A dialogue with the PAIR International Advisory Committee Chairman

Realising interdisciplinary success through conducive culture, resource sharing and communicative leadership: A dialogue with the PAIR International Advisory Committee Chairman

The year 2022 was particularly meaningful to Prof. Ross COROTIS, Professor Emeritus of Civil Engineering at the University of Colorado at Boulder (CU Boulder), USA. Prof. Corotis is retiring from CU Boulder, after five decades as a leading researcher, professor and college dean. Stepping back from the university signifies the beginning of new, multi-faceted engagements in engineering and higher education. Since March 2022, Prof. Corotis has been serving as Chairman of the International Advisory Committee of the PolyU Academy for Interdisciplinary Research (PAIR). In this issue, PAIR chatted with Prof. Corotis to learn more about his vision for interdisciplinary research in global higher education.

Rethinking interdisciplinarity in global higher education research 

Promoting interdisciplinary research is an increasingly common and important development strategy for world-class universities. Why is this strategy so significant?

One important thing about “interdisciplinary research” is that it can address naturally complex problems. This is because people with different expertise and viewpoints come together for collaboration. Most often, societal challenges entail a broad set of interdependent factors. Therefore, the contributions should entail a systematic approach of gathering knowledge and expertise from different fields to address the concerns, impacts and interrelationships of these problems.

“Interdisciplinary collaboration” encompasses various levels of involvement. These include “cross-disciplinarity” (utilising methods and knowledge from different disciplines), “interdisciplinarity” (synthesising links between disciplines into a coordinated and coherent whole), and “transdisciplinarity”  (bringing multiple disciplines together to solve problems and create new conceptual areas and research directions that transcend the traditional boundaries between disciplines).

Interdisciplinary collaboration can take many different directions. Does this imply that “transdisciplinarity” is the way forward? Most often, a collaborative interdisciplinary team of researchers and scientists realises there is something more that they need (e.g., method, technology, study) when trying to solve a problem.

I think “transdisciplinarity” is an aspect, and this can follow naturally from having interdisciplinary teams. “Interdisciplinary collaboration” is about getting people from different disciplines together, looking at the societal problem more comprehensively, and pursuing a more complete solution. I emphasise “transdisciplinarity” because sometimes there is a way of approaching a problem that does not fit traditional approaches, and an interdisciplinary team may discover a new way to approach the problem.

It seems that the level of benefits that experts receive from interdisciplinary collaboration varies depending on the discipline they come from. Scientists may benefit more than non-scientists from interdisciplinary collaboration because they possess specialised skills and technologies. What does this imply for interdisciplinary collaboration and the value society places on science and non-science?

I think “interdisciplinarity” is about approaching the problem from a different mindset, and this is advantageous. As an example, engineers tend to rely on quantitative measures. Engineers like writing equations, measuring outputs and dealing with numeric results. In the real world, we always adopt a reductionist approach by simplifying problems to a level on which the issue becomes manageable and solvable. Social scientists, on the other hand, often use qualitative methods like semi-directed interviews to hear what others say and understand the meanings behind that. They do not want to simplify the richness of the problem. To a social scientist, if the world is trying to simplify a problem to the extent where we can solve it, then maybe we have not solved the real problem.

At the same time, I personally believe that we still require depth in a particular area. We do not want to bring people who are experts at working together but who do not have any expertise beyond that.

Conducive culture as key to implementation success

How can university administrators encourage interdisciplinary collaboration at their institutions?

It is a matter of university stakeholders’ recognising the benefits of discipline expertise and an interdisciplinary approach. Institutions comprise different disciplines. Most often, academics are hired for their expertise in a narrow field, and there is a natural tendency to stay in their comfort zone. At research universities like PolyU, talents are hired for their innovation, entrepreneurship, and their ability to move forward. Therefore, it is about fostering a spirit of interdisciplinary approaches to problems.

Some universities, like CU Boulder, have a long history of interdisciplinary research centres that coexist with traditional departments and offer dual appointments to faculty members. So, the university administration needed to develop procedures to simplify the sharing of indirect costs among multiple units.

At the same time, we do not want to overburden faculty members, especially young faculty members. Faculty may respond differently towards interdisciplinary development. Hence, the university administration can consider giving small rewards and slightly more support to faculty members to create an ecosystem conducive to interdisciplinary collaboration. We can allow greater work flexibility between teaching and research. For example, a member may choose to focus on two research areas instead of teaching two master courses. If a member wishes to stay focused in an area, administrators can see how it fits into the whole. Instead of assigning a problem to a faculty member to solve, we can engage them in a research collaboration so that members get to feel good about working together and contributing to the community. It is an entirely different attitude and level of excitement. The administrators have to be sensitive about that.

More universities are pursuing interdisciplinary research, and they are both collaborators and competitors in academia. How can institutions maintain their unique positions? Overlapping research interests and similar research developments are unavoidable.

Uniqueness does not have to be defined in terms of the narrow expertise of each person or institution. By contrast, the way we approach real-world problems in a comprehensive, interdisciplinary way itself is unique. In academia, universities do compete with one another. But this is great because it means that we are striving for excellence. The reputation of a university is based on its success. A university can achieve success by solving real-world problems in a creative way. I think creativity is what PolyU really has.

Supporting these successes will also give institutions a unique advantage. The university management must first assess faculty members for their ability to thrive in an interdisciplinary setting, and then help them develop and succeed in that. These include important aspects such as making resources and guidance available and accessible, removing disciplinary-based roadblocks, assisting faculty members, giving rewards, etc.

Facing the reality of resource constraints

Resources within institutions are limited, but institutions are ambitious in generating more interdisciplinary research, partnerships, infrastructure, etc. What implications does this hold for resource management within higher education?

We all want to be inclusive. Institutions may have directed their efforts to proposing new research entities, foci, developments, and so on. But there is a finite limit to resources in terms of people, space, funding, etc. Trying to cover too many areas can quickly dilute the mission and spread the recognition, efforts and support to individual researchers and units too thinly. Success is built on good stories, not the number of stories.

For PolyU, PAIR has a successful start in doing pioneering work which others may not have done. I think it is now time for the university management to take a retrospective look at what its most successful efforts are and why that is so. The management need to be careful with the interdisciplinary research areas that they want to foster.

“Resource sharing” is a major trend as university management seeks to address resource constraints. Are there any major implementation challenges for universities?

Many universities have limited resources for achieving their ambitions and goals. Therefore, the effective use of resources is important. When individual resources are not utilised effectively, resource sharing can bring better assets to the faculty. However, the very essence of faculty at a research university is individual entrepreneurship and understanding the value of “shared resources”. Both incentives and rewards from the administration to encourage resource sharing are critical.

It is true that “resource sharing” is not optimal in certain aspects. There may be a slightly larger burden on faculty members as they need to schedule laboratory hours. But we need to bear in mind that the university management is not asking faculty members to do more scheduling work. Rather, it is important to convey to faculty members that the university encourages them to take advantage of shared resources to do more research. If a university pulls people together to use shared resources, then the university can invest in more and better equipment for higher-quality research.

From quantitative metrics to individual factors in measuring success 

Many institutions are measuring research performance quantitatively, such as the amount of funding received. However, the problem is that certain fields of research may have more funding opportunities. Researchers are under pressure to produce measurable research outcomes. What does this imply for the university management?

I like the idea that research units have to justify their research efforts and accomplishments. However, it is easy for universities to become overly reliant on quantitative metrics such as funding, publications, and partnerships in measuring research success. These are not the measures of success, but rather metrics related to success. A research area which does not receive much government support now, but has high potential in the long run, perhaps should be supported. It is very natural that the management may not know the details and current state of frontline research and would therefore turn to metrics in evaluating success.

For a research unit that is not very successful according to current measures but is doing good work, we should not say it is a failure. Rather, we should say that at this point in time, the concept of this unit is not needed. Being premature does not mean the unit is unsuccessful. It is important that universities embrace this long-term view and do more than just easy, quantitative evaluation.

Another problem associated with metrics is that this approach overlooks the individual differences within faculty. No two people among the faculty are the same. A professor may earn tenure for mentoring many research students, even though he/she does not produce as many papers or secure as much funding as others. Here, I think the university management needs to look at the person’s contribution and understand how it fits with the university’s overall research goals, and to protect faculty members from worrying about research so that they can excel. We do not want identical people within the faculty.

When I served as the dean at CU Boulder, I set up a new building called the Discovery Learning Centre where young researchers deliver presentations to senior management to justify their research work and compete to get into research and learning schemes. Bottom-up initiatives like this enable senior management to see some of the activities at a more individual level.

Dilemma-solving institutions need communicative leadership

University management needs to be able to foster research diversity and quality within the faculty when resources are limited. Are there any particular attributes that make higher education administrators and managers effective?

The individuals whom we select to be leaders have to be more than just excellent in their own specialty areas. In academia, there is a tendency to make successful researchers become administrators. This may not be the appropriate approach in talent selection.

It is important that leaders in academia come from academia and be successful professors. The higher education community needs to have faith in the administration. It is hard for the faculty to go along with the administration if the latter is perceived to be inexperienced. Higher education management is really a two-way street. Management may receive complaints from faculty members about not having enough space, equipment, graduate students or support. But this is really a positive situation. The faculty members want to succeed in what they are doing and they need support from the administration.

In this sense, active listening, effective communication, as well as the awareness of individual differences and resource constraints (e.g., time, money, space) are essential attributes in faculty that make good higher education administrators.

One thing about communication is that the university management has to be consistent in their written communication. Here, consistency is not just about how consistently the university management convey their message, but also how consistently these messages are received and perceived. We need to ensure consistency in communication at various levels in the university community (i.e., students, faculty, management, senior management) so that the whole university community aligns and embraces this interdisciplinary approach. Effective communication is important to attitudinal change.

Contributing professionally as a reflective engineer

Prof. Corotis, your retirement from CU Boulder signifies the beginning of a new chapter in your life and contribution to the fields of engineering and higher education. How do you feel about your current engagements so far?

I am very privileged to be able to continue to contribute professionally. After decades of creative thinking, none of us wants to shut that down! The freedom of time gives us the opportunity to continue to participate in ways that we feel are important.

This year, I participated in the dedication of the Corotis Family Collaboratory at the National Academy of Science and Engineering, and the launch of the Corotis Endowed Lecture Series at Johns Hopkins University. This summer, I will give a keynote address at a large international conference.

Last year, I was awarded a research grant for a new study on codified live loads. It is the kind of project in which I can hear the views of experts from the steel and concrete industries, and from academia around the world. How safe do we want to make our structures? Do we want to make housing safer but costlier? Understanding these trade-offs and getting others not trained in engineering disciplines to understand these innate problems allow structural engineers to work with society at large.

Structural engineers are responsible for the safety of society, and our decisions affect everyone. Structural engineering is not just about determining the sizes of beams for bridges, but also a continuous reflection of the underlying “what”, “why” and “how”—what does society need, why are we building a bridge, and how does it satisfy the needs of society?

People may have various feelings about changes and developments, and these emotions are something which structural engineers have not modelled. Understanding and appreciating what everyone on the team brings to the problem, even if they are not trained in the discipline.… I think that this is the essence of the interdisciplinary approach.