The PP Eval Questionaire

1

Social Psychology and the Challenge for
Interdisciplinary European Research Erima 07
Yorck von Korff
2
Background

• Knowledge of huge interdisciplinary EC projects
• Some work and others dont
• Why?

3
Hypothesis
Those interdisciplinary research projects that
largely ignore the relevant insights of social
psychology will fail. Contrary to this, those
projects that skilfully heed these insights are
more likely to reach their objectives of finding
applicable solutions for complex scientific and
practical problems.
4
Purpose

• Reiterate some neglected insights from social
  psychology that can beneficially be used for
  interdisciplinary research projects in Europe.
• Show with the case study of European Research
  projects what happens when these insights are not
  or only partially used by project leadership on
  various levels.
• By doing so, make the case for taking a fresh
  look at social psychology and for integrating its
  insights more systematically into European
  research.

5
Content of the presentation

• Kurt Lewin and social psychology
• Relevant streams of social psychology
• Case study outline (2 EU projects)
• Typical challenges in interdisciplinary projects
• Findings of soc. psy. related to project
  management and leadership
• Recommendations to EC

6
Kurt Lewin (1890-1947) and social psychology

•  Social facts  (forces) as factors to explain
  behaviour and groups of all sizes
• Forces are diverse, dynamic, and interdependent
• Have to be seen as a whole ( field )
• Personal values, group structure, personality,
  place of meeting
• Lasting influence (e.g. change theory)

7
The case study 2 EC-funded interdisciplinary
projects

•  FP-T  and  FP-M 
• Me Info on first two years
• gt 8 mill gt 30 partner institutions gt 60
  researchers gt 10 countries
• Environmental issues, stakeholders, real change

8
(Possibly typical) challenges of
interdisciplinary projects

• Variety of scientific disciplines (own languages,
  various concepts requires interest and time).
• Diversity in national cultures. E.g. food, time,
  hierachies
• Scattered project geography
• Work overload of many researchers
• Established research priorities before to the
  start of any
• Interpersonal issues
• The lack of client-orientation among many (though
  not all) researchers
• A lack of experience with successfully managing
  the complex tasks of interdisciplinary
  cooperation and stakeholder-oriented problem
  solving at all coordination levels of the
  projects

9
The record of the projects FP-T

• Generally well performed and solved problems in a
  creative way but also
• Project partners did not agree yet on a common
  vision of what they want to achieve at the end of
  the project
• Many of the project deliverables came in late and
  in a poor quality
• Some interdisciplinary teams that work in the
  test sites did in fact not collaborate
• Responsible complexity but also leadership and
  management behaviour

10
The record of the projects FP-M

• More positive review (reaching objectives and
  collaboration quality of partyners)
• Secondary problems (reporting etc.)
• Responsible many partners collaborated before
  but also different leadership and management
  behaviour

11
Social psychology factors that influence project
performance
12
1. Feedback on issues that involve embarrassment
or threat

• Essential for learning and improvement (and
  innovation)
• Often avoided because it is embarassing (bypass
  and cover-up)
• Much less attempts to secure feedback in FP-T
  than in FP-M

13
2. Safe space for providing feedback

• Leadership behaviour facilitating openness, trust
  and frankness (and thus meaningful feedback)
• The realness and absence of façade in one party.
  (Rogers 1978, 139).
• The willingness to indwell in the perceived
  reality of the other
• The valuing and respecting and caring for the
  other person (unconditional regard)
• Also associated with creativity
• FP-T often meetings in big lecture rooms
  significant conflicts occurring
• FP-M more feedback possible

14
3. Releasing of control gaining of influence

• Authoritarian leadership normatively undesirable
  in EC research projects.
• Research leaders who are not especially
  charismatic (few are) and do not take into
  consideration individual needs are likely to face
  implementation that will be half-hearted at
  best, probably misunderstood, and more likely
  than not, fail. (Doyle).
• Responsiveness to followers and relinquishing of
  control approaches usually generate higher
  performance (there are exceptions)
• FP-T and FP-M both mixed record but especially
  in FP-T major signals to the contrary (senior
  managers constantly interrupting project partners
  in meetings, decision of meeting dates and places
  without discussion)

15
4. Essential process steps in interdisciplinary
research projects (1)

• Previous indicates
• Feedback sessions should be done at least
  whenever partners perceive defensive routines.
• The creation of a safe space (or the lack
  thereof) is affected by almost every speech act
  of a project leader
• Individual needs of participants should be
  elaborated from the beginning and repeatedly.
• Leaders should check if there are interested
  individuals who want to take responsibility for
  certain aspects of the project and see if and how
  it is possible to co-construct or delegate.
• First two and forth more often in FP-M than in
  FP-T (though systematically in none). The third
  is done for research interests rather
  systematically but not for meeting process needs.
  

16
4. Essential process steps in interdisciplinary
research projects (2)

• The definition of a thematically and
  geographically specific research area that
  contains a problem to solve which is worthwhile
  to be addressed by various disciplines together
• Lead an ongoing interdisciplinary and genuine
  dialogue
• An interdisciplinary vision

17
5. Professional group process facilitation

• The practice of the previous empirical findings
• The facilitator out of a position of neutrality
  on the problem under consideration supports the
  group to do their best thinking and at the same
  time build relationships. She does this by
  handling the process (how people are interacting)
  including the skilful addressing of potentially
  embarrassing issues if needed.
• FP-M employs facilitators, FP-T does not.

18
Implications (1)

• Other EC projects also struggle along similar
  lines as FP-T
• This must be alarming for the EC and its goals to
  further excellence in European research
• Needed
• personal qualification of project coordinators on
  all levels (project, work blocks, test sites) to
  enable interdisciplinary research.
• Leaders should have a proven track record in
  enabling researchers from very diverse
  backgrounds and multiple interests to get into a
  dialogue with each other about problems worthy to
  be solved by them together and in motivating them
  to address these problems.
• They should also not be shy to ask professional
  facilitators to help with meetings and overall
  project process.

19
Implications (2)

• More practical experience should be gained with
  how exactly the insights of social psychology can
  be applied in practice
• They imply difficult personal adjustments in many
  cases.
• The most effective way would be to gain these
  experiences in a practical and applied way and
  keep track of this.
• Researchers should be encouraged to try out the
  practice of these insights during their projects,
  possibly with experienced facilitators
  accompanying them, and helping them reflect on
  their experience and keep track of their
  learning.
• It is also on this level that a fruitful
  interdisciplinarity can be groomed between the
  natural and the social sciences.