A Memo on the role of the social sciences at Imperial College

 Support paper for Task and Finish Group

 

Summary

It is unarguable that the social sciences have become a significant part of the work of Imperial College and it seems likely this influence on our research and on our teaching will only grow. The powerful commitment of the College to an enterprise-centred, high impact identity necessitates a sophisticated understanding of the role of scientific knowledge in the public sphere.

If we consider areas very important to Imperial – AI, climate change, security science, public health and infectious disease – all are highly charged with volatile and hard-to-predict social forces. No one now believes that natural scientists, engineers or medical researchers on their own can control the flow of scientific knowledge through society.

Not all of Imperial’s research has an immediate societal dimension. On the whole, though, public utility drives the College philosophy, as we see from the Strategy strapline ‘Science for Humanity’.  In navigating the turbulent waters of the knowledge economy, so as to ensure our research is needed and finds favour, policy experts and public engagement professionals are clearly important. But essential also will be the cadre of social science and humanities academics the College possesses. It is social science research that will better position Imperial enterprise and innovation as ready for uptake by society. Yet, we should be wary of the metaphor that sees the social sciences as an ‘interface’ between STEM research and ‘the market’. As the contributors quoted in this Memo explain, the true power and value of the social sciences will be found, here in Imperial College, when they are fully integrated into the choice and design of our research.

In this Memo I talk more of ‘the social sciences’ than I do of ‘the humanities’. It is true that in terms of research funding, and the guarantee of societal impact, the former seem more significant. However these are areas of knowledge that are highly dependent on each other, and in fact the humanities also are a very significant component of the Imperial identity. At the end of this Memo, as a coda, I will trace out the contours of Imperial’s commitment to the humanities.

The immediate cause of this Memo however is a Friday Forum that took place on November 8^th 2024. Titled ‘What is the role of the social sciences at Imperial?’ the meeting was an in-person lunchtime session, immediately followed by a two-hour workshop held in the in the Centre for Languages, Culture and Communication (CLCC). Seventy people attended. Three MSc Science Communication students took notes throughout the afternoon, in effect producing a transcription. A homework sheet was issued, encouraging participants to consider their thoughts at leisure and submit them later. The Friday Forum, the workshop and the homework all centred on the following questions:

• What should be the relationship between the social and the natural sciences (and, indeed, the formal sciences!) at Imperial?

• What are the challenges of being a social scientist at Imperial?

• Thinking back to the Geoff Mulgan quote ‘there is little point having furious innovation in science and technology if our societies stagnate’, can we imagine Imperial as a driver of social innovation, as well as S and T innovation?

• Is there any sense in which the social sciences at Imperial College need ‘separateness’ in order to flourish?

Seventy pages of notes were taken from the transcript and the homework returns. This Memo is based therefore on the participants’ comments at the Friday Forum; on the various points raised in the homework sheets; and on numerous conversations and email threads.

The panellists at the Friday Forum were Dr Mike Tennant (Centre for Environmental Policy); Dr Diana Varaden (Environmental Research Group) and Professor Steve Fuller (Comte Professor of Social Epistemology, University of Warwick). The facilitators at the afternoon workshop were Dr Giulia Frezza (Centre for Engagement and Simulation Science), Dr Kayla Schulte (Environmental Research Group) and Lauren Shields (Centre for Higher Education and Scholarship). I am very grateful for these colleagues’ help

All the quotes used in this memo are italicised.

 

A. How how much social science is there at imperial College?

It was great to meet so many researchers and was an inadvertent confidence builder too.

 It was really interesting to hear everyone’s views on science for humanity and the role of the humanities and social sciences at Imperial.

 I’ve never seen so many social scientists together at Imperial.

It would be hard to obtain a simple quantification of how many social scientists there are at Imperial. This kind of measurement might anyway be at risk of missing the point. There are members of staff, postdoctoral staff and PhD students, who can be defined as ‘social scientists’, but there are a greater number of STEM-based staff and research students who, as part of their work, take on social science methodologies. A true measure of the reach of the social sciences at Imperial would also have to explore the UG STEM curriculum.

Dr Alex Berry, Zero Pollution Initiative Manager for the Faculty of Engineering, has – independently of this Memo – been working on this question:

On the Imperial Profiles system I looked at academics with tags related to social sciences for the following research areas (some academics will have more than one tag): sociology (22), human geography (24), policy and administration (22), anthropology (2), psychology (29, when linked to other search terms as there are hundreds of people on Imperial Profiles system with this research tag), political science (18), public policy (4), environmental policy (4).

 I found 202 academics at Imperial who have done some social science related research; this includes PIs from the funding snapshot I looked at (research projects which seem to be related to social sciences 2013-2023 based on keywords, funder and project title), people with a PhD student in the LISS DTP, people engaged with the social science networks of excellence, those who identify their expertise as social science, etc.

 

B. What is the scope and nature of the social sciences at imperial?

At the Friday Forum workshop attendees spoke of the advantages of being a social scientist at Imperial. Attendees were also clear about the importance of social science and humanities content in the UG curriculum

 

I think Imperial is exactly the place that can play a role in encouraging radical social and behavioral science research. [It’s] because we don’t have a dedicated social/behavioral science space.

 Engineering students who are studying risk and risk assessment cannot effectively do so without a social sciences approach.

 I think what is special about Imperial is that we chose as social scientists to be here, not in an anthropology department or wherever, but instead came here specifically for interdisciplinary work.

 

Professor Nick Jennings, Vice-Provost (Research and Enterprise) from 2016-2021 provided a valuable compilation in his report How do we ensure science works for all in society?

As indicators, below, three members of staff – social scientists – write about their work.

Dr Daniella Watson is a Research Associate at the Climate Cares Centre, Faculty of Medicine:

We work on climate change and mental health. Most of our research is co-designed with those with lived experiences, such as young people and also experts. We work with surveys but mostly with qualitative and participatory methods such as group discussions, interviews, audio diaries. We also work with community partners on evaluating their interventions.

Dr Nejra Van Zalk is Senior Lecturer in psychology and human factors at the Dyson School of Design Engineering, and is Director of the Design Psychology Lab:

I lead the Design Psychology Lab with the aim of conducting research combining psychological insights with design thinking to understand how products, services, interventions can help maintain and/or promote mental health and well-being of users.

Professor Camille Howson is Professor of Higher Education within the Centre for Higher Education Research and Scholarship (CHERS) and is a member of the working group overseeing the London Interdisciplinary Social Science Doctoral Training Partnership, or LISS DTP. This is a partnership between Kings College London, Queen Mary, University of London and Imperial College London:

The LISS DTP trains the next generation of research leaders, innovators, and entrepreneurs who will transform the way social scientists tackle complex problems and global challenges. The vision for the DTP is informed by three interwoven core principles, which we see as essential to delivering on Imperial’s Strategy:  

• • Interdisciplinarity: students will develop the competencies to engage with challenge-led doctoral research across topics and disciplinary boundaries, both within and beyond the social sciences; 
  • Data-driven research: students will be equipped with enhanced data analytics and digital competences to exploit increasingly large-scale and complex data for research purposes whether their foundation is quantitative or qualitative; 
  • Impact: students will develop the competences to engage with extensive networks of non-academic collaborators, and co-design research and training with users, practitioners, and potential future employers.

 

LISS DTP is not the only social science network in the College. For example, the 2024 ‘Network of Excellence Update Document’ update for the Human Behavior and Experience Network (HuBEx) reports that:

…researchers with social and behavioral science interests are present across most College departments … our steering group currently includes members from Brain Sciences, the Business School, Chemical Engineering, Dyson School of Design Engineering, Civil and Environmental Engineering, and Faculty of Medicine … our ever-growing membership is representative of the College broadly speaking.

These researchers stress the utility and impact of the social science work. They also note that an Imperial environment where the social sciences flourish will also be one where social science training is deeply-rooted in the institution.

We should be actively organising workshops, conferences, and collaborative platforms that bring together scholars from diverse disciplines to exchange radical ideas. Debates could help to break down existing silos and serve as a forum to encourage contrarian views.

At the Friday Forum many attendees expressed the view that it would be better for College leaders to put work into recognising our own social science talent, and our own social science potential, than in too quickly seeking outside collaboration.

I reckon any further projects should aim to draw on extant expertise rather than exterior advice.

 

C. What are the challenges in being a social scientist at Imperial College?

There were many people at the Friday Forum that suggested the research environment for social scientists needs more stewardship.

Firstly, there are issues over how Imperial sees its social scientists.

Although it is good to be embedded in an Imperial College department, social science funders aren’t oriented towards STEM-based projects. This is really where the College could help us, establishing connections with the social science funders.

In my opinion […] there are entrenched power dynamics that position STEM as a “harder” discipline and social sciences as “softer” counterparts. While this position may be shifting, STEM continues to hold greater inherent value in many contexts across the College. Achieving truly equal collaborations demands mutual respect for the distinct and valuable contributions of every field.

I think the social sciences should not be seen as just a supporting discipline or a ‘nice-to-have’ add on… I have noticed the perception have of the social sciences from, in their perspective the ‘harder sciences’… I find one of the challenges of being a social scientist at Imperial is being proud to showcase oneself as a social scientist … I feel that as a ‘STEM’ university, many academics at Imperial have an identity that sits certain domains above others. In particular I have been told by colleagues that “social science isn’t a proper science”.

 The criticism I often hear from natural scientists is that social science projects feel like they lack rigor or authority and are “wishy-washy”.

The idea of an intellectual hierarchy is common in academia, and for the natural sciences the sense of favourable status dates back to Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1626). This superiority, when analysed, depends on the idea that the methodology of the natural sciences is more robust, more likely to deliver enduring truths, more replicable, and more likely to enable useful interventions, than are the social sciences. In this debate Imperial may be a special case. At other universities, social science academics will be in their own department of economics, sociology, and so on, surrounded by a community of like-minded researchers. Although social scientists at the Friday Forum reported many advantages to working at Imperial, they were vocal on the question of their institutional esteem. While social scientists at Imperial will clearly benefit from being ‘embedded’ in successful and funding-secure departments, where practical and high-impact research challenges are plentiful, the fact they work within a STEM environment will make these social scientists more intimately aware of any tacit suspicion of their craft.

There might be two prejudices here, in fact. If the first is the issue of epistemological privilege, the second related misconception is the idea that the social sciences, at a place like Imperial, are an ‘interface’, helping scientists deal with a tricky public.

Currently [at Imperial the social sciences are] more of an afterthought, eg “we created this beautiful solution (in engineering, medicine, AI, etc) now let’s convince people to use it”.

Many attendees at the Friday Forum voiced concern about promotion prospects, and grant-winning prospects, for social science researchers at Imperial College. We heard examples where it was felt that social science funders were unused to STEM-oriented proposals, diminishing the chances of an award. This in time feeds into metrics, and the promotion round, putting Imperial social scientists at a disadvantage also when seeking to move institution.

 

D. How can we frame the social sciences in relation to the College Strategy?

The Imperial Strategy document is dominated by its commitment to societal development. A ‘Future Leaders’ campaign and an ‘Institute of Extended Learning’ are just two of many initiatives whose success is highly dependent on a shrewd understanding of society. Similarly, the four new ‘Schools of Convergence Science’ stabilise themes, for example ‘Human and Artificial Intelligence’ and ‘Security’ that comprise social as well as technical challenges.

As the Strategy itself puts it, ‘…before we can usefully change the world, we must first seek to understand it’ (p2). Notably the Strategy ends its introduction with the phrase ‘Imagine that’. Also in that introduction is a note about the importance of humility.

Although the Strategy mentions ‘society’ frequently, the phrase ‘social sciences’ does not appear. Similarly, the word ‘humanity’ appears often but not the term ‘humanities’.

Our language will evolve. For this to happen we need considered reflection on our attitude to the social sciences at Imperial. Meanwhile there will be discussion of issues of organisation.

This question of organisation, addressed at the Friday Forum, generated a great deal of  comment.

 A more integrated approach is required, where the social sciences are recognised as necessary in the conception, design, testing and implementation of any STEM innovation that aims to improve people’s lives.

 We need to pool the methodological resources of science and social science, tear down the methodological and intellectual obstacles between them to move forward.

 What is worrying, is that sometimes social science methods are used in science research, without including social scientists in the process, which may have implications for how we interpret the results of the research.

 Many voices at the Friday Forum were sceptical of more re-organisation, or thought that organisation initiatives on their own cannot address the challenges under discussion.

 Some staff did argue for a degree of separateness. These views had nothing to do with a need to retreat behind a wall. Rather, they stem from the need for social scientists to discuss their work, debate methodology, and learn from each other. In other words, along with the need to be recognised as integral to Imperial College innovation and enterprise, Friday Forum voices saw value too in the concept of a ‘social science community’, with some autonomy, and some sense of belonging.

We do need some sort of space for mixed methods [and methodology discussion], as the research will benefit from that. [Also] our students have brought this up.

We need to encourage social scientists to evolve their methodology, we need to grow our thinking and support those who want to work in this space.

[I see] a value in separation. By distinctly being ‘a scientist’ or ‘social scientist’ (and distinctly in a discipline within that) allows us to use the strengths of each discipline more fully.

 

In discussions of this sort, input from the centres, institutes, centres of excellence and schools of convergence will be important. They have disciplinary foundations, but are champions of interdisciplinarity, and know its challenges. And they consider themselves places where careers, as well as science, can flourish.

The overall mood of the Friday Forum however was that ‘separation’ will not be the solution here. Yet simply setting up email lists, and Teams encounters, to get some interaction between far-flung social scientists, may not be enough: at the Forum mention was made of ‘network-fatigue’.  Rather, it was the concept of ‘community-strengthening’, that gained attention. Whatever might be the mechanism of such strengthening, some of its elements were identified: the vigorous and imaginative deployment of social sciences within departments, an institutional commitment to the ecosystem of social science research funding, through College seed funds as well as through national and international agencies; and through academic promotion.

 

E. Coda: the role of the humanities at Imperial College

There are many reasons why, if we are to discuss the social sciences at Imperial, we should also, in the same breath as it were, discuss the humanities. We are currently planning a Friday Forum, and afternoon workshop, on ‘The Role of the Humanities at Imperial’.

Imperial has a strong contingent of humanities academics. Naturally they are teachers: as Thomas Mann’s character Settembrini said, ‘We humanists have always the pedagogic itch’. Imperial’s work in the humanities is a partnership therefore with its students.  Students’ demand for the humanities, fulfilled by the CLCC teaching, is very significant for the questions discussed in this Memo. It is not that our broadest perspectives we simply farm out to our young, for CLCC staff are active in their book writing, their papers, and their research seminars – theirs is a ‘humanities community’.  Rather, a student body wanting to supplement a STEM perspective with other knowledge, will want to know that their departments are working in that direction also. By analogy, if the social sciences enrich and challenge STEM research, so humanities teaching challenges and enriches the STEM education. And in this, our humanities research is important too.

It would be vulgar to only seek quick and simple links between the humanities and STEM innovation. However a good story, centring on the humanities’ interest in discussion and language, comes from Charles Darwin. The great man, back from the Beagle, filled already with ideas about evolution, but hard-pressed to find any like-minded scientist, was much influenced by dinners with his cousin, Hensleigh Wedgwood, a barrister and an historian of language. Joining conversation about the way languages shift and bifurcate – continuous but different –  he could find a way to talk about the natural world too.

This Memo urges a degree of inward-looking. By contrast, wouldn’t it be enough to rely on our links with industry leaders and politicians, for Imperial to secure its way in society? In the end, will not our trust in right-minded and pragmatic industrialists, and our access to them, ground the ambitions expressed in the College Strategy?

Possibly not. We hear that Mark Zuckerberg is getting rid of his fact-checking department, Elon Musk is getting rid of decorum, and that Silicon Valley will soon be rid of its EDI programmes. Dogmatists – people who feel no doubt – are now the executive branch in the USA.

Very obviously, ‘scientific knowledge’, if we allow ourselves the category, cannot on its own pick its way through these complex matters. Whether it is ‘history’, ‘ethics’, ‘philosophy’ or ‘the social sciences’, or all of them that provides the guidance, the College needs to make the mix.

Our social scientists – the people which this Memo discusses – themselves face an intellectual challenge here, and perhaps a responsibility. The more the College recognises their value, the more freedom our social scientists will have to advance their thinking and come to represent the extraordinary breadth of their field. Social scientists can be as quantitative and reductionist as any physicist; as imaginative and searching as any novelist; as radical as any social theorist. Imperial needs all sorts.

 

Stephen Webster

Senior Lecturer in Science Communication

Office of the Vice-Provost (Research and Enterprise)/Science Communication Unit

The Good Science Project

 

14^th January 2025

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read A Memo on the role of the social sciences at Imperial in full

We are now planning our next series of Friday Forums, including one that will focus on the social sciences as a partner to STEM research. Titled ‘Celebrating The Social Sciences at Imperial College’ this keenly-awaited Friday Forum will have three panellists – Diana Varaden, Mike Tennant and Steve Fuller – debating the issue. Traditionally Imperial College, with its focus on the natural sciences, mathematics, engineering and medicine, has not been a place associated with the social sciences and the humanities, although these fields have always maintained a presence. Yet as the impact agenda increases in importance, and complex fields such as climate change and AI accelerate the interdisciplinary gaze of Imperial, the number of social scientists at Imperial, and the value of social science research in our institution, correspondingly increase.

A few months ago I gave a talk to a group of social science-oriented PhD students at Imperial, all of them interested in how best Imperial can support them in their research fields. To an extent I adopted a philosophical approach, as can be seen in the transcript, reproduced below. We can expect in the Friday Forum similar points to be discussed, together with talk of institutional matters concerning how Imperial can put in place structures likely to help the particular research needs of our social scientists.

Talk given by Stephen Webster to PhD students on the relation between the social sciences and the natural sciences, with especial reference to Imperial College

 An historical preamble

The relation between the natural sciences and other arenas of knowledge is a centuries-old issue.  When Sir Francis Bacon (1561 – 1626) made his first attempts to kickstart modern science, three issues preoccupied him. First, he wanted to identify the method of science. Second, he wished to separate science from religion and from classical knowledge. Third, he wanted to establish the utility of science – ‘science for humanity’.

 Bacon did not disguise how difficult it might be to obtain secure scientific knowledge. But he did imply that science was a royal road to truth and that its method was in principle a mechanism for obtaining certainty. He suggested that science, properly performed, was a deductive activity in constant interaction with careful observation. To assist the smooth running of this method, he said, every effort should be made to reduce or eliminate ‘the human touch’.

His motive in all this was partly to do with his own ambition, and partly because he was impressed by the work of Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) and Nicolas Copernicus (1473-1543). A major statesman rather than ‘scientist’ (the word scientist was only coined in the mid-19^th century), Bacon was influential in the setting up of the Royal Society, which then as now combined scientific learning with civic, institutional power.

Bacon’s suggestion that with scientific knowledge comes power provides us with a starting point on how to understand the position of the social sciences at Imperial.  For the natural sciences are understood to be interested in the mechanisms of nature – material independent of humans that we convince ourselves can be observed objectively. The social sciences, with their gaze turned to human beings, find themselves embroiled in issues of objectivity. For Bacon, and all those who follow him, a secure sense of objectivity is exactly where the power of science lies. For all social scientists therefore, a considered view on objectivity is a necessity.

The philosophical questions I ask today are well-rehearsed. How objective, really, are the natural sciences? And how non-objective, really, are the social sciences?

The situation at Imperial College

As a social scientist at Imperial College you are not alone. The number of researchers here who incorporate into their work, or attempt to, a degree of social science methodology, is increasing. As today’s meeting shows, there are researchers now at Imperial who are based entirely within social science arenas. Your meeting is prescient because it foregrounds an issue Imperial has never felt it necessary to address specifically: the role of the social sciences in driving, guiding and critiquing the natural sciences.

Several explanations are readily available for what some would call STEM’s reticence in collaborating with the social sciences. In the case of Imperial College our specialisation in STEM results from our origins in the Victorian golden era of advances in science and technology, linked of course to the wealth created by the British empire. The Great Exhibition of 1851, an initiative of Prince Albert, led to the founding of all the institutions of Exhibition Rd. The success and importance of the scientific vision was so obvious that no apology could be needed for a science-specialist research and teaching institution. 

A philosophical detour

Given the success of Imperial College in all areas, including its recent QS classification as second in the world, and first in Europe, its role as a ‘STEM university’ seems beyond challenge. Nevertheless attempts to better articulate the role of the social sciences, in a place like Imperial, are likely to be fruitful, and perhaps even welcomed. Broadly speaking, there are two strategies to follow, in such efforts. One we will describe as epistemological, the other pragmatic. On the first, efforts since the 17^th century to downgrade the truth claims of the human sciences in comparison to the natural sciences (the ‘Enlightenment project’, have proved unreliable. Rather, a whole series of philosophers, ranging from Giambattista Vico and David Hume in the 18^th century, to Thomas Kuhn, Quine and Russell Hanson in the 20^th century, have argued convincingly that scientific knowledge has a profoundly social element. And on the second, and this is a particularly contemporary point, scientific research now, with its ever-growing emphasis on utility and impact, transfers very quickly out of the lab and into the world of human politics, culture and media. We might even talk of scientists having to orientate their work – their knowledge – to a society where trust in institutions and authority seems to be changing. We also know that the laboratory, far from being an austere place of objective fact-finding, is irretrievably social. In sum, there are good philosophical reasons to doubt that scientific knowledge is more foundational than social science knowledge; and there are good reasons to believe that science innovation is impossible now without a corresponding understanding of social processes.

Dr Stephen Webster

Senior Lecturer in Science Communication

Office of the Vice-Provost (Research and Enterprise)/Science Communication Unit

10th June 2024

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read Celebrating the social sciences at Imperial in full

 

Preamble

No doubt about it, anyone trying to understand the concept ‘research culture’, in particular its problems and its routes to improvement, has their work cut out. In considering research culture, are we likely to find ourselves discussing ethics, or management technique, or HR policy, or diversity and inclusion, or something else entirely? As the Good Science Project moves into its third year I anticipate spending time trying to put order into this unruly list. I remember, at our very first meeting, I discussed the god Perseus, and his way of dealing with the Gorgon by refusing to look directly at those terrifying locks. Instead, by holding up a mirror, he could deal with his problem satisfactorily. Is there a sense in which ‘research culture’ cannot be looked at directly, that like Perseus we must hold up a mirror? This was certainly my thinking in setting up the Triptych of Science art project, where scientists made art works to express their views on their working life.

It always helps discipline the mind when an invitation to give a talk comes your way, and so I was grateful to the United Kingdom Research Integrity Office when it asked me to give a seminar, alongside my ex-student Mun Keat Looi, on the relation between research culture and science communication. I decided to take the opportunity to do some ‘organising’, both of how I see the history of the field, and how I think ‘ethics’ might have a role in issues of research culture. Thus, towards the end of my talk, I began to discuss how virtue ethics – that is, the branch of ethics that considers matters of character and stems from classical Greece – might be for us a key support in our search both for understanding, and for action. My next blog, in fact, will be a detailed look at how ethics, and what aspects of ethics, might illuminate our thoughts about research culture.

 

I reproduce below the briefing notes I provided to UKRIO and the participants of the webinar.

 

Hand-out notes for UKRIO webinar talk by Dr Stephen Webster, Imperial College London. 26th June: ‘Science Communication and Science Integrity’.


Introduction

Science communication is generally considered to be the facilitation of science-society relations, through a number of formats: science journalism, university outreach and communication, policy initiatives and social science research. However, a very important aspect of science communication concerns the issue of how, within a research institution, scientists communicate with each other. Therefore, in today’s webinar, if Mun Keat Looi considers integrity and science journalism as a key external communication issue, I will look at something more internal: integrity and daily laboratory life. While Mun Keat looks at how science journalists manage the various and often conflicting demands of their profession, so I will look at the way research integrity is sometimes vulnerable to the conflicting demands of the life scientific.

A Brief History of Science Integrity

The United Kingdom Research Integrity Office, today’s host of our discussion, was set up in 2006. Fourteen years earlier, in 1992, the US Department of Health had instituted the Office of Research Integrity, in response to anxieties running from the early 1980s about some well-publicised, even sensational, cases of scientific misconduct. An example would be the David Baltimore Affair. Later in 1997, responding also to what was felt to be rising cases of misconduct, all of them quite challenging to deal with, British journal editors, including Richard Horton of The Lancet, set up The Committee on Publication Ethics (‘COPE’). By this time the problem of scientific misconduct was raising serious issues for the journals, for the universities, and indeed for the whole concept of science as a truth-gathering exercise. Quite a range of interesting comment began to accumulate, with the MRC scientist Peter Lawrence FRS being notably influential through his thought-provoking 2002/3 Nature articles ‘Rank Injustice’ and The Politics of Publication. A particularly high-profile case in 2005/6, involving the multiple and well-publicised ethical transgressions of scientist Woo Suk Hwang, can be seen as a defining moment.

Many reports and codes of conduct followed this 2005 watershed. One such code of conduct was Sir David King’s Rigour, Respect and Responsibility, which had its university launch at Imperial College in 2007. In the same year Imperial’s graduate school started its compulsory course ‘Science, Research and Integrity’, where neophyte scientists could discuss these issues, and – very importantly – give their point of view. It was as a result of Sir David King’s work, and courses similar to the one offered by Imperial, that a subtle but important shift occurred. While the misconduct cases we read about in those years seemed always to involve astonishing examples of individual frailty and corruption, leading to the view that we were dealing here with ‘bad apples’, wise heads, including those of PhD students, reminded us that if ethics always has an individual component, the institutional aspect is critically important too. Slowly we moved in the direction of this question: ‘How Can Our Institution Support Good Science?’ Then, in 2014, under the guidance of Professor Ottoline Leyser (now CEO of Research England), the Nuffield Council on Bioethics launched at Imperial College their seminal report ‘The Culture of Scientific Research’. This brave document made plain the issue of institutional responsibility. It asked: how can an institution make unethical behavior less likely? And, particularly, it seemed to imply that we must be as diligent in discussing culture as we are in chasing down example of misconduct. In sum, as I discuss in the webinar, discussions of research integrity have roots in very different styles of discourse: there is an alarm about misconduct, and there is an aspirational, fervent desire for something just as complex, ‘good science’. Does this ‘mix’ of discourse pose problems?

What Does ‘Integrity’ Mean?

While I wouldn’t say that the discourses of ‘misconduct’ and ‘integrity’ are wildly incompatible, some thought is needed over how to navigate a rather heterogeneous set of concepts. And while ‘misconduct’ centres on the transgression of fairly well-defined rules, it is hard to know quite what ‘research culture’ means. For example, should we talk about ‘research cultures’, in the plural? That might look like a good option, but then we remember the important philosophical tradition, still central today, that science is unified: it has a method; it doesn’t matter where you do your science or who you are; a scientific fact is the same, whether you are in Southampton or in Sydney. Culture scholars, however, spend a lot of their time exploring how cultures evolve, and how they remain sustainably different. Meanwhile a growing aspect of enhancing research culture relies on the idea that both in in our wider lives and in our laboratories, identity recognition is central to the flourishing of our working life.

The word ‘integrity’ is usually defined as ‘honesty, the capacity to inspire well-founded trust, a position of moral worth’. However there is a second, equally important meaning. This is to do with wholeness, of different parts within a system being in communication, being in balance, and being mutual, interested and respectful.

Research Integrity and Science Communication

It is this second aspect of the word integrity that forms the basis of my short talk. I will be exploring how concepts like balance, and of course imbalance, are helpful tools in understanding research culture. At Imperial College we have been promoting the idea that research culture (among other things) is a matter of ethics. Similarly, at Imperial, we understand the ethics of research culture as broader than that routinely examined by research ethics committees. As I shall briefly suggest at the end of my talk, to attain the required ethical breadth, more to do with character and habit than with rules and policy, it may be helpful to study the great tradition of Virtue Ethics, stemming from Aristotle and the traditions of classical Athens.

Read A rough guide to ‘research culture’ in full

On 3 May, we hosted the first arts workshop for the Triptych of Science arts initiative, which brings together people working in scientific research culture to create art about their experiences in science at Imperial. The idea of the ‘Tryptich’, a tripartite art piece, is to explore three themes that might not be involved in the typical narratives of research culture, but that tend to surface in any conversation with people working in research: Time, Emotion and Balance.

As the curator in residence, I was tasked with thinking about building an exhibition, the “end-product” of this project. Yet I found myself observing what happens when researchers come together to make art, fascinated by watching the process unfold. If I had to choose one word to describe what this workshop was about, for me, it would be ‘forms’.

As people trickled into the room, they were greeted not by the typical set of classroom tables, but by a single large one formed of several pushed together. On this banquet table was a feast of art materials: string, paper, clay, glue, thread, ink. And of course, some plastic covers to anticipate (and encourage) mess.

Once everyone found their seats, introductions began: we shared our occupations, research or professional focus, and perhaps most importantly, any experience with art. To my surprise, there was hardly any repetition; almost everyone mentioned a different creative form.

 

 

 

Some participants brought in examples of things they had made: the yellow jacket they were wearing, a cute fluffy dog, an egg of glass filled with purple swirls; paper marbling in bright cellular shapes; an exquisite miniature landscape, featuring a bloodthirsty bunny rabbit nestled among tiny rocks and flowers. We also heard about many examples of participants combining science and art, for instance, a piece of music encoded in DNA, with simulated evolution to mutate the melody over time.

Discussions of science became quite detailed, but these cheerful chats about genetics and material science seemed different around a multidisciplinary table than they might within a laboratory. The knowledge exchange was more social than goal-oriented – not done to build an argument or make conclusions, but simply to share without judgement. This became clear when someone expressed hesitancy about being entirely new to art making. The others soon reassured them that the experience they bring is just as valuable in the context of this project, as a collective initiative of learning and unlearning, art making and thinking about research culture.

A theme emerged that we should not focus simply on making the final product for the installation, but that we should also display evidence of the process. We decided to keep an archive of drafts, notes, sketches, and reflections as equally important to the final art piece.

Then, our artist-in-residence, Ella Miodownik, facilitated the main activity of the day: to make ‘bad’ art. The word ‘bad’ was used to encourage a letting go of judgement and end-products; to not focus on trying to make something good, but just to play around and enjoy the making process. Each person was directed to take a piece of paper and do something to it for five minutes – to manipulate it in some way, whether cutting, folding, or ripping. Drawing or writing was implicitly discouraged due to a lack of any writing utensils on the table – but our own project leader, Stephen Webster, broke this rule, procuring a biro from his pocket and composing a short poem, hidden in a fold of his paper.

The craft session therefore began with the very important and serious process of picking out one’s favourite colours of paper and soon, everyone was immersed in making. People were sneaking peeks of what others were doing out of pure curiosity, but were mostly dedicated to their own ideas. And so began a period of comfortable silence, interrupted only by quiet requests to pass the scissors.

Somehow the five minutes I had planned for the activity turned into an hour, with all of us quietly absorbed in art-making – even Mikayla scribbling away and Madisson filming the process were totally immersed in their own quiet practice. It felt like a reversion to childhood and was supremely calming to my nervous system. Being together, and making-with… I think we might have accidentally done some kind of art therapy. (Ella)

Once again, no two forms were the same. Some chose to let their paper remain flattened and experiment with embroidery, cutting and weaving; others created shapes, structures and texture out of the paper. We even explored interactivity – one participant ripped and folded their paper into a perfect cone, before allowing the audience (which was just us, for now!) to unfold the piece in a performance artwork. Ella appealed to my curatorial perspective by hanging her piece from the ceiling, showing how the concept of ‘all forms’ is not just about the piece of work, but also about how the work is displayed. People gradually started to stand up, walk around and talk about each other’s art. Small and sweet conversations were humming in the room.

There was an interesting conversation about handcraft, where we discussed how distinctions between what is considered ‘fine art’ and ‘arts and crafts’ often correlate with hierarchies of gender and class. We resolved that this project would reject this distinction, embrace all forms of art as equal, and celebrate undervalued art forms such as textile.

This led nicely to Ella’s announcement of what our final art form would be: A multimedia quilt!

What is a quilt? In a sense, it is a constraint, but one that allows for creativity. It is made up of units, or quilt squares, but each one is different. This gives us options: We could each make our own quilt square, collaborate with someone on a square, or make a square all together. Then we can bring it all together at the end. This way, we can participate in a mix of co-creation and individual or asynchronous working. (Ella)

 

Participants discussed the idea of creating a collective piece where they could still have the capacity to be imaginative and create their own works. Ideas started to bloom: using materials from the lab, integrating journals and other aspects of daily scientific life, mapping and graphing out emotions or time spent doing science, and how they might want people who come to see the exhibition to engage with the quilt.

All of it will contribute to the multidimensional quilt – paper, string, marbling, clay, writing, video, data collection, narrative, performance. The focus on process, co-creation, multiple media – moving forward these ideas will be central to the project. The ideas of our Tryptich of time, emotion, and balance, will still be simmering there, directly relevant to some quilt “squares’ and more tangential to others. (Ella)

Although some people slowly began to leave and return to the hustle and bustle of their lives, conversations ranging from handcraft to chemistry lingered in the room for another hour. One of our participants brought their marbling materials to the session and gave a brilliant impromptu workshop on the technique, guiding us to create bright abstract prints while explaining the science of surface tension. More importantly, we started to see people making connections, comparing and exchanging their inspiration, and forming a sense of belonging as a group of artists in its early days.

It’s not too late to join the group of scientist-artists and contribute to our tryptich-quilt of research culture! The next session will be held on Wednesday 19^th June 12-2pm. Reach out to Stephen Webster (stephen.webster@imperial.ac.uk) if you are interested.

 

Read Triptych of Science Blog: Embracing all forms in full

The Good Science Project‘s first conference, the Day of Doubt, brings together leading scientists to debate today’s research culture and the values needed for good science. Any conference about research culture should encourage discussion and reflection, and in the Day of Doubt we hope everyone attending will feel free to contribute. All panel discussions will have plenty of time for audience Q and A; and after lunch, when we get into smaller groups, there should be ample opportunity for open debate.

Choosing your ‘reflection session’

We’ll be in touch with delegates in September to give you the opportunity to choose your ‘reflection session’. If you prefer to leave it to chance, or feel you cannot take your pick from such a rich offering, you can opt for ‘the lucky dip’, and the organisers will do the allocation for you. In advance, here is a short description of the likely themes of each session.

Questioning … public engagement

Join Professor Ken Arnold and Katherine Mathieson to discuss the role of public engagement as an increasingly important part of the scientist’s professional identity. What are the gains for a scientist, in doing public engagement work? How has public engagement progressed, in the last ten years? What do Ken and Katherine feel are the current challenges, in improving science-society relations? This session will also be an opportunity to learn about our facilitators’ institutions, the Medical Museion in Copenhagen, where Ken is Director, and the Royal Institution, where Katherine is Director.

Questioning … interdisciplinarity

All universities are busy encouraging interdisciplinarity, with multiple centres and institutes joining the traditional disciplinary departments. There are many areas of urgent concern where the interdisciplinary approach seems obviously necessary – climate science being an example. And we are often told that it is at the boundaries between disciplines that the best ideas and the brightest creativity can be found. But how true is this? How easy is it to be an ‘interdisciplinary scientist’? Are there specific issues for such people in terms of publishing and funding? How best can we introduce interdisciplinarity into the curriculum? And how easy is it for the traditional departments to encourage their ambulatory researchers? Join Dr Isabella von Holstein, Translation and Research Manager at the Institute for Molecular Science and Engineering, and Alyssa Gilbert, Director of Innovation at Imperial’s Grantham Institute, as they examine, and perhaps lay to rest, any doubts we might have about interdisciplinarity.

Questioning … excellence

Is it necessary for a scientist to be excellent? Does science require excellence, to advance and develop its solutions to our problems? Or is science basically dependent on being ‘normal’, as the historian Thomas Kuhn so famously said. Excellence is embedded in UK science because of its prime validator, the ‘Research Excellence Framework’ (REF). But how can excellence be measured? And when it comes to excellence, is it a concept that hardwires into science a fear of failure? Is excellence a competitive feature, a personal matter, or a collaborative one? Most pertinently, what is the significance of recent news about REF 2028, and its plans to broaden the way we judge ourselves. Join two acknowledged experts in the field – Professors James Wilsdon and Stephen Curry – to debate the issue and put your views.

Questioning … scientific truth

After Francis Bacon began to trumpet the virtues of the experimental method 400 years ago, science as we still understand it gradually came to be regarded as the ‘royal road to the truth’. And it has certainly had that status for the past 200 years. Yet, as we have come to learn more about science’s own history, working practices and institutional settings, doubt has been cast on the sort of ‘truth’ that results from scientific inquiry. After all, scientists are fallible creatures operating within limited resources, and scientific findings themselves – including very major ones – invite falsification and are periodically overturned and replaced. Join philosopher and sociologist Steve Fuller, and Dr Stephen Webster, to explore the shifting and elusive forms of scientific truth, and its role in the modern university.

Questioning … scientific expertise

Head of Chemistry Oscar Ces, technician and educator Kat Harris, and surgeon, author and teacher Roger Kneebone, together try to articulate, and weave together, the many forms of expertise that make Imperial College – and all universities – such interesting places. Increasingly we know that science benefits from diverse viewpoints, and that must imply ‘diverse skills’ too. How easy is it for a university to make use of different sorts of expert? Actually, how good is research culture at folding together the insights of scientists, social scientists and humanities scholars? And how easy is it for science to welcome diverse perspectives, while also trying to promote across society the scientific, Enlightenment world view?

And if you haven’t registered yet…

If you enjoy discussion about science, have views about its place in society and the way it organises itself in universities, then this conference is for you. Expect a lively day, with plenty of interaction, as we search for a better research culture. The conference is free and lunch is provided. Register here.

Read Reflections on doubt in full