This article elaborates upon the idea of cultural borders from the perspective of European unification before EU-integration. It addresses discussions on how to manage or even transcend religious and linguistic borders, from William Penn, Novalis and Conrad Friedrich Schmidt-Phiseldeck, to Johann Caspar Bluntschli and Richard Coudenhove-Kalergi. The historical contexts are nationalism and Europeanization. These are further illuminated by the use of constructivist theory and the concept of a ‘stagist theory’ from Dipesh Chakrabarty and Roberto Dainotto which legitimizes the domination of some nations over others.

Cultural borders play a significant part in modern European history as well as in the present. This Focus has been chosen in order to enhance reflections on the transcendence of cultural borders; how the crossing is conducted, why we want to move beyond cultural borders, and what actually lies beyond them. The individual articles investigate ways to transcend borders, primarily those of the European nation state, in different genres from the nineteenth century onward. This editorial article introduces the theme of thinking beyond borders and presents the contributions to this Focus. It attempts to situate the issue of Europe´s cultural borders within European history by delving into three relevant themes: the cultural construction of borders, the growing number of recognized nationalities, and the practices of Europeanization.

In this paper, the author critically analyses Michel Houellebecq’s novel Soumission (Flammarion, 2017). The analysis uses post-structural theories of discourse, gender, and post-colonialism. The author argues that the novel employs neo-orientalist modes of identification where abjection is a fundamental theme. A neo-orientalist mode of identification refers to how knowledge about Muslims as an abject other is produced through various discursive techniques of differentiation, and how this performative practice is articulated through contingent conceptions of race, religion, and gender. Abjection refers to a symbolic castration, namely the central theme of how Western masculinity and European civilization has been de-masculinized by social democracy, liberalism, globalization, and feminism. Finally, the analysis of the novel is contrasted and compared with Houellebecq’s earlier writings.

From a certain perspective, literature is always political. Literature in a broad sense has been a source of uprisings and protest at least since Martin Luther nailed his theses on the door of the church in Wittenberg in 1517 – and probably much further back in history than that. Narratives are the most potent way to articulate both political praise and criticism within a given society. In his political satires, British author George Orwell reviled all kinds of totalitarianism and the idea of a socialist utopia. Swedish writer and journalist Stieg Larsson wrote explicitly dystopian crime stories targeting the Swedish welfare state. German novelist Heinrich Böll turned a critical eye on the development of the tabloid press and the use of state monitoring in German society. In the same tradition, Michel Houellebecq has been seen as a very provocative writer in his tone and in his use of political tools. He has articulated a nearly individual anarchist perspective combined with authoritarian and paternalistic views. In Soumission, Houellebecq uses the European idea of multiculturalism to explode our political frames from within. This article explores the perception of religion in Soumission, assesses the critique Houellebecq directs towards French society and European developments, and examines Houellebecq’s perception of democracy and politics. The following questions are addressed: does Houellebecq’s critique come from a classical ideological perspective? Does he describe any elements of an ideal society – even if only as the reverse of a presented dystopia? What kind of democracy does the text of Soumission support or oppose?

A discussion of the sustainability and resilience of European research could not come at a more opportune and important time, as the EU begins to shape its new research programme Horizon Europe, and the UK considers the future following its vote to leave the European Union. Faced with such disruption, we must establish goals and make plans to develop a stronger European research endeavour. Since the UK’s vote to leave the European Union in June 2016, representatives of the UK’s national academy of science, the Royal Society, have travelled extensively to underline the global nature of science. We have found supportive partners, willing to work together towards a good outcome for European research. In addition, we have been involved in close discussions with the UK Government.

The existing policy and academic debate on the social mobility of Roma have been focused almost entirely on entry barriers (the cost of entry into the mainstream society), whereas exit barriers (the cost of exit from the traditional Roma lifestyle) have been acknowledged and studied to a much lesser extent. In this study we advocate that from a policy perspective it is important to understand differences between the two types of social mobility barriers, as they have different causes and hence have to be addressed by different policy instruments. However, it is important that both types of social mobility barriers are addressed simultaneously, as they interact and reinforce each other mutually. Further, addressing social mobility barriers of Roma requires a change of both formal and informal institutions. Therefore, policy measures have to be implemented and sustained over a long period of time in order to have a sustainable impact on the social and economic integration of Roma.

Interdisciplinarity is often quoted as a means to solve the complex social challenges faced by humanity, and the future of research is thus seen as increasingly interdisciplinary. However, there are risks and challenges to embarking on interdisciplinary research, particularly for early-career researchers. Encounters – bringing together early-career researchers to cultivate their interdisciplinary skills or to develop new projects – have been proposed and trialled as a means to boost interdisciplinarity amongst early-career researchers and equip them with the necessary skills for successful project delivery. However, little follow-up evaluation has been undertaken, especially considering career impacts several years after encounter participation. This article focuses on two encounter types and evaluates the level of interdisciplinary interactions obtained and the benefits experienced by participants. In conclusion, encounters are found to be highly successful, resulting in many projects and skills/career development. As such, further funding should be allocated to this type of event.

This paper synthesizes findings from two studies the author conducted that examine how engagement in interdisciplinary research (IDR) influences scholars’ careers. Results from these two studies, one large-scale and quantitative and the other small-scale and qualitative, provide a much needed empirical assessment of IDR’s effects on individual careers. In essence, they provide a nice antidote (and some caution) to the rhetoric and enthusiasm surrounding IDR. My co-authors of these studies and I find that engaging in interdisciplinary research increases a scholar’s visibility in terms of citations, but also presents challenges, including reduced productivity, cognitive challenges, lack of support, extra time and commitment, and framing of one’s work. This paper concludes by discussing the policy implications of this research.

The concept of transdisciplinarity has found a foothold in science. It is increasingly taking the place of the concept of interdisciplinarity and is making the concept of disciplinarity look pale. However, the concept of transdisciplinarity is not self-explanatory – as it is often understood – and the concept of disciplinarity is not at all outdated – as it seems. This becomes clear in the conceptual analysis of the concepts of disciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity.

Research about interdisciplinary research is less and less done by those doing it. This paper tries to reflect upon my own interdisciplinary practices and experiences. In the first part, I present an example of successful interdisciplinary research. Then, I attempt to introduce two nested cases of interdisciplinary scholarship and their development, one being my ‘Fakultät’ (which roughly equals a department) and the other, smaller one, being my research group. In the third part, I attempt to offer explanations for the development described with reference to some of the burgeoning literature on interdisciplinarity. Incentive structures, epistemological challenges such as disciplinary capture and structural effects of the hosting university are discussed. In a final section, othering as an inevitable process is used to elucidate the dynamics of developments within and beyond academia and to draw conclusions about the two cases presented.

This paper looks in detail at the educational side of interdisciplinarity and recounts the philosophy and some practicalities of the implementation of University College London’s successful Bachelor of Arts and Sciences (BASc) degree. In particular, we consider ‘framing’ and ‘the ladder of abstraction’ as notions that are useful in the philosophy of education. It is hoped that some of the ideas, challenges and successes described here will be helpful to others wishing to implement interdisciplinary curricula in their own institutions.

This article considers the increased focus on interdisciplinary research to solve major social problems through game changing solutions. It discusses research in the arts and humanities within the context of interdisciplinary research and within the broader academy. In particular, it distinguishes between research in the arts, and research in the humanities. More specifically, it goes on to consider an element within the arts known as design. In this context, the processes of design thinking across many disciplines are considered essential to the potential of interdisciplinary research to produce radical innovations.

The necessity of an interdisciplinary approach to both research and education can today hardly be debated, especially when one thinks of the complexity and dynamics of changes in the human brain and behaviour related to digitalisation and informatisation. Real interdisciplinarity, however, has to be born within the individual, representing a kind of a particular state of mind. To achieve such a goal, reforms of both science and the educational system are needed, broadening the fundamentals of our knowledge. To support and elaborate this thesis, various ideas will be analysed related to one successful example of interdisciplinarity, represented, in the author’s opinion, in the history of development of bioethics.

Analysing structural conditions for interdisciplinarity, this paper focuses on the characteristics of four factors in the organization of the sciences: disciplines, institutions, rewards and funding. It is argued that interdisciplinarity is less likely to involve disciplines that are strongly integrated, i.e. where task uncertainty is low and the dependence among researchers is high. Likewise, it is claimed that interdisciplinarity is likely to be hampered by strong departmental organization structures. Interdisciplinarity is also considered to become less likely as quality control is specifically discipline oriented and also when funding is concentrated and in the hands of scientific elites. In contrast, interdisciplinary research may be found in research environments with weakly integrated disciplines in institutions with weak or no departmental structures, and where disciplinary reward systems are weak in systems with a variety of funding.

‘Progress is shaped by the ability to question, to criticize and to enquire. Ensuring progress is one of the responsibilities of Academia’. Could there be any future for non-conformist, heterodox, non-marketable knowledge, next to transforming truth value into the market truth value of knowledge, as was the tendency over the last decades? And what will be its impact upon criteria of excellence? The enjoyment of academic freedom requires the autonomy of the university. European countries have witnessed exciting developments in achieving a common space of convergence in higher education and research. But to encourage creativity there is definitely a need for more differentiation among universities, rather than uniformity. Autonomy is that degree of self-governance necessary for effective decision-making by universities in relation to their academic profile, work and standards. However, self-governance must be consistent with systems of public accountability. Universities must show that they are responding to the needs of society and they must perform according to standards of excellence and creativity in teaching and research. However, the balance, if there is any, has to be questioned. Should a shift of the role of the State be envisaged and should different types of governance be developed in order to counter the statement that academic freedom of higher education staff has decreased? Does a new relationship between government and university require the establishment of a modest set of ‘principles of good governance’ to reduce the overdetailed university regulations? And how to ensure that the search for creativity will also strengthen academic integrity? These questions are decisive for the future mission of the University.

Universities see a need for major changes in their organisational structures and functioning to be able to respond adequately to current social expectations. A greater provision of funds and an increase of university autonomy are priorities of today’s university policy. This article presents the results of relating excellence and autonomy through data from the Academic Ranking of World Universities of the University of Shanghai and the indicators developed by the European University Association for four types of university autonomy: organisational, academic, staffing and financial.

Academic research and education are, more than ever, a collective endeavour. This article discusses how different modes of governance facilitate or obstruct collective action in universities. Based on theories of public goods and the resource-based perspective, we develop the concept of university commons in order to analyse the challenges arising from the governance of collective action. We examine how to effectively balance collegial and managerial governance to create a sustainable portfolio of university commons.

How to assess and enhance the strategic capacity of universities? This article suggests a managerial perspective derived from evidence-based social science knowledge. It lists major facets any local strategizing should address. It underlines the key role endogenous organizational capabilities play to make it happen or not in a sustainable manner. Three sets of social properties are evidenced: the way academic human resources are actually managed, the cultural norms appropriated by its members about their affiliation to their institution as a community, and the organizational governance at work between the various parts of the institution. Reminding us that the capacity to strategize is an outcome of actual organizational fabrication processes, the article also lists a series of booby-traps to avoid.