University of Turku Collegia TCSMT & TIAS

Georges Kazan, DPhil (Oxon) Senior Research Fellow TIAS (Archaeology) University of Turku

“All knowledge begins with a question”
Neil Postman 

Today’s world is increasingly facing complex challenges, from Climate Change to Covid-19, and beyond. Historically, interdisciplinary research has served as an approach (not an end) to a problem that cannot be fully embraced by any single discipline. New disciplines, such Neuroscience or Biochemistry, have emerged as a result, enabling the complex problems to be studied more effectively and in greater depth. But what exactly is interdisciplinarity? This is a word that Microsoft Word, at least, does not recognise. Definitions of interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity are currently diverse and contested. Similarly, the structures supporting interdisciplinary research have not been extensively studied. The reason for this may be that most definitions focus on what interdisciplinarity is, rather than how it is performed, and that explorations of best practices for interdisciplinary research often require the reassessment of university models themselves.

Most university research originates within a discipline-based research environment, prevalent since the 19^th century. This enables scholars to deepen knowledge in specific fields. This process can, however, result in increased distance between disciplines, fragmenting the research landscape and reducing efficiency. Those who dare to reach across the divide and incorporate data and/or methods from other disciplines in order to enhance their research can face a number of barriers:

1. Existing disciplinary structures do not provide a ready fit for interdisciplinary research
2. Assessment of research publications and funding often dominated by disciplinary expertise
3. Not always possible to explain the future output of research that is exploratory in nature
4. Lack of a common epistemic frame of reference to connect separate disciplines

As a result of points 1-3, interdisciplinary research often lacks the funding and freedom it needs to proceed effectively. Point 4 tends to particularly affect researchers in qualitative fields within the Social Sciences and Humanities (SSH), where there tends to be less conceptual overlap between (and even within) fields. However, if an interdisciplinary concept and framework can be established successfully, there is then an opportunity to integrate the new research into existing disciplinary structures by establishing it as a field in its own right. To develop and undertake interdisciplinary research, therefore, scholars require the time, facilities, flexibility and autonomy to take risks in pursuing potentially unproductive research for its own sake.

The Institute for Advanced Study (IAS) model offers the only established platform in academia for ‘bottom-up’, interdisciplinary research. While universities are increasingly managed using market-based models, with a strict focus on academic and societal impact, the IAS concept was established in Princeton almost a century ago to enable curiosity-driven pursuit of knowledge with no view to its immediate utility or the expectation of meeting predetermined goals. Since 2000, the number of IASs has grown significantly, part of a general trend of increasing support for environments without a specific research focus. Many of these more recent IASs, such as Turku Institute for Advanced Studies, are situated within universities, where they serve to enhance excellence and increase institutional prestige. In China, the transformative potential of IASs has been recognised as an important starting point for the reform of Higher Education Institution (HEI) research, with a network of 15 IASs now integrated into China’s HEI landscape (China Network of Institutes for Advanced Studies 2018).

Due to cultural similarities and a strong commitment towards public investments in social welfare and education, Nordic societies are often grouped together as exponents of the ‘Nordic Model.’ Such approaches have resulted in unique levels of social capital and trust.  At the same time, if the Nordic Model of public investment is to survive complex, existential, threats (e.g. aging populations, changing working models, global competitiveness), it must evolve and adapt to changes in its surroundings. This is directly relevant in the Nordic Higher Education Institution (HEI) sector, which is at present mostly state-funded. Within the Nordic HEI sector therefore, there is both an opportunity and a necessity for separate research institutions to connect and collaborate on a shared basis of mutual trust. Bringing down barriers to knowledge exchange also provides new possibilities for disciplinary and interdisciplinary research in a range of areas, on issues of high societal significance.

IASs present an ideal environment for such an initiative. Within the Nordic region, eight IASs exist at present. However, these generally operate in isolation of each other, are based on a range of different operating models, and participate in different international IAS networks or consortia. At the instigation of Professor Martin Cloonan (Director, TIAS), I conceived and developed, on TIAS’s behalf, a three-workshop series, Beyond Advanced Studies, in partnership with the Swedish Collegium for Advanced Study and Aarhus Institute of Advanced Studies. Funding for this was provided by the Joint Committee for Nordic research councils in the Humanities and Social Sciences (NOS-HS). The purpose of this series is to explore a co-ordinated approach to the IAS concept in the Nordic region by exploring the core question of “What is the Nordic approach to IAS and interdisciplinary research?” By building critical mass and concentrating expertise, it seeks to provide a platform within the Nordic region for disciplinary, sectoral and international dialogue in an important area – interdisciplinary research.

Photo: Beyond Advanced Studies – Workshop I, Swedish Collegium for Advanced Study

In November 2021, the first workshop in the series took place in Uppsala, Sweden, arranged and hosted by the Swedish Collegium for Advanced Study. Directors and Fellows of Nordic Institutes for Advanced Studies (IASs), plus expert guests from inside and outside academia, met in-person and via video conferencing for an exploratory discussion of interdisciplinarity, researcher careers and applications of the IAS concept. In addition to presentations by directors of Nordic IASs, the workshop was addressed by experts on the IAS model and on interdisciplinary research practices, as well as representatives of the Swedish Research Council and other interdisciplinary units. Swedish Collegium fellows, including members of its Erik Allardt fellowship scheme and early-career programme, Pro Futura Scientia, also shared their experiences. The participation of French, British and German IAS directors was especially valuable, helping to establish common ground internationally and throw light onto aspects specific to Nordic IASs. An online open innovation tool was used to capture ideas and perspectives throughout. The next workshop will take place in Aarhus (8-9 March 2022), with the series concluding in Turku at the final workshop. After this, conclusions will be compiled and summary findings published.

The increased emphasis being placed on interdisciplinary research at institutional level (e.g. Horizon Europe and NordForsk) provides significant opportunities to establish, within a disciplinary context, the new approaches developed within Nordic and European IASs, for example as larger research projects or research units. By facilitating closer co-operation between IASs, and collaborative refinement of IAS mechanisms, Beyond Advanced Studies seeks to consolidate and stimulate Nordic approaches to the IAS model, for the benefit of interdisciplinary researchers and research alike. 

Please feel free to follow us on the website and Twitter link below:

Beyond Advanced Studies

Website: https://sites.utu.fi/beyond-ias/

Twitter: @StudiesBeyond

Reima Välimäki is a Postdoctoral Researcher at TIAS and the Department of Cultural History, as well as an Adjunct Professor of Medieval History

When writing this, my child is having a cold. Again. Once again, cancelled meetings. Again, a time reserved for concentrated reading and data collection is interrupted by wiping a runny nose and pleas to put Peppa Pig on. Peppa Pig (incarnated as a balloon) was also floating behind the back of my colleague while we had a Zoom meeting. He wisely pointed out that we have a certain disadvantage compared to the medieval intellectuals we study. Peppa hardly broke Bernard of Clairvaux’s contemplation – but of course, Bernard had chosen what we hadn’t: a life in celibacy.

Bernard of Clairvaux, who was not interrupted by Peppa Pig. However, in 1146 he saw a vision of lactating Virgin Mary, but that is another story.

The first comparison that occurs to most researchers with family is not, however, cloistered medieval men but our colleagues without children. In the horrible Academic September in Finland (our very special purgatory with the start of the semester and major funding calls overlapping) such a comparison becomes acute and frustrating. How are we to compete with colleagues conversing with Kant while our heads are filled with the opening tune of Caillou? How is one supposed to produce a paradigm shift when sometimes it is a challenge to shift all the puzzles and children’s books that have invaded one’s desk? The “career breaks” line in the academic CV does not quite cover all the everyday interruptions that come with the package.

Yet, I still manage to believe that children can enrich also our research in addition to the obvious enrichment of our personal lives. At least in the humanities, where the focus is the wonderfully messy human condition. In the past decades, the array of subjects covered by academic history has expanded immensely: workers, women, family, children, minorities, everyday life, sexuality, disability, to name but a few. Behind this development are not only paradigm shifts but the increased diversity of academic historians.

While personal experience does not guide our research methods, it very much affects what we pay attention to in the first place. I noticed this when re-reading the Stettin inquisition protocols from 1392-1394, a group of documents I’ve been used in various studies since my MA thesis. However, only after becoming a father myself, I spotted this piece of information:  (I have written about it before in Finnish)

In her interrogation, a 24-year-old woman Grete Joris told that both she and her husband Mathias had been summoned by the inquisitor. Mathias had been unable to answer the summons because after walking a mile, he had had to turn back home carrying their son. Probably it was a small child getting tired – or a father realising that he cannot carry the child for the whole journey, dozens of miles. A very human moment, and familiar to anyone trying to walk with a toddler. And one I only paid attention to after struggling with my own kid.

So while taking care of our children – or elderly relatives – inevitably occupies our research time, we can perhaps cherish the thought that those frustrating moments make us more aware of the fragility, imperfectness, exhaustion, and support given and needed that are an essential part of humanity past and present.

I am yet to discover how to frame that in a grant application.

Nina Gieseler, Collegium Researcher, Space Research Laboratory

The Sun, humanity’s personal star, is known by all of us. We all have embraced it’s warmth, enjoyed beautiful sunsets, or experienced a sunburn. Like everybody might have their own perspective on the Sun, my personal relationship is a particular one. While I really enjoy sunbathing I see the Sun also as a kind of employer. The Sun produces what I study: energetic particles, accelerated to high energies in solar eruptions.

I am, therefore, very familiar with the Sun’s rough side, its dangerous aspects, its ugly face. I imagine the Sun as a dragon. Right now it is a sleepy dragon, just about to fully wake up. That might sound a bit scary, and yes, it is! While the Sun never stops to shine, this other kind of radiation, the energetic particle radiation, occurs sporadically, and if it hits Earth, it can harm all life! We call this space weather, and when these solar storms blow, you better get inside if you are an astronaut; you better power off if you are a satellite. And you better don’t fly with a plane over the poles, where the Earth’s magnetic field can’t significantly shield you.

The last deep-sleep phase was in 2019/2020, characterized by the dragon not changing its appearance, nothing happening, boring even. This is called solar minimum. We know this phase but we also know what comes after! The question is, “when will it happen and how bad will it be?” Continue reading →

Mona Mannevuo is a Postdoctoral Researcher at TIAS and the Department of Contemporary History

This post is based on a talk given at the international online symposium Across Boundaries in Sciences. The event was hosted by All European Academics (ALLEA) and the Council of Finnish Academies on 5 May 2021. The program, talks and more detailed information of the event can be found here.

Interdisciplinarity, multidisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity… The cherished idea of crossing boundaries in science has many names. Sometimes, we forget that boundary crossings may be a risky business for young academics working in highly precarious and competitive academia.

Although I am at an early stage of my career, I have a multidisciplinary academic background in the humanities and social sciences. I did my MA in cultural history (2009), but I defended my PhD in gender studies (2015). After finishing this PhD, I was employed as a research fellow in a FiDiPro project ‘Social Science for the Twenty-First Century: Employment Activation and the Changing Economy-Society Relation’. Subsequently, I was recruited to the ‘Tackling Biases and Bubbles in Participation’ (BIBU) consortium. While contributing to this project, my research environment was the Centre for Parliamentary Studies.

Since January 2021, I have been working on my own three-year post-doctoral project at Turku Institute for Advanced Studies. At TIAS, my affiliation is contemporary history, but I am also leading a project titled ‘Communication across borders: Shifting boundaries of politics, science and public relations’, which is funded by the Helsingin Sanomat Foundation.

Working in these different environments has taught me several things. First of all, my background has equipped me with rich knowledge of various fields and perhaps even strategic tools to survive in contemporary academia. However, academia is quite conventional and hierarchical, and I sometimes feel like an outsider (see Interdisciplinary Madness comic). In fact, I can feel a bit queasy when someone asks what my actual field of study is. I would like to pretend that it is just my curiosity that has led me to this situation, but truthfully, it is the difficulty of making long-term plans in contemporary academia.

Academic life as a succession of projects

Whereas ‘interdisciplinarity’ sounds exciting as a buzzword, the reality in interdisciplinary projects can be quite exhaustive and draining. In particular, early-career scholars often need to change topics rather drastically according to the themes of the projects for which they are employed.

It also feels like the society puts unrealistic expectations on interdisciplinary projects: they are expected to change the world, solve societal maladies and yield an astronomical return on invest. The problem is not the idea of interdisciplinarity but the project culture in which, paraphrasing Eve Boltanski and Luc Chiapello (2007), the actual content of the project seems less important than the general impression of networked scholars’ ability to juggle competing commitments at once.

But science is not magic. In 2015, when Nature published a special issue on interdisciplinarity, the editorial stated that ‘true interdisciplinary science cannot be rushed’. We may have hopes, but interdisciplinarity research is a risky business, because it often takes time to achieve results. It also takes time to build academic relationships and to see the value in other approaches, but competitive, fast-paced academia does not always foster collegiality.

Therefore, as the Nature editorial continued, we must rethink hierarchies: ‘All involved must be confident that colleagues from other disciplines use equal academic rigour and scientific standing, even if the methods used in rival fields seem alien’. Otherwise, the project exists as one main subject that depletes most of the resources and leaves the partners as orbiting satellites.

The main risk for young scholars working on interdisciplinary projects is that they may not offer career advancement but, rather, advance someone else’s strategic agenda. Thus, early-career scholars need to be acutely aware of the possible power relations in interdisciplinary projects. It is easy to make a project look interdisciplinary, but it is on the ‘shop floor’ where epistemological boundaries are negotiated.

In reality, the political economy of academia does not encourage young scholars to take the risk of crossing boundaries. Instead, they learn to promote interdisciplinarity within proper limits. They learn to ask critical questions, but not too critical, because there is no time for that. They learn to follow their curiosity, but not too much; interesting issues are noted but never actually explored, because the next project is waiting.

The order of knowledge

The problems in interdisciplinary project culture are not entirely new. They were already puzzling critical scholars in the 1950s. In The Organization Man (1956), William H. Whyte ponders how ‘the bureaucratization of the scientist’ leads to ‘projectism’, where scholars play a role set for them by funding committees with the hope of producing a sophisticated research design:

As one young scientist, Walter Roberts puts it: ‘There is a tremendous difference between science as it is done in the laboratory and science as it is reported. True science is helter-skelter, depending on one’s hunches, angers, and inspirations, and the research itself is done in a very personal fashion. Thirty or forty years ago [in the 1920s] it was written up this way. In reporting a great discovery a scientist would say, ‘I was working on such-and-such reaction when I dropped some sulphuric acid by mistake. When I examined it I found, to my surprise, a strange thing going on…’ But today nobody would write it up this way.

It seems, then, that academics have struggled with the idea of instrumental, top-down, problem-focused research for decades. What worries me about the current trend of evidence-based policymaking is that it may give the impression that there is some apolitical, pragmatic way to turn research into the administrative language of ‘best practices’ and ‘what works’. Instead, we have to admit that uncertain times are filled with messy, conflicting interests; the more evidence we have, the more decisions and selections we must make and the more accountable we are for our actions.

Interdisciplinarity as a buzzword may give an impression of consensus. However, critical interdisciplinary research is far from finding the one best solution. Transformative interdisciplinary fields, such as cultural studies and science and technology studies, emerged from the various disciplinary subfields. Indeed, the most interesting problems often evolve in the margins, and they are so strange that they cannot be understood or explained without consulting various actors within and outside the university. From a critical perspective, interdisciplinarity is a strategy – not for instrumental purposes but for restructuring the order of knowledge.

References:

Boltanski, Luc & Chiapello, Eve. The New Spirit of Capitalism. Translated by Gregory Elliott. Verso, 2007. Originally published 1999.

Editorial, ‘Mind Meld’. Nature, Volume 525 Issue 7569, 16 September 2015.

Whyte, William H. The Organization Man. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002. Originally published 1956.