Organised by Professor Ann Brooks, Bournemouth University hosted a workshop on Thursday 26th March 2015 around ‘Achieving and Demonstrating Research Impact’ from Professor John Scott, a leading figure in British Sociology. The PowerPoint presentation is available here as well as the Flyer for the day here.
CLiMB Research Update
CLiMB is based within The National Centre of Post-Qualifying Social Work at Bournemouth University and operates an independent and expert research team who are able to provide bespoke and tailored programmes of evaluation to meet local and unique requirements.
We provide skilled expertise, ensuring that ethical considerations are discharged correctly; that the tools used will appropriately measure what they need to measure; and that the data analysis, interpretation and presentation is suitable and will withstand scrutiny.
Evaluating impact of any leadership development is integral to the concept of a learning culture, continuously improving the potential of all individuals to make a positive difference in the quality of their interventions with others. Too much leadership development has been about input rather than assessing the impact and learning that takes place. Our approach is about supporting the workforce to adapt and improve their services through sound leadership development.
We evaluate the impact of what we do in the workplace, and this provides evidence for commissioners and purchasers of the value of our contribution to achieving positive change. Our main point of differentiation from other universities and development providers is the way we design, deliver and assess our work drawing on our deep knowledge of ‘what works’. It is not a surprise that our knowledge, experience and excellence in this area has resulted in CLiMB being the first port of call for many organisations’ development and research needs.
Some of our most recent research includes:
The Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care
We have been commissioned by CLAHRC (The Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care, part of the National Institute for Health Research) to provide our expertise and support their project team in the East of England. We are assisting in the design and implementation of a fully triangulated impact evaluation of the two GP Mental Health Leadership programmes over the East of England and the Southern Region. Working with our experience and knowledge of the Leadership Framework, we have been able to provide step-by-step consultancy and support to both guide and facilitate the process.
Centre of Workforce Intelligence
We have been commissioned by the Centre of Workforce Intelligence funded by the Department of Health, to model the future demand of the health and social care workforce over the next 30 years. Professor Keith Brown and Emily Rosenorn-Lanng were invited to participate in the Elicitation workshop facilitated by DoH with a host of Social Care Workforce leaders and specialists to look at the current and future impacts on the workforce and what this may be more care planning in the future. Emily in particular sourced and analysed the national data for the level of demand and availability of the current workforce.
London Borough of Enfield
We were commissioned by the London Borough of Enfield to evaluate their Making Safeguarding Personal Strategy in order for them to apply for Gold Standard status from the Local Government Association. Dr Gary Barrett and Sarah Wincewicz were invited to spend time with the teams at Enfield to explore safeguarding practice. As part of this work we are collaborating with Enfield and other local authorities to create a Safeguarding App, which will allow practitioners to access the most current safeguarding information on a mobile device.
Dr. Lee-Ann Fenge
I was interested to read an article in the Guardian yesterday about LGBT older people with dementia and concerns about them being forced back into the closet.
Supporting the ageing LGBT Community
In particular the article raises concerns about how the social care workforce supports the ageing LGBT community, and more specifically the growing numbers of individuals who will require care and support as a result of dementia.
This topic is particularly important given the dignity in care agenda and the core values of respect and compassion which underpin practice with older people. At Bournemouth University we have been undertaking research in this area for over 10 years, working collaboratively with older LGBT people to develop knowledge and understanding of their experiences and needs, and helping to develop tools to support practice development.
What have we done?
We have developed a range of ‘co-produced’ resources, and we are using this opportunity to draw these resources to the attention of those working in this area. These resources include a ‘co-produced’ text book, academic papers, a learning tool in the form of a Method Deck of Cards and the film ‘RUFUS STONE’ whose executive producer Dr Kip Jones works alongside me at Bournemouth University. The film is now available to download free on the attached link.
How have we used our research?
We have used both the Method Deck of Cards and the film RUFUS STONE to raise awareness of the needs of older LGBT for those who provide services to them. RUFUS STONE is based on three years of a Research Council UK funded study of the lives of older lesbians and gay men in south west England and Wales, a part of the national New Dynamics of Ageing Programme of research. Winner of two awards at the prestigious Rhode Island International Film Festival in 2012, the film has gone on to be screened at film festivals, other universities in the UK, USA and Canada and by organisations such as Alzheimer’s Society UK, LGBT groups, and health, social and ageing support networks. Author and Executive Producer of RUFUS STONE, Dr, Kip Jones, has written widely in the academic press and elsewhere on the process of collecting the biographic material and subsequently his writing the story for the film.
The Method Deck of Cards was developed with funding from the Big Lottery fund and in partnership with a steering group of older LGBT people. Limited copies are still available on request from Dr. Lee-Ann Fenge
We hope that our work and the resources developed as a result of it can go some way to promote the dignity in care agenda for older LGBT people.
Other Useful Resources
Fannin, A., Hicks, T., Fenge, L., and Lavin, N. 2008 Social Work Practice with Older Lesbians and Gay Men, Learning Matters
Fenge, L. (2013) Developing understanding of same sex partner bereavement for older lesbian and gay people: implications for social work practice, Journal of Gerontological Social Work, online access DOI: 10.1080/01634372.2013.825360
Jones, K., Fenge, L., Read, R. and Cash, M. (2013) Collecting Older Lesbians’ and Gay Men’s Stories of Rural Life in South West England and Wales: “We Were Obviously Gay Girls … (So) He Removed His Cow From Our Field”, FQS Forum: Qualitative Social Research Sozialforschung, Volume 14, No. 2, Art. 7
Fenge, L. and Jones, K. (2011) Gay and Pleasant Land? Exploring sexuality, ageing and rurality in a multi-method performative project, British Journal of Social Work, Advanced Access May 4th 2011, doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcr058
Fenge, L., Fannin, A., Hicks, T., Armstrong, A., & Taylor, V. (2009). Lifting the Lid on sexuality and ageing: the voices of volunteer researchers, Qualitative Social Work: Research Practice,8,4, 509-524
On Thursday March 26th, a dozen colleagues from around BU participated in a seminar on REF and Impact Monitoring in the Social Sciences. The Impact session organised by Professor Ann Brooks from HSC was led by Sociology Professor John Scott, an active academic citizen and prolific writer, often at the cutting edge of his field. Professor Scott has served on the Sociology RAE/REF panel for the past 15 years of exercises, as well as overseeing a submission for Plymouth University.
Professor Scott started the seminar with a brief history of the development of research assessment, setting the exercise in the context of our ‘audit culture’ of regulation in academia. As the REF changed once more for the 2014 cycle, the big question we now face is: how will the ‘impact agenda’ influence and shape research practice?
Speaking of the challenges of creating REF input plans, Scott discussed the personal cost that comes with making strategic decision of who should be included in what subject area. People doing very strong research can end up excluded from a submission because they are not a good fit with the university’s strategy for putting units together. Taking seriously the effects of this interpersonal dimension of REF planning should be incorporated throughout the process.
Scott summarised the profiling system used in REF 2014 that is likely to run again for REF 2020. Panels judge Outputs (65%), Environment (15%) and Impact (20%). He explained that the process works similar to exam second marking. After rating a sample of submissions from across these profile elements, panel members met to look for patterns and reach consensus on the reasoning behind allocating 3* and 4* marks. This was done across subject areas, for example, trying to compare an architect’s built shed and a medical researcher’s new diagnostic system.
Scott reinforced that citation indexes were not the driving factor in rankings. While citation indexes might be discussed as evidence, there is a clear understanding now with HEFCE that high citations can be because a paper is great—or terrible.
Impact in REF 2014
With the new impact component for REF 2014, universities submitted one case study for every 8 academics, with a minimum of 2 case studies needed for any submission unit. Alongside the Case Study comes an Impact Statement on strategy and approach to impact, which is equally assessed. Tracing some of the history of the rise of the impact agenda, Scott noted the role government expectations played and the fuzziness of the definition of impact.
As this was people’s first go at writing impact statements, universities took very different approaches. The retrospective collection of evidence often led to an ‘impact as add-on’ and the top-down approach to grouping together impact case studies. With more planning time for REF 2020, it is important to take a more systematic and dynamic approach to grouping case studies.
Scott emphasised that economic impact is only one aspect of impact. Cultural and Societal value does not need to be measured in financial terms. Panels in the Social Sciences and Humanities understand that impact has different definitions and overlaps between spheres. He highlighted that impact can be on the local, regional, national or international level.
For REF 2014, people tended to play it safe, going for the most obvious and easy to measure kinds of impact. It was difficult to find a balance between offering guidance and keeping things open so people did not feel constrained. Offering the example of a case study on conversation analysis, Scott discussed how researchers’ documented the ways their work was taken up by people working with pension claimants to improve relationships and workplace effectiveness.
Scott described how impact is assessed in terms of reach and significance. ‘Reach’ is not a reference to geographical scope, but how many people in a given area of impact you reach. For significance the assessment is for ‘how much’ something changed—a policy, a practice, a mode of delivery — but this is still a qualitative judgement.
In the second half of the seminar we moved to discuss methods of collecting and demonstrating impact in our research. Scott opened the conversation with another exam metaphor—panel members can only assess what is on the page.
Unlike outputs that you can carry across institutions, impact case studies must be for research undertaken in your submitting institution. While this can be hard for researchers changing home universities, for universities it means that, in principle, impact for former, retired or deceased colleagues can be counted. This was a big issue in REF 2014 and may arise in the consultations for REF 2020.
For REF 2020 it is likely that Jan 1st 2000 will be the start date of the research period, with impact demonstration assessed from January 1st 2014. This means that for the next REF esearch we have already conducted may be evaluated for impact, though there is room to include ‘emerging impact’ for later research.
Scott emphasised the need to have mechanisms in place for collecting evidence of impact. For REF 2014, researchers largely collected this on their own, but for REF 2020, it is important that institutions support this process, in addition to it being built into the research project.
In assessing impact, REF panels are looking for three key aspects:
- Quality underpinning research: the 2* threshold
- Significance and reach of impact: the evidence
- Compelling narrative linking research
The different time frames for outputs and impact means that the (1) underpinning research being evaluated is often not the same as your research outputs. In relation to what ‘counts’ as underpinning research we discussed nontraditional research from both ends of the spectrum—research done under commercial or government secrecy agreements, and research done in entirely open access and digital forums. For REF 2014 these cases were dealt with on an ad-hoc problem-solving basis. For REF 2020, if people become more adventurous in their submissions, more dynamic modes of assessing impact will be needed.
For all submissions, Scott noted the importance of disentangling research processes from research impact. For researchers engaged in participatory and action research methods, this means explicitly linking the background academic context and theoretical basis of your research, separately from the purely applied aspects. It becomes very important to demonstrate both how your new academic research is innovative and how you evaluated its impact (i.e. carrying out an impact assessment within your own project).
In relation to (2) Scott discussed the ways you can use either qualitative or quantitative forms of evidencing impact—anything from press reports and media coverage, to a survey carried out independently, to letters of support from policymakers or industry. You can also track feedback and comments you have gotten from readers, as well as hits on your website. These are a starting place for evidencing impact and the kinds of things that institutional support will be helpful for.
This is also where (3) narrative is so important. With impact, you are telling a story that goes from the academic context of your research through to the demonstrable effects your research has had beyond academia.
Key Questions the REF 2014 panels asked about impact were:
- What was the research activity: a person, a project, or a programme?
- Was research actually carried out at the university?
- Was the research carried out within the time period allowed?
- Did the impact occur within the time period allied?
- Did the research actually contribute to the impact?
- Is there supporting evidence for the impact?
REF 2020 – Going Forward
For the next REF, HEFCE is looking into refining impact assessment. This includes their analysis of measurement tools, expansion of impact criteria, and reflection on how to best operationalise these.
As universities devise institutional support mechanisms for collecting evidence of impact, here are some practical things you can do:
- Look for reviews that make reference to your research
- Track website visits, press appearances, public forms of citations
- Keep a folder of emails you receive from outside academia mentioning how your work is being taken up
- Make sure to devise mechanisms for tracking impact into your research projects from the start (surveys, feedback)
Returning to strategy to finish off the session, Professor Scott reminded us that not everyone has to be putting out 4* outputs and 4* impact case studies! When organising for REF 2020 it will be important to embrace and support the diversity of our colleagues’ strengths.
FOR MORE ON REF REFLECTIONS & HEFCE READ: http://blogs.bournemouth.ac.uk/research/2015/03/26/ref-update-hefces-reflections-event-25-march-2015/
The 46 abstracts of papers chosen for presentation at the International History of Public Relations Conference 2015 are now available online at: https://microsites.bournemouth.ac.uk/historyofpr/files/2010/11/IHPRC-2105-Abstracts.pdf
This is the largest selection of papers chosen for IHPRC since it started in 2010 and, says IHPRC Chair Professor Tom Watson, “it is indicative of the increasing quality of research and scholarship from around the world in the field of public relations history.”
Authors come from 21 countries and include first-time contributions from Mauritius, Norway, Portugal and Switzerland. The largest group of papers is from the U.S. (10), followed by UK (8), Germany (4) and Turkey (4).
The conference will be held in the EBC on 8-9 July this year. Registration is at: https://microsites.bournemouth.ac.uk/historyofpr/registration/
Picture the scene… it’s 2016 the 1st April 2016 to be precise and you’ve had an article you have been working on for the past 6 months accepted by your first choice journal – well done you – you spend the next 3 months eagerly waiting to read your hard work in print. When it finally it is published you are ecstatic, it is well received by your colleagues, peers, journalists and the public – your research is out there and making a real impact to society, you couldn’t have imagined a better reception. Well done you again!
Now fast-forward to submission of the next REF where you enthusiastically submit your lovingly crafted, well received, well cited article for submission with the full expectation that it will certainly be assessed as a 4* publication but then the bomb drops… the article is “UNCLASSIFIED”. Why I hear you cry?! Well back in 2016 when your article was accepted you did not make it open access – simple.
HEFCEs decision on non-compliance of their Open Access Policy really couldn’t be clearer in this aspect:
“Any output submitted to the post-2014 REF that falls within the scope of this policy but does not meet its requirements or exceptions will be treated as non-compliant. Non-compliant outputs will be given an unclassified score and will not be assessed in the REF.”
We have 12 months to get ready for to comply with HEFCEs Open Access policy and we have to start now. Only the author and the publisher know when an article is accepted and this is the key point for the policy. So, if you want to have the full benefit of all your hard work, then make sure that when an article is accepted by a publisher you upload it to BRIAN – simple.
For further information on how to you go about making your outputs open access, please see the guidance here. Email email@example.com with queries or attend one of our Open Access Workshops over the next few months.
Further information on HEFCEs policy can be found here
Dr Zulfiqar Khan (Associate Professor), Director Sustainable Design Research Centre SciTech has been invited to Chair Surface Engineering Track at the STLE (Society of Tribologists & Lubrication Engineers) 70th Annual Meeting & Exhibition May 2015.
Zulfiqar is leading the Surface Engineering Technical Committee as Vice-Chair. He is also Technical Editor of Tribology & Lubrication Technology (TLT), STLE’s official membership publication. Around 126 STLE members were invited to submit a case for support to become technical editor, only 17 were selected, of whom Zulfiqar is the only non-US member of the technical committee.
He has been actively engaged and making significant contributions to the STLE since May of 2008, as conference track Chair, Vice-chair, Paper Solicitation Chair and is currently leading the selection process of the Surface Engineering 2015 best paper award.
SLTE mission is “to advance the science of tribology and the practice of lubrication engineering in order to foster innovation, improve the performance of equipment and products, conserve resources and protect the environment.” [STLE website].
STLE is serving the needs of more than 10, 000 members and over 150 industrial partners within the Tribology & Lubrication Engineering sector. STLE has a 24 member elected board with elected president (annual) who leads STLE as CEO and heads the board as Chair, 23 technical committees and councils and has an annual budget of around 2.25 million USD [STLE website].
If you would like to know more or have interests to get involved please contact Dr Zulfiqar Khan directly.
The Palestinian-Israeli conflict represents one of the most protracted and volatile in contemporary global politics. In Europe, we witness events from the outside through the shock and glare of television newsflashes. We are uncomfortably aware of the huge gulf between the world we inhabit of quotidian demands and trivial, micro conflicts – and that other world that vibrates terrifyingly with the devastating and cataclysmic, horrifyingly symbolised by the bodies of the killed, so many of them young children.
Given my academic interests I was therefore deeply honoured to be invited on an all-expenses paid trip to Israel recently, by our Visiting Professor to the currently named Centre of Social Work, Sociology & Social Policy (CSWSSP) in FHSS - Professor Alean Al-Krenawi – a world renowned social work scholar of Bedouin heritage. The invitation was to give a keynote lecture in Jerusalem at the final conference/workshop under the ‘Building Peace Through Knowledge Program’, a Palestinian-Israeli project, under the auspices of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev and generously funded by the USAID Conflict Mitigation and Reconciliation Program. This three-year project was developed by Professor Al-Krenawi and his impressive colleague, Dr Tawfiq Salman, the General Director of the Palestinian Neuropsychiatric Rehabilitation Center (PNRC) Bethlehem and President of the Palestinian Association for Child & Adolescence Mental Health (PACAMH). The aims of the project have been to bring together participant dialogue groups in conference workshops – and this final event would seek to embed, encapsulate and take forward the good work developed so far.
The invitation therefore was both a great privilege and honour – and an undeniably challenging one, replete with huge, raw sensitivities to acknowledge and yawning pits for the vigilant, let alone unwary, to carefully negotiate. Here, to a large mixed audience of Israeli and Palestinian professionals working across the domains of human services, education and health disciplines, I presented a paper entitled ‘Chaos and coalescence in the narratives of hardship: a new pedagogy for human services’. The aim was to begin to create a meta-narrative of hardship and suffering in order to recognise fully the humanity and the pain of the ‘other’; and to find a universal commonality transcending the barriers of ethnicity, religion and years of violent oppression and conflict.
A highly ambitious undertaking therefore, which could only be attempted with great humility to be open to truly hearing and acknowledging the stories and accounts from participants – often exceedingly painful and occasionally inflammatory to others. The potential for offence was extremely high, but so too were the stakes for greater understanding and accord together with individual commitment to working towards a more peaceful and equitable future.
Following my talk the audience were then encouraged to break into small, mixed ethnic discussion groups to discuss narratives of hardship and suffering that they had encountered, engaged in or witnessed – and to reflect on these in terms of the impact upon individuals at the personal and professional levels. An excellent omen, I wryly noticed, was that one of the conference rooms where I was helping to facilitate discussion groups was called ‘Jericho’ – and thus together we began to bring down the walls.
I was deeply impressed by the willingness of the audience to engage in these difficult discussions. A few Palestinian and Israeli participants had already been able to develop close friendships through these dialogue encounters, maintained even across the worst of the fighting of the Intifadas. Yet, as we learn, there have been more peace and reconciliation dialogue groups taking place in Israel than in any other country globally – and sadly to little overall effect. Worse still such dialogues by the very act of breaking down personal-political barriers can exacerbate the huge of sense of (now) personal betrayal felt by participants in ensuing violence.
A key component of success we heard about is to ‘scale up’: in other words to increase the social impact of the good will developed in dialogue groups by expanding their influence externally. Accordingly, the aim is to expand both horizontally by creating meta-networks and vertically to reach government levels for necessary policy change. At the moment extremely aggressive hawks have been in the ascendance but the Israeli general elections are being held very soon. Accordingly many Israeli participants at the workshop expressed the hope that the political landscape would soon be changed by a more moderate government through democratic processes. Sadly, however, some of the Palestinian colleagues at the workshop had no voting rights despite being life-long Jerusalem residents. There is clearly still much work to do in such a troubled and unequal region of the world.
On a final constructive note, BU Sociology+ academics are able to continue some of this important work in Israel. Via these connections BU is now the British partner for a Palestinian-Israeli, USA and UK conference on diversity and multiculturalism (a key research theme within CSWSSP) to be held in 2016 under the auspices of the Achva Academic College, whose President is our much-esteemed colleague and friend, Alean Al-Krenawi.
Professor Sara Ashencaen Crabtree
Today my colleagues at the University of Aberdeen’s Health Economics Research Unit (HERU) published their latest HERU Policy Brief on ‘Gaining pounds by losing pounds: research finds financial incentives could help reduce obesity’. The policy brief is now available on line. These policy briefs are concise summaries of the findings of research projects, presented with a focus on policy implications. Linking research findings to possible policy improvements increase the chance that our research has an impact on the wider society. Furthermore, that our research has an impact in REF terms.
This latest policy brief ‘Gaining pounds by losing pounds: research finds financial incentives could help reduce obesity’ is part of a larger project called PROGRESS (Prevent Obesity GRowing Economic Synthesis Study), funded by the National Preventative Research Initiative (NPRI) and the Universities of Aberdeen and Melbourne. The project started when I was still at the University of Aberdeen, before I came down to Bournemouth more than five years ago now. Our research highlights that despite evidence that dietary interventions are the most effective way to lose weight, respondents preferred lifestyle interventions involving physical activity. Also that behaviour-change support improves effectiveness of interventions, but its value to participants was limited. A general preference to maintain current lifestyles, together with the sensitivity of take-up to financial costs, suggests financial incentives could be used to help maximise up-take of healthy lifestyle interventions. Finally, men required more compensation to take up healthier lifestyles.
Full details on methods and results are available in the health economics paper due to be published later this year, currently ‘published ahead of print’ (Ryan et al. 2014).
Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen
Faculty of Health & Social Sciences
Ryan, M., Yi, D., Avenell, A., Douglas, F., Aucott, L., van Teijlingen, E. & Vale, L. (2014) Gaining pounds by losing pounds: preferences for lifestyle interventions to reduce obesity, Health Economics, Policy & Law, [Epub ahead of print] doi: 10.1017/s1744133114000413.
Organized by Dr. Tim Breitbarth from the Sport Academic Group (FM) for the 3rd time after October 2012 and 2013, the 3rd International Week Sport Management saw international visitors contributing to the research culture, knowledge transfer and student experience on campus.
Beginning of March, Dr Christopher Huth (Senior Lecturer in Sport Events and Governance, Bayreuth University), Konstantin Druker (Lecturer in Sport Management at our Erasmus partner university SRH Heidelberg) and Kasper Roe Iversen (PhD researcher at University of Southern Denmark) provided guest presentations on Level C to Level M on sport fandom, turnaround management in sport organisations and sport sponsorship.
As part of the Business Research Seminar Series Research and the Roundtable International Sport Business, Dr Huth and Mr Druker presented their research projects on crowdfunding as a new means of financing professional/amateur sport organisations and a stakeholder analysis of the German Golf League.
In addition, Tim inspired the very strong PhD researcher audience at the Business Research Seminar Series with his assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the form of a PhD thesis, a shortened version of a conference keynote presentation he held in 2014, including reflections on how to keep your sanity and make progress.
Beyond the teaching and research spheres, much discussion on career and administrative aspects of higher education in different countries/at different universities was facilitated. Joint journal and special interest publications are in the pipeline.
We were pleased to see that the fifth paper on that list is a BU paper jointly written with Dr. Helen Bryers, Consultant Midwife in Scotland.
Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen
For our second GeoNet seminar guest lecturers Paul Sochaczwski and David Hallmark joined us to discuss the work and contributions of scientist and activist Alfred Russell Wallace. Paul recounted Wallace’s heroic journey to Rio Negro and South-Asia where he collected over 125,000 species, including orang-utans, birds of paradise, butterflies and beetles. This epic journey was no mean feat for Wallace, self-financing his travels over a distance of over 22,000km. He had to overcome many obstacles including language barriers, identifying new species without taxonomy books, preserving and protecting his species collection and shipping them safely back to England.
David Hallmark carried on the interesting discoveries of Wallace by discussing the extent of his role in the development of the Theory of Selection from a legal perspective. The question of whether Charles Darwin outright stole Wallace’s idea or whether he ‘developed’ and ‘adapted’ it was discussed. Darwin became obsessed with losing priority after Wallace sent him his Ternate Paper in 1858 and thus published his own work (on the origin of species) a year later without acknowledging Wallace. David suggests that Darwin deliberately omitted Wallace, claiming the 600+ page book as an abstract to avoid having to provide attribution. After hearing the evidence provided by David from witnesses, Darwin’s personal quotes, diary edits, and the timeframe of each scientists published papers it appears that Darwin did commit plagiarism rather than just the mistaken performance of an academic.
I personally found it interesting that David considered how many academics felt that Darwin deserved to have priority due to classist attitudes at the time. However, Wallace may have agreed, and thus stepped aside in order for the more influential and powerful Darwin to establish the Theory of Natural Selection and to contradict religious beliefs at the time.
The controversial topic sparked up an interesting discussion amongst the audience, with Darwin’s integrity as a scientist and a man coming under critique. Interestingly the audience still felt empathy towards Darwin despite the evidence suggesting that he had ‘stolen’ Wallace’s idea. The conclusion seemed to be that Wallace was regarded as a ‘reluctant hero’ who himself accepted Darwinism as an ‘adopted’ idea.
However, perhaps the real question is whether the world could handle or accept Wallace as the originator of the Theory of Selection and what effects this would have on current attitudes towards scientists and societies already present mistrust.
So the next time you have a lecture in Bournemouth University’s Wallace lecture theatre you’ll know it’s named after Alfred Russel Wallace!
Charlotte Unwin (intern to GeoNet)
The latest ABS Journal Guide has lifted an article first-authored by Dr. Tim Breitbarth to be the single most-cited paper in the only 3* journal in the field of sport business.
Considering all major citation databases, Tim’s paper “The role of corporate social responsibility in the football business: Towards the development of a conceptual model” co-authored with Phil Harris in European Sport Management Quarterly (2008) is leaving the strongest footprint in the academic community.
Dr Tim Breitbarth from the Faculty of Management is a regular author, guest editor, project leader, track convener at international conferences as well as invited speaker on CSR in general and CSR in sport.
Breitbarth, T. & Harris, P. (2008): The role of corporate social responsibility in the football business: Towards the development of a conceptual model. European Sports Management Quarterly, 8(2): 179-206.
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has attracted considerable interest in the management discipline, but has rarely been evaluated and explored in the sports management research arena. In evaluating the sports, management and marketing literature, this article considers the role of CSR in professional football. It argues that an increased awareness and integration of CSR into the football business fosters the competitiveness of the game and creates additional value for its stakeholders. The article proposes a conceptual model which outlines the agency role of football in order to create political, cultural, humanitarian and reassurance value. Empirical evidence supporting the model is applied based on case studies from four key countries that currently dominate the shaping of CSR discussion and are vital for the game itself: England, Germany, Japan and the US. The article’s aim is to encourage sports management to see CSR as an opportunity-driven concept, which can assist in achieving better strategic direction, and outlines areas where future research can improve sport management’s appreciation of this rapidly more important topic.
There is still a chance to experience a number of works as part of the
Contingencies Sound Art Exhibition
The current work (16 – 20 March) is by Antonio Della Marina
Della Marina’s music puts sound in pole position, even going as far as to claim that it is more important than the artist himself. With an extremely reduced set of initial parameters, he realises intense sets, quietly spectacular landscapes of sweet hummings, changing in frequency, sequence, pitch and colour, forming little melodies as well as emotive harmonic clusters.
Contingencies is an exhibition, talk and concert series featuring sound art, music and technology. It is a collaboration between the Emerge Research Group, Creative Technology Research Group and the Co-Lab.
Curated by Tom Davis, Ambrose Seddon and Bill Thompson
Last night (March 16th 2015) Bournemouth University Professor Edwin van Teijlingen attended a reception and panel discussion on Midwives as agents for change organised in London by the Ambassador of Sweden Ms. Nicola Clase. Earlier this year the Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs launched midwives4all, which an initiative to spread the knowledge about the benefits of evidence-based midwifery, working closely with contributors to The Lancet’s series on midwifery.1
With the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) coming to an end in 2015, it is clear that despite great improvements many countries have not reached two key targets: MDG4 to ‘reduce child mortality’ and MDG 5 to ‘improve maternal health’.2 Too many women today still die in childbirth, most of these deaths occur in low-income countries and most of these deaths are avoidable. In 2013 alone, 289 000 women died from childbirth complications. Nearly 3 million newborns die in the first month of life and 2.6 million newborns are stillborn each year.
The aim of midwives4all is to use a coordinated and innovative communication approach to highlight the need to implement universal practice of midwifery globally in order to improve maternal health and empower women. Midwives4all highlights that only 22 per cent of countries have potentially enough midwives to provide life-saving interventions to meet the needs of women and newborns, which leaves most countries with severe shortages of proper maternity care. The vast majority of women and children lose their lives due to complications and illnesses that could have been prevented. Scaling up the midwifery workforce could prevent about two-thirds of maternal and newborn deaths, saving millions of lives every year.
For some countries the first step is to ensure that midwifery is properly recognised in law. In Nepal, one of the country in which we conduct research, midwifery is not yet officially recognised as an independent profession.3 Together with the president of MIDSON and Swedish colleagues we have long argued that we urgently need to convince the Government of Nepal and other the relevant stakeholders that ‘Nepal needs midwifery’.4
Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen
- The Lancet Midwifery Series: http://www.thelancet.com/series/midwifery
- van Teijlingen, E., Hundley, V., Matthews, Z., Lewis, G., Graham, W.J., Campbell, J., ten Hoope-Bender, P., Sheppard, Z.A., Hulton, L. (2014) Millennium Development Goals: All good things must come to an end, so what next? Midwifery 30: 1-2.
- Bogren, M., van Teijlingen, E., Berg. M. (2013) Where midwives are not yet recognised: A feasibility study of professional midwives in Nepal, Midwifery 29(10): 1103-1109.
- Bogren, M.U., Bajracharya, K., Berg, M., Erlandsson, K., Ireland, J., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E. (2013) Nepal needs midwifery, Journal of Manmohan Memorial Institute of Health Sciences (JMMIHS) 1(2): 41-44. www.nepjol.info/index.php/JMMIHS/article/view/9907/8082
A BIG congratulations to Dr. Zulfiqar Khan and Hammad Nazir for their recent publication which has made the most read articles list on the Taylor and Francis website. Dr. Zulfiqar Khan leads the Sustainable Design Research Centre as Director. A recent REF2014 Panel feedback has identified Sustainable Design Research Group as having the highest proportion of outputs judged to be internationally excellent!
The publication ‘Modelling of Metal-Coating Delamination Incorporating Variable Environmental Parameters‘ in the Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology was written in collaboration with the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory in Salisbury. The research was co-funded by BU and Defence Science & Technology Laboratory Ministry of Defence, with in-kind support from The Tank Museum.
The article was published online on December 15th 2014, and is 4th on Taylor and Francis’ most read article list along with other articles published since 2012. To date, the article has been downloaded/viewed more than 300 times.
Dr. Dinusha Mendis, Associate Professor in Law and Co-Director of the Centre for Intellectual Property Policy and Management (CIPPM) in the Faculty of Media and Communications was awarded a period of research leave funded by the Fusion Investment Fund which commenced on 1 January 2015.
The research leave was granted for Dr. Mendis to further her research into the digital aspects of Copyright Law and the Intellectual Property (IP) Implications of 3D Printing.
During January-February 2015, Dr. Mendis spent time at the University of Bocconi, Milan in the capacity of a Visiting Fellow. During this time she collaborated with researchers at the Art, Science and Knowledge (ASK) Centre at Bocconi University, in particular with Professor Maria Lilla Montagni (currently Research Fellow at the Harvard Law School).
In February, Dr. Mendis travelled to the University of Tasmania (UTAS), Australia and is currently based there as Lord Provost Fellow involved in collaboration work with Professor Dianne Nicol and Dr. Jane Nielsen of the Faculty of Law, UTAS. The collaboration work involves considering the IP implications of 3D Printing.
The time has also been utilised to collaborate with colleagues at Melbourne University, Monash University and Swinburne University of Technology where Dr. Mendis was invited to present her recent research, which she carried out for the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO). The presentation formed part of the ‘Innovation Seminar Series’, organised by the Centre for Transformative Innovation at Swinburne University of Technology.
Dr. Mendis was also invited to present her research at a Staff Seminar at UTAS, in her capacity as Visiting Fellow. The presentation which showcased the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the UKIPO Commissioned Project on the IP Implications of 3D Printing, also provided an overview of Copyrightuser.org - a project which Dinusha has been involved in since 2012 and carried out in collaboration with CREATe, University of Glasgow and CEMP, Bournemouth University.
The Fellowship at UTAS, which began in February will be completed at the end of March 2015 and will further include collaboration meetings with Associate Professor Matthew Rimmer of the College of Law, Australian National University, Canberra.
The collaboration work which is currently being carried out as part of the Research Leave will culminate in a number of outputs, specifically peer-reviewed journal articles and an edited book.
In January 2015, Dr. Mendis’s Commissioned article, titled ‘Clone Wars Episode II – The Next Generation: The Copyright Implications of Computer-Aided Design (CAD) Files was published in a peer-reviewed academic journal Law, Innovation and Technology (Hart Publishing) (pp. 265-281).
Lunchtime Seminar on Wednesday 18th March in R207, 1 – 1.50pm
Research should make a difference, and as the Faculty’s strapline is ‘helping to make people’s lives better’, it is of relevance to us all. Our forthcoming Seminar series will showcase some of the excellent work of the Faculty to inspire other academics and PhD students.
No need to book, just turn up. Contact Zoe on firstname.lastname@example.org for more information.
Future Impact Seminar dates can be found by clicking on the link below.
We look forward to seeing you there.