UCL GRAND CHALLENGES
OFFICE OF THE UCL VICE-PROVOST (RESEARCH)
Executive Group
UCL Grand Challenge of Intercultural Interaction (GCII)
11-12 noon, Wednesday, 7 March 2012
Meeting Room, 2 Taviton Street
Minutes
Present
Dr Robin Aizlewood
Professor Richard Bellamy
Dr Henriette Bruun
Professor Helen Hackett
Dr Sinead Kennedy
Dr Axel Korner
Jacob Leveridge
Dr Ruth Mandel
Dr Pablo Mateos
Dr Joann McGregor
Professor Nicola Miller (Chair)
Dr James Steele
Michael Reade
Dr Ian Scott
Dr Jacob Sweiry
Nicholas Tyndale
Dr Claire Warwick
Dr Katherine Woolf
Professor Henry Woudhuysen
Professor Maria Wyke
Apologies
Dr Ingrid Boccardi
Dr Francois Guesnet
Professor David Price
Professor Stephen Smith
Dr Uta Staiger
Professor Jo Wolff
1.
GCII Small Grants Scheme
Sixteen applications had been received and four projects had been awarded
funding. It was noted that the small grants were an effective way to
encourage early career scholars.
2.
Institute of Cross-Disciplinary Research (ICR)
Nicola Miller summarised her draft bid for the ICR and updated members on
recent developments:
2.1
The main aim at this stage was to secure funding and an appropriate physical
space to support a wide range of cross-disciplinary research projects.
2.2
A meeting had recently taken place with Lori Manders, Director, Development
and Alumni Relations Office, who had been optimistic about the ICR’s
fundraising prospects.
1
2.3
David Price would be discussing the ICR proposal informally with Provost in
the near future. A bid would eventually be made for support from the
Provost’s Strategic Development Fund (PSDF).
2.4
There should be as much flexibility as possible in terms of the nature of
projects, the institutional affiliation of project participants (although it would be
reasonable to expect at least one UCL academic to the represented); and the
mix of UK and overseas scholars. A wide range of projects should be
considered on their own merits but there should be a stipulation that arts and
humanities scholars should be included in any project. The ICR’s
management committee would be in the best position to address these
matters at a latter stage.
3.
Responses to ICR bid
3.1
Financial arrangements
Initiatives supported by the Provost’s Strategic Development Fund (PSDF)
reduced the HEFCE institutional funding available for faculty-only activities; it
was wrong to think of the PSDF as being a separate source of funding. It was
noted that a faculty’s decision to support the ICR was indeed a serious
undertaking and it was essential to have the support of the relevant Deans
who would effectively pay for the ICR out of their budgets.
3.2
Consideration needed to be given to the ICR’s long-term financial
sustainability. It was necessary to plan for failure and worse case scenarios.
The example of the Centre for Digital Humanities (CDH) was given. If,
ultimately, CDH proved to be unsuccessful the people concerned with it could
simply revert to their usual ‘day jobs’. However, the ICR was a very different
proposition from previous initiatives both in terms of institutional scale and
ambition plus considerable investment was required in terms of finance and
physical space. It was essential that the ICR succeeded for UCL; failure
would be a serious setback and embarrassment.
3.3
A business plan was needed to help secure the ICR’s long-term future.

Action
Nicola Miller to seek assistance from OVPR to create a business plan.
It was suggested that Margaret Lloyd, Finance Division, could also be
approached for advice.
3.5
ICR and provision of physical space for initiatives
The ICR could provide a physical home for initiatives such as Research
Frontiers and the proposed Dynamics of Civilisation Centre.
3.6
However, conflicts could emerge if certain networks received physical
accommodation while others did not. A rationale needed to be developed to
explain why some initiatives received this support. It was suggested that the
ICR’s management committee would best address matters of this nature.
3.7
ICR’s relationship with other initiatives
The way in which the ICR would relate to, and integrate, with existing
initiatives needed to be considered. The new centre for Inter-disciplinary
research within the Arts and Humanities Faculty was mentioned.
2
3.8
There were already a number of overlapping research initiatives at UCL and
there was a sense that UCL was overloaded with these initiatives. It was
important to ask what would distinguish the ICR.

3.9
ICR and post-doctoral and graduate support
The ICR should encourage academic continuity by offering three years of
post-doctoral support.

3.10
Action
Nicola Miller agreed to clarify the ICR’s relationship with future and
existing cross-disciplinary initiatives.
Action
Nicola Miller and Henry Woudhuysen would discuss how the ICR could
best support this aim.
Concerns were raised about the lack of funding available for graduate
students at UCL. It was asked if the ICR could create an avenue for better
funding arrangements and so increase the likelihood of graduate students
remaining at UCL.

Action
Nicola Miller said that this was a common concern across UCL and that
this matter could be discussed more fully at the next meeting.
4.
Updates and plans for other projects
4.1
Centre for Early Modern Exchanges (CEME) (Helen Hackett)
Positives
 CEME was launched in 2010. It had succeeded in attracting
researchers from a range of different disciplines with interests in the
period 1450 -1800.

A successful on-going series of seminars had been established.

CEME had convened a major conference in September 2011 that had
attracted a number of international delegates.
Difficulties
 CEME did not have administrative support. This made the task of
organising the September conference particularly onerous.

Problems had been experienced with UCL’s room bookings service and
this had discouraged the academic leads from organising future
conferences on the scale of the September conference.
Future plans
 Encourage broader engagement across UCL; build CEME’s
relationships with SSEES and Science and Technology. The
membership of CEME’s steering committee will be similarly broadened.
3

4.2
4.3
Centre for Transnational History (CTH) (Axel Korner)
 CTH began in 2008 and the annual lectures had wide appeal.

Links continued to be built with transnational historians in the UK and
abroad. The CTH had received considerable interest from international
academics.

The Rousseau 300 conference, which includes an opera performance,
will take place in April 2012.

Funding had been obtained from a number of sources including Grand
Challenges and the European Institute as well as some external
sources.

There was a danger of CTH and CEME competing for the same people
to attend their events. Therefore, the two centres should explore way
to cooperate and perhaps hold joint events in the future.
Centre for Dynamics of Civilisations (Maria Wyke)
 Progress was being made with the finalisation of a funding bid from the
PSDF. It was important to make the proposed centre distinctive.

4.4
CEME will continue to build its relations outside UCL, namely with Yale
University and the University of Venice.
Advice was being sought from OVPR, Deans of SLASH, the School
Finance Office and other centres, which had been established via
successful applications to the PSDF.
European Institute (EI) (Richard Bellamy)
Successes
 The Institute had received positive responses to calls for papers and for
projects.

Substantial and productive working relationships had been established
with a number of embassies, Europe House, the European Parliament
(London Office), and the European Commission. A number of events
will be convened at the EU in Brussels in May 2012.
Less successful activities
Adopting themes and associated budgets. In future, the funds previously
associated with themes will be dispersed via calls.
Future plans
The Institute would like stronger engagement with the arts and humanities
community:

The institute was able to help researchers coordinate activities as well
as provide them with valuable external contacts.
4

Assistance could also be given with promotional activities. For
example, events could be included in the Institute’s regular newsletter.
‘Dual badging’ was an effective way of promoting events and
simultaneously indicating ownership. However, there was sometimes a
feeling that the Institute was depriving event convenors of appropriate
credit if events were promoted by the Institute.
4.5
Religions and Society workshops (François Guesnet)
Members noted a paper and associated brochures, submitted by François
Guesnet, which detailed the workshop series. A meeting will be held in June
2012 to discuss prospects to build upon the cross-faculty cooperation, which
had emerged including the viability of creating a Religion and Society MA at
UCL.
4.6
Healthcare in multicultural settings
 Ian Scott tabled a paper and explained that UCL had received
encouragement from Richard Horton (editor, Lancet) to create a UCL –
Lancet Commission, entitled ‘Culture and Health’. This would be a
major output for the Grand Challenge of Intercultural Interaction.
4.7

This project is lead by David Napier (Anthropology) and is supported by
UCL Partners and North Middlesex University Hospital.

It is envisaged that a manuscript will be ready for external peer review
towards the end of the 2012-13 academic year.
China related theme
Ian Scott outlined the desire to align the Grand Challenges with UCL’s existing
China interests. It was noted that Nick Tyler (Civil Engineering) and Alan
Penn (Bartlett had significant experience working with the Chinese.

5.
Action
Nicola Miller suggested that Ian Scott should speak to Vivienne Lo
(Convenor, China Centre for Health and Humanity) about the prospect
of developing an initiative.
Observations
There was strong agreement that too many events were taking place at UCL
and that it was unreasonable to expect academics, who already had
considerable teaching, research and administrative responsibilities, to attend
events on a regular basis. Concerns were also expressed about events
competing for finite audiences. There was support for better coordination of
events to prevent similar events taking place at the same, or almost the same,
time. It was suggested that better use should be made of the Microsoft
Outlook application.


Action
Nicola Miller asked OVPR to explore the viability of these suggestions.
Nicola Miller will attend a meeting of all the Grand Challenge chairs.
This meeting will provide an opportunity to pool experience and
address some of the concerns that had been raised at the current
meeting. Nicola Miller will report to members at the next meeting.
5
6.
Any other business
Graduate students are not sufficiently represented in audiences for events.
There was a need to change the culture of graduate students. Helen Hackett
reported that PhD students had set up a work-in-progress group in association
with the Centre for Early Modern Exchanges; such groups could encourage
student engagement.
7.
Future meeting dates
To be arranged by email.
6