help readers determine
the trustworthiness of findings and how the findings
transfer to other settings. The narrative and interview
data is reported by the roles the respondent filled
at the university and this is displayed by the initials
following their comments. Academic staff who did
not identify themselves through the demographic
information requested in the survey are coded as
AS. Those that did identify their role on the survey
or participated in the interviews were coded as
CH = College Head; SH = School Head; CRC
= College research coordinator; RC = School
research coordinator; TL = interdisciplinary research
team leader; TM = interdisciplinary research team
member. We intentionally used quotes from numerous
participants so that no one voice would dominate.
This approach also helped us to note if there was a
collective voice. For information taken from archival
data, the document is cited.
The Sample
One hundred and twenty seven research active
academic staff responded to our survey. As seen on
Table 1, the typical respondent was male, between
40-60 years of age, a professor or a lecturer, and was
housed in the college of science/engineering or social
science.
The sample’s level of engagement in interdisciplinary
research was substantial. Most respondents (64.8%)
were interested in interdisciplinary research; 84.2%
were actively involved in interdisciplinary research; and
73.2% had published in interdisciplinary journals.
2 Data Tables are found in the working paper and not
duplicated here due to space limitations. They can
be viewed at <http://www.academia.edu/2157866/
Interdisciplinary_research_Perceptions_Teams_and_Networks>
University efforts to support interdisciplinary research . Pisapia et al.
Table 1: Description of Study Respondents*
Category1
Category2
Gender
Male
63
67.0%
Female
31
33.0%
<30
2
2.1%
30-40
24
25.5%
40-50
29
30.9%
50-60
30
31.9%
> 60
9
9.6%
Arts
20
21.3%
Science/Engineering
41
43.6%
Social Science
33
35.1%
Professor
39
40.6%
Assoc. Professor
6
6.3%
Lecturer
35
36.5%
Researcher
16
16.7%
University administrator
0
0%
College administrator
0
0%
School administrator
0
0%
Interdisciplinary research team leader
Age
College
Rank
Role
Number
Percentage
33
33%
Interdisciplinary research team member 34
34%
Member of the academic staff
87%
87
*Total Respondents = 127. Thirty three (33) respondents did not report demographic information.
Findings
The Big Structures
Great Western University organises its interdisciplinary
research activities using four structures: institutes,
centres, networks, and clusters. Research institutes,
centres, and networks pre-date the restructuring
plan of 2010. Clusters were introduced with the 2010
restructuring efforts. In the following paragraphs we
describe these structures.
Centres or Centres of Excellence to create identity,
community and leadership in specific areas of their
research agenda. They are also expected to deliver
postgraduate training at the masters’ level. They are
formally constituted bodies with dedicated university
funding, and have a competitively appointed director
who manages the academic staff assigned to the
Institutes
Research Institutes are autonomous units within
the College framework and are not subordinate to
Schools. They may cross college boundaries and are
responsible for thematic, multidisciplinary research
addressing strategic research questions demanding
multi-disciplinary collaboration and dedicated
orchestrated resources. They may establish research
7
Adam Smith Research Foundation . Working Papers Series
institute although these may also have teaching
responsibilities within Schools within the University.
The academic staff member’s annual Performance
and Development Reviews (P&DR) is signed off by
both the Director of the Institute and the Head of
School. The University lists ten Institutes that are
operational. Seven of the institutes are found in the
College of Medical, Veterinary, and Life Sciences with
at least one in each of the other three Colleges. Two
new Institutes were identified for investment purposes
the University’s restructuring plan.
Academic staff comments from the open-ended
survey questions and interviews were both supportive
and critical of the role of Institutes in the development
of Colleges and Schools. On the positive side, one
school head sees them as the “top dogs here.” On
the slightly cynical side, an interdisciplinary research
team member put it this way: “On the ground, the
assumption is that Institutes are where the ‘real’
research is conducted.” The major concern directed
toward the Institutes stems from the perception that
they take resources away from the Schools. For
example, an academic staff member thought “the
shift away from departments to Institutes will further
undermine departments through ‘asset stripping’
by poaching the best researchers.” (AS17) This
perception was shared by two School level research
coordinators, one of whom said, “Academic staff
members are invited to participate in the Institute’s
research agenda. They can buy out of their teaching
responsibilities and their employment status changes.
Even when they are ‘bought out’ no money comes
back to the school.” (SRC2)
The second area of concern revolving around the
issue of credit for research publications was presented
by two respondents. “When it comes time to get
credit for the research, they insist that it be published
with Institute acknowledgement and credit does not
work its way back to the school or the college.” (RC1;
TL1) This condition was verified by the research team
through a search of interdisciplinary research found in
the university’s system for recording staff publications.
Centres
According to University Policy (Constitution of
Research Centres, n.d.), Research Centres and
Centres of Excellence may exist within and/or between
Schools, Institutes and Colleges. They do not need to
be sub-divisions of these larger structures but most
are. The mission of a Centre is more developmental
than an Institute. It is charged with creating an identity
8
and a “shared environment for specialist thematic,
normally multi-disciplinary, research bringing together
academic staff and postgraduate students working on
common interests.”
Centres are formally constituted bodies, generally
externally funded, and have competitively appointed
directors. Unlike Institute directors, they continue to
be line managed by their Head of School or Research
Institute. Centres are evaluated on their reputation
for leadership in the field, a competitive portfolio of
research, a growing volume of income generated
from external sources, and their output of trained,
employable people at Doctoral and Postdoctoral level.
Academic staff may be identified as ‘core’ if their
research interests fully align with the Centre’s research
aims and objectives and ‘affiliated’ if their research
interests span more than one entity. The Centres have
a long standing at Great Western University and did
not generate many comments. The comments that
were shared pertained to the closing of cherished
Centres during the restructuring process.
Networks
Networks are a recent University strategy to foster
interdisciplinary research and multidisciplinary
activities but predate the 2010 restructuring. They
are affiliation oriented structures and conveners
have no line authority over members. Problems
arise when there are no immediate tangible benefits.
Networks that work well have a clear role and provide
immediate benefits to the staff members as well as to
a constituency.
There are two types of networks: visible ones that
operate across the University and have a budget line
of 7,000 pounds to be used for “scoping” activities
and developing external partners, which cannot
be used for paid or appropriated staff. Invisible
networks are ones formed by academic staff either
with colleagues at Great Western University or with
colleagues in other universities. These invisible
networks are generally formed for shorter durations
and specific research purposes. In both visible and
invisible cases, the work comes off “the academic
staff’s backs,” and the work forms around common
interests. Only the visible networks are explored in the
following paragraphs; although the invisible ones were
alluded to by respondents.
The general perception is that the networks work
when they are led by a passionate leader and have
committed academic staff associated with the
University efforts to support interdisciplinary research . Pisapia et al.
network. Lack of administrative support is commonly
cited as an impediment to greater productivity. These
activities fall on the shoulders of affiliated academic
staff, the network convener, interested students, and
one individual in central administration who helps set
up meetings and maintains the web sites for each of
the four University Research Networks.
Most of the visible networks have established a central
coordinating group that meets 3 to 4 times a year to
discuss operations, future activities, and identification
of new opportunities for the network. Members of
the governing group are generally selected by the
convener but in one case, where external presence
was strong, the group is more inclusive with positions
allocated to partners.
For a visible network to receive a budget they must
have a business plan and submit an annual report
describing the use of funds and outcomes achieved.
Their main evaluation happens when “people stop
showing up.” It is difficult to see research impact
because unlike Institutes, research that ends in
publication is credited to individuals, colleges, and
schools rather than the network. The way networks
move from development of interest to grant proposals
and interdisciplinary research teaming could be
characterised as follows. In the first year of theme
identification they sponsor seminars, symposia, and
workshops to identify specific research topics and
build relationships. Respondents note, however, that
one meeting is not enough to form a network. The
strategy progresses from participants who express
general interest, but follow-up meetings are generally
limited to project applicants to ensure that people who
will commit to delivering on a topic are in a working
relationship with one another.
Networks are not just formed in the host institution.
Some of the most productive ones are invisible and
formed with colleagues nationally and internationally.
The process of networking in both instances is similar.
At the centre of any network is a set of common
interests and a committed group of individuals who
seek answers to problems. The role of the network
convener(s) is to find people who are not linked and
find ways to link them. During the interviews several
examples of the establishment of networks were
offered. Most have common elements and use similar
strategies to enrich the network. The following example
illustrates these elements and strategies.
A Case in Point: A Cup of Coffee
The XX Network started 3 years ago over a cup
of coffee shared by two academic staff, who
knew each other slightly, after a seminar both
attended. It is now in its second phase of development with at least one more to go.
The Lunch. During the year after the “cup of
coffee” these two colleagues became friendly.
They were involved in a similar network, and
shared supervision of a PhD student even
though they were in different schools. What
began as a frustration with top down systems
over a ‘cup of coffee’ grew into seeing things a
little differently than their colleagues.
A year later, they shared their visions over lunch
and things really got rolling. The more they
talked about how they could create something
better than the networks they were associated
with the more motivated they became to create
something different. So, they sketched a plan
and entered what they now call phase one.
The Launch. They decided to float their idea to
the University funder for networks and received
an immediate response that the University would
invest in some “scoping” activity. In retrospect,
they think that since they were known quantities
with previous administrative experience, good
reputations, and were enthusiastic about what
they wanted to create, they were not afraid to approach top management. Whatever the reason,
they received a warm welcome. They got the
money they needed and more important visibility
in top management of the University.
But they had to do the heavy lifting themselves.
As one of the conveners stated, “I attended a
huge number of meetings, drank huge amounts
of coffee and reacquainted myself with old
friends and made new friends.” At this point, one
of their PhD students helped with the drudge
work but the conveners didn’t shy away from
it. They sent out invitations to networks in and
beyond the University and asked others who
>>
9
Adam Smith Research Foundation . Working Papers Series
ran networks to send out the word through their
sources. One hundred people showed up.
At the seminar they set the scene with six
presentations of fifteen minutes each. Three were
made by academic staff and three were made
by members of the public (organisations; policy
heads etc.). After setting the scene they moved
the people into prearranged groups with a facilitator and note taker. The facilitators were hand
selected for their skills. The discussion centred
on the big issues. Then they asked, ‘would you
be interested in a network that focused on the
issues you just identified?’ A report back session
followed and a whole group discussion was held.
As one of the conveners related, “It was good
that some of the important constituents stayed
until the end and described their belief that the
University had some responsibility to share
their knowledge in a way that the community
understood.”
The Business Plan. After the meeting the two
Network conveners ‘hid’ out for a few days
and wrote the report which led to a business
plan – mission – vision – values and theme
clusters (many of which did not work out and
new themes had to be created downstream).
They presented the plan to top management
and received initial funding to conduct activities
outlined in the plan. No funds were used to pay
staff or buy out of their teaching. All participants
– conveners, academic staff, and community
professionals were to be volunteers. Their motivation? Well, one convener said, “It’s the most
exciting thing that I have been involved in at the
University.” As she expressed, people believed
in the mission, values and goals of the Network
and were willing to invest some time to make it
work.
Tangible Action. Phase two began by focusing
on convening activities individuals were interested in around the general topic. These activities
were led by academic staff and supported
through some of the early funding provided
by the University. A small number of activities
were sponsored by external partners and were
also led by academic staff. By seeking creative
funding like the Rogers Scholarship3 (even
though it’s built on the Science Model), and the
RAISE scholarship which funds students who
work with industry partners, the network was
born and is flourishing. As Network partners
talked and listened to each other, ideas began
to sprout much like the initial idea of the founding conveners of the Network. Academic staff
members have identified with the activities and
several we interviewed seemed happy with and
proud of their affiliation.
>>
3 All names are pseudonyms
10
The drive to self-sufficiency. The Network has
entered Phase three. As the ideas stemming
from phase two discussions are making their
way into proposals to funders, the role of the
conveners has expanded. They still do the leg
work but they also now are mentors to academic
staff with an idea. How to put the proposal
together? Where to send it? Who needs to be
approached? How to walk it through the system?
The role of academic staff also is changing. They
still convene workshops and seminars but now
they have to do the research that is needed to
impact policy or produce workable models for
the practice community. The rest of the story is
still being written. But the lessons of the case at
mid phase seem to be:
The University possesses strong convening
power when it considers its relationship with
practitioners.
It takes committed enthusiastic academic staff
to make it work. But no matter how enthusiastic,
it won’t work unless early adopters establish
relationships within the broader academic and
professional communities.
“It’s not like you hold a ‘scoping’ meeting, there
is a puff of smoke and people come together. It
takes hard persistent work. “ (TL6)
The conveners need to work as gardeners and
cultivate the soil so the involved participants can
plant the seed and harvest the crops.
Conveners have to be creative in how they
acquire resources.
This is volunteer work: as one convener said,
“It’s my hobby.” She whimsically said, “It really
would be nice if the University would recognise
the work and let it count in my workload. It also
would really be nice if upfront funding could be
made available to have at least one full time
administrative assistant to do the coordination
work.” (TL3)
Clusters/Restructuring
The research Institutes and Networks have seemingly
been positively affected by the restructuring of
the University. With the reorganisation however
departments were eliminated in most Colleges and
in some schools replaced with a Cluster to organise
both research and teaching duties. They are seen
as new pseudo departments. Academic staff were
either assigned or voluntarily affiliated with a Cluster.
Clusters unintentionally became perceived as another
managerial level. As one academic staff member
said, “Strategy and what actually happens are two
different things.” (AS15) Clusters are also used to
identify research areas similar to visible networks
University efforts to support interdisciplinary research . Pisapia et al.
at the university level. In fact similar tactics to the
“cup of coffee” example at the University level were
successfully used at the College level.
•
Provide benchmarking information and establish reputational yardsticks for use within the
higher education sector, for public information
and to inform student decisions about choice
of institution; and •
Provide accountability for public investment in
research and produce evidence of the benefits
of this investment.
A Case In Point: “Critical Friends”
As the Head of College explained, they held a
day away for 25 people they had identified as
having an interest in a major research effort. The
meeting began with three proposals to implement the research effort with specific ways of
addressing the problem under review and the resources needed to do so. Discussions followed
each presentation for clarification purposes.
Then the group went to a working lunch where
three “critical friends” from outside the College
gave their impressions of the aim of the project
and offered suggestions.
At the lunch participants were assigned to
specific tables. The lunch started with a fifteen
minute presentation by one of the critical friends.
No discussion was held with the full group.
The first course was served and table mates
discussed the ideas presented. Then the second
critical friend made their fifteen minute presentation. The second course was served. Again
no full group discussion occurred. Then, the
third course was served, again followed by the
third critical friend, and then dessert. Following
dessert, the three critical friends formed a panel
and responded to questions from the floor and
questioned each other for thirty minutes. After a
break, the full group reconvened and over the
next day developed the College’s plan to move
the initiative along.
A Special Big Structure
The Research Excellence Framework (REF) is an
externally imposed ‘big’ structure strategy to assess
the quality of research in UK higher education
institutions which is having a major, strategic
effect on all universities in the UK. Great Western
University’s position is that the criteria for the inclusion
of individuals within the REF will be developed with
a view to maximising the strategic benefit to the
University and enhancing its research reputation both
as a university, and within the different disciplines
to which they will be submitting. The exercise is
important because its outcomes will:
•
The REF works like this. Academic staff submits four
items of research output for review by an in house
panel and then, if included by the University in its
submission to the REF assessors, it is reviewed by
a second panel. The panels at both levels grade the
submissions at 4, 3, 2 and 1 levels. Totals for each
submitting unit of assessment and universities are
calculated and compared with other universities
using the scheme. Each unit of assessment must
also submit a set of case studies demonstrating
those impacts of the research beyond academia.
So the effect on academic staff time can be
significant when one considers the development of
individual application packets, some staff serving on
assessment panels, and others writing and reviewing
case studies. The effect of the REF on interdisciplinary
research is found by what counts, with the common
theme being that disciplinary publications count higher
than interdisciplinary ones.
The practical implications of the REF are associated
with what the results mean to the university. For
example Individual Performance accounts for 70% of
the assessment. If a faculty member achieves 3 units
at level 4 it covers the professor’s salary for 4-5 years.
If the units achieve level 1 or 2 they produce no money.
The remaining 30% of the assessment includes
assessment of research culture (e.g. PhDs, seminars,
visitors etc.), and impact, which in this case means
utilisation in the field (not impact factors).
Inform the selective distribution of public funds
for research by the four UK higher education
funding bodies, with effect from 2015/16; 11
Adam Smith Research Foundation . Working Papers Series
Many academic staff, but not all, at Great Western
University believe the REF is a major disincentive to
doing interdisciplinary research primarily because of
the way they believe research is graded by the panels.
Many issues surround the way publications are judged.
These concerns are offered here so they can be aired
and appropriate staff can determine their validity.
An interdisciplinary team leader said, “The REF is
inhibiting because it rates publications in discipline
journals higher than other journals”(TL1). “We are
awarded for research in narrow areas/subjects
only -- interdisciplinary research doesn’t fit the REF
model.” (TM4) “A multiple author article doesn’t really
count unless all collaborators are outside the unit of
assessment.” (AS12) Another staff member elaborated
on the difficulty:
“
The university wants both interdisciplinary
research AND strong REF return. These
are conflicting goals. REF reinforces the
dominance of little subject fiefdoms really
-- and the university cannot escape this
reality despite the understanding that the
real future lies in shattering these fiefdoms.
Because you have to ‘tick’ the REF boxes
with articles/monographs in relatively narrow
fields (an interdisciplinary book on the future
of the internet will not score well in my field)
it means that people are not motivated to
dedicate themselves to being interdisciplinary.
And that is a real shame because in a
complex world that is where the really
interesting discoveries lie. . . . With these
pressures it’s easier to stay in the discipline
and potential is known.”
(AS21)
An experienced interdisciplinary team member
provides this specific example of how her work was
judged by the assessment panels.
While there is encouragement to do interdisciplinary
research from the University and the research councils,
there is a problem with regards to publications and
how these are regarded by the University through the
lens of the REF. I have a publication in a top graded
Management journal. However, for the mini REF, the
panel said that this was only a grade 3 publication as it
wasn’t Sociology. Our publication will make a massive
contribution to Management and will be highly rated
by their panel, but again, it will be less highly rated by
Sociology. So, while I enjoyed doing these projects and
learned a lot from being involved in them and made an
important contribution to them, the current REF system
12
is not going to reward me for this. I would have been
better off just sticking to my own research area. (TM6)
On the other hand, an interdisciplinary team leader
provided documentation that the REF does encourage
interdisciplinary research. Under the research
environment section, the REF Guidelines state:
“
…within the environment template, institutions
should provide information about how they
support interdisciplinary and collaborative
research, and panels will give due credit
where these arrangements have enhanced
the vitality and sustainability of the research
environment or the submitted unit’s
contribution to the wider research base.”
(REF 2014: 23)
Yet even if the publication stories are true the REF
seems to understand the value of interdisciplinary
research but it only counts for 15-20% of the
assessment.
The Little Structures
When Great Western University restructured to support
interdisciplinary research that appealed to funders
and improve teaching offerings, it focused on the big
structures of university departments, administrative
support staff and paid less attention to little structures
that make a university run well. These issues are
played out through the incompatible alignment of
staff time, cumbersome management systems, and
unanticipated consequences of restructuring which
were seen as impediments to the restructuring efforts
of the University and slowed development of the
restructuring efforts.
Staff Time. A common refrain is that “people are busy.”
In fact, “restrictions on staff time” was seen as the
major impediment to undertaking interdisciplinary
research by 49% and a minor impediment by 32% of
the academic staff responding to the survey. Eighty
one percent (81%) of the respondents in this study
believe that restructuring has placed restrictions on
staff time. With the overlap of university Networks,
college theme meetings, school cluster meetings,
management team meetings at each level, and
the added pressure from the Research Excellence
Framework, faculty feel beleaguered. It was expressed
by an academic staff (AS14) member that “many
things do not work at Great Western University
because there is so little thought given to the workload
being created or how people’s time will be managed.”
Others characterised it this way: “In some ways it [the
University efforts to support interdisciplinary research . Pisapia et al.
restructuring] has restricted academic staff interaction.
Before I worked across the college – under the new
set up I deal more at the school level” (SRC1); “In
practice … [there] has been a failure to think through
implications of collaboration for workloads” (TM6);
and “… As a result of the restructuring, I’ve been
pushed into networks and institutes. I wonder though,
if I’d have been more productive if just allowed to
get on with research more than attending meetings
(endlessly) across schools and colleges?” (AS16) An
interdisciplinary research team member observes that
there
“
…is no recognition in the system that to do
things different you have to change work load
expectations. You can’t keep doing all of what
you did and still participate in interdisciplinary
research teams; you shouldn’t have to do
it on the faculty’s back. Workloads need to
be realistic, and especially teaching loads
need adjustment if other priorities are being
addressed.”
(TM4)
One creative suggestion came from an
interdisciplinary team leader.
“
… It is less clear to me that the academic
space exists to promote the conversation
and the serendipity which generates good
collaboration. Here is the challenge for the
University -- you want us to be creative,
produce papers in high quality journals
and bring in grants. We want to be creative,
produce papers in high quality journals
and bring in grant funding. So, if we are in
agreement on expectations, what’s stopping
us?
“From my perspective, you need to find
ways to enable us to create ‘head space.’
Ask yourself, do administrative actions
create more time or more work? Filling out
forms here (including REF) is exhausting
and when you see what use is made of the
information, you question why so much of
your time is devoted to that. If we are to meet
your expectations and our expectations we
need head space. We need to minimise form
filling. For example, if you employ someone to
oversee the gathering of information, do you
say their job is to create a manual to teach
academic staff how to gather the data and
put it in the form and then write an overview
report? Or do you say their job is to create the
individual reports and free the faculty from this
burden and write the final report? Think about
it!”
Unanticipated Consequences. Over one third of the
respondents (34.6%) felt that the systems at the Great
Western University were cumbersome as the following
comments indicate. “The new system has inhibited,
not helped, conversations between disciplines” (AS7),
and “The new structures make management easier.
Research and teaching remains trapped institutionally
in subjects/schools/colleges. The cumbersome
arrangements for Research Centres reveal some of
these problems.” (AS23)
Respondents added some positive, but many
negative, comments regarding the university’s
attempts to foster interdisciplinary research. Positive
comments included, “Well, you-all hired me and my
research group so something is going well,” (AS4)
and “I have found support for this at the College and
University level to be excellent.” (AS20) Even so, many
caveats were offered such as “good effort from the
College already – need more support” (AS7), and “I
think the University’s impulse with this has been good,
but it’s an uphill battle. (AS16)
Many of the negative comments related to the
connection between the recent university restructuring
and improving interdisciplinary research. For example,
Great Western University’s “senior management
seems to labouring under the misconception that the
re-organisation would help interdisciplinary research
– it doesn’t” (AS22); “… little real impact” (AS13), and
“The SMG’s obsession with promoting this through
reorganisation has hindered rather than helped to
organise interdisciplinary research.” (AS19)
Others suggested that this was something that was
only being done for short term purposes “Sounds like
a Holy Grail or another bandwagon,” (AS2) and “it’s
only being promoted as a means to securing funding
- it’s about money, not impact or knowledge.” (AS9)
Still others were concerned about the perceived top
down approach which suggested that all staff should
(TL5).
13
Adam Smith Research Foundation . Working Papers Series
be involved in this kind of research. “Surely the idea
is that if it is natural it should not be inhibited but
equally forcing it when there is no demand is just as
bad” (AS17); “Real interdisciplinarity has to grow from
below, not be imposed from above.” (AS18)
Finally, some saw the restructuring of the University
and the promotion of interdisciplinary research as an
attack on the previously held departmental structure
and the research that emerged from that structure.
“
I think the University needs to reinstate
departments where requested, and have
a strategy to rebuild departmental identity
where it has been lost. Interdisciplinary
research should be seen as complementary
to departmental research, not a substitute
and not imposed. I say this as someone who
is very actively engaged in interdisciplinary
research and very much enjoys it. I think
the University’s cack-handed restructuring
process has been counter-productive.”
(AS23)
There appears to be significant pent up emotion
around the restructuring. For example, respondents
say it is “destroying the subject integrity and
disciplinary strength that is an essential prerequisite
for genuine cross-discipline collaborative research.
Threatening traditional disciplines does not promote
interdisciplinarity; it only induces panic and short-term
grant-chasing.” (AS2)
A second unanticipated consequence resulted from
the nature and number of research themes identified in
most Colleges and Schools. For a myriad of reasons,
some themes failed to self-organise and none are
institutionalised. Respondents said, “The cross cutting
themes are not meaningful and are not that present
in my own research or that of my organisational
unit.” (TM6) “Some people say they cannot identify
themselves in these themes or that there are too
many to manage or participate in. Individual research
strengths are not matched by the clusters. The
themes should be organised around things that match
faculty interests.” (SRC2) A second school research
coordinator explained why the themes were defective
in this way. “Most of the schools have research
themes. My perception in one school is they were
crafted by studying what funders were funding. In my
school I wrote them to coincide with the mission of our
old departments.” (SCR1)
A third unanticipated consequence centres on the
accountability/freedom tensions that characterise
14
university traditions and debates of how to grow world
class universities. While many times this debate occurs
between universities and their political authorising
agencies, it also is heard in the debate within the
university between management and academics. This
debate has taken several forms. One form centres on
the wisdom of Great Western University “opting so
vigorously for interdisciplinary research; will this be the
winner that it seems to be assumed it will be?” (AS21)
Those academics supporting a disciplinary approach
advocate this way,
“
Don’t make interdisciplinary research
mandatory or reward it more than single
discipline research. . . . The best way to get
the best research out of your researchers
is to give them freedom to pursue whatever
they think is most interesting and fruitful.
That means that the University should
be in responsive mode - not prescriptive
mode. Thus, it needs to make room for
interdisciplinary research to take place
unencumbered, and to have funds available
on an equal footing with single discipline
research.”
(AS3)
Grow from below. The third theme in the debate is
the “grow from below versus impose from the top,”
perspectives. From the academic staff perspective,
real interdisciplinarity has to grow from below, not
be imposed from above. The claim is that “The
restructuring has made management easier, not
research and teaching. Surely the idea is that if it is
natural it should not be inhibited but equally forcing it
when there is no demand is just as bad.” (AS12) Other
comments echo this sentiment, “You don’t get good
positive creative cultures where you have top down
managerialism.” (AS9) “The management structure
here is onerous.” (SRC1) “Forced collaboration rather
than one which emerges organically due to research
needs on interdisciplinary “research themes”, which
are a turn-off for most members of staff, should
emerge “from below”, not be imposed in this way
from above.” (TL5) One School Head offered this
perspective, “Great Western University is a heavily
managed institution.” A school research coordinator
counter balanced the effect of heavy management this
way: “You can put all the management structures in
place that you want but people – especially professors
– will seek and mostly find ways around them unless
they are committed to the vision.” (SRC2)
Some academic staff do not want to engage and
want to do their own thing. The perception is that a
“ team cannot be pushed together in an academic
University efforts to support interdisciplinary research . Pisapia et al.
environment, it usually only works if it forms naturally, so I don’t think that having centralised strategic
agendas for interdisciplinary research makes much
sense, other than if incentives can be provided.”
(AS15) A College Research Coordinator used this
analogy to crystallise the debate from the faculty
perspective. “It’s like the jazz band - we can agree on
the direction but don’t tell me how to blow the notes or
where to put my fingers.”
Progress Thus Far
point of view is the comment from a research Team
Leader, who said,
“
I am agnostic to University restructuring, it
really doesn’t affect my work - if it allows us to
hire good people it’s good - if not it’s a wash.
I believe you would find a strong correlation
between the quality of people and the quality
of research, and, perhaps the increase in
interdisciplinary focused research. Truthfully,
the key drivers to creating better research
production come down to excellence in
people and skills, and a willingness to
collaborate.
(TL3)
Great Western’s restructuring was only 2 years old
at the time data were collected and according to
some respondents, like this professor, it has had
some positive effects in attracting new academic
staff. “I have been at GWU for only six months and
one attraction for coming here was the prospects
of interdisciplinary research. I have found that the
prospects so far have exceeded my expectations.”
(TM4) Less ebullient academic staff members
characterise this in a more cautious way. “I think
we are getting there but it has been a slow journey”
(TL4); “Early days, but so far unfulfilled” (SH4); “We
have laid a solid foundation, but need a step change
in commitment.” (AS12) These comments reinforce
data from our survey of research active staff members
in which many respondents were undecided as to
whether the University’s (41%) or College’s (53%)
attempts to introduce interdisciplinary research has
been successful.
We also found interdisciplinary advocates who,
pointing to the silo-mentality of colleagues, put this
twist on the discipline argument thus reframing why
interdisciplinary research is needed.
“
One of the major barriers to the
multidisciplinary approach is the long
established tradition of highly focused
professional practitioners cultivating a
protective (and thus restrictive) boundary
around their area of expertise. This tradition
has sometimes been found not to work to
the benefit of the wider public interest, and
the multidisciplinary approach has recently
become of interest to government agencies
and some enlightened professional bodies
who recognise the advantages of systems
thinking for complex problem solving.
Discussion and Suggestions
From the outset our primary purpose was to document
efforts to foster interdisciplinary research within the
context of a major university in the United Kingdom
through the lens of leadership theory. It should
be noted that the study is limited by a single case
and relies on the perceptions of academic staff
and administrators responding to our invitations to
participate. We made no assumptions about the value
of interdisciplinarity and what it would look like within
a major university. We also recognise that there are
multiple lenses to interpret findings. Leadership is but
one. Accordingly, caution is called for in generalising
our findings.
In the preceding paragraphs we have explored the big,
special, and small structures that facilitate or impede
the development of an interdisciplinary research
focused university. We found that leadership is important if interdisciplinarity is to thrive in the academy. In its
simplest form, leadership involves establishing direction
and supporting individuals that work together to move
in that direction. The evidence is that Great Western’s
leaders have set a clear, concise and consistent
(TL4)
Then there are academic staff that seemingly have
avoided the argument altogether. Illustrative of this
15
Adam Smith Research Foundation . Working Papers Series
direction through their deliberations, pronouncements
and actions. Thus far the evidence is they have been
less effective in establishing commitment and developing community which are often the difference
between success and failure. At the centre of success
are three variables that work against or for change:
culture – communication – commitment (Pisapia 2009).
In some of the interdisciplinary research networks
where leaders work in coordination and collaboration
roles these variables have worked for change. It is less
evident at the University level where leaders seemingly
work in a command and control fashion in many cases
and command and coordination roles in other cases.
Our leadership lens suggests that the emphasis at this
level should move from working with things to working
with people (culture – communications – commitment)
focusing on the content, process, and engaging
academic staff in the work rather than telling them what
to do (Basadur, 2004).
While the restructuring has gone fast at the
management levels it has gone slower the closer it got
to the academic staff, where concerns remain even
though there appears to be a working consensus
on the viability of interdisciplinary research as a way
to deal with our most intractable societal problems.
The data indicate a willingness of staff to be involved
in interdisciplinary projects and an enjoyment and
satisfaction when they are.
There is less of a consensus that this approach
should be forced or engineered. Many respondents
perceived that this best occurs naturally when people
from different fields are allowed to meet, talk, socialise
and discover common interests, rather than having
this forced upon them. As the leadership research
indicates the command, control and persuasion
tactics of leading people in vertical relationships [e.g.,
leader – follower – common goals] are less effective
in times of complexity such as those found in most
modern universities. In such times, a leadership focus
on collaboration, co-creation, coordination, minimum
specifications, chunking change, and generative
processes are levers of change (Drath et al. 2008;
Pisapia, 2009) that are likely to be more productive.
Good leadership and good decision making is
required for interdisciplinary research to thrive. At
the college and university levels, there is always
the need to gain the attention of academic staff so
forcefulness and attention to big structures (Colleges,
Schools, Institutes, Centre’s, Networks, Clusters,
and even the REF) is often required. Command is a
natural and useful tool possessed by leaders at this
16
level. The option these leaders have is to combine
command with control or command with coordination.
Modern leadership theory suggests that command
and coordination are the more productive influence
actions at the enterprise level. The evidence we
reviewed at Great Western University indicates that
these leadership roles at the enterprise level need to
be enhanced.
The University has done well with the ‘big’ structures
to enrich and support interdisciplinarity. Some of the
big structures which predate the restructuring seem
to have been unaffected; or in the case of Institutes
and Research Networks may have been enhanced
by the restructuring efforts. The prevailing opinion is
that newer structures such as clusters have made
management easier but not necessarily teaching and
research.
With most change efforts, difficulty comes from
the details and Great Western University is still
working through some bothersome details we call
small structures. While discomfort is normal in large
change efforts it cannot be left unattended. People do
adjust and adapt to new circumstances as a review
of the positive examples identified in the previous
paragraphs (e.g., “a cup of coffee,” at the University
level, and “use critical friends,” at the College level)
attest. However things go smoother when leaders
consider the human issues that impact people’s
organisational lives when making changes from a
transformative perspective. The details that have cast
a dim glow of incredibility to the restructuring efforts
are the small structures such as clarity of meaning,
motivation of staff, misalignment of leftover structures,
workload, and loss of identity.
The University may be better served if leaders in the
senior management group move from managing the
change to facilitating the change represented by the
restructuring. Facilitating the change means attending
to the ‘details’ cited above by aligning structures and
processes, and removing barriers that impede success.
In the following paragraphs we examine these details
and where appropriate offer some suggestions.
Clarity was demonstrated as the restructuring initiative
was presented (Great Western University, 2010).
The focus was clearly on students’ and research
funders’ needs, minimising bureaucracy, extending
global reach, and encouraging multi-disciplinary
approaches by supporting and developing networks
of researchers. “We’ll create world leading, multidisciplinary research institutes that meet our funders’
University efforts to support interdisciplinary research . Pisapia et al.
strategic needs.” With this gallant statement of intent
the university moved boldly to put it in place and ran
into dissent.
Sometimes the move to clarity has unintended
consequences. For example, the university’s
attempt to clarify that the target audience was to be
funders, students, and internationalisation has left
scars on academic faculty. As seen in the results
section, many academic staff were turned off by the
phraseology relative to funders’ needs. The emotional
and psychological makeup of many academic staff
members does not respond to these attempts at
motivating action. Motivation is an internal state that
directs individuals toward certain goals and objectives.
Managers can not directly influence this internal state,
they can only create expectations on the part of the
employees that their motives will be satisfied by doing
the organisation’s work and then providing the rewards
that satisfy the employee’s needs. The respondents
in this study clearly said that trying to motivate them
toward interdisciplinary research because funders will
fund it is the wrong message for them, even if it is the
right message for the university.
A lesson here is that the way leaders frame their
messages is important and can lead to coalescence
or devolution. Interdisciplinarity must compete with
other social and organisational responsibilities within
the structural framework of universities and the roles
of their staff. At one end of the autonomy continuum
are individuals who have few connections to their
colleagues or the collective norms set by programs,
departments, and colleges. The organisation and
institution may actually be irrelevant to the daily work
of these agnostics’ who protect their time and often
justify their work (research, teaching, and service) in
terms of academic freedom and social responsibility
(Klein, Dansereau, & Hall, 1994). At the other end of
the professional autonomy continuum are professors
who make their programs, research, and students the
foci of their role as professors. For these professors
organisational positioning, structures and leadership
are relevant. They are the main audience and must be
turned into the owners of interdisciplinary research, so
the narrative used by leaders is important. In university
cultures, it’s important that one questions the
assumptions, norms and values of the dominant logic
and move in ways that seek not to crush it but adjust
it, update it, or reset it. This effort will rest on clarifying
and simplifying the models of change employed.
PDR process, it is a barrier to the introduction of
interdisciplinary research, especially for young staff.
If one is required to be a disciplinary expert for
promotion purposes and if the REF process is aligned
with units of assessment based on only individual
disciplines, then interdisciplinary research will only be
open to those who have already been promoted and
have already achieved the required publications.
The fourth ‘devil’ was the perceived increase in
people’s workloads, without there being any incentives
to do so, or consideration of ways to lessen workloads
in other ways. Most large change efforts require
the willingness of the staff to engage and own it.
However, norms of reciprocity are in effect. From the
academic staff’s perspective, if they are interested and
committed they will engage willingly. If not, incentives
must be applied rather than withdrawn such as in the
case of removal of administrative support staff. If new
priorities are to be addressed, workloads need to be
thought through and addressed.
The larger lesson however comes from social network
theory which postulates the importance of exchange,
reciprocity, and density, which allows information to
be leveraged and trust to be established. In particular,
density of the network is related to network cohesion
which enables the organisation to act quickly and
together. The overarching message is the need to
find ways to bring people together; not through more
meetings, but through interests, exchange, and
sociability.
We conclude our study with three recommendations.
Stay clear on focus, extend the benefits of serendipity
to more people, and remember that one size does not
fit all.
If research is to be the major emphasis, it must be at
the centre of the enterprise and it must be resourced.
We found that Great Western University does this well.
A third ‘devil’ is the impact of the REF model of
determining quality research. Together with the
17
Adam Smith Research Foundation . Working Papers Series
However, attention must be paid to the unanticipated
consequences major change efforts; in this case
those seem to be issues of work load, REF alignment,
and creating a motivational rhetoric. Furthermore,
rather than more themes there probably needs to be
fewer themes. The themes that are identified must be
important enough to draw attention and big enough that
large numbers of academic staff can identify with them.
Second, ways must be developed to extend the
benefits of serendipity to more people. Great Western
University is geographically challenged by its current
estate plan. The way in which staff are distributed
across campus currently does not lead to informal
interactions. The issue is that since much collaboration
results from serendipitous events the way forward
lends itself to suggesting that consideration be given
to organising the estate plan and travel plans to
enhance chance encounters. The simple fact is that
academic staff must be able to develop both internal
and external formal and informal networks.
From the research cited earlier, we understand that
keeping academic staff isolated in a building of like
disciplines is less effective than finding ways for
academic staff from different disciplines to interact,
develop exchanges, and foster reciprocity. Therefore,
as new buildings find their way into the estate plan
there is an opportunity to develop a Convening Centre
where Networks could be housed – and seminars
and important conferences could be held. Some
suggestions by academic staff we interviewed might
be too difficult to accomplish, such as a common
on campus gathering place for academic staff and
administrators – with a bar – where people can meet
after seminars or have lunch, but not just at open
canteens.
Other suggestions made by academic staff are not
so difficult to employ, such as requiring that PhD
students be supervised by researchers from different
disciplines and in different schools as is done in one
subject cluster at Great Western University currently. It
could be as simple as the Head of College convening
a college lunch every other Friday and the first 15
people who register get to come. No agenda – just
share lunch – meet some colleagues and visitors to
campus to explore common interests. Of course you
would build in procedures so that the same people
didn’t come each Friday. One academic staff member
used this organising analogy, “You would have to have
a cake – a really good cake that would attract people
to the lunch – something special –to get them out of
their silos.” These strategies have the potential to a
18
gradual shift in attitudes and values suggested by
Great Western University’s guiding vision.
Finally, when seeking frame breaking change it is
easy to forget that one size does not fit all. The 2006
research strategy document established the need for
a proactive approach which is flexible and responsive
to the dynamic nature of interdisciplinary research.
This approach – flexibility – responsiveness – is what
is needed. For the most part, the Great Western
University academic staff are positive about their own
experiences of interdisciplinary research but many
are negative about attempts to promote it forcefully
as the dominant University logic. For some, it is seen
as privileging interdisciplinary research over other
types of research. For others, it is possible to see
themselves working in an interdisciplinary fashion
without necessarily collaborating with anyone.
For the lone researcher, line managers and research
coordinators should make sure that the opportunities
are presented. It may be as simple as one College
research coordinator said, “If you do the research
alone and are good at it – that is ok as long as you are
fundable and excellent in your work, and publish in ‘A’
journals.” Or perhaps it is as simple as the analogy to
the jazz band offered by one of our respondents. “. . .
we can agree on the direction but don’t tell me how to
blow the notes or where to put my fingers.” Whatever
stance University leaders and academic staff take, the
key to promoting interdisciplinary work is to attract and
retain academic staff who, whether in teams, labs, or
libraries, are consumed by the academic life and are
passionate about the work. The challenge for Great
Western University is to continue to forge agreement
on expectations, to understand the impediments to
meeting these expectations and to correct them.
References
Basadur, M.S. (2004). Leading others to think innovatively together.
Leadership Quarterly, 15, 103-121.
Bass, B. (1990). Bass and Stogdill’s handbook of leadership:
Theory, research and managerial applications (3rd ed.). New
York: Free Press.
Blake, R. & Mouton, J. (1961). Group dynamics - Key to decision
making, Houston: Gulf Publishing Co.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
Coffey, A., B. Holbrook and P. Atkinson (1996) ‘Qualitative Data
Analysis: Technologies and Representations’, Sociological
Research Online, 1 (1) retrieved July 10, 2012 from <http://www.
socresonline.org.uk/1/1/4.html>.
Cox, J., Pearce, C., & Perry, M. (2003). Toward a model of shared
leadership and distributed influence in the innovation process:
How shared leadership can enhance new product development
University efforts to support interdisciplinary research . Pisapia et al.
team dynamics and effectiveness. In C.Pearce & J.Conger,
Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cresswell, J. (2009). Research Design: Qualitative, quantitative, and
mixed methods approaches, 3nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Day, D., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2004). Leadership capacity in
teams. Leadership Quarterly. 15(6), 857-880.
Drath, W. (2001). The deep blue sea: Rethinking the source of
leadership. San Francisco: Jossey–Bass.
Drath, W., McCauley, C., Paulus, P., Velsor, E., O’Connor, P., &
McGuire, J. (2008). Direction, alignment, commitment: Toward
a more integrative ontology of leadership. The Leadership
Quarterly. 19, 635:653
Fayard, A. (2010). Multidisciplinary research: Challenging and rewarding or too damn difficult? Retrieved May, 2012 from <http://
blogs.poly.edu/bsww/2010/01/16/multidisciplinary-researchchallenging-and-rewarding-or-too-damn-difficult/>
Fiedler, F. (1967) A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Fischer, G. (2004). Social creativity: Turning barriers into opportunities for collaborative design. Proceedings of the eighth
conference on Participatory design: Artful integration: interweaving media, materials and practices, 1, 152-161.
Fu, P.P, & Yukl, G. (2000). Perceived effectiveness of influence
tactics in the United States and China. The Leadership Quarterly,
11(2), 252-266.
Goldstein, J., Hazy, J. K., & Lichtenstein, B. (2010). Complexity and
the Nexus of Leadership: leveraging nonlinear science to create
ecologies of innovation. Englewood Cliffs: Palgrave Macmillan
Great Western University (2010) Organisational Structures:
Proposals for Change. Retrieved June 10, 2012) from <http://
www.gla.ac.uk/media/media_138416_en.pdf>
Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis.
Leadership Quarterly, 13, 423−451.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. (1988). Management of organizational
behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 16: 321-338.
Huutoniemi K., Klein, J., Bruun, H., & Hukkinen, J. (2010).
Analyzing interdisciplinarity: Typology and indicators. Research
Policy 39 (1):79 -88.
McNamee, S., & Gergen, K. (1999). Relational responsibility:
Resources for sustainable dialogue. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Mill, J. S. (1848). Principles of political economy with some of their
applications to social philosophy. London: John W. Parker.
National Academy of Sciences (2004). Facilitating Interdisciplinary
Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press. Retrieved May 15, 2012 from <http://www.nap.edu/
catalog/11153.html>
Ness, K. (2006). Research Strategy 2006 – 2010. Retrieved July 2,
2012 from <http://www.gla.ac.uk/media/media_45220_en.pdf>
Pearce, C., & Conger, J. (2003). All those years ago: The historical
underpinnings of shared leadership. In C. Pearce & J. Conger
(Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of
leadership (pp. 1−18). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Pisapia, J. (2009). The strategic leader: New tactics for a globalizing
world. Charlotte: Information Age Publishers.
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. (2003).
Common method variance in behavioral research: A critical
review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
REF (2014). Assessment framework and guidance on submissions
(REF 02.2011 July 2011). Retrieved September 02, 2012 from
<http://www.ref.ac.uk/pubs/2011-02/>.
Rhoten, D. (2003). A Multi-Method Analysis of the Social and
Technical Conditions for Interdisciplinary Collaboration: Final
report to the National Science Foundation. Retrieved July 4, 2012
from <http://www.hybridvigor.net/interdis/pubs/hv_pub_interdis-2003.09.29.pdf>
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the
social processes of leadership and organizing. Leadership
Quarterly, 17, 654−676.
Uhl-Bien, M , Marion, R. & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership Theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the
knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly. 18, 298-318.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Kezar, A. (2001). Understanding and facilitating change in higher
education in the 21st century. Washington D.C.: ASHE-ERIC
Higher Education Reports.
Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. (2004, July/August). Meeting today’s governance challenges: A synthesis of the literature and examination
of a future agenda for scholarship. The Journal of Higher
Education 75(4), 371-399.
Klein, J. (1996). Crossing boundaries: Knowledge, disciplinarities,
and interdisciplinarities. Charlottesville, VA: The University Press
of Virginia.
Klein, K., Dansereau, F., & Hall, R. (1994). Levels issues in
theory development, datacollection, and analysis. Academy of
Management Review, 19, 195-229.
Lichtenstein, B., Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., Seers, A., Orten, J.,
& Schreiber, C. (2006). Complexity leadership theory: An
interactive perspective on leading in complex adaptive systems.
Emergence: Complexity & Organization, 8, 2−12.
MacBeath, J., and Townsend, T. (2011) Leadership and learning: paradox, paradigms and principles. In: Townsend,
T. and MacBeath, J. (eds.) International Handbook of Leadership
for Learning. Series: Springer International Handbooks of
Education (25). Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp. 1-25.
Malhotra, A., Majchrzak, A., Rosen, B. 2007, Leading Virtual Teams,
Academy of Management Perspectives, 21,(1), 60-70.
19
Adam Smith Research Foundation
College of Social Sciences
University of Glasgow
66 Oakfield Avenue
Glasgow G12 8LS
Tel: +44 (0)141 330 7656 / 3494
email: [email protected]
www.glasgow.ac.uk/asrf
© University of Glasgow 2013
The University of Glasgow, charity number SC004401