UCL GRAND CHALLENGES
OFFICE OF THE UCL VICE-PROVOST (RESEARCH)
Executive Group
UCL Grand Challenge of Intercultural Interaction (GCII)
2pm Thursday 24 March 2011
Room G06, 16-18 Gordon Square
Minutes
Present
Professor Nicola Miller (NM) (Chair)
Michael Reade (MR)
Nicholas Tyndale (NT)
Professor Jo Wolff (JW)
Professor Henry Woudhuysen (HW)
Apologies
Dr Robin Aizlewood
Professor Richard Bellamy
Dr Ingrid Boccardi
Dr Henriette Bruun
Dr JoAnn McGregor
Dr Ian Scott
Dr Claire Warwick
1.
Update on the Grand Challenges
Nicholas Tyndale explained that in the previous four months there has been a shift
from a largely experimental and improvisational approach to a more mature, middle
phase. GC Global Health and GC Sustainable Cities had already reached a mature
stage of development. The period after the launch of GC Intercultural Interaction in
2009 had been characterised by community building, particularly via events.
However, it was necessary and appropriate for GCII to move to a similar stage
achieved by GCGH and GCSC which involved the development of specific interdisciplinary research projects.
2.
Progress and future plans for GCII activity initiated in 2010
Michael Reade gave a summary of existing GCII activity:
2.1
European Institute (EI)
a.
Busy events programme both self-initiated projects and events run by UCL staff and
supported under our conference scheme. Seven events complied to date and twelve
more have been confirmed up until September 2011.
b.
Successful strategic partnerships established (embassies, EU institutions, national
cultural institutes, think tanks, NGOs) for events and publication projects.
c.
High-profile advisory board established including the Polish Ambassador to the UK.
d.
‘Buy-in’ from across UCL, but particularly Laws, SSEES, SPP. Very little input from
Arts and Humanities, even in response to concrete proposals (e.g. European Film
Day) and the EI conference scheme.
e.
Match-funding successful, one project bid received 10,000 euros of EU funding.
2.2
Global Migration Network (GMN)
a.
Symposia series has been initiated with funding from Grand Challenges. Four events
had taken place last academic year (2010) and one event had been held in 2011.
b.
Inter-faculty MSc in Global Migration launched in September 2010. Contributors
drawn through the UCL Global Migration Network. First cohort (fifteen students) was
preparing dissertations, some supervised by non-Geography staff. Twenty offers
have been made to prospective applicants for the next academic year and this is
expected to increase to thirty.
c.
GMN acknowledged that they do not have the time and resources to maintain the
website and require further support to do this.
2.3
Human Rights Institute (IHR)
a.
Currently completing a bid to the Provost Strategic Development Fund; future plans
dependent upon the success of this bid.
b.
IHR held a number of events, symposia/colloquia last academic year including
Human Rights and Foreign Policy Symposium (June 2010)
c.
There are a number of activities that IHR should have completed recently, including
the upgrading of the web site, and the distribution of the IHR newsletter, as well as
more regular steering group meetings. Unfortunately these and other activities have
slowed because of inadequate administrative support and staff changes.
d.
Donations received from Engineering, SHS, and further support is expected from
Stephen Rubin to fund two further Symposia.
e.
Currently converting UCL Human Rights Review into a peer reviewed journal.
f.
IHR will be launching a Report in May 2011 on the Right to Land and Forced
Evictions, with Prof. Yves Cabannes and invited activists and researchers working on
forced evictions in developing countries.
g
Dr. Meckled-Garcia and Dr. Letsas were preparing a submission for IHR funding bid
on Religion and Human Rights in Europe to the Leverhulme Trust in June 2011
h.
In the longer term, IHR are working on the compilation of human rights and corporate
social responsibility course for practitioners and another one examining human rights
and equality practices for local authorities.
3.
London Research Challenges
Michael Reade outlined a draft proposal from London Higher – an umbrella body
representing around 40 publicly funded London HEIs (David Price is a member of this
group)The proposal requested London HEIs to fulfil the Mayor of London’s strategies
by ‘translating’ them into research questions which could be developed into
collaborative research proposals with other London HEIs. The Mayoral strategies
most relevant to GCII were the London Cultural Strategy and the London Health
Strategy.
Members made the following observations:
3.1
Henry Woudhuysen suggested that the London Higher proposal was a possible
means to demonstrate the impact of research. It would be useful if representatives
from the Arts and Humanities faculty were able to attend relevant meetings.
3.2
Jo Wolf said that the initiative stood the best chance of success if it correlated with
the work scholars were already undertaking.
The following individuals were mentioned as people who may be receptive to
engaging with London Higher:
3.3
Cultural Strategy
This strand could appeal to the UCL Slade School to Art and Literature departments.
Michael Collins – interested in issues related to widening access culture and
multiculturalism.
3.4
Health Strategy
Mel Bartley, –the relationship between economic recession and health
Chris Gerry, SEESS – health and east European migrants.
Sushrut Jadhav has produced The Bloomsbury Cultural Formulation Interview CD
which is a training tool facilitating patient engagement with mental health services by
allowing individuals to ‘tell their own story’.
Michael Marmott
Vivienne Lowe - interest in the history of Chinese medicine
Andrew Flynn – has conduced archive work with black and ethnic minority groups
and has a special interest in members of these groups telling their own individual
stories in relation to health.
Action
 MR to contact the individuals who had been mentioned.
4
Identification of GCII priorities and champions, 2011-2012
Nicola Miller noted that there were a considerable number of disparate activities
within GCII, such as the various institutes, individual projects and town meetings.
There seemed to be goodwill but there were low levels of resource to support
projects.
NM made the following recommendations:

It was necessary to define a significant and overarching theme. A UCL Institute of
Humanities was a possible initiative which could galvanise the arts and humanities
community and overcome the current trend toward fragmentation .

Such an Institute needed to be a physical institute rather than a virtual institute and it
would be crucial for it to offer an attractive space which academics would want to use.
A large and dedicated events space was particularly important.

Securing funding for such an Institute was essential to ensure that those A&H
academics willing to engage with inter-disciplinary activities received appropriate
levels of administrative support. It was highly unlikely that projects would be
successful if busy academics were expected to undertake additional duties such as
event management and website maintenance without appropriate support.

A well supported Institute would demonstrate that UCL believed that A&H were
important fields of study at UCL. An institute would also enable A&H at UCL to gain
international prominence. JW confirmed that in relation to A&H, Oxford and
Cambridge were UCL’s nearest competitors.
4.1
JW and HW agreed that there was a persistent difficulty in engaging A&H academics
in inter-disciplinary initiatives given the single scholar tradition and the absence of
research teams in the A&H.
4.2
JW suggested that a ‘hub and spoke’ model would be valuable for a Humanities
Institute. JW emphasised the importance of an Institute enjoying a formal staffing
structure with a Director, Deputy Director, and at least two full-time administrative
staff. This would provide a central support service from which the whole UCL A&H
community would be able to benefit.
4.3
JW highlighted that academics most wanted to have time off from their teaching
duties but this carried with it the disadvantage of losing dynamic individuals for
prolonged periods of time. This was particularly apparent in smaller departments.
4.4
MR asked if academics would be willing to give up the funding that they had secured
in the interests of creating a larger entity. Members thought that resistance from
some would be likely but it would be important to ‘phase in’ the introduction of an
Institute with a possible launch sometime in 2014.
Action
 NM to investigate the viability of an UCL Institute of Humanities.

MM to consider existing UK models such as CRASSH (Cambridge), Birkbeck as well
as US examples.

NM to compile a fuller proposal for a UCL Humanities Institute. NM to discuss
proposal with David Price.

NM to make UCL Institute of Humanities the main topic of discussion at the next GCII
Executive Group meeting.
5.
Funding mechanisms
NT reported that:
5.1
In the next financial year each Grand Challenge would have a small grants scheme of
around £20,000 to support initial research activity.
5.2
UCL Trust and Foundations had indicated optimism that research initiatives would
secure funding.
6.
Outputs
NT outlined a number of outputs from GCII activity:
Public engagement
Public Policy
Material for the Discovery Channel
Central Communications activities; Communications would shortly begin a new email
to key opinion formers.
7.
GCII Executive Group Membership
Members discussed the Group’s current membership. It was agreed that the Group
would benefit from having representatives from the School of Social and Historical
Studies and UCL Laws. The addition of a social anthropologist would also be
valuable.
[Stephen Smith, Dean, Faculty of Social and Historical Sciences, agreed to join GCII.]
Action:
 MR to approach individuals as appropriate.
8.
Next meeting date - TBC