Category / BU research

BU Briefing – Inattention, working memory and goal neglect regarding ADHD

Our BU briefing papers are designed to make our research outputs accessible and easily digestible so that our research findings can quickly be applied – whether to society, culture, public policy, services, the environment or to improve quality of life. They have been created to highlight research findings and their potential impact within their field. 


For many years Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) was thought to be a disorder exclusive to childhood, and has only recently been recognised as existing in adults. Around 6% of adults have the classic ADHD symptom of inattention and have difficulty concentrating, remembering things and organisation.

This paper examines whether inattention may be linked with problems in the brain system which co-ordinate Working Memory (WM). WM allows you to hold information in your mind while either manipulating the information, or doing something else at the same time. It is essential to build a stable mental ‘task model’ to complete tasks at home, work or study.

Using the Conners Adult ADHD rating scale, adults aged 18–35 were assessed for ADHD symptoms and completed tasks designed to tap verbal and spatial aspects of WM.

Click here to read the briefing paper.


For more information about the research, contact Dr Emili Balaguer-Ballester at eb-ballester@bournemouth.ac.uk or Dr Ben Parris at bparris@bournemouth.ac.uk.
To find out how your research output could be turned into a BU Briefing, contact research@bournemouth.ac.uk.

There’s no such thing as a bad metric.

Lizzie Gadd warns against jumping on ‘bad metrics’ bandwagons without really engaging with the more complex responsible metrics agenda beneath.

An undoubted legacy of the Metric Tide report has been an increased focus on the responsible use of metrics and along with this a notion of ‘bad metrics’.  Indeed, the report itself even recommended awarding an annual ‘Bad Metrics Prize’.  This has never been awarded as far as I’m aware, but nominations are still open on their web pages.  There has been a lot of focus on responsible metrics recently.  The Forum for Responsible Metrics have done a survey of UK institutions and is reporting the findings on 8 February in London.  DORA has upped its game and appointed a champion to promote their work and they seem to be regularly retweeting messages that remind us all of their take on what it means to do metrics responsibly.   There are also frequent twitter conversations about the impact of metrics in the up-coming REF.  In all of this I see an increasing amount of ‘bad metrics’ bandwagon-hopping.  The anti-Journal Impact Factor (JIF) wagon is now full and its big sister, the “metrics are ruining science” wagon, is taking on supporters at a heady pace.

It looks to me like we have moved from a state of ignorance about metrics, to a little knowledge.  Which, I hear, is a dangerous thing.

It’s not a bad thing, this increased awareness of responsible metrics; all these conversations.  I’m responsible metrics’ biggest supporter and a regular slide in my slide-deck shouts ‘metrics can kill people!’.  So why am I writing a blog post that claims that there is no such thing as a bad metric?  Surely these things can kill people? Well, yes, but guns can also kill people, they just can’t do so unless they’re in the hands of a human.  Similarly, metrics aren’t bad in and of themselves, it’s what we do with them that can make them dangerous.

In Yves Gingras’ book, “Bibliometrics and Research Evaluation” he defines the characteristics of a good indicator as follows:

  • Adequacy of the indicator for the object that it measures
  • Sensitivity to the intrinsic inertia of the object being measured
  • Homogeneity of the dimensions of the indicator.

So, you might have an indicator such as ‘shoe size’, where folks with feet of a certain length get assigned a certain shoe size indicator. No problem there – it’s adequate (length of foot consistently maps on to shoe size); it’s sensitive to the thing it measures (foot grows, shoe size increases accordingly), and it’s homogenous (one characteristic – length, leads to one indicator – shoe size).  However, in research evaluation we struggle on all of these counts.  Because the thing we really want to measure, this elusive, multi-faceted “research quality” thing, doesn’t have any adequate, sensitive and homogeneous indicators. We need to measure the immeasurable. So we end up making false assumptions about the meanings of our indicators, and then make bad decisions based on those false assumptions.  In all of this, it is not the metric that’s at fault, it’s us.

In my view, the JIF is the biggest scapegoat of the Responsible Metrics agenda.  The JIF is just the average number of cites per paper for a journal over two years.  That’s it.  A simple calculation. And as an indicator of the communication effectiveness of a journal for collection development purposes (the reason it was introduced) it served us well.  It’s just been misused as an indicator of the quality of individual academics and individual papers.  It wasn’t designed for that.  This is misuse of a metric, not a bad metric. (Although recent work has suggested that it’s not that bad an indicator for the latter anyway, but that’s not my purpose here).  If the JIF is a bad metric, so is Elsevier’s CiteScore which is based on EXACTLY the same principle but uses a three-year time window not two, a slightly different set of document types and journals, and makes itself freely available.

If we’re not careful, I fear that in a hugely ironic turn, DORA and the Leiden Manifesto might themselves become bad (misused) metrics: an unreliable indicator of a commitment to the responsible use of metrics that may or may not be there in practice.

I understand why DORA trumpets the misuse of JIFs; it is rife and there are less imperfect tools for the job. But there are also other metrics that DORA doesn’t get in a flap about – like the individual h-index – which are subject to the same amount of misuse, but are actually more damaging.  The individual h-index disadvantages certain demographics more than others (women, early-career researchers, anyone with non-standard career lengths); at least the JIF mis-serves everyone equally.  And whilst we’re at it peer review can be an equally inadequate research evaluation tool (which, ironically, metrics have proven). So if we’re to be really fair we should be campaigning for responsible peer review with as much vigour as our calls for responsible metrics.

Bumper stickers by Paul van der Werf
Bumper stickers by Paul van der Werf (CC-BY)

 

It looks to me like we have moved from a state of ignorance about metrics, to a little knowledge.  Which, I hear, is a dangerous thing.  A little knowledge can lead to a bumper sticker culture ( “I HEART DORA” anyone?  “Ban the JIF”?) which could move us away from, rather than towards, the responsible use of metrics. These concepts are easy to grasp hold of, but they mask a far more complex and challenging set of research evaluation problems that lie beneath.  The responsible use of metrics is about more than the avoidance of certain indicators, or signing DORA, or even developing your own bespoke Responsible Metrics policy (as I’ve said before this is certainly easier said than done).

The responsible use of metrics requires responsible scientometricians.  People who understand that there is really no such thing as a bad metric, but it is very possible to misuse them. People with a deeper level of understanding about what we are trying to measure, what the systemic effects of this might be, what indicators are available, what their limitations are, where they are appropriate, how they can best triangulate them with peer review.  We have good guidance on this in the form of the Leiden Manifesto, the Metric Tide and DORA.  However, these are the starting points of often painful responsible metric journeys, not easy-ride bandwagons to be jumped on.  If we’re not careful, I fear that in a hugely ironic turn, DORA and the Leiden Manifesto might themselves become bad (misused) metrics: an unreliable indicator of a commitment to the responsible use of metrics that may or may not be there in practice.

Let’s get off the ‘metric-shaming’ bandwagons, deepen our understanding and press on with the hard work of responsible research evaluation.

 


Elizabeth Gadd

Elizabeth Gadd is the Research Policy Manager (Publications) at Loughborough University. She has a background in Libraries and Scholarly Communication research. She is the co-founder of the Lis-Bibliometrics Forum and is the ARMA Metrics Special Interest Group Champion

 

 

Creative Commons LicenceOriginal content posted on The Bibliomagician reposted here with permission. Content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Looking for a different way to disseminate your PhD research?

Do you want to showcase your PhD? Raise the profile of your research? Be in with the chance of winning over £500 worth in prizes?

If the answer is yes to any of the above then the 3MT® might be the opportunity for you.

The 3MT® competition cultivates students’ academic, presentation, and research communication skills.

Presenting in a 3MT® competition increases capacity to effectively explain research in three minutes, in a language appropriate to a non-specialist audience.

Eligibility: Active PhD and Professional Doctorate candidates who have successfully passed their transfer milestone (including candidates whose thesis is under submission) by the date of their first presentation are eligible to participate. If your Viva Voce will take place before the date of the University final (7 June 2018) you are not eligible to enter the competition.

Eligible applicants should submit a fully completed application form, to the Research Skills and Development Officers at PGRskillsdevelopment@bournemouth.ac.uk by midnight on Monday 5 February 2018.

We look forward to receiving your application.

REMINDER: ADRC presents NIHR Clinical Research Network (CRN) Wessex Seminar this Wednesday

You are cordially invited to this lunchtime seminar which is open to all BU staff.

Please feel free to bring your lunch.

Wednesday 24th January 2018

1 – 2 pm

B407, Bournemouth House, Lansdown Campus

The NIHR is the UK’s major funder of applied health research. The NIHR develops and supports the people who conduct and contribute to health research and equally supports the training of the next generation of health researchers. The NIHR CRN Study Support Service helps researchers set up and deliver high quality research to time and target in the NHS in England.

We are fortunate to have two Research Delivery Managers from the NIHR CRN  Wessex, David Higenbottam and Alex Jones  coming to BU who  will be presenting a seminar about the network, funding opportunities and forthcoming strategic plan for 2018, followed by Q & A session.

Please email Michelle O’Brien (mobrien@bournemouth.ac.uk) if you are planning to attend.  See you there!

Biographies

David Higenbottam
Has worked in research since 2012.
2012 – 2014 South Coast DeNDRoN Network Manager.
2014 – to date Research Delivery Manager for Divisions 2 and 4 (Division 4 includes dementia as one of its specialities).

 

Alex Jones
Worked for Hampshire & Isle of Wight CLRN from July 2013 – April 2014.
Division 5 Assistant Portfolio Manager then Portfolio Manager April 2014 – December 2017 (Division 5 includes ageing as one of its specialities).
Currently Acting Research Delivery Manager for Division 5.

Wessex CRN
The Wessex CRN was formed  in April 2014, its geographic footprint is Hampshire & Isle of Wight, Dorset and South Wiltshire. It comprises 12 partner NHS organisations and 10 clinical commissioning groups. Research specialities are spread across 6 Divisions.

RKEO Calendar survey reminder

It’s been four months since the 2017-18 RKEO calendar landed on your desk.  The calendar contains all of the events that RKEO arrange, major funder call closing dates, information on various research schemes, and other activities that will be of interest to academics.

The Research & Knowledge Exchange Office would like your feedback on the calendar before deciding on whether to create next year’s.

Tell us what you think by completing our short survey . All entrants names will be entered into a draw and one lucky person will receive an RKEO goodie bag.  The deadline date is Friday 26 January.

Nesta’s 18 reasons to prioritise the early years of a child’s life

In 2017, Nesta launched the Early Years Social Action Fund to scale proven social action programmes that help children aged four to achieve developmental milestones by directly supporting parents.  The £1 million fund was used to support organisations that are making an impact, but require support to scale up. Having supported dozens of social action programmes to scale, Nesta have seen that social action works best when there is a clear role to complement, not replace public services, where opportunities fit in and around people’s lives and where any skills needed can be codified and learnt by many.

As the UK struggles with challenges of stagnating social mobility, increasing inequality, and lagging productivity, Nesta have compiled a list of 18 reasons why the early years of a child’s life are so important for social mobility and people’s life chances which show why in 2018 we need to do more to support new ideas that help give all children the best chance to fulfil their potential.

18 reasons to prioritise early years in 2018

  1. By the time children start school, the gap between disadvantaged children and their peers can be as large as 15 months.

  2. Children from disadvantaged backgrounds hear up to 30 million fewer words than their more affluent peers by age three.

  3. Almost half of all children from disadvantaged backgrounds do not reach their expected level of development when they start school (29 per cent of all children).

  4. In the last decade, more than 2.5 million children in England – including over 580,000 poorer children – did not reach a good level of development by age five.

  5. Opportunity is very unevenly distributed. Disadvantaged children in the best areas are twice as likely to reach a good level of development at age five, compared with similar children in the worst areas.

  6. Gaps are evident by age two and a child’s development at as young as 22 months has been proven to be a good predictor for educational outcomes at age 26.

  7. Of the £9.1 billion the UK Government is spending on early years, just £250 million will reach the most disadvantaged families. Or just 2.7 per cent.

  8. In 2012, the UK was ranked 22nd out of 25 OECD countries for the proportion of expenditure in early years focused on closing the gap in opportunity.

  9. In almost all OECD countries, 15-year-old students who had access to early education outperformed students who had not.

  10. The gap between disadvantaged children and their peers in numeracy and literacy is particularly stark, with a 14 per cent gap in reading attainment, 15 per cent in writing, and 13 per cent in numbers.

  11. The lowest gap is in technology, which if harnessed properly, could potentially help lower the gaps in other areas.

  12. Good early education opportunities improve child outcomes regardless of family disadvantage or the quality of the home learning environment.

  13. The gap in educational attainment by the time a child starts school is one of the key drivers of social mobility, equivalent to, for example, up to two years of learning by the time they sit their GSCEs.

  14. The biggest indicator in how well a child does in their GCSEs is the progress that child has made by the age of five.

  15. Better educational attainment leads to higher qualifications and higher wages later in life.

  16. Top university graduates earn significantly more, on average, than graduates from less prestigious universities, and non-university graduates.

  17. Social mobility is a key driver in productivity and economic growth. A modest increase in the UK’s social mobility to the average across Western Europe would increase annual GDP by 2 per cent in the long term (or an additional £39bn to the UK economy).

  18. The quality of the home learning environment is more important for intellectual and social development than parental occupation, education or income. In other words, what parents do at home is more important than who your parents are.

These 18 reasons go to show that early years is at the heart of social mobility. They underscore the importance – both at an individual and societal level – of focusing on ideas and interventions that can impact child outcomes as soon as possible so that no child begins school behind the starting line.

If you would like to find out more about the Early Years Social Action programme, any of the specific projects or how you can commission early years innovations, please get in touch at will.bibby@nesta.org.uk.

Wednesday 24 January ADRC presents: NIHR Clinical Research Network (CRN) Wessex Seminar

You are cordially invited to this lunchtime seminar which is open to all BU staff.

Please feel free to bring your lunch.

Wednesday 24th January 2018

1 – 2 pm

B407, Bournemouth House, Lansdown Campus

The NIHR is the UK’s major funder of applied health research. The NIHR develops and supports the people who conduct and contribute to health research and equally supports the training of the next generation of health researchers. The NIHR CRN Study Support Service helps researchers set up and deliver high quality research to time and target in the NHS in England.

We are fortunate to have two Research Delivery Managers from the NIHR CRN  Wessex, David Higenbottam and Alex Jones  coming to BU who  will be presenting a seminar about the network, funding opportunities and forthcoming strategic plan for 2018, followed by Q & A session.

Please email Michelle O’Brien (mobrien@bournemouth.ac.uk) if you are planning to attend.  See you there!

Biographies

David Higenbottam
Has worked in research since 2012.
2012 – 2014 South Coast DeNDRoN Network Manager.
2014 – to date Research Delivery Manager for Divisions 2 and 4 (Division 4 includes dementia as one of its specialities).

 

Alex Jones
Worked for Hampshire & Isle of Wight CLRN from July 2013 – April 2014.
Division 5 Assistant Portfolio Manager then Portfolio Manager April 2014 – December 2017 (Division 5 includes ageing as one of its specialities).
Currently Acting Research Delivery Manager for Division 5.

Wessex CRN
The Wessex CRN was formed  in April 2014, its geographic footprint is Hampshire & Isle of Wight, Dorset and South Wiltshire. It comprises 12 partner NHS organisations and 10 clinical commissioning groups. Research specialities are spread across 6 Divisions.

A Group Postcard: “Marvellous time. Wish you were here”.

Reflections on a Creative Writing Workshop for Academics at BU, led by Kip Jones

By Susanne Clarke

(with Trevor Hearing, Caroline Jackson, Mark Readman, Carly Stewart & Peter Wolfensberger)

I am sitting here on a Saturday morning, daunted by the task ahead of me.  I am in charge of writing a blog on behalf of a wonderful group of people who I spent a couple of days with at the beginning of January, (oops, I am already overselling myself, I am actually bringing together a blog using material they have given me).  The group, as promised has sent me their “postcards”, snippets revealing their inner most reflections of the experience we shared.

Perhaps I’d better reveal more of our journey and tell you a bit about the group. We came together having booked our place at the auspiciously titled “Creative Writing Workshop for Academics” led by the legend that is Kip Jones.  I would say it was a journey that we would all do again in a heartbeat.

Kip invited us, compelled us, to discard the shackles of academic or more formal forms of writing; we breathed in deeply and sought to find our inner selves, the child unconstrained by conventions that have both helped and hindered our writing over the years.

So, applying all that I learned from Kip, I am not going to over-analyse my writing and I will go with what feels right.   Studying the ‘postcards’ from the group – Peter’s  postcard will come first, just because it feels right, he sums up the experience for us all really.

From Peter Wolfensberger:

postcard to myself or

everything matters and nothing really does unless the moment you belong and love – exercise one

Struggling with my thesis I considered the creative writing workshop as a source for inspiration. So, I travelled long distance just to be confronted with myself and who I am and writing the story of my life on a postcard! Really?! Yes, – and no, there is more: Watching two boys on a crowded beach in the twenties has as much to do with me as trying to make sense of dreams that I can never remember. Writing a poem, a script treatment, a story, my story? In the end, it’s all just a tagline away from my thesis… But hey, I belonged to this wonderful group of people who kind of tried to do the same or something very different. Love you all! ‘

A bit more to reveal here with Mark’s postcard:

From: Mark Readman

Dear Group

‘Taglines, poems, life stories on postcards, writing, sharing, reading aloud and, ultimately, bringing my academic work to life through the art of storytelling – what a great way to start the new year!’

Now back to me. The writing is now getting more difficult.  I can’t really complete with the beauty of the words conveyed in the postcards.  Kip did promise that our first attempts will be quite bad and will need plenty of re-write. So, I walk away, I head off to make a cup of tea and read The Guardian. Nothing much to learn about me from my reading choice, nor, did I expect to learn much from it.  I read it because I enjoy a few of the Saturday regulars and primarily because it’s still free on line.  I click on one of my favourite columns, “Blind date” and this week’s column looks promisingly uplifting, entitled; “We parted with a kiss”.  It was a good read, and I wondered if the format could be borrowed for the blog.  And so I try below:

Reflections on our ‘Blind Date’ with Kip

From: Susanne Clarke

The scene: The Group meets each other and Kip for our first “Blind Date”.

What were we hoping for:

Improvement, enlightenment, and perhaps a cry from the heart to help with the struggle that is a life centered around writing, at the very least, some basic hints and tips and a creative start to the year.

What we weren’t expecting, but I think we were all secretly hoping for as Caroline put so well in her postcard, “…one thing that I did take away from the creative writing workshop was passion and confidence in creative writing.”

Our First Impressions:

Positive, the group were warmly welcomed, Kip was laid back, relaxed and we got a sense it was all going to be ok.  Kip set us some homework – to recall our night time dreams. I think we were all slightly scared.

What did we talk about:

Everything and anything, somehow Kip got us to reflect deeply, perhaps share things we wouldn’t normally be so bold with.   Kip shared intimate reflections with us and made it ok to share back. 

Any awkward moments:

There really should have been, we were stretched, we cried, we laughed, however, I don’t recall anything being awkward and I can’t find a hint of this in the postcards.

Although, if I am honest there was a moment for me.   When Kip set us the task to create poems from our recollection of recent dreams, as a lifelong fan of Pam Ayres, my poem had to rhyme, consequently, my attempt lacked the depth of feeling conveyed by the poems written and read out loud by others in the group.  But it did rhyme.  I did feel slightly awkward, mine was rather light, however, in the end it was alright.

Good table manners?

We did lunch as a group, it was a great ending to our adventure, and our table manners were impeccable, as far as I could tell.

Would we introduce Kip to our friends?

A resounding yes, why wouldn’t anyone be less than delighted to meet Kip, and I would happily introduce Kip and the whole group to all my friends.

Describe Kip in three words:

Charismatic, warm and unconventional

What do we think Kip made of us?

He told us we were the best group he had ever taught, he was probably lying. He made us feel special though.

Did you go on somewhere?

This is where I will leave the ‘Blind Date’ format and head to something slightly more hypothetical, we are all now continuing somewhere, we are improved from our experience, but taking different paths.   Let’s now share some more postcards from the group.  I guess where we go next in our journey remains to be seen.

From: Trevor Hearing

Dear Group

….‘Kip’s Tree of Performative Social Science is a rare species that grows over ground and underground with each workshop I attend, sending hidden signals around the world through its mycelium that it is OK to write about yourself as a source of knowledge because in doing so we are feeding others with the compost of our imaginations. I learned the value of metaphor at this workshop’….

Love Trevor xxx

From: Caroline Jackson

Dear friends,

“…. The interventions offered by Kip and my workshop colleagues were productive in many ways. I came away with the following: ​

  1. I like writing.
  2. I can let go and write something not directly related to an academic output and it be worthwhile.
  3. Some questions and techniques to use in future writing activities, academic or not.
  4. Some ideas for my own students on their creative thinking and work.

Wish you were here, love Caroline xxx

From: Carly Stewart

Dear group

…” It opened up my thinking and reconnected me to the heart-felt reason I enjoy academia in the first place. I had time and space to think deeply about ideas and new ways to express them, not for outcome or in the surface skimming tone so often required of us. And the epiphany for me was that dedicating time for creative space did not send me spinning off on a tangent from academia but instead loosened my thoughts and reconfigured them in a way that inspired me to pick up the reins of academic writing once again.”

Love Carly xxx

And finally, from me (Susanne).  I spent time with a colleague this week writing with a deadline to submit an abstract. I approached this with more confidence and my biggest lesson from Kip – I could hear his voice, “work on a catchy title” he said this a few times.   Our title begins with “Shrek and the Onion…. “ It wouldn’t have done before Kip entered my life and thoughts.   Will our abstract take us to the conference in the sun, who knows?

PS We would also like to thank others in the group who are not represented here but who contributed towards the experience.

REF 2021 workshops – what makes a 2*, 3* or 4* output?

 

We have a series of externally-facilitated REF outputs workshops scheduled to take place in early 2018 as part of the RKE Development Framework. Each session is led by REF 2014 sub-panel member who will explain how the panel interpreted and applied the REF 2014 guidance when assessing the quality of outputs. The workshops are open to all academic staff to attend.

The expected learning outcomes from the workshops are for attendees to:

  • Gain insight into how the REF panels applied the REF criteria when considering the significance, rigour and originality of outputs;
  • Understand the differences between outputs scored 4*, 3*, 2*, 1* and Unclassified;
  • Gain insight into what is meant by ‘world leading’ and ‘internationally excellent’;
  • Understand how scores borderline cases were agreed and what the tipping points were to either break the ceiling into the higher star level or to hold an output back a star level;
  • Understand how panels used other information such as metrics, markers of journal quality or prior knowledge in output assessment;
  • Gain insight into how future outputs could be strengthened for REF20

Workshops scheduled so far are:

  • UOA 2/3 – Prof Dame Jill Macleod Clark – 15 March 2018
  • UOA 11 – Prof Iain Stewart – 29 January 2018
  • UoA 14 – Prof Jon Sadler – 2 February 2018
  • UOA 15 – Prof Graeme Barker – 7 February 2018
  • UOA 17 – Prof Terry Williams – 17 January 2018
  • UOA 18 – TBC
  • UOA 23 – Prof Jane Seale – 26 January 2018
  • UOA 24 (Sport & Exercise Science) – Professor John Horne –date TBC
  • UoA 24 (Leisure and Tourism) – Prof Gareth Shaw – date TBC
  • UOA 11/32 (Computer Animation) – Prof Anthony Steed – 31 January 2018
  • UOA 32/34 (Practice-based) – Prof Stephen Partridge – date TBC
  • UOA 34 – Prof Peter Lunt – date TBC

Please see the full range of REF-related workshops on the staff intranet.

RKEO Calendar survey

It’s been four months since the 2017-18 RKEO calendar landed on your desk.  The calendar contains all of the events that RKEO arrange, major funder call closing dates, information on various research schemes, and other activities that will be of interest to academics.

The Research & Knowledge Exchange Office would like your feedback on the calendar before deciding on whether to create next year’s.

Tell us what you think by completing our short survey . All entrants names will be entered into a draw and one lucky person will receive an RKEO goodie bag.  The deadline date is Friday 26 January.

Book now for the In The Dark audio storytelling event starring Dr. Nina Perry

Among our very impressive academics is the eminent British composer and radio features producer, Dr. Nina Perry, who will be discussing the audio that has inspired her and presenting some of her own work that formed part of her recently awarded PhD by publication at a gathering of In The Dark (A celebration of stories told through sound).

Dr. Nina Perry is one of Britain’s most successful radio feature producers, known in particular for making what she describes as ‘composed features’.

Her productions include the award winning Melting Point, Supermarket Symphony (A Guardian pick of the year), Spring Clean Symphony and Spirit of the Beehive (both featured on BBC Radio 4 pick of the year).

There will be lots of opportunities to ask her questions at this event, as well as meet other radio and audio enthusiasts.

When: Wednesday 24th January, from 7.30pm

Where: The Brunswick, 199 Malmesbury Park Road, Charminster

Book tickets here.

NIHR Fellowships Event 21st March 2018

 

As part of the Research and Knowledge Exchange Development Framework, RKEO are holding a session on NIHR Fellowships.

The NIHR Fellowship Event will provide information about NIHR’s Fellowship schemes, and offer some hints and tips for a successful application. We are pleased to welcome the following speakers:

  • Dr Gordon Taylor, Research Design Service South West, NIHR Doctoral Panel Member & Reader in Medical Statistics, University of Bath
  • NIHR Trainees Coordinating Centre (TBC)
  • Clare Gordon, BU NIHR Fellow

Date: Wednesday 21st March 2018

Time: 12:00-13:00

Venue: Lansdowne Campus

The session is open to all academics, researchers and clinicians who have an interest in applying for NIHR Fellowships.

Please book your space through Eventbrite.

About the NIHR Fellowship Programme: The NIHR is the UK’s major funder of applied health research. All of the research it funds works towards improving the health and wealth of the nation. The NIHR develops and supports the people who conduct and contribute to health research and equally supports the training of the next generation of health researchers. NIHR training programmes provide a unique opportunity for all professionals to improve the health of patients in their care through research. Training and career development awards from the NIHR range from undergraduate level through to opportunities for established investigators and research leaders. They are open to a wide range of professions and designed to suit different working arrangements and career pathways.