on note 4- I think you are probably right to observe a correlation between those who advocate for collaboration and healthier research cultures. This is because (and I set this out in my book, Research Collaboration: A step by step guide to success) many of the features of an environment that support collaboration also support healthier organisational cultures. I don't subscribe to the idea that "interdisciplinarity may be conveniently imprecise and broad enough to provide a kind of rhetorical cover for other motives", and would highlight that also correlation is not causation....I do wish we could get on from arguing about what inter/trans/multidisciplinary is though and just accept that research lies on a broad spectrum and that all of it is valid and that people may move along the spectrum at various points in their career.
There's lots in here that I could have a longer chat about over a coffee or wine!
I think your conclusions are very interesting and I would simply add a few comments.
I believe we should be putting more resources into QR. Not only are universities generally capable of directing this money effectively but are able to undertake more careful and fine-grain management of the resources. It is a more efficient method for funding, reducing the costs of more centralised grant funding schemes.
I think criticising UKRI for not leaning more towards interdisciplinary research would be somewhat unfair. It neglects the national role of public science funders, that is to sustain the overall research base and to preserve key areas and capabilities within the UK. This is a responsibility that mission-based funders do not have.
on note 4- I think you are probably right to observe a correlation between those who advocate for collaboration and healthier research cultures. This is because (and I set this out in my book, Research Collaboration: A step by step guide to success) many of the features of an environment that support collaboration also support healthier organisational cultures. I don't subscribe to the idea that "interdisciplinarity may be conveniently imprecise and broad enough to provide a kind of rhetorical cover for other motives", and would highlight that also correlation is not causation....I do wish we could get on from arguing about what inter/trans/multidisciplinary is though and just accept that research lies on a broad spectrum and that all of it is valid and that people may move along the spectrum at various points in their career.
There's lots in here that I could have a longer chat about over a coffee or wine!
This is an outstanding analysis.
I think your conclusions are very interesting and I would simply add a few comments.
I believe we should be putting more resources into QR. Not only are universities generally capable of directing this money effectively but are able to undertake more careful and fine-grain management of the resources. It is a more efficient method for funding, reducing the costs of more centralised grant funding schemes.
I think criticising UKRI for not leaning more towards interdisciplinary research would be somewhat unfair. It neglects the national role of public science funders, that is to sustain the overall research base and to preserve key areas and capabilities within the UK. This is a responsibility that mission-based funders do not have.
Thank you for this excellent work.