Innovation Hubs Insights

With so many structural barriers, how can universities facilitate true interdisciplinary research? I had a stimulating discussion today with Sir Bashir M. Al-Hashimi CBE FREng FRS, VP for Research and Innovation at King's College London, to address this thorny issue. It is generally understood that the next generation of ground-breaking, world-changing scientific discoveries are most likely to come by combining a wide range of academic expertise through new, “interdisciplinary” science teams. But the barriers remain clear and high: universities are, by and large, structured in neat disciplinary silos, with departments (and their precious budgets) typically separated from each other, even with their own separate campus buildings; subject fields often come with their own research practices, languages and philosophies that are hard to penetrate by outsiders; and the academic journals, prizes and grants that bestow such prestige on scholars and drive their careers remain stubbornly locked into narrow disciplinary silos. At King's, interdisciplinarity seems to be baked into the infrastructure, and has been facilitated by things like the "King's Together" fund which has been available for the last decade to offer seed funding for colleagues' cross-disciplinary ideas. The university's latest AI+ initiative provides 20 academic fellowships in a move to develop "a critical mass of multidisciplinary research talent to accelerate the development and adoption of AI", says Sir Bashir. The scheme is focused on AI development and application across all disciplines, including health, bioscience, physical sciences, social sciences, security, humanities, business and law. Times Higher Education is in a deep partnership with Schmidt Sciences and Schmidt Science Fellows to support universities to harness the power of interdisciplinary research - cutting across disciplinary silos to push forward the boundaries of knowledge and to help solve some of the world's grand challenges. Much lipservice is paid to the notion of interdisciplinarity, but with Schmidt, THE wants to tease out what "good" looks like. That's why we created the Interdisciplinary Science Rankings: https://lnkd.in/eU-NUnaH And it is why we have just launched the Global Higher Education Interdisciplinary Network: https://lnkd.in/ergupxAC Watch this space.... Picture: King's fabulous, Grade II listed, Bush House building on Aldwych, former home of the BBC World Service. Thanks to Tom Foulkes for joining the fascinating conversations.

Don't go it alone - collaborate to deliver global impact with your research! Delighted to share findings from our newly published pilot-scale study on CO₂ capture heat integration. It's exciting not only because of new approach to reducing the reboiler duty by 6% and cooling duty by 24%, resulting in operating cost savings of CO2 capture. It's exciting because it proves that collaboration is essential for credible, impactful research. Our team brought together multi-institutional expertise, industrial partners, and real-world site access on a coal-fired power plant. This work was possible because this collaboration enabled: - Access to infrastructure - Operating a mobile pilot on a live power plant requires partnerships beyond any single lab. - Data rigour - Validating marginal energy gains demanded cross-disciplinary expertise, including thermodynamics, advanced data reconciliation, and process engineering. - Industrial validation - Co-developing with site operators built credibility and practical insight from day one. - Diverse expertise - Chemistry + engineering + simulation + field operations. Individual researchers miss insights that teams can easily identify. The lesson: Impact = great ideas + rigorous execution + real-world validation. Collaboration is how you deliver all three. If you're pursuing energy research with genuine traction, treat collaboration as a core strategy, not optional. Build networks early. Your best work will come from teams you haven't yet assembled. #science #research #scientist #researcher #professor #phd #CCUS #engineering

Solving society’s most complex challenges is never the work of one person, one team, or one organization. It takes collaboration across disciplines, sectors, and perspectives. That belief is at the heart of our Tech4Positive Futures program: a collaborative, talent-led initiative that brings together colleagues across Capgeminiwith partners in academia, public agencies, and communities to apply technology to challenges that matter. I’m proud to spotlight a few projects that show how this collaborative spirit is making real impact. In Morocco, for example, Capgemini teams worked with Université Mohammed V Rabat and the Agence du Bassin Hydraulique du Loukkos to develop an early detection system for harmful algal blooms, helping protect critical water resources. As Nawfal Majdoub, Senior Quality Manager, put it: “Capgemini’s strength is in bringing people together. Everyone contributes ideas and supports each other. We’re all motivated by the same goal – to make the solution real.” And this is just one example of what collaborative innovation can make possible: • In the U.S., teams are creating a more sustainable assembly process for NABIT cartridges used in eDNA testing to verify wildlife and food product identification. • In India, winners are developing an AI-powered solution that analyzes data collected by drones for species identification, helping transform invasive species management. This is the power of teamwork: people from different backgrounds, disciplines, and organizations coming together around a shared purpose. As leaders, we have a responsibility to foster cultures where we can all come together, bringing our full selves to tackle the challenges we face whether environmental, social, or economic. You can read more here: https://lnkd.in/eZZxr9Y8

Stanford University's genies STORM & CO-STORM are revolutionizing interdisciplinary teamwork by facilitating the creation of Wikipedia-style articles and Roundtable Discussion conversions. 📚 In a world where experts seamlessly unite across disciplines, Stanford's STORM and CO-STORM employ Autonomous AI agents to delve into a myriad of online documents and research papers, fostering real-time collaboration for transformative breakthroughs. 🔆 STORM, or Synthesis of Topic Outlines through Retrieval and Multi-perspective Question Asking, pioneers an innovative framework enhancing interdisciplinary collaboration. By amalgamating diverse viewpoints and utilizing advanced retrieval techniques, STORM amplifies research exploration's clarity and depth. 💫 Building upon this foundation, CO-STORM introduces Collaborative STORMing sessions, fostering structured environments for brainstorming, solution refinement, and implementation to tackle contemporary challenges effectively into a conversational format of discussions amongst various experts. ✨ Insights gleaned from these genies highlight the enrichment of research depth and solution diversity through multi-perspective question asking, the productivity boost from enhanced retrieval systems, and the accelerated innovation driven by structured topic synthesis. 🌟 From revolutionizing healthcare to addressing global sustainability challenges, STORM and CO-STORM empower teams to unleash the collective information retrieval potential of the AI agents in research and development, shaping a brighter future. 💫 My experiments with these tools:- 🔆 I sought an article on one of my research topics "Collaboration amongst human experts, LLMs, and AI agents towards evaluations of AI systems" via STORM which appeared to be a good first draft. STORM used four different agents - A basic Fact Writer, a Software Engineer, a Data Ethicist, an AI Research Scientist to create an engaging and well-cited article. Check it out here - https://lnkd.in/d8_yi_rG 🔆 I also tried a conversation-style roundtable discussion on another topic of interest "Responsible Governance Framework for Generative AI Adoption for Small and Medium Businesses". Check it out here - https://lnkd.in/du8ap4dm ✨ Explore the research and platform:- 📜 Paper - https://lnkd.in/dDBWvqte 👩💻 Code - https://lnkd.in/dfq8HTxE 🌐 STORM/ CO-STORM - https://lnkd.in/dK7gj6SC 💫 How could these approaches redefine your field of interest? Please share your thoughts! #StanfordSTORM #CO-STORM #Collaboration #AIInnovation #AgenticAI #ResearchLeadership #InterdisciplinarySolutions #Innovation #Stanford

Collaboration across disciplines sounds intuitive. In practice, it is anything but simple. A recent qualitative study examining how artists, scientists and technologists work together shows that interdisciplinary collaboration about navigating fundamentally different ways of thinking, creating and validating knowledge. Participants describe collaboration as a process of “de-disciplining” themselves. Established methods, norms and hierarchies need to be temporarily suspended to make room for alternative perspectives. This is where friction emerges. Scientists may prioritise rigour and reproducibility, artists ambiguity and exploration, technologists functionality and application. What makes collaboration work is not alignment, but negotiation. Shared understanding develops through iteration, translation and, often, discomfort. Trust becomes a central variable, not only between individuals but between epistemologies. The study also points to structural constraints. Institutional settings, funding models and evaluation criteria still favour disciplinary outputs. This creates a paradox where interdisciplinary work is encouraged rhetorically but remains difficult to sustain in practice. Authors: Zeynep Birsel, Ellen Loots, Lénia Marques

Exploration risk rarely gets reduced with more seismic data. It gets reduced in conversations. One of the best explorers and senior leaders I've ever worked with had a habit that stuck with me. Every time someone presented a prospect, he'd ask: "How do we really know that?" Not to challenge. Not to criticize. To sharpen. That single question forced teams to separate conviction from evidence. It exposed assumptions hiding behind maps, interpretations, & resource estimates. In exploration, we're betting millions on interpretations built from incomplete data. The geology is uncertain. The seismic is ambiguous. The analogs are imperfect. 𝗧𝗵𝗮𝘁'𝘀 𝗲𝘅𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗹𝘆 𝘄𝗵𝘆 𝗺𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗶𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗶𝗻𝗽𝘂𝘁 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀. A geologist sees depositional risk you missed. A reservoir engineer questions if you can actually flow oil if you find it. A drilling engineer questions whether your structure can actually be drilled safely. A petrophysicist challenges your net pay assumptions. Each discipline views the subsurface through a different lens. When those lenses converge, blind spots shrink. The best exploration teams I've worked with don't just tolerate cross-functional friction. They build cultures where comfortable challenges are expected. Don't be afraid to ask the hard question. If you're presenting the prospect, don't take the challenges personally. 𝗜𝗳 𝗮 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘀𝗽𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗰𝗮𝗻’𝘁 𝘀𝘂𝗿𝘃𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝘂𝗻𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗳𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗾𝘂𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗰𝗿𝗼𝘀𝘀 𝗱𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀, 𝗶𝘁 𝘀𝗵𝗼𝘂𝗹𝗱𝗻’𝘁 𝘀𝘂𝗿𝘃𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗿𝗶𝗹𝗹 𝗱𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻. In frontier exploration, the cost of unchallenged assumptions isn't a missed deadline. It's a dry hole. Multidisciplinary work isn't a nice-to-have. It's how you de-risk before you drill. Exploration success is rarely about brilliance. It’s about whether assumptions were challenged before capital was committed.

Here’s an uncomfortable truth- innovation doesn’t fail because of bad ideas, but because of good ideas kept in isolation. In science, I’ve seen brilliant minds spend months chasing a hypothesis, only to realize that what they needed wasn’t another experiment, but another perspective. A few years ago, I was part of a project where our lab was trying to improve a compound’s stability profile. We had chemistry expertise, models, and endless iterations, but zero progress. It wasn’t until we brought in a data scientist to analyze our reaction variables that we spotted the real issue: an overlooked pattern in solvent interaction. Within a week, what seemed impossible was solved. That experience taught me something simple yet powerful, asking for help early is not a sign of weakness; it’s a strategy. When a chemist teams up with a data scientist, or a clinician collaborates with a behavioral expert, magic happens. Problems shrink. Pathways open. Innovation accelerates. The smartest innovators aren’t the ones who know it all. They’re the ones who know when to reach out. 💡 Takeaway: Collaboration is not a phase of innovation, it’s the foundation of it.  If you’re leading a research or innovation project, don’t wait until you’re stuck. Bring diverse minds into the room early. The breakthrough you’re chasing might already exist, in someone else’s insight. #InnovationLeadership #Collaboration #ScientificInnovation #ResearchAndDevelopment #InterdisciplinaryScience #PharmaInnovation #OpenInnovation #CollaborationOverCompetition #InnovationMindset #ScientificResearch #TeamScience #RAndD #InnovationStrategy #ScientificThinking

As Chief Program Officer at the Dubai Autism Center, I don’t just supervise our education/clinic department. I also oversee our Occupational Therapy, Psychology, and Speech-Language departments. When I stepped into the role, I understood the initial hesitation about a Behavior Analyst overseeing other disciplines. Honestly, I’d likely feel the same if the situation were reversed. Over time, our teams have seen that I genuinely value an interdisciplinary approach and respect each department’s perspective on treatment. Collaboration isn’t only about being “easy to work with” (though soft skills matter). It also requires a shared foundation and sufficient understanding of each other’s disciplines to communicate clearly, interpret recommendations accurately, and provide meaningful feedback. That’s why I really enjoyed the paper “Interdisciplinary Collaboration Training: An Example of a Preservice Training Series.” What stood out most is its practical approach to building interdisciplinary fluency inside an organization. It doesn’t focus on teaching “collaboration skills,” but it also emphasizes learning key aspects of one another’s disciplines, enabling teams to develop a shared frame of reference. That kind of cross-disciplinary understanding helps us better appreciate each discipline’s values and decision-making and communicate in ways that reduce friction and build trust. It also (in my opinion) provides stronger, more informed input on intervention plans, which ultimately deliver more cohesive support for families. This paper is packed with a lot of good ideas, and I’m planning to start rolling some of them out soon. Worth the read! #Autism #Dubai #DubaiAutismCenter #InterdisciplinaryCare #InterprofessionalCollaboration #TeamBasedCare #ABA #BCBA #OccupationalTherapy #SpeechTherapy #SLP #Psychology #ClinicalLeadership #EvidenceBasedPractice #ProfessionalDevelopment

Multidisciplinarity in Fire Science: The Importance of Domain Knowledge in a Wave of New Contributions. As the Editor-in-Chief of Fire Technology journal by Springer Nature, with 26 years of experience in fire science, I want to share a few reflections on the evolving landscape of our field. Fire science is seeing a significant step up in contributions, driven by global factors such as climate change, emerging technologies like batteries, and new methods such as artificial intelligence. In multidisciplinary science, progress often depends on finding the right gates to open and building strong bridges between fields. These connections allow ideas, tools, and people to move meaningfully from one domain to another, sometimes leading to novel applications, methods, and solutions that would otherwise be inconceivable. For example, in the painting that I have selected for this post, The School of Athens (1510), Raphael celebrates the diversity and wide arch of human knowledge, uniting the sciences and the arts. At its heart is scientific progress: open debate and exchange of ideas between disciplines. As we welcome new contributions to fire science, it is essential that they meet the high standards required for true advancement in a vital discipline that deals with the safety of people, property, and the environment. Without a strong foundation in domain knowledge, even the most enthusiastic skilled efforts can fall short. Three examples come to mind: *Battery technology: Understanding electrochemistry and fire dynamics together is key to developing safe and effective devices. *Wildfires: A bridge from combustion science leads into the understanding of wildfires, and it is crucial that we build on existing knowledge in both fields to ensure meaningful progress. *Artificial intelligence: AI and machine learning offer powerful tools, but their application in fire science must be grounded in domain knowledge to avoid solutions that are short-sighted or superfluous. Newcomers to the fire community, regardless of background, should read our literature and study the foundational textbooks that underpin our understanding of fire phenomena and how to bring safety to society. Our field is sometimes fragmented, so it is important to be curious, connect the dots, ask questions, and seek the right partnerships: talk to fire scientists, fire engineers, and practitioners; attend conferences and meetings; learn, listen, and share back your ideas and findings. In conclusion, as Editor-in-Chief and a firm supporter of multidisciplinary research, I share these reflections to encourage deeper engagement with existing domain knowledge in fire science. Let us keep our efforts grounded, and our contributions relevant, as we move forward together. #FireScience #Engineering #Research #Publishing

This is a powerful paper. It is a narrative review on what makes a performance support team effective in elite sport. The authors are asking a bigger systems question: what actually allows sport science and sport medicine professionals to work together in a way that improves performance? Their point is clear: team effectiveness is more than “the mere aggregate of diverse experts.” One of the strongest parts of the paper is its emphasis on leadership. The authors call for “multi-lingual leadership,” meaning someone who “speaks the language of the various disciplines, coordinates resources, and facilitates collaboration, focus, and efficiency.” In human performance, that means leadership should be less about title alone and more about the capability to connect disciplines around the athlete’s actual needs. The paper also leaves very little room for one discipline to overinflate its own importance. It notes that common hierarchical structures can cause practitioners to compete to demonstrate organizational value, and that siloed working can foster conflict between disciplinary teams. That is a disservice to the human performance process. The model works best when disciplines are aligned to the task, responsibility can shift to the most relevant skillset, and the team works from shared goals, role clarity, and trust rather than ego or turf protection. That matters because athlete needs change as they mature, and the model has to change with them. The paper emphasizes clarity of purpose, roles, objectives, and shared understanding. So this is not about overvaluing physical medicine, strength and conditioning, nutrition, or any other lane. It is about aligning each discipline to the real demand and using the right emphasis at the right time. What has to be understood is that the human performance team supporting the team on the field is trying to do the exact same thing: win. They win by delivering the best product possible, and this paper makes the case that happens through collaboration, trust, communication, and leadership that can truly orchestrate the whole effort. In their words, teamwork is “arguably as important off the pitch as on it.” lastly, personnel is key!