Original publishing date: Jul 19, 2021
Written by Corinne Lamain
What are some necessary conditions to generate sparks? How would you design research funding procedures if you were sitting at their drawing table? Selection through lottery, meeting in sandpits, or a basic research budget for all? Those were some of the questions that a group of curious, open-minded and eager young researchers tackled in a morning that was organised in a collaboration between the Transformative Learning Hub and CUCo.
The morning first zoomed in on the workings of the spark that unusual collaborations may evoke. Sparks are really powerful experiences, but achieving them is not a given. The metaphor of the match stick was used, that requires some strong motion to light and afterwards needs careful nurturing to keep the flame going. The group went on an expedition by playing the More Than Research Game, which allowed smaller groups to get to know each other by imaginating a research project. Reflections on the process delivered some key insights in what it takes to find sparks, as well as to make them fruitful. Some noteworthy ones were on ‘being comfortable with feeling uncomfortable’, as well as on the need for a safe environment, deep listening and trusting each other. At the same time it was agreed that some friction may help to get energy flowing. It was generally agreed that effort is needed to bridge disciplines and that doing that requires additional and specific capacities, such as for collaborative working and learning each other’s language. Games like the ones played during this morning and other creative methods help doing this.
As the morning passed the next topic was served: funding styles and how CUCo can design those in novel and relevant ways. All participants stuck around, eager to be involved in this most important element of research life. A range of options was presented, such as selection through lottery, the Self-Organised-Funding Allocation model, crowdsourcing for selection and sandpits. Amongst the group there was a clear need for changing the conventional way of funding and a high appreciation for being involved in thinking up funding styles. Funding styles should facilitate breaking through disciplinary silos in unprecedented ways. Also, a desire to involve societal actors and citizens in funding procedures ánd in research execution was expressed. As well as possibilities for recycling rejected proposals: such as by bringing those teams together to collaborate or encourage funders to ‘shop’ in available proposals. As for suggestions on specific funding styles there was in nearly all groups the desire to merge elements of different funding styles, such as sandpits with participatory budgeting, sandpits with crowdsourcing, SOFA and participatory budgeting.
The need for building capacities to collaborate unusually ran through the entire morning and CUCo considers this a key focus area to continue building on. The collaboration with the TL Hub was a great step in this effort: the heart-head-hand approach that is common to them served greatly to create the safe space that was needed and incite creativity amongst participants. We will join forces with them and other such exciting initiatives more and soon!
