UCL GRAND CHALLENGES
OFFICE OF THE UCL VICE-PROVOST (RESEARCH)
Executive Group
UCL Grand Challenge of Intercultural Interaction (GCII)
12 noon, Thursday 30 June 2011
Meeting Room, 2 Taviton Street
Minutes
Present
Dr Robin Aizlewood
Dr Henriette Bruun
Dr Francois Guesnet
Professor Helen Hackett
Dr Axel Korner
Professor Nicola Miller (Chair)
Tonya Nelson
Professor David Price
Michael Reade
Dr Ian Scott
Dr Uta Staiger
Nicholas Tyndale
Dr Claire Warwick
Professor Henry Woudhuysen
Professor Maria Wyke
1.
Apologies
Professor Richard Bellamy
Dr Ingrid Boccardi
Dr Pablo Mateos
Dr Joann McGregor
Dr Ruth Mandel
Professor Stephen Smith
Professor Jo Wolff
Membership
Members noted the recent expansion in GCII membership.
2.
Institute of Advanced Interdisciplinary Study
Professor Nicola Miller introduced her discussion paper and noted that:
2.1

The Grand Challenge office had already submitted a statement of interest in
securing physical premises for an Institute as part of the UCL Master Plan
consultation process.

Support for an Institute (in various forms) had been expressed in the past:
Professor Nick Tyler, Professor David Napier, and Professor Jo Wolf had
suggested the creation of a ‘Wellbeing Nebula’. Professor Anthony
Finkelstein has proposed a 'research hotel' - a space where interdisciplinary
teams could colloborate for an intensive period.

UCL should not seek to replicate the CRASSH (Cambridge) or Princeton
models of advanced study centre.
General reactions to discussion paper
Dr Claire Warwick said that the original idea of an Institute had come from the
humanities and social science (HSS) community and it would be desirable to maintain
the HSS focus because these subjects had particular needs.
1
It was important to create an institute that appealed to a wide range of HSS scholars,
beyond the small cohort that is readily receptive to inter-disciplinary activity
Dr Robin Aizlewood emphasised the importance of UCL creating an Institute which
would provide a forum for HSS bottom-up initiatives rather than being yet another
attempt to bring HSS scholars into interdisciplinary activity in a top down fashion.
Moreover, the HSS community had a responsibility to respond creatively to this
initiative.
Professor Maria Wyke said that it was important to ensure appropriate HSS
representation in the Institute and that this would encourage HSS engagement.
2.2
Institute priorities and activities
Professor Wyke expressed interest in short-term projects that could lead to major
funding applications and perhaps even to the formation of new UCL Grand
Challenges. The Institute should not be bounded by the existing Grand Challenges.
Dr Warwick said that the Institute should support initial projects in single disciplines
because these could evolve into interdisciplinary projects.
Professor David Price believed that the Institute should support a range of activities
providing they were consistent with UCL’s research strategy. Professor Price noted
that scientists and engineers did not wish to spend extended periods away from their
laboratories.
Professor Henry Woudhuysen stressed the importance of ensuring that there were
clear outcomes from Institute activity; it was imperative that the Institute was not
perceived as providing an opportunity for a relaxed period of time away from teaching
and administrative duties.
Dr Francois Guesnet questioned the impact that a series of short-term projects
could make and argued that there was a danger of there being a proliferation of
small-scale projects. It was important that the Institute had a number of substantial
long-term projects. Dr Guesnet referred to the success of Jewish Studies at the
University of Pennsylvania that had an established series of yearly themes.
Dr Axel Korner believed that themes could restrict research and could lead to
academics artificially linking their funding applications to them. Dr Korner said that an
Advanced Institute could provide UCL with an opportunity to create a space outside
of ’themes’ where genuinely “blue-skies” research could take place, which would be
highly attractive internationally
Dr Warwick was similarly wary about the introduction of themes for an
interdisciplinary Institute; they worked well for single disciplines but they limited
creativity for more interdisciplinary areas. It was important that the Institute
encouraged genuine creativity and that there should be as much flexibility as
possible; individual initiatives should be judged on their own merits.
Dr Aizlewood asked Professor Miller for clarification regarding the Institute’s
proposed events policy. Professor Miller said that it was important that the Institute
did not simply duplicate events programmes that were taking place elsewhere within
UCL. The Institute should not organise ‘stand alone’ events and instead the
Institute’s events should be linked to research projects that it supported. Professor
Price said that events could form part of the Institute’s delivery programme.
2.3
Academic Engagement
Dr Korner said that consideration needed to be given as to how the Institute would
engage the wider UCL community. The UCL academic community was very different
to that at Princeton. Academics at Princeton had no duties outside their academic
2
role and they therefore had more time for interdisciplinary activities at its Institute of
Advanced Study.
Uta Staiger asked about what the ratio of UCL academics to external, visiting
scholars the Institute would support. Dr Staiger mentioned the Cambridge’s
CRASSH that offered three-month fellowships.
Professor Price envisaged UCL scholars taking placements at the Institute lasting
between three and six months. In this situation, the relevant UCL department would
be compensated as appropriate. This could be extended to visiting academics but
UCL was not in a position to pay North American salaries for a year. However, UCL
would make an important contribution. In addition, there was scope for UCL
collaborating closely with Yale University and share any associated costs of Yale
scholars who spent time at the Institute.
Dr Korner said that the Institute presented an opportunity for UCL academics to form
collaborations with academics at other institutions.
Dr Henriette Bruun highlighted the importance of how best to manage demand for
placements at the Institute. Would places be open to all scholars from outside UCL
or would visiting academics have to be nominated by a UCL scholar? Professor
Miller said that she thought that initially projects would be led by an UCL academic
and external people would be invited to apply to work at the Institute at a later date.
The promotion of the Institute outside of UCL would also be an important undertaking.
2.4
Funding and resources
Ms Tonya Nelson stressed the importance of the Institute enjoying appropriate levels
of administrative support. Professor Price said that in the initial phase the Institute
would receive support from the Grand Challenges administrative team but there was
a clear case for additional administrative support as the Institute evolved.
Professor Miller emphasised the importance of making the Institute an attractive
proposition to academics both within and outside UCL. Therefore, the Institute would
have to be appropriately funded; there was little point in pursuing the creation of an
Institute if the necessary funding and staff resource were not forthcoming.
Professor Price estimated that the Institute’s running costs would be in the order of
£500,000 per annum and that HSS academics should have the confidence necessary
in asking the College to make the appropriate investment. Professor Price believed
that the Institute could assume the same level of importance within UCL as the
Cancer Institute. However, this would only occur if the Institute itself was confident in
justifying its cost and that it was able to demonstrate its support for research
excellence that went beyond traditional discipline boundaries. The Institute had the
potential to focus upon UCL’s ’deep’ knowledge and to provide a space to engage
with academics from various disciplines working in creative tension.
Professor Miller said that the Institute would, in the initial phase, apply to the
Provost’s Strategic Development Fund for start-up funding and then apply for external
funding at a later stage. Professor Price suggested that the Institute could lead a
number of flagship activities that could drive philanthropic funding.
 Action
Professor Miller asked members to contact her directly if they were willing to work
with her to develop the proposal further and to take it forward. [Professor
Woudhuysen, Dr Guesnet and Dr Korner subsequently volunteered to assist with
this project. Professor Stephen Smith would also be kept informed.]
3
3.
Updates on priority themes
3.1
China Centre for Health and Humanity (CCHH)
Professor Miller explained that the Centre had only recently been launched but a MA
course would begin in 2012. A fuller report would be given at the next GCII Executive
Group Meeting.
3.2
Civilisations Network
Professor Wyke reported on the roundtable meeting held in March 2011 that had
attracted considerable interest. A Town Meeting had been arranged to take place on
2 November 2011. Academics from a number of disparate disciplines had agreed to
make short presentations. The meeting would examine some of the controversial
aspects of this subject such as what elements were necessary to constitute a
civilisation. It was hoped that the subject would appeal to many different disciplines
within UCL even though the initiative had come from HSS. An email ‘advert’ would
be distributed shortly.
Professor Price said that this initiative could lead to collaboration with Yale and
recommended that Professor John Martin be informed. [Professor Martin
subsequently indicated that he would attend the Town Meeting.]
3.3
Health care in Multicultural Settings
Dr Ian Scott reported that Professor David Napier was the academic lead for this
initiative that had gained the interest of UCL Partners (the link between the UCL
academic community and the UCL hospitals – UCH, Royal Free, Whittington and
North Middlesex). The Lancet had also expressed interest in this topic that could
lead to another Lancet commission. Professor Helen Hackett said that Matthew
Baumont might have an interest in this area.
3.4
Religion and Society
Dr Guesnet reported that preparations for a series of four workshops, to be held in
late 2011and early 2012, were now at an advanced stage. The outcomes of the
workshops would involve many different parts of UCL and would lead to a clear
discussion agenda for the future, which also had potential to inform part of UCL’s
teaching agenda. Dr Guesnet noted the support that he had received from the
European Institute in convening the workshops.
A possible collaboration with the British Academy had been considered in the past.
Discussions were currently taking place about the possibility of organising a standalone event with the Academy that would summarise the findings of the various
workshops.
4.
New GCII Small Grants Scheme
Members received and noted details about the forthcoming scheme.


Action
Professor Miller recommended that the number of awards that were
anticipated should not be specified and that the sum for which people could
apply should be left open up to the maximum of £5000.

Professor Miller emphasised that it was important for applicants to receive
decisions soon after the deadline for applications. Therefore, if the call took
place in November 2011, applicants should receive notification in December
2011.

Dr Bruun said that it was important that the application form clearly asked
applicant to state what they envisaged the outcomes of their funding request
would be. A section stating that successful applicants would be expected to
submit a report on what had been accomplished was also necessary.
4

Dr Scott confirmed that a GCII sub-group would be established to consider the
small grant applications.
5.
AoB
5.1
Professor Aizlewood reported that SEESS had recently signed an agreement
with Higher School of Economics based in Moscow. This school had been
identified as being the leading institute for HSS research by the Russian
government. There were numerous opportunities for collaboration.
5.2
Professor Price mentioned a recent meeting that he had had with Boris
Johnson’s economic advisor. The subject of UCL’s contribution to London’s
culture had arisen and Professor Price asked members to give this
consideration.
5.3
Members agreed that GCII executive meetings should take place once a term.
Future meeting dates
To be arranged by correspondence.
5