Abstract
Traditional funding models allow for little external collaboration and exploration. To overcome ‘siloing’ of disciplines and enable more risky research, the Ideas Lab method was developed to enable new multidisciplinary ways of working. In this study, we explore the Ideas Lab as a cooperative funding instrument enabling transdisciplinary collaboration. We interviewed eight researchers participating in the Austrian Ideas Lab in 2017 after a 4-year project implementation and analysed their applications prior to the 5-day workshop. Researchers dealt with high pressure and stress and applied coping mechanisms to manage social dynamics. They changed their ways of working, dipping into new research areas, gaining new skills, and applying new engagement strategies with stakeholders as early as possible in the process. Openness and flexibility were essential to adjust to inputs from stakeholders. We conclude that the characteristics of the Ideas Lab as a funding instrument are well suited to the establishment and implementation of transdisciplinary research projects.
Keywords
Introduction
Embracing Openness in Research and Development has become increasingly widespread within the last 20 years. Diverse initiatives loosely coupled under the label of Open Science are geared towards making the sciences more open, more transparent, and more democratic (Bluemel and Beng 2018). New infrastructures evolved with the aim of increasing collaboration among researchers and communicating scholarship, making it more open to different societal audiences and stakeholders. Though substantial progress has been achieved to make scholarly output more accessible, less effort has been devoted to make knowledge production itself more inclusive, by integrating users, citizens, and stakeholders in the research process for the generation of novel ideas and research questions (Franzoni and Sauermann 2014).
While the spread of citizen science concepts and ideas among many Western countries is noticeable, the integration of the public is often standardised, pre-packaged, and restricted to data generation (Woolley et al. 2016). More recently, several approaches were developed to integrate experiential knowledge of stakeholders and practitioners more systematically, such as the Open Innovation in Science approach (Beck et al. 2022). Unleashing the experiential knowledge of citizens and practitioners is more than listening to the public or designing advanced formats for dialogue, but also requires rethinking research.
In this paper, we argue that to overcome restricted forms of involving citizens, users and scholars in research, new funding models not only need to be designed and implemented, but new knowledge needs to be generated about how this can be achieved by drawing from experiences of novel funding instruments (Maxwell and Benneworth 2018). Such knowledge emerges from processes of experimentation with, and reflection about, research funding practices that involve not only funders themselves but also those being addressed by the funding scheme, that is researchers and societal stakeholders. To explore how novel funding practices can be established, and which organisational as well as social challenges occur, we draw from observations and experiences gained from utilising an adapting a funding instrument called ‘sandpits’, designed to involve researchers in the development of research ideas.
The sandpit method was originally developed in 2004, by the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC, 2023) in response to the perception of disciplinary ‘siloing’ or ‘stove-piping’. Similar observations were made in 2007 by the National Science Board report in the USA that established a new funding mechanism called ‘Ideas Lab’ that originated from the sandpit approach (Collins, Kearney, and Maddison 2013). This funding instrument aims at breaking down disciplinary boundaries and multidisciplinary working to ‘attack real-world challenges’ (EPSRC 2023). The ‘sandpit’ or ‘Ideas Lab’ methods are used to stimulate new research ideas or directions emerging from collaboration in an intensive five-day workshop. Hence, the sandpit method can be perceived as a fruitful way of including societal concerns and for engaging researchers in a process that leads to novel project designs that integrate diverse perspectives. Though the sandpit method has been proposed and first experiences were made, its implementation entails several organisational as well as social challenges. In previous sandpits, concerns such as the potential reluctance to share ideas and projects (Coupe 2016) were reported. They also emphasised challenges related to the pace of work, risking insufficient time for conceptualising ideas (Hargreaves and Burgess 2010). Additionally, difficulties exist in establishing a common language between disciplines (Giles 2004) as well as different methodologies, which can pose significant challenges (Calvert 2013; Holm et al. 2013).
At the Ludwig Boltzmann Gesellschaft (LBG) in Austria, the intention was to utilise the sandpit method for transforming funding practices, enabling more collaborative research that involves stakeholders, particularly patients. What distinguishes the use of this method at the LBG is its application in defining extended research directions, subsequently executed by selected teams, and supported by a broader network of practitioners and researchers. LBG intended to reframe funding strategies in alignment with the recently termed Open Innovation in Science approach (Beck et al. 2022). Against this backdrop, we take the opportunity, as organisers of the first Ideas Lab in Austria in 2017, to reflect on our experiences, researchers’ perception of the process, and the subsequent integration of its outcomes within a research funding organisation; namely, the Ludwig Boltzmann Gesellschaft. We argue that sandpits can be perceived as ways of developing research projects that facilitate experimentation and collaboration, serving as a strategic instrument to shape the research directions of a funding organisation.
Sandpits or Ideas Labs change the conventional approach to grant proposal writing. Typically, proposal writing is an individualised process, with each author or group independently developing a proposal over an extended period. In contrast, during the Ideas Lab, competing teams come together to form collaborations. The Ideas Lab also seeks to offer greater flexibility in designing research projects, with fewer requirements compared to other research funding lines, particularly in Austria. Currently, experimental funding designs within the public domain are rare. However, there is a growing need for innovative funding processes, especially in transdisciplinary research environments. As Maxwell, Benneworth, and Siefkes (2018) have outlined, the establishment of such funding lines require funders to be as open-minded as researchers, considering that research questions may diverge significantly from what funders are used to. While there are some examples of implemented sandpits, understanding of the experiences with these funding lines is limited, both from the perspective of the funder as well as the researchers involved in grant proposal applications.
While openness is often embraced, in practice it can also lead to dissonance and moments of social stress. In that context, this paper focuses particularly on the social learning process and the tensions that emerge during this process. We delve into the implementation of the funding instrument in the Austrian context, examining how it influenced organisational thinking. The paper is structured as follows: the first section establishes a theoretical framework, elucidating the distinctiveness of the Open Innovation in Science (OIS) approach compared to current literature, and we establish four characteristics of an OIS-inspired research funding policy that align with the instrument. The second section provides an overview of the exercise's context and process. Subsequently, results of the analysis are presented that include our own reflections and implications of the exercise on organisational agency. In the concluding sections, we critically discuss the findings in relation to the conceptual framework and existing literature.
Theoretical framework
The paper aims to investigate the development of funding instruments that facilitate a more open and collaborative research mode involving stakeholders and patients. To provide clarity on the concept of openness and collaboration, we draw upon the OIS framework. Given that OIS is a relatively novel approach, it is essential to provide a brief overview of its specificity in relation to other concepts, particularly in terms of incorporating users and citizens, and to outline its implications for the development of novel funding schemes.
OIS operates within a landscape of conceptual approaches emphasising the importance of transforming the research enterprise. Within the field of Science and Technology Studies, the notion of ‘public engagement’ has been developed to address issues of public concerns, especially in emerging science and technology areas since the late 1960s (Bensaude Vincent 2014). These initiatives involve citizens in discussions on contentious technologies, such as genetically modified organisms. Yet, as Stilgoe (2012) has outlined, the developed formats ‘tend to be tightly constrained by the expectations of the policymakers’ and they ‘did not bring new questions onto the table’ (201). While exceptions exist, such as the establishment of the ‘Dutch science shops’, which explicitly aim to connect citizens perspectives with ongoing research, public engagement formats and practices have not fundamentally altered research practices. Instead, they have frequently been used to find acceptance for or to justify research and technology policies (Stilgoe 2012).
An intellectual movement that sought to transform research and innovation practice is centred around the term ‘responsible research and innovation’ (RRI), drawing on normative ideals that advocate for greater transparency, openness, and responsibility in science. RRI was established to simultaneously tackle several challenges of the research enterprise, such as the lack of access to research or the decreasing societal trust in science, by increasing participation in research. Yet, the actual practices of RRI remained undefined, leading to uncertainty as to what the concept means for researchers and funders. More recently, proponents have endorsed RRI as a rhetorical space to deliberately negotiate ends of science and innovation, and have provided ‘concrete sites for research funders to focus on’ (Smith et al. 2021, 205). It appears, however, that this is not the result of a coherent framework. Though open, responsive, and creative research cultures are certainly desirable, there is little clarity as to how these values are connected under the roof of RRI and what terms such as ‘openness in research’ could mean in this specific context.
Similarly, the notion of transformative innovation policy has been coined to demand a shift in the scientific enterprise for tackling grand societal challenges (Schot and Steinmüller 2018). In order to achieve these goals, there is a case for a stronger intersectoral cooperation across domains and a reorganisation of policy fields. This would also require rethinking of existing research funding instruments, as only a few are designed for intersectoral cooperation and inclusion of citizens in research. Schot and Steinmüller (2018) emphasise the change of systems of action rather than focusing on technology development only (Schot and Steinmueller 2018, 564). However, the existing literature on the concept provides little information on how and in exactly what ways research funding instruments and scholarly practices should be redesigned to allow for more collaboration and social learning. It is unclear how a change in research priority can be achieved without taking existing cultures of appreciation and evaluation into account.
OIS certainly relates to these novel conceptions of science, endorsing engagement with users, citizens, and more generally across different societal realms. The focus on user engagement is not only embraced for normative reasons, but more specifically to change scholarly knowledge production and its self-organisation. Initially emerging from the Open Innovation approach that was developed to explore firms and their behaviour in the digital realm (Chesbrough 2003), the concept has been refined for the academic world (Beck et al. 2022). The OIS framework acknowledges that scholarly capacity to deal with knowledge of other audiences cannot be presupposed, but needs to be scrutinised and developed. The boundary crossing of knowledge in realms of practice poses a significant challenge for researchers and groups, as it may come into conflict with forms of epistemic practice that aim at achieving control over fixed research instruments. Therefore, OIS addresses the need for designing spaces of exploration with research instruments that are developed in close collaboration with those being affected by a societal problem; in our case, children of parents that have a mental illness (COPMI). To enable research that embraces exploration in this sense, it is also necessary to design novel funding models (Crowston 2016).
Existing funding models may have incentive structures that limit their potential for exploration and experimentation, though there are funding formats available that at least aim at supporting high risk research, such as the prestigious grants of the European Research Council (ERC). Nevertheless, there is a notable lack of emphasis on engaging in experimentation with users and external collaborators in designing and implementing research funding lines, with only a few exceptions with regard to research funding of transdisciplinary research (Lyall et al. 2013; Schneider et al. 2019). Moreover, the phases of ideation, review and selection are typically disconnected processes which allow for little interaction between those proposing ideas. While this appears necessary to guarantee fair competition, it may deter teams from taking inspiration from each other. Existing research on transdisciplinary research funding programmes has shown that quality of proposals can be increased by providing support, given that there is only limited experience and competence with transdisciplinary research or research with societal stakeholders (Schneider et al. 2019, 470). Moreover, existing funding models are based on the idea that projects’ designs are fixed and chances of adjustments after review are limited. In contrast, projects with user and patient collaboration need to have more flexibility to react and adapt to challenges faced throughout the project, as current research from transdisciplinary research suggests (Marg and Theiler 2023). And lastly, the evaluation of collaborative projects within existing funding schemes depends upon paying attention to the complementarity of the consortia's knowledge and competencies, while little attention is paid to how such potentials can actually be exploited through forms of learning and collaborative expertise. Research shows that funders could more systematically tackle challenges and frictions in collaboration, by nurturing interaction in the agenda-setting phases (Schneider et al. 2019).
In order to deal with these shortcomings of existing funding practices, we aimed to experiment with novel formats for the ideation phase that can be adjusted to develop long-term funding strategies focusing on the social matter of COPMI. In this case, the sandpit model appears to be suitable for the development of inclusive research designs, as it focuses on the generation of ideas transgressing existing boundaries between different realms of knowledge. From a conceptual point of view, we aim to highlight several aspects that are different from existing funding practice. First, copresence of applicants during grant proposal development. During grant proposal writing there is typically little interaction between the different competing projects. The dynamic changes when sandpits are employed, placing significant importance on the physical presence of reviewers, researchers, and in this case, practitioners. It is presumed that this tension is a productive force, fostering the crystallisation of ideas that might not surface otherwise. Yet, the co-presence during the ideation phase can also induce social stress, given the visibility of competitors.
The review process is closely tied to this dynamic. Decisions for project ideas are made immediately following presentations, with competing teams in attendance. What distinguishes sandpits is that every group has the chance to vote for other projects, enabling utilisation of the applicants’ knowledge in this process. This system provides immediate feedback on project ideas, expediting the process and facilitating interaction and broader participation of stakeholders; such as, in our case, COPMI. This specific aspect aligns well with other concepts and perspectives aiming to address societal issues and matters mentioned earlier. However, given that the whole process takes place over just a few days, the strong link between ideation and review can lead to increased feelings of competition and discomfort. Time constraints may also be problematic for conceptualising ideas, as this would often require more time (Hargreaves and Burgess 2010). Again, those engaged in this endeavour face the question of whether such acceleration enhances or hinders critical thinking and role-taking.
A crucial aspect we intend to emphasise in our contribution regarding the design and implementation of funding is the formation and interaction process of groups, where the sandpit format serves as a catalyst. The challenge lies in creating groups that not only possess the capability to address relevant concerns but that are at the same time also capable of working closely together by acknowledging and integrating different, at times marginalised, forms of knowledge. Such group formation processes, however, take place in a phase where different groups compete for the funding of the projects. Consequently, social learning happens concurrently with processes of group closure and exclusion as competitive pressures intensify. How these groups navigate the delicate balance between competition and collaboration remains a particularly relevant aspect that can significantly impact the overall success of the success of the project. To achieve this, groups must engage in close collaboration both among themselves and with stakeholders, demanding specific collaborative competencies and stances that are not typically incentivised by funding instruments.
Organising these kinds of explorations and designing solutions also requires specific sets of collaborative structures within the project, encompassing different roles such as stakeholder analysts or relationship managers. As regards the necessary selection logic of funding instruments, the element of collaborative stress and irritation appears to be a more fundamental issue upon which we would like to focus attention below. The task of designing, implementing, and sustaining such projects proves to be challenging for both researchers and funders. While the primary objective of this initiative was to generate diverse pathways to projects addressing the challenges faced by COPMI, the content presented here highlights the importance of collaborative expertise. This expertise involves the ability of adjusting research designs in response to the needs of practitioners or collaborators. Our findings from funded projects suggest that these contexts demand particular approaches to collaboration, and specific social competencies such as effective role-taking. Contrary to being a straightforward endeavour, we argue that this undertaking is not without tensions and frictions.
Drawing inspiration from the prior discussions regarding the role of science in society, we position ourselves as researchers reflecting social accountability, while simultaneously navigating the realms of organisational imperatives and scholarly logics. More recently, Hackett and Rhoten (2011) introduced the term ‘engaged scholarship’ to describe a specific stance of scholarship that is more accountable to societal expectations and needs. However, this term holds a dual meaning, referring not only to scholars’ social tensions when trying to connect with other realms of practice, but also the challenges they face in negotiating their academic role. Hackett and Rhoten (2011) have used the term to describe their engagement in the National Science Foundation, an intermediary organisation subject to specific organisational rules. Similarly, our roles as researchers, reviewers, and administrative personnel within and beyond an Austrian research organisation can be described as engaged, as we aimed to promote organisational as well as cultural changes among research funding organisations in Austria. The specific context and the background of this attempt is presented in the next section.
The context: the research and development landscape in Austria
The debate regarding the reconstruction of funding programmes in Austria emerged at a time when the federal science system was under scrutiny. Several observers of the Austrian research system have established that the system's pace is insufficient, and that the research and innovation landscape is characterised by predominantly incremental innovations (small and continuous improvements to existing products and processes). Additionally, there is a prevalent conservative and risk-averse attitude. To drive momentum, the Austrian Federal Ministry of Science, Research, and Business, together with the Council for Research and Technology Development addressed the issue of radical innovations in research funding, inviting tenders for a study to explore radical innovations in research funding in 2015.
The aim was to enrich the current funding system, expanding the portfolio of formats, and to stimulate riskier and more innovative research projects (Warta and Dudenbostel 2016). In two workshops, key stakeholders of the Austrian research landscape, including LBG, discussed strategies for promoting high-risk and transformative research. On this occasion, the Ideas Lab programme of the Research Council of Norway in 2014 was presented as a new research funding tool, fostering innovation and inter- and transdisciplinary research. Additionally in 2016, the Austrian government launched the national Open Innovation (OI) strategy to increase Austria's innovative strengths and competitiveness through open innovation until 2025. Actions aimed at anchoring incentive mechanisms for research partnerships with non-traditional actors in the scientific research funding to strengthen OI, increasing involvement of users and citizens in Science Technology and Innovation funding programmes, and building research competence for the application of OI in science, amongst other areas (BMBWF 2016).
Implementation of OIS at LBG
In this context, LBG intended to implement an Open Innovation strategy in science (OIS) focusing on public engagement in research priority setting, and experimenting with innovative funding tools to found new research groups working with an OIS approach. LBG decided to introduce OIS publicly by implementing (a) a crowdsourcing project ‘Tell Us! What Questions About Mental Illness Should Science Take Up?’ (Tell Us! 2021), (b) funding interdisciplinary innovative and risky research through the sandpit approach (Ideas Lab 2021), and (c) enabling transdisciplinary stakeholder collaborations by introducing a relationship officer to the newly founded research groups (Kaisler and Grill 2021). One author of the current manuscript was directly involved in this activity.
As outlined, the sandpit played a pivotal role in implementing the OIS approach during the development of the funding scheme. Starting with the crowdsourcing project, first, LBG invited the Austrian mental health community—consisting of patients, family members, and health care professionals—to generate new research topics in the field of mental health. Thousands of visitors to the specially created online platform from more than 80 countries submitted 400 high-quality text contributions. It soon became clear that the affected individuals, their families, and expert carers, have accumulated extensive knowledge that researchers can draw from to achieve better results that in turn offer direct benefits to society. After analysing and thematically collating the submitted questions stakeholders had for research, 17 topics were distilled. Securing mental health for children and adolescents with a strong focus on COPMI emerged as the top research priority that a jury of mental health professionals and representatives of a mental health patient organisation agreed on as highly relevant and important for future mental health research: one in four children live with a mentally ill parent (e.g., Maybery and Reupert,2018; Maybery et al. 2009; Ostman and Hansson 2002; Pretis and Dimova 2008). Those children have an increased risk for long-term difficulties due to genetic, individual, family, and environmental risk factors (e.g., Hosman, van Doesum, and van Santvoort 2009; Power et al. 2016). Interventions related to family, social support and community have been shown to make a difference to COPMI (e.g., Goodyear et al. 2015a, 2015b; Greenhalgh et al. 2017), however, there is a gap between research and practice implementing evidence-informed processes and standards to meet children's needs (e.g., Zechmeister-Koss et al. 2020). Therefore, LBG aimed to fund innovative approaches through the sandpit approach to address these gaps.
Second, LBG's Ideas Lab (Ideas Lab 2021) call in 2017 aimed at bringing together a heterogenous and diverse group of people in terms of scientific background, discipline, career level, and level of experience in the COPMI field. The call was endowed with six million Euro and 4 years funding, which for sandpit projects is quite unusual in terms of the high budget and long duration. With this high amount, LBG took the risk of funding multiple steps, from co-developing innovative research designs with multiple stakeholder groups including public members, to implementing evidence-based research actions in a model region. For attracting researchers to the Ideas Lab, hundreds of contacts were identified from scientific journals, research networks and platforms, most contacts acting as amplifiers distributing the call, and about two hundred potential candidates were contacted directly by email and phone. To ensure a mix of disciplines in the Ideas Lab, candidates who worked in the core field of mental health (e.g., psychology and psychiatry), in the linked fields (e.g., public health and nursing), and in the distant fields (e.g., educational science and arts) were identified and contacted. In total, 136 PhD students and post-doctoral researchers with diverse backgrounds applied for the international call via an online platform (LBG Calls Platform 2017) answering questions regarding their background, expertise in the Ideas Lab, and their team approach. A team of international and interdisciplinary mentors and an organisational psychologist in the COPMI field individually assessed and selected 29 researchers who were invited to participate in the five-day workshop in Austria. On site, mentors supported the project teams in developing their ideas and pushing them towards innovation in a live peer review process.
The Ideas Lab phases
The Ideas Lab process consisted of four phases: interaction and understanding of the problem, idea generation, idea development, and the review of project ideas. First, the participants got to know each other, whereby a common understanding of the problem developed, and an overview of existing expertise emerged. Affected adults who have a parent with a mental illness were invited as provocateurs to inspire researchers and work with them on their ideas bringing in the patients’ perspective. Building on this understanding of the problem and with the support of the mentors and facilitators, ideas were generated and discussed, which were then worked on further in small groups that developed by themselves. Subsequently, specific research groups with ownership emerged among the participants. The resulting proposals were repeatedly reviewed, pitched, revised and retested, and funding requirements checked. The final step was the selection of projects, which were initially ranked based on established criteria and feedback from all participants: novelty and innovation of the research approach; interdisciplinarity of the research team; public engagement in research activities and decision-making boards; feasibility of the concept in the given timeframe and budget; and societal impact for COPMI and other stakeholders. The project ideas generated in the Ideas Lab centred around these topics: digital interventions and support for children; prevention strategies in early childhood; and identification and implementation of support for families and their children through psychiatric units. A final recommendation to the LBG for funding was made by the mentors and grant teams submitted the final project proposal 6 weeks after the Ideas Lab took place.
The present study
In this study, we are interested in the implications of this OIS approach on researchers participating in the Ideas Lab, and their further application of OIS in their research. Especially, we explored how the sandpit model enforced or hindered collaboration and as to whether the method contributed to novel forms of ideation. To this end, we interviewed participants in the sandpit, some of which material later became part of the funded research projects as results of the review process during the sandpit. Given our role as engaged researchers, we were also reflecting on the processes of organisational change which were initiated in response to the introduction of these novel forms of funding. We reconstructed the organisational context of the funding project and used a lot of material collected in the sandpit process, including the applications of researchers to the event. We also shared information on how the researchers were selected. We reflected on our activities within the process, gathered material of the process and applications, and interviewed researchers from (non-) funded research groups 4 years after participation in the Ideas Lab. Hence, the study sets out to answer the following research questions: How do participants understand their role in open and engaged transdisciplinary research? How do participants perceive and understand these processes related to the ideation and implementation of the projects? How valuable is the Ideas Lab approach in funding interdisciplinary research teams? And, what can be learned for the design of research funding instruments dedicated to open, collaborative and transdisciplinary research?
The authors of this article actively participated in the entire process, encompassing not only the Ideas Lab but also the subsequent stages, each contributing in their distinct roles as employees, administrators, or advisory board members. Consequently, our contribution goes beyond merely presenting information; it involves a reflection on our individual experiences and accounts related to designing and implementing innovative funding formats. By engaging with this initiative at various stages, we draw from diverse materials generated throughout the endeavour, offering space for introspection on our perceptions of the process and how our roles evolved. Rather than adhering strictly to implementing a tested model, we aim at identifying and exploring the problems and challenges encountered in developing such funding instruments.
Methods
The goals of our study were to describe and reconstruct the basic ideas behind the Ideas Lab as an OIS funding instrument which enables co-creation processes in a semi-competitive environment. Therefore, we brought different data sources together to understand the benefits as well as the challenges and frictions with recruiting researchers as well as facilitating co-creation during the process of setting up the projects during an Ideas Lab. We used the experiential knowledge of the first author (RK) who was part of the organising team of the Ideas Lab in Austria and acted as Relationship Manager for the research groups, which led to additional organisational knowledge of the Ideas Lab process to reconstruct the original goals and phases of the Ideas Lab. At the same time, the second author, in his role as an advisory board member of the research funding scheme, had a particular reflective stance towards the organisational changes these new forms of funding had on the LBG. These insights supported the development of the interview guidelines and the sampling procedure for interviews, and helped in understanding the Ideas Lab process (see Introduction section). We chose semi-structured interviews to get an in-depth view on researchers’ perception of the Ideas Lab process and outcomes in order to capture the funding instrument's potential in open research processes. We purposely conducted interviews with funded and non-funded participants to get different perspectives on the process irrespective of the Ideas Lab's outcome.
We used two main data sources for this study: (1) The experience of the first author in the implementation and planning of the Ideas Lab under study and (2) the eight semi-structured interviews with (non-) funded participants of the Ideas Lab. Additionally, we were interested whether their understanding of open innovation processes before and after the Ideas Lab experience and/or implementation in daily research changed, which we also asked in the interview.
Participants and procedure
Out of the 29 participants in the Ideas Lab, ten applicants were identified for the interviews by the first author as she had the most in-depth knowledge about the background of the applicants. Care was taken to represent different disciplines, roles (principal- and co-investigators) and institutions. Of the ten individuals contacted (five funded, five not funded), a total of eight agreed to participate in the interview (five funded, three not funded), six of the interview partners were female and two were male (see Supplement Table 1).
In two consecutive online meetings the focus of the interview guide and the specific questions for a 1-hour long, semi-structured interview were designed. Then personalised invitation emails explaining the objective and rationale of the interview were sent out by the interviewer. Three interviews were carried out in English and five in German. To minimise the influence of the interviewer, the interviews were conducted by team members who were not involved in the planning and implementation of the Ideas Lab (authors TP, CB). Prior to the interview, the interviewer explained the procedure to the interviewees and obtained informed consent to participate in the study, to use their application documents for further analysis, and to be recorded and to publish the data. The interviews were held online via the Zoom platform and transcribed by an external company. The data was analysed using qualitative content analysis (see section on coding). The conducted interviews were between 52 min and 72 min long.
Interview guide and coding
The interview guide was designed to cover a range of different topics: the motivation to participate in the Ideas Lab; the understanding of the applicant's particular role; the general understanding of OIS and the personal perspective on this concept; their opinion of the Ideas Lab as a funding scheme; the results of the Ideas Lab on a personal and a structural level; and potentially observed changes in the daily routine because of participation in the Ideas Lab. In addition, the semi-structured nature of the interviews also allowed the incorporation of new topics coming from the interview partners and to go into more depth where needed.
A mixed approach of inductive and deductive coding and consensus qualitative research (Hill, Thompson, and Williams 1997) was applied; the team agreed on central aspects and codes which emerged from the research interests and from the first author's experiential knowledge about the Ideas Lab process. As the next step, two interviews and applications were interpreted by one of the team members to test the deductive codes and identify additional inductive codes with Microsoft Word and Excel. The preliminary coding system was discussed among the team and a common understanding of the coding scheme was developed. This process resulted in ten main codes with a total of 36 sub-codes for the interviews (Figure 1). While one team member coded all interviews and applications on this basis, the others checked the material and reviewed the codes.
Coding tree of thematic analysis. The graph displays an overview of categories and subcategories according to four outcome levels.
Results
To gain in-depth insights and thoughts about the Ideas Lab as a funding instrument, and its outcomes, eight transcripts were coded and their content analysed. In total, 395 citations (Supplement Table 2) were identified from interviews and subsequently summarised in categories and subcategories (Table 1, Supplement Table 3 for long version).
Outcome levels and categories from interviews (n = 395 quotes) four years after the Ideas Lab took place (short-version). The description of the category summarises the key reflections of the interviewees. The numbers indicate the counts from all subcategories in this category.
Note. Numbers represent counts of text citations in the subcategory, total citations n = 395. OIS = Open Innovation in Science.
The analysis from the interviews (Figure 2) showed that interviewees experienced various challenges during the Ideas Lab event such as stress and time pressure, resulting from the change of tasks during the process. The organisers of the Ideas Lab workshop also perceived this happening, particularly during the second stage of the process when the researchers attempted to formulate the research questions they aimed to address. This perception of acceleration and social stress should be monitored and considered when reflecting on the instrument. Overall, the interviewees addressed competitiveness among other researchers and personal conflicts, difficulties in finding a common language between disciplines, high personal involvement, and strong connectedness to others. Interviewees further communicated that the Ideas Lab influenced their everyday practices such as in collaborating with different disciplines, stakeholders, and user groups in their research, gaining new skills involving patients and public members, applying new research methods and facilitation techniques, and being more open to interdisciplinary and OIS approaches. Interviewees reported about their experience and perception of science as generating added value from other ideas and viewpoints, their multi-disciplinary backgrounds and applied sciences, and experience with user involvement in research. Below, we report important aspects of the Ideas Lab and outcomes from the analyses gathered from interviewees.
Overview and distribution of categories from interviews. Black bars represent counts of categories.
Social and interactional challenges of the funding instrument
Motivation and self-perception
Being associated with the organisation that introduced new funding streams, we were interested in the motivations and self-perceptions of the applicants, as well as their own identity and stances towards engaged research practices. To capture these motivations, we draw from different sources, including the scholars’ applications as well as the interview data. Recognising the inherent bias in self-perception within the application documents, we were aware of the applicants’ effort to present themselves in the best possible light. In the application material, interviewees described themselves as practitioners rather than as scholars. The main motivation for applying to the programme was the opportunity for addressing a pressing societal problem with novel forms of intervention and support. Thus, the primary criterion for motivation appeared to be the connection to the topic, the well-being of children of parents that have a mental illness.
Apparently, this was not just lip-service. Instead, several scholars expressed their motivation to engage with stakeholders and other fellow scholars to contribute meaningfully to a societal problem. As a consequence, interviewees didn’t want to be characterised as academics in the first place. For instance, one of the interviewees wanted ‘not (to be) [seen as] an academic, but someone who knows a lot about this topic [children of mentally ill parents]’. Thus, among several interviewees, knowledge of stakeholders’ motivations, and familiarity with experiences related to this specific group of children, held significant value.
The profound motivation for attending the Ideas Lab in Austria is evidenced further in that many participants had to travel considerable distances, with some researchers coming from as far as Australia or Latin America. The combination of health care service, psychiatric care, and planning interdisciplinary work emerged as a particularly compelling incentive for application. Such a transdisciplinary funding initiative, open to all scholars world-wide, was seen as a special opportunity. Interviewees recalled this motivation vividly, even years after the Ideas Lab had taken place.
Group formation within the Ideas Lab process
As mentioned above, the material from the interviews, as well as notes taken during the Ideas Lab, showed that the process of group formation had a strong impact on how participants remembered the event. The interviewees dealt intensely with the question of how they experienced this process and showed a high level of emotional engagement. For us, as engaged researchers, the process of group formation was highly relevant, because it would be some of these groups that would then conduct the research in the novel funding scheme.
In principle, we wanted the process of group formation to be as open as possible. That is, the organisers of the workshop did not intervene in the process or incentivise the selection of specific people. Instead, we were interested in the mechanisms of self-organisation that emerged, some of which were characterised by typical social processes. The analysis of several interviews and our own observations show that several groups were formed based on homophily, that is, contacts are formed based on similar intellectual backgrounds and social habits, which then leads to further collaboration. One interviewee, for instance, selected partners based on ‘what people I found nice and with whom I could imagine working together … to whom I got a connection’.
Such similarity is often experienced positively, because it lowers the barriers for communication and interaction. Yet, such similarity may also come with a price in the later stages of the sandpit, when the groups were asked to develop novel ideas that move beyond their own realm of knowledge. ‘I was in a group where we were all similar, no idea came out at all; that was the lamest and most boring group in the world’, as a psychologist explained. (1002)
Other groups were more diverse, and interviewees had to develop strategies to gain more knowledge about the intellectual backgrounds and the personal characteristics of their group members. Sometimes, it was more difficult to find common ground for the matters the groups dealt with. Given that participants came from a wide variety of fields, such as computer science, arts, social sciences or psychology, this process was perceived as demanding. Apparently, the sandpit method spurred negotiation and learning processes, as the participants had to articulate their specific problem understandings, e.g., in relation with COPMI. Literature on transdisciplinary knowledge production shows that such interactions with stakeholders is beneficial, as it can lead to revisions or sharpening of the scientific problem understanding (Marg and Theiler 2023, 638). Several of these groups were rather diverse and characterised by such productive interactions that drove discussions among the participants. ‘You really have to get involved, so it becomes clear very quickly, in a short time, where they are the various strength and weaknesses of the individual who finds themselves in this constellation’, as a health economist explained. (1003)
Many interviewees perceived this situation as a rewarding experience. The time spent together was appreciated though much too short. At the same time, however, the group formation process was experienced as demanding. There were differences in how this process was perceived. Particularly those participants who had few experiences with other intellectual or social backgrounds emphasised their high level of social uncertainty in the beginning. Also, the presence of the stakeholders, that is, COPMI, was perceived as socially challenging. Participants had to deal with the intellectual problem of finding a common ground while being sensitive to the concrete experiences made by stakeholders. Hence, the process of group formation can be described as a ‘social learning space’.
In the later stages, the process of group formation was particularly relevant, as the project design required intense interaction as well as competencies in dealing with uncertainties and the highly non-routine nature of the experience (as described in the next section). The interaction within the sandpits was intense. Reflecting on this process, this setting was clearly artificial and differs from other group formation processes in research collaborations that typically emerge over a longer period. This was intensified as most of the participants did not know each other. Nevertheless, processes of exclusion also characterised the group formation process in later stages. It was more difficult to join a group after a common understanding of problems and ideas had taken place. Some interviewees stated that in general, the interactional setting and pressure had instead positively affected the group formation processes. As an interviewee stated, ‘the group which resulted at the end got really strong—particularly—because of this pressure’ during the formation process.
Ideas Lab's process as challenge
The ideation process as non-routine
Assessing the different dimensions and categories, we found that challenges emerging from the funding initiative situation needed to be explored in more detail. Interviewees reported that the process of ideation in the Ideas Lab was perceived as challenging, both in social (regarding the intensity of interaction) and in intellectual terms (regarding the different forms of knowledge that should be brought together). There are different accounts referring to the specific social situation throughout the process, which in the following passage was described as ‘non-routine’. ‘I think, to be honest, I would not see the Ideas Lab working as a daily routine because of the huge amount of pressure. I would be crazy if you had to work with that type of pressure. It's okay if you do it for a week. I think it's okay. I’ll be honest, I really think it's okay but this is not sustainable in the long term because it's just so intense (…). So, it's very, very, very intense. I don’t know. I don’t see me doing it that way all the time’, as a computer scientist explained. (1004)
The non-routine aspect was articulated by several interviewees and also related to the specific aspect of physical co-presence, particularly for the task of the sandpit, that is necessary for the development of project ideas. Researchers were obviously not used to a co-presence format for this task. The competitive setting for the ideation phase also created a feeling of being forced to perform on stage. Several interviewees reported they felt a need to present himself/herself to others, particularly in the early phases. The pressure was intense in the beginning, when participants had to generate a lot of different ideas. ‘The competitiveness is good. A lot of people didńt like the competitiveness. I don’t agree. The competitiveness is good, the pressure is good. It brings out the best’, as an artist explained. (1000)
Thus, participants particularly insisted on the necessity of describing this as a non-routine element, something they were not used to. As interviewee above (1004) mentioned, such intensity of interaction cannot—and maybe should not—be sustained, as it can create social stress. On several occasions, however, the somewhat artificial situation was perceived as at least of ambiguous value. ‘It's also a very … it's like playing with dynamite. I would say incendiary, it's a very unstable tool. It both works and doesn’t work. It works because there's nothing better than the intensity created by a few days of getting everyone in the room. Everyone's got to be at their best. If you’re not really on point with your own practice you’re going to sink in a room like that’, as an artist explained. (1000)
This quote also shows that participants perceived the situation as a form of forced interaction (everyone's got to be at their best). Reflecting on these perceptions, this event can be best understood as a starting point for later stages of collaboration and interaction, if the experiences and information provided allow participants to understand the function of the event. Apparently, this was not always possible. An interviewee points at the lack of control emerging from the feeling of non-routine and accelerated social interaction. For us, being engaged in organisation of the event, such accounts were extremely valuable as it showed the limits of the instrument, when too much enforced collaboration may also hinder emergent collaboration in the long term.
Another critical aspect of the format was the lack of time, which the participants reported. Though it was the idea of the sandpits to create productive interaction by providing only a short time for each working step, we underestimated the level of social stress this created. As interviewees outlined, the limited time may have influenced the quality of potential ideas, though that can be refined in the development of the long proposal after the Ideas Lab event. ‘So, we would be set a task like think about this, think about an idea for a project for children or whatever, and then you would have ten minutes with four people around a table, and we would not get past saying hello to each other’, as an artist explained. (1000)
Being engaged in the process of developing novel formats that encourage collaboration, we aimed at monitoring and accompanying the whole process of ideation and group formation. It was intended to stimulate social processes by providing different spaces for interaction, both formal and informal. While the design closely aligns to what has been noted elsewhere about sandpits as a format, it also reveals a backlash, as participants experienced instances of social control where the boundaries between private and work were not strictly defined. ‘The other thing is that I find the implementation successful, a balance mixture between work and party so to say. The feeling one could get was to be in a kind of Big Brother environment with challenges for researchers. […] and that one was being observed the whole time and that at the same time led to an enormous pressure; and I think that's good. And I really find it well implemented, yet afterwards I was completely exhausted. I was out, called my boss and told him: either you allow me to take a day off or I will be sick tomorrow’, as a psychiatrist explained. (1001)
Though the participant perceived the event as successful, the constant interaction was also perceived as a panoptic situation. The TV show format ‘Big Brother’ was also mentioned by others as a potential frame to interpret the amount of social control within the event. Here, it is used as a metaphor to signify the intensity of interaction and the feeling of being observed and filmed. Such perceptions of social control can also evoke rather ambivalent feelings in relation with the funding instrument. This is even more so, as the monitoring was described as a substantial element of the process, as something the participants felt that conference organisers had intentionally designed to increase and evaluate participation. While such perceptions of control may also backfire, more experience is needed for understanding the social processes that characterise ideation phases in sandpits.
Balancing collaboration and competition
One of the most relevant aspects of the sandpit as a project development format is the apparent need for participants to strike a balance between collaboration and competition. While collaboration was essential, especially in the initial stages of forming a group, the second phase of the sandpit focused much more on competition among the groups. Furthermore, this competition was experienced as much stronger due to the physical co-presence of both reviewers and competitors. Even after the group was formed, the ongoing decisions regarding the balance between collaboration and competition remained evident. Scholars perceived this as a process of making choices as to whom to engage with in conversations and collaborations, especially as the event transitioned to its more decisive phases. ‘I don’t know exactly, it was one and a half or two (days), but in any case it was an intense preparatory phase, where everything was free (…). This switching between: we are so collaborative and then this competitive element was quite abrupt. Whereby in the latter, we were expected to closely work together in teams and to develop projects on a competitive basis’, as a music therapist and psychologist explained. (1005)
Hence, the changes between the modes of interaction—collaboration vs. competition in the different phases—was experienced as difficult. The competitive elements were much more visible in this last phase, leading to intense working experiences. It was during this juncture that ideas were documented, and collaboration beyond the teams’ boundaries was scarcely feasible, although not explicitly prohibited. A notable factor that supported the competitive nature of the process was the constraint of time. ‘It was brutal. I don’t know how many days were, three or four days, I don’t remember exactly how many they were. But I do remember they were very exhausting. At the end of the final day, I slept two hours, the whole team slept three, four hours average because we had to finish the presentation by the morning the next day. I think it was on Friday. Basically, it was extremely hard to do everything on time. The time pressure was very, very immense’, as a computer scientist explained. (1004)
Time pressure throughout the process was also mentioned by others as a property of the process. Some of the participants therefore also recommended taking more time and increasing the mentoring elements in the process. In particular, it mentioned that the competitive elements need to be more strongly buffered. The process, it was argued, would bring about specific personal and social dynamics which would need to be dealt with, which also required more time. ‘A little more mentoring and accompaniment would be desirable. Also maybe a little more understanding for personal dynamics and situations of pressure emerging from such a format should be kept in mind when developing the format’, as a music therapist and psychologist explained. (1005)
Grant proposal writing
Another aspect of the experiences related to the Ideas Lab was group interaction; particularly in the phase of writing up the grant proposal. Participants had to cope with dynamics of inclusion and exclusion in the process of group formation. These processes of exclusion accelerated in the phase of grant proposal writing. Social forces of competition were much more pronounced and direct, and even led to a certain level of rivalry. ‘On the one hand, there were more people when we designed our project proposal and then, some had moved and tried to take over the project idea. Out of that some kind of rivalry has developed […]. That was an uncomfortable experience, the feeling that something had been taken away from one. They have tried to persuade the group and then tried by themselves to implement something. Easy conversation afterwards with them was difficult’, as a psychiatrist explained. (1001)
Difficult group interaction was also reported by other participants. In this case, the participant reported it was not easy to join a group after an initial phase. The case also shows how perceptions of the process appeared to be influenced by different understandings of how such processes should take place. In any case, group interaction was perceived as particularly difficult in this phase. Inclusion and exclusion were perceived as stressful. ‘And then the groups formed at the end. And I walked to the Village group, but they said: ‘we are already full.’ I got the impression I would have taken away something from them. Then I walked over to another group. They already had quite some ideas. You couldn’t bring yourself in with your ideas’, as a psychologist explained. (1006)
Processes of social closure had occurred, underscoring the need for careful attention to these social dynamics in all of the different phases of group formation. Yet, we found very different ways of accounting and dealing with the process related to each participant's own experiences and understandings of science and collaboration.
Implications of OIS on the organisational level
As an outcome of the Ideas Lab, LBG formed two interdisciplinary research groups ‘DOT – The Open Door’ (DOT 2021) in cooperation with the Karl Landsteiner Private University and ‘Village – How to Raise a Village to Raise a Child’ (Village 2021) in cooperation with the Medical University of Innsbruck, to research and implement novel approaches on the topic of COPMI during 4 years (2018–2021) with a budget of EUR three million each. A Relationship Manager supported the research groups to establish community and stakeholder interactions during the project duration (Kaisler and Grill 2021; Kaisler and Paul 2019). The research group ‘DOT’ focused on early adolescents making the difficult leap from primary to secondary school, exploring how supportive relationships between peers help children stay mentally and physically healthy (Mitic et al. 2021; Mittmann and Schrank 2021). The Research group ‘Village’ aimed to increase identification and strengthen formal and informal supports around children when their parents have a mental illness (Zechmeister-Koss et al. 2023a, 2023b).
With the OIS approach, LBG aimed to open the scientific process not only in research activities involving stakeholders in the research process but also on the research groups’ steering level: (1) the organisation introduced a Relationship Manager supporting the research groups in their stakeholder engagement management, and (2) established an advisory board that involved people with lived experience in guiding the research programme. (3) Along these lines, the research groups’ evaluation also needed to involve people with lived experiences for assessment of the research groups after 4 years. While these changes in governance structure enabled more flexibility within the research programme, the organisation faced several issues in implementation compared to other LBG institutes working with exclusively scientific advisory boards without a specific stakeholder engagement focus.
First, issues arose at both the organisational and research team level. Organisational challenges included legal issues related to cooperation agreements and employment of public members. On the team level, tensions arose around working styles and the application of mixed-methods requiring attention and external support for clarification. Second, the introduction of a Relationship Manager caused irritation and uncertainties regarding the role and how it affected leadership in the research groups as well as in the organisation. While the relationship manager was intended to play a supportive role in stakeholder engagement, it was often perceived as a control from organisational side. Third, involving adult – children of parents with a mental illness – in the advisory boards for the first time changed the dynamics of discussions and research foci within the research groups. This necessity of flexibility from all parties involved also included researchers adjusting the work programme and outcomes, and the funder shifting the budget to unforeseen tasks.
Fourth, both projects strongly involved stakeholders, practitioners, and professionals from the mental health field, and children and families in their research co-developing interventions. This indicated that the expected research approach, outcomes, and scientific and societal impact were not defined at the projects’ start. This latter situation is unique for LBG, which typically establishes mono-disciplinary institutes with expected and robust scientific impact. In this context, the OIS approach prioritised societal impacts, requiring greater flexibility from researchers and funders throughout the implementation to adjust to new ideas from stakeholders, and address problems in establishing new routines with stakeholders. Fifth and last, the OIS approach also had broader implications on LBG's evaluation of the research groups’ performance. This included assessments of public engagement activities, implementation strategies, and societal impact, alongside the assessment of the scientific impact. Importantly, people with lived experience were also involved in the evaluation process after 4 years.
Discussion
We explored the funding instrument ‘Ideas Lab on Children of Mentally Ill Parents’ in Austria (Ideas Lab 2021) as a new format for changing ideation processes fostering interdisciplinary research and collaboration with non-academic actors and stakeholders throughout the research process. Regarding the approach of OIS (Beck et al. 2021), it was intended to provide more spaces for exploration with research instruments generated in close collaboration with practitioners and stakeholders. The focus on societal matters and the generation of novel social practices resonates well with other recent concepts for research and innovation governance such as ‘Responsible Research and Innovation’ (RRI), or transformative innovation policy that focuses particularly on societal changes. Yet, while both these concepts demand greater focus on changes of practices in research and governance, there appears to be little emphasis on how this can be achieved, and which kind of funding is needed to address societal changes. As ‘engaged scholars’, we are convinced that new funding instruments need to be developed that allow for more exploration with diverse types of knowledge, all of which focus on societal ‘matters of concern’. Projects involving users and patients need to have more flexibility to react and adapt to challenges faced throughout the project. For that matter, different kind of funding streams are necessary, some of which can be adapted. In our case, the Ideas Lab focused on the ideation of projects for COPMI and gathered international expertise in research and practice within this realm.
As mentioned in the theoretical section, the Ideas Lab functions as a catalyst for the selection of novel project ideas, with a particular impact on collaborative capacities essential for research projects involving intense and diverse collaboration settings. In this article, we specially focus on the social aspects and challenges that emerged during its implementation in the Austrian context. As a research funding instrument guiding the selection of novel projects, the following four social aspects need to be considered.
The first relevant aspect is the physical and social co-presence during the ideation process. Participants are present throughout the entire process of developing ideas for projects focusing on COPMI. This contrasts with typical funding designs where the presence of competitors is not incorporated into the funding instrument's design. As the material shows, this process of ideation in co-presence is socially intense, causing participants to experience social stress alongside feelings of relatedness. The Ideas Lab spans only a few days, during which participants are almost constantly engaged with project ideas and the forming of social networks. Project review also occurs in co-presence, with reviewers and stakeholders present throughout the entire ideation process. This intense schedule is challenging for organisers as they closely monitor various processes. The ideation and review process are closely linked, creating competitive pressure on participants to perform. Moreover, a condensed timeline can amplify feelings of competition and discomfort. Time constraints may also be problematic for conceptualising ideas, as this process would usually require more time (Hargreaves and Burgess 2010). The task for those involved is to consider how much such acceleration is productive to critical thinking and role-taking. Pressure was reported by all participants regardless of their success with the grant proposal, but participants varied in how they perceived and dealt with this pressure. Initially designed for acceleration, sandpits thrive on the high intensity of interactions during ideation and the close link between ideation and review – a crucial element of the format (Collins, Kearney, and Maddison 2013; EPSRC 2023) that pushes participants to their limits and creates bursts of innovative ideas. Reflecting on the gathered material, we may have underestimated the impact of the dynamic on both the ideation process and participants’ performance under pressure.
One of the key aspects we aim to underscore in the design and implementation of funding instruments is the process of group formation and interaction, where the sandpit format serves as a catalyst. Groups must come together to address the identified concerns while simultaneously fostering close collaboration that acknowledges and integrates different, sometimes marginalised, forms of knowledge. Our findings reveal that these group formation processes are intense, involving distinct phases characterised by various social mechanisms, such as homophily, negotiation, and social closure. Managing high levels of stress among collaborators is essential, particularly as several groups are exceptionally diverse, making it challenging to establish common terminology or language. From the conceptual perspective, these collaborative capacities are necessary for the subsequent steps of project development and implementation. Selected projects must navigate unexpected events, such as developing innovative research instruments in collaboration with practitioners dealing with COPMI during the COVID-19 crisis. Moreover, the projects needed to collaborate closely with diverse types of knowledge, bringing together individuals like artists and game developers alongside psychologists to generate intervention models. Therefore, the process of group formation during the ideation phase places strong emphasis on cultivating such capacities, which we particularly recognised as necessary and valuable after observing the completed projects. However, it is important to note that the group formation processes were not without challenges. They were experienced negatively, especially as the process led to social closure and exclusion, preventing novel participants from entering.
Thirdly, project participants must navigate both collaboration and competition, a delicate balance that becomes particularly critical during the process of grant proposal writing. In the sandpit model, collaboration and competition are defined as two decisive modes in the process. This shift from collaborative and explorative to a competitive mode was difficult for interviewees, as Giles (2004) says ‘the tensions arose again when different ideas competed for the prize’ (187). To overcome this, interviewees recommended allocating more time as well as enhancing the mentoring elements in the process. Non-funded participants, in particular, emphasised the shift from collaboration to competitiveness as a major challenge. After reviewing the material, it became apparent that only those participants who tried to push their own ideas without engaging with other perspectives did not succeed in securing funding. Conversely, not sharing ideas and projects was reported as a potential issue for non-successful participation in other sandpits (Blackwell et al. 2010; Coupe 2016). However, the challenge of balancing between collaboration and competition extends beyond specific phases; participants had to make ongoing choices regarding their level of commitment to each. While reports on other sandpits have also highlighted the socially demanding process (Calvert 2013; Giles 2004; Hargreaves and Burgess 2010; Holm et al. 2013), these balancing activities are apparently less described. These negative mechanisms are, to some extent, incentivised by the format and need to be further explored, as they pose fundamental challenges for the organisation of the entire event.
Despite these challenges, interviewees perceived the format as a ‘good tool’. Looking closer at the social dynamics of the funding instrument, the intensity of interactions and the intensity of the setting were perceived as challenging. The multiple and highly engaging interactions were accompanied by the lack of control emerging from the dense social interactions as well as the extent of cognitive capacity needed that led to exhaustion, which was also observed in the evaluation report of the Ideas Lab (Warta 2017). Therefore, the interviewees reported that they viewed the Ideas Lab as a non-routine event, something that appears to be socially demanding and intense. In that sense, the Ideas Lab process appears to be suited only for specific phases in the project cycle. It can serve as a stimulus for the initiation of projects and as a catalyst for group formation, but it is less suited for long term interaction during project phases.
As a major outcome of the Ideas Lab, we found that interviewees also highlighted the positive experiences of the lab. To some extent, intense interaction led to further collaboration and even of the formation of projects apart from the funding of LBG. However, they experienced difficulties with further third-party funding since the traditional funding opportunities allow for little collaboration, exploration, and scientific competence. Other funding formats often do not fulfil the requirements for transdisciplinary collaborations and new ways of multidisciplinary working (Maxwell and Benneworth 2018). In addition, it was also difficult to form collaborations with participants from different countries due to the lack of transnational funding schemes in this area, according to the interviewees. Yet, flexibility and dealing with uncertainties enables transdisciplinary collaborations that are needed to manage an OIS project including changes in the leadership structure, being open to inputs from stakeholders changing the work package structure, and forming and facilitating partnerships. This was also valid during the 4 years implementation that required the introduction of new governance structures, e.g., including people with lived experience in boards (Kaisler and Grill 2021). Particularly, stakeholders involved in the research activities and advisory boards expressed high satisfaction with the transdisciplinary collaboration and highlighted the significant value brought by diverse expertise in the advisory board. Key factors contributing to successful collaboration included researchers’ open-mindedness towards novel perspectives and approaches, their flexibility to adjust to evolving research processes, and their creative handling of diverse backgrounds and skills. Stakeholders also emphasised the crucial role of a facilitator in managing tensions and insecurities between researchers and stakeholders. The attitudes of researchers, particularly their recognition of the importance of stakeholder involvement, emerged as pivotal factors enabling successful transdisciplinary research collaborations (Kaisler and Grill 2021).
The OIS approach posed several challenges within the organisation and the research groups, such as legal issues and tension caused by the new governance structure, and the need for flexibility in both the research programme and funding arrangements. However, positive aspects seemed to overcome the issues as stakeholders highlighted their satisfaction with the process of involvement in research (Kaisler and Grill 2021) and researchers, as outlined in this study, perceived potential change on a personal and project level.
Policy implications
Introduction of novel funding instruments require organisational learning
Though some of the processes and conflicts among sandpits are known from the literature, it is clear that organisations need to prepare for organisational adjustment after such introduction. The organisational learning process relates to how the processes and formats of collaboration are perceived and experienced, how the interaction between the research community and the funder side can be shaped, and in what ways the organisation of process requires changes in oversight and project management. Experiences made during such processes require reflection of existing processes and may even demand the generation of novel roles and responsibilities. Learning from the experiences of establishing cross disciplinary research, the LBG created the novel rule of relationship manager to support collaborations within and beyond research groups.
Transparent and contextualised communication
The interviews show that not all participants were aware as to why this method was introduced and what it should accomplish among the participants. Transparency and contextualisation appear all the more important given that the design of the instrument and the cross disciplinary character creates uncertainty and “mutual unfamiliarity” with each other's research cultures (MacLeod 2018). Particularly for cross- and transdisciplinary research programmes, more information and more specific information could be necessary. Our experiences and interviews show that participants have experienced high levels of uncertainty throughout the ideation phase. Particular care should therefore be devoted to transparent and contextualised communication of organisational processes. The transparency of communication should cover the whole process and also include that establishing cross-disciplinary research projects also creates uncertainty on the funder side. Such forms of self-reflection can contribute to the emergence of trust, which is necessary to overcome frictions during the diverse processes. As a consequence, the organisational learning that has taken place on the funder side should also be communicated to the participants. It appears necessary to more directly engage and invest in communication and exchange with the researchers about the reasons for establishing new roles and processes.
Resources for joint problem definition and agenda setting within transdisciplinary research projects
Problem centred collaboration in contexts of mutual unfamiliarity of each other's epistemic and social practices and conventions is challenging. The findings of this research show that establishing a framework for collaboration among participants in the sandpit is a time-consuming and stressful experience. Major difficulties in our cases emerge from divergent perceptions of the major problems to be dealt with. It requires complex interactions and learning processes to identify a joint problem definition (see also Schneider et al. 2019). Such processes of problem definition may extend early phases of ideation such as sand pits and are also relevant for later stages of project planning, as our experiences of LBG research groups showed. Research funders of collaborative and transdisciplinary research may accompany and support this process of problem definition with additional resources.
Flexibility for funding transdisciplinary research projects
The development and implementation of transdisciplinary research projects requires substantial amount of flexibility not only from applicants and researchers but also from funders. That applies to both the ideation phase, but also to later project stages. During ideation processes, flexibility is needed in order to gain input from the communities for sharpening the goals of the transdisciplinary research programme.
Moderation of sandpit process
The sandpit process is a socially demanding and stressful experience. It has its advantages particularly as regards the development of novel ideas and group formations. There are, however, also potential conflicts within groups that should be monitored. In particular, exclusion processes and accelerated decision making in the more competition-oriented phases of the sandpit may evoke stress. The co-presence during the review phase follow-up community sessions with stakeholders and researchers may be beneficial for moderating conflicts.
Limitations and strengths
Limitations in this study include the limited numbers of eight interviews. Only one third of all text citations were from non-funded participants. Nevertheless, this study involves the utilisation of various data sources, namely, the experiential knowledge of the first author (RK) within the organisational context of the Ideas Lab, data gathered from interviews, and the application documents submitted prior to the Ideas Lab. The latter helped us understand interviewees’ motivation and openness before their participation in the Ideas Lab, leading to the establishment of new routines. This aspect was also investigated in a prior study (Kaisler and Grill 2021), focusing on the stakeholder interactions.
Conclusion
The innovative funding instrument ‘Ideas Lab’ is well suited to forming interdisciplinary research teams. It attracts researchers who have experience and interest in collaborating with stakeholders during the research process, which on the one side creates bursts of innovative ideas but is followed by delays and acquirement of new skills during the process. It requires high flexibility from researchers in the ideation phase coping with stress and pressure, and from funders to adjust to changes in the project plan. This can only be managed if researchers’ mind-set is open towards explorative and collaborative approaches, the impact of multiple-stakeholder collaboration, and the implementation of shared leadership structures. Difficulties arise with the lack of follow-up funding structures that accommodate the transdisciplinary nature of this type of research projects. Future research should explore this new transdisciplinary way of working as an outcome of the Ideas Lab process in depth and guide new funding models that allow for explorative, collaborative, and flexible research.
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-1-ids-10.1177_03080188241276363 - Supplemental material for Ideas Lab as funding instrument: navigating tensions in establishing transdisciplinary research projects
Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-ids-10.1177_03080188241276363 for Ideas Lab as funding instrument: navigating tensions in establishing transdisciplinary research projects by R. E. Kaisler, C. Bluemel and T. Palfinger in Interdisciplinary Science Reviews
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-2-ids-10.1177_03080188241276363 - Supplemental material for Ideas Lab as funding instrument: navigating tensions in establishing transdisciplinary research projects
Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-ids-10.1177_03080188241276363 for Ideas Lab as funding instrument: navigating tensions in establishing transdisciplinary research projects by R. E. Kaisler, C. Bluemel and T. Palfinger in Interdisciplinary Science Reviews
Supplemental Material
sj-docx-3-ids-10.1177_03080188241276363 - Supplemental material for Ideas Lab as funding instrument: navigating tensions in establishing transdisciplinary research projects
Supplemental material, sj-docx-3-ids-10.1177_03080188241276363 for Ideas Lab as funding instrument: navigating tensions in establishing transdisciplinary research projects by R. E. Kaisler, C. Bluemel and T. Palfinger in Interdisciplinary Science Reviews
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the LBG Open Innovation in Science Center at the Ludwig Boltzmann Gesellschaft implementing an open innovation approach for interdisciplinary research funding. We thank the interviewees participating in the expert interviews. We especially thank Patrick Lehner for providing valuable feedback to the first manuscript draft.
Authors’ contributions
RK, TP and CB conceived and planned the study and interview guide, conceptualisation of this article, and wrote the first manuscript draft. TP and CB conducted the expert interviews. TP coded the interviews and RK categorised the data. All authors contributed to data analysis and critically reviewed the manuscript for intellectual content, approved the final version, and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Data availability
Supplemental material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
