Inter- and transdisciplinary (ITD) research and education are often seen as a way to respond to major global challenges (e.g. European University Association, EUA, A Green Deal Roadmap for the Universities, 2023). The current polycrises demand universities and research institutes to transform and renew themselves in order to have societal impact for research and to obtain adequate skills for future specialists (OECD, 2016; EUA Green Deal Roadmap for the Universities, 2023). Transforming universities and research institutes requires also attitude changes from researchers, universities, and funders, as well as efforts for creating a shared language, recognizing individual researchers' contributions, and reforming recruitment and evaluation practices (see e.g. Guimarães et al. 2019; Loorbach and Wittmayer, 2023; Hall et al. 2019).
Interdisciplinary work between specialists requires generalists with broad historical knowledge to define a common vision and then identify a research problem that cannot be solved within a single discipline (Repko and Szostak, 2020). The specialists solve the problem interactively, but for efficient work, they must have a common vocabulary and a shared understanding of the vision. It is known that similar concepts have been independently defined in different disciplines, but the terminology may vary. Among other requirements, higher education organizations and research institutes need vocabularies that establish links between the terms and concepts. Systems thinking may be one of the useful concepts required (Checkland, 1999). The need for the system and feedback concepts in social sciences has also been discussed early (Richardson, 1991).
Despite the recognized potential of and requirements for ITD, universities and research institutes still change slowly to the demand of more collaborative research and teaching. The new Times Higher Education (THE) initiative for a specific Interdisciplinary Science Ranking (ISR) category may push the development if enough universities participate in the new category (https://www.timeshighereducation.com/content/interdisciplinary-science-rankings-participation?cmp=1). Researchers Christopher Daley and Linda Hantrais, however, argue in a recent blog post that interdisciplinarity “should not be used as a measure of the quality of research and teaching in global university rankings” (https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2024/01/17/a-ranking-for-interdisciplinarity-is-a-poor-measure-for-the-quality-of-research-and-teaching-in-universities/). Strategy-level changes, common vocabulary and adequate funding models for ITD might hasten the transformation in a more sustainable manner.
Many universities have developed and are testing different models for promoting and governing inter- and transdisciplinarity. Organizing events, master’s and PhD courses and different trainings and even establishing particular institutes to enhance ITD knowhow have become at least somewhat common (LERU position paper, 2023). Examples of these institutions have been discussed in previous editions of this conference (Vienni-Baptista and Klein, 2022). Out of a comparative study of seventeen cases, a heuristic framework has been elaborated to promote and assess inter- and transdisciplinary research and teaching in higher education (Vienni-Baptista and Klein, 2022). The Global ITD Alliance has also e.g. called upon a need for a particular integration experts role in the academia (Hoffmann et al. 2022). The integration experts could act as bridge builders and knowledge-brokers in their roles. Using this expert role, however, awaits recognition and trial. Generally, “there is a lack of expertise in integrating ITD across universities” (Bammer et al. 2020 in LERU position paper, 2023).
In this workshop, we address the above-described transformation challenge of universities in a practice-oriented manner. The workshop’s aim is to give university administrators, practitioners, teachers, researchers, funders and developers insights into the different models of transforming universities. We will share university-level examples for ITD promotion and governance and best practices, as well as strategy-level transformation processes.
The workshop will consist of five minute presentations followed by small group discussions and joint thinking. We’ll present contributions from Finland, United States and Switzerland (ETH Zurich & Eawag). Practical examples that will be presented include e.g. an action guide targeted at directors of research organizations with 12 practical strategies to fully incorporate inter- and transdisciplinarity in research organizations based both on literature and empirical insights from leading ITD processes at Eawag (Switzerland). For its part, a practical and heuristic framework for designing and assessing institutionalizing processes offers pathways to best practices in research and teaching. Additionally, heuristics derived from developing interdisciplinary systems thinking training for doctoral researchers will be shared. The University of Oulu's training program aims to provide a coherent understanding of science and to motivate participants to extend this coherence across all disciplines. Another pragmatic example included in this session is a suite of approaches to support transdisciplinary and convergent collaborative research being introduced at Appalachian State University. A combination of institutionally supported roles dedicated to integration, experimental course-based research experiences, and an intentional investment on shared research infrastructures that can serve as boundary objects for growing transdisciplinary research in areas of excellence will be presented.
The facilitated exchange in small groups aims to discuss the four inputs and respective guides, tools and heuristics. Each group will reflect on one “appetizer” input by focusing on four aspects: 1) relevancy: To what extent are the presented guides, tools and heuristics relevant for transforming universities?, 2) usefulness: To what extent are the guides, tools and heuristics useful for participants’ contexts and informing their actions?, 3) expected consequences: What are the intended and unintended consequences of suggested actions?, and 4) next steps: What is the one “low-hanging fruit” action and one “high-hanging fruit” action the participants can take to jump-start or support transforming universities in their own contexts.
We are part of the Working Group “Integration Experts and Expertise” of the Global ITD Alliance, gathered on the topic of integrative teaching and learning in ITD higher education. The workshop has been discussed and prepared in collaboration with the working group.
Description of the workshop design:
Length: 90 minutes
Workshop design:
1. Menu: Opening the workshop and guidance, 5 min
• Salmi, Jutila, Heinonen, Hendren, Vienni Baptista, Dettwiler, Hoffmann, and Deutsch.
2. Appetizer 1: Enhancing inter- and transdisciplinarity oriented culture – heuristics from developing interdisciplinary systems thinking training for doctoral researchers, 5 min
• Presenters: Salmi, Jutila, and Heinonen.
3. Appetizer 2: A practical framework for transforming academia through inter- and transdisciplinarity, 5 min
• Presenters: Vienni Baptista.
4. Appetizer 3: Building shared research infrastructures to scaffold transdisciplinary scholarship: Dedicated integrator roles, seed funding, and managed boundary objects, 5 min
• Presenters: Hendren.
5. Appetizer 4: Action Guide: Strategies to establish inter- and transdisciplinarity in your organization, 5 min
• Presenters: Dettwiler, Hoffmann, and Deutsch.
6. Main course: Investigating the common ground – an interactive workshop. A facilitated discussion in small groups with guiding questions, 45 min
• Facilitators: Salmi, Jutila, Heinonen, Hendren, Vienni Baptista, Dettwiler, Hoffmann, and Deutsch.
• Contributors: All workshop participants.
7. Dessert: The icing on the cake. Sharing the key discussion points and findings from all small groups, 20 min.
• Contributors: All workshop participants.
• Facilitators: Salmi, Jutila, Heinonen, Hendren, Vienni Baptista, Dettwiler, Hoffmann, and Deutsch.
