What exactly is a social challenge in Science Hub? What kinds of needs or difficulties can NGOs, foundations and public institutions submit?
The University of Lodz wants to be an active participant in the environment in which it operates, not only observing and describing reality but also working together with its stakeholders to find ways of changing it for the better. In a sense, this also echoes the idea of “good work” promoted by Tadeusz Kotarbiński, the first Rector of the University of Lodz.
That is why a social challenge in Science Hub does not have to be a major, abstract societal issue. It can be something very specific that has so far proved difficult to accomplish or something that could be done better, more easily, more quickly or more effectively in order to improve people’s quality of life.
Within the “Science for a Better Life” call, we are primarily looking for challenges connected with the activities of organisations that help and support others. These may relate directly to the people for whom the organisation works: their needs, behaviours, access to support, education, health, well-being or participation in social life.
However, a challenge may equally concern the operation of the organisation itself, if it affects its ability to help others. If there is a way to improve workflows, communication, teamwork, volunteering, contact with beneficiaries or service delivery, this may also be a suitable challenge for Science Hub.
The most important question is therefore: what in your reality should be changed so that someone can live or function better?
Does an organisation need to come to us with a ready-made research problem, research question or solution? What is actually required at the submission stage?
No. In fact, we would prefer organisations not to begin by inventing a ready-made solution. Together with students and their scientific supervisors, we will help translate the problem into the language of a research project and explore possible ways of solving it.
At the submission stage, it is enough to be able to complete one simple sentence:
“How might we help [whom?] with [what]?”
For example: How might we help people experiencing homelessness achieve lasting recovery from homelessness? How might we help our beneficiaries access available support more easily? How might we help employees learn new ways of working more quickly? How might we help volunteers remain engaged in our organisation’s activities for longer?
What is needed above all are two things: an understanding of the group affected by the challenge and a definition of the change we would like to achieve for that group. This group may consist of the organisation’s beneficiaries, but also its employees, volunteers, partners or other people within its wider environment.
That is genuinely enough to begin with.
If the challenge proves too broad, we will help narrow it down. If it is too narrow, we will try to place it within a broader context. If a single submission actually contains three different problems, together we will identify the one that should be addressed first.
The key is for the organisation to know its own reality well. It does not need to know immediately how to turn that reality into a research project. We will do that together.
What happens to a challenge after it has been submitted? How do we work with organisations to refine it and turn it into a project that a student team can undertake under academic supervision?
Once a submission has been received, we will first examine the described challenge together with the organisation. We will assess whether it can realistically be addressed using the expertise available within the University of Lodz community and whether it has been presented clearly enough to engage students and researchers.
This is the stage at which the problem is refined, but not yet the stage for designing a ready-made solution on behalf of the organisation. A good challenge should leave room for different answers.
Then, in line with the project timetable, we will present the selected challenges to the University of Lodz student community in October. We will invite students to form teams, including interdisciplinary teams, and to take on challenges together with their scientific supervisors.
At this stage, we will not expect a ready-made solution either. We are more interested in why a given team wishes to tackle a particular challenge, what competencies and experience its members bring, and how they would like to begin their work.
Only later will the actual project process begin. Teams will get to know the organisation and its beneficiaries, verify their initial assumptions, develop ideas, test them and, where possible, improve subsequent versions of the solution. We want to combine academic rigour with design thinking and an agile approach: rather than assuming from the outset that we know the answer, we will test step by step what genuinely works.
The final outcome may take many different forms. In one project it may be a set of recommendations or a new process model. In another, it may be an educational programme, a tool, an application, a communication solution or a prototype of a new service.
However, wherever the nature of the challenge permits, we do not want projects to end solely with a report. We would like to arrive at a tangible solution, a prototype or a first working version that the organisation can test in practice. If it proves valuable, the project may become the starting point for further cooperation with the University of Lodz.
What would you say to organisations facing a real problem but worried that it may be too ordinary, too vague or simply “not scientific enough”?
At Science Hub, we are not looking for problems that sound scientific. We are looking for problems that are real and genuinely burdensome.
Very often, such problems can be recognised by the fact that an organisation spends additional effort every day trying to work around them. New spreadsheets, procedures, lists, instructions and informal rules emerge. People are assigned to keep watch over certain matters, and yet the problem continues to return.
Let us imagine a very ordinary situation: an organisation struggles to respond promptly to incoming messages. It tries to establish duty schedules, create lists, assign responsibilities to different individuals and introduce new tools, but some matters still fall through the cracks. This may not sound like the subject of a major research project. Yet it is a real problem for an organisation that cannot maintain smooth and effective communication with its stakeholders. It consumes time and energy and may even reduce the quality of support provided to people. That is exactly the kind of problem worth exploring.
There is also no need to worry that a problem is “too everyday”. If there is a simple, ready-made solution that can be implemented immediately, we may simply point it out. Very often, however, even an apparently ordinary issue has its own unique characteristics within a particular organisation. It involves different people, stems from different causes, is shaped by different constraints and leads to different consequences.
There is therefore no need to give a problem a scientific label. Nor is it necessary to know how to solve it. It is enough to recognise that something important is not working as well as it could and to want to change it together with us.
More information about the “Science for a Better Life” pathway of UniLodz Science Hub (in Polish)
Source: dr Tomasz Ciesielski, Head of the Technology Transfer Office of the University of Lodz
Edit: Justyna Kasprzyk
