Openness and new funding instruments

Nicole Gerber: It increases the benefits and impact of a project. Simply put, we can achieve more together. Given the ever growing pressure on funding, we should of course use resources in a way that leads to the best possible solutions.

Vicente Carabias: It starts with understanding the problem. Drawing on expertise from multiple disciplines automatically provides a better grasp of the initial situation. A single discipline on its own can often only tweak individual aspects.

Gerber: Exactly, and while adjusting individual aspects may perhaps solve one problem, it can potentially create negative consequences in another area. An interdisciplinary perspective helps identify impacts and interdependencies at an early stage and provides a better basis upon which decisions can be made. As a university of applied sciences, we have a central role to play: in practice, a great deal is driven by vested interests. Our task is to contribute, at a meta level, to providing a broader perspective on developments and innovations, independently of profit-driven considerations.

Carabias: What I particularly appreciate are the synergies that arise between stakeholders. When people work together, much more can emerge than when individual disciplines work in isolation. This is incredibly inspiring. Interdisciplinary collaboration creates added value because it enables a more holistic analysis of complex problems, fosters more innovative solutions and makes organisations more adaptable and capable of learning.

Gerber: There is also an interpersonal synergy that can develop beyond the actual subject itself. I enjoy working together with people who have a high level of intrinsic motivation. This often gives rise to new projects and initiatives.

Carabias: Initially, it involves additional effort. The process of finding common ground is extremely time-consuming and can be demanding. You have to explain your own perspective and try to understand others. Engineers tend to take a very pragmatic approach and get started quickly, while social scientists often prefer more extensive discussions first. A good balance has to be found here, and conflicts in terms of objectives are common. Openness and attentiveness are crucial.

Gerber: Research questions need to be formulated jointly, while methodological approaches also have to be defined with input from both sides. This takes significantly more time than is the case with mono-disciplinary projects. It usually involves a deliberate combination of complementary methods, for example interviews and simulations.

Carabias: Misunderstandings also often occur because terminology is interpreted differently. When I studied environmental sciences, I was always told: “You are generalists. You gain insights into natural sciences, engineering and social sciences – your role is to understand and translate between specialists.” This is precisely the role I take on today in my projects. I am interested in many areas, but do not know every detail. I see myself more as a coordinator and connector.

Gerber: I feel the same. Not everyone who excels in their own particular field works well as part of an interdisciplinary team. That’s why you need both people with deep subject expertise and people who can orchestrate the bigger picture.

Carabias: Exactly. You need disciplinary depth within the team in order to be taken seriously by all stakeholders. Fortunately, we have outstanding specialists in many relevant disciplines at our institute, particularly when it comes to handling topics relating to sustainability.

Carabias: I would describe it more as a negotiation process. Each person brings their own expertise and their individual way of thinking to the table. When there is disagreement, negotiation is necessary.

Gerber: It depends very much on the context. In larger projects, the dynamics differ considerably from those in smaller constellations. I think it is a shame when participants are not open to new ideas. Not everyone finds it equally easy to engage with input from other disciplines and functions. That's why it has to be clear to everybody who has what decision-making authority. Facilitation and orchestration are crucial skills that are underestimated by many people. It is not about managing individuals, but rather about moving the entire group forwards. This requires a great amount of time and effort which has to be explicitly planned and budgeted.

Gerber: You have to ask yourself whether a single discipline can solve the problem on its own or if it is necessary to think beyond this.

Carabias: If the task is clearly defined, for example to optimise a product at a technical level, the team does not need to be interdisciplinary. It means you don't have to spend a great deal of effort on coordinating everything. However, if the problem is highly complex, for example climate change, the energy transition or district development, then different ways of thinking are essential in order to produce holistic and resilient solutions. This is also crucial in terms of social acceptance. In my field, it is often the case that the technically best solutions are not necessarily the ones that are best accepted. Anticipating this by involving social scientists can save a great deal of time and money.

Carabias: In a scientific context, theory is much more important. Industry partners, on the other hand, are usually not interested in the methods. For them, what matters most are experiential knowledge, the implementation and the end result. As a university of applied sciences, you are somewhat caught in a dilemma: on the one hand, there is the expectation to be an academic institution, including publication pressure. At the same time, there is the goal of being application-oriented and serving society.

Gerber: It really is quite a balancing act. Sometimes I also have the feeling that industry partners are not interested in theory. However, they expect us to break it down for them and explain it in a simple manner.

Carabias: Yes, exactly. It should be scientific and evidence-based, but the details are of less interest. In transdisciplinary collaboration, we want to make a scientific contribution while also creating a social impact.

Gerber: As a university, we are not particularly agile, as we also have various other obligations, including teaching with its curricular logic. There are also many administrative processes that have to be adhered to. However, this is often no different in large corporations. In industry, staff turnover tends to be higher, which can make projects more difficult. What's more, in the private sector there is generally a greater expectation to present interim results more frequently. That said, the academic environment is also increasingly moving towards interim evaluations rather than waiting for projects to reach their conclusion.

Carabias: In funding programmes that are geared towards major societal challenges, such as Horizon Europe and the Swiss National Science Foundation’s national research programmes, it is certainly an advantage. However, it ultimately always comes down to who evaluates the project proposals. I myself sit on such committees and have often observed that jury members tend to chiefly propose projects from their own disciplines for funding. These are usually leading experts in their fields, but they do not necessarily understand what interdisciplinary work can achieve or how such projects function. That said, it also has to be acknowledged that applicants do not always successfully present their projects in a manner that makes them easy to understand for those outside their discipline.

Gerber: That is exactly my experience too, and I find it frustrating time and again: there is still far too little understanding as to in what way interdisciplinary settings function differently. Interdisciplinarity is often required in calls, but there is no real space for something new to develop. You have to specify from the off which methods will be used – methods that frequently come from basic research. This is only of limited usefulness. But if you want the funding, you have no choice but to comply. I am increasingly convinced that new forms of project funding are needed. It would make more sense to shed new light on topics based on incoming submissions and then develop solutions collaboratively along the way. We need to move away from large, rigid calls that take an eternity and result in a huge waste of resources for those who are not considered in the end.

Carabias: That is exactly what we are aiming for with the WinLab funding programme (editor’s note: see box). Proposals can be submitted on an ongoing basis and are evaluated four times a year. If we like an idea but it is not yet sufficiently developed, we provide feedback on what could still be improved. With most funding schemes, it is simply a matter of approval or rejection. If you are not successful, months of work are simply wasted. At the WinLab, however, we are interested in good ideas and want to develop them together.

Gerber: Very forward-looking! We also need to move away from the idea of developing final products in projects that are meant to last forever. The world is changing at an increasingly rapid rate. We have to accept that. We should think more in terms of iterations: develop prototypes, implement them and then identify suitable business models to advance them further. Our funding structures are only partially suited to this. In this respect, the structure call of the Digitalization Initiative of the Zurich Higher Education Institutions (DIZH) is very promising: you have to consider how an output can be sustained and financed beyond the initial funding phase.

Carabias: At the WinLab, we also have very limited resources. It is for this reason that we sometimes have the feasibility of ideas assessed by the relevant departments within the city administration. For example, an idea was submitted to detect leaks in water pipes using sensors. We presented it to the city’s civil engineering office, and it is now being implemented using their budget. That is the goal – or alternatively that ideas develop into business models that are self-sustaining.

Gerber: There are hardly any Bachelor’s programmes left without interdisciplinary components. Interdisciplinarity is essential. There is also a constantly increasing number of formats in which students from different degree programmes work together to develop solutions for actual problems, for example as part of summer schools or in innovation challenges. In Wädenswil, we are currently also undertaking a major curriculum re-engineering process: we are analysing which topics are relevant across multiple degree programmes and whether they can be taught jointly, even across institute boundaries. We need to think more in terms of broader thematic areas and less in terms of specific professions because, quite frankly, we do not know which professions will still exist in 10 to 20 years’ time. The goal must be to structure degree programmes more modularly to ensure that students can decide more independently where to place their focus – this is how new combinations of skills emerge.

Carabias: I am observing a clear trend towards interdisciplinarity. This was certainly encouraged by the Bologna Reform, which defined interdisciplinarity as a key component for complex, profession-related tasks. As a university of applied sciences, it is crucial for us to make sure that our students are employable and thus capable of succeeding in the labour market. Interdisciplinarity is playing an increasingly important role in this – not only specialised knowledge, but also an openness towards other disciplines. Nevertheless, foundational studies remain important. A solid depth of discipline-specific knowledge is required in order to engage with subject specialists on an equal footing. In addition, interdisciplinary projects, modules, lab settings and living labs provide a framework in which students collaborate with other fields and learn to transfer, translate and negotiate knowledge.

Gerber: Greater awareness of its importance. We need to develop ecosystems and cultivate them consciously. At present, a great deal is developed bottom-up. However, clear structures are needed if we are to make better use of synergies in the long term. When one project evolves from another, this is usually not a problem. On the other hand, when something new is to be developed from a new idea, it often involves a lot of unpaid work and goodwill. If this is then compounded by recurring administrative constraints, it will have a negative impact on motivation levels in the long run. It would be desirable to find ways to enable motivated individuals to take more joint initiative.