For information on this event please follow this link to my blog post on the HSS Blog.
For information on this event please follow this link to my blog post on the HSS Blog.
Last week was a good week for FHSS from a publishing perspective. On the last day of February Sociological Research Online published a book review with Dr. Pramod Regmi as first author, which we highlighted in an earlier BU Research Blog (see more here!) . On the same the same day we received news from the Journal of Travel Medicine (published by Oxford University press) that our latest article on research in Nepal was accepted for publication. Our paper ‘Identifying the gaps in Nepalese migrant workers’ health and well-being: A review of the literature’ addresses the health and well-being of migrant health workers and ‘brings’ this to travel medicine specialists .
On Thursday our article ‘Vital signs and other observations used to detect deterioration in pregnant women: an analysis of vital sign charts in consultant-led maternity units’ was accepted by the International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia published by Elsevier . On Friday The Lancet published correspondence from FHSS Post-Doc. Researcher Dr. Pramod Regmi and FHSS Ph.D. student Folashade Alloh, and BU Visiting Faculty Prof. Padam Simkhada under the title: ‘Mental health in BME groups with diabetes: an overlooked issue?’ . To round off the week on Friday afternoon the editorial office of Kontakt (published by Elsevier) emailed that the editorial ‘The medical and social model of childbirth’ had been accepted for publication .
Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen
Bournemouth University will be hosting a Public Involvement seminar series throughout March and April, which focusses upon the public/patients working with staff to: 1) prioritise research; 2) advise upon project methodology; 3) design recruitment campaigns; 4) develop research materials; and 5) promote the impact of findings.
Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) has broad application to research beyond Health and Social Care, allowing the public actively act as participants. Direct benefits to researchers include: ensuring research quality, credibility and relevance; public accountability and insights; and enhancing research funding.
Students, staff and the public are invited to the seminar series. UGR and PGR students attending three or more seminars will be eligible to apply for an opportunity to run their own PPI advisory group with hip-replacement patients. This will be supported by ORI and the Department of Sport and Physical Activity, and has ongoing potential for conference presentation and journal article preparation.
Patient & Public Involvement (PPI) Seminar Series
Location EB708, Executive Business Centre, Lansdowne Campus
Monday 6th March, 3-4.30 pm
Why PPI is crucial to designing effective health research studies
Professor Jo Adams, Professor Musculoskeletal Health, University of Southampton
Wednesday 15th March, 3-4.30 pm
Importance of public involvement in research design: an orthopaedic case study
Lisa Gale-Andrews & Dr Zoe Sheppard, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Bournemouth University
Monday 3rd April, 3-4.30 pm
Recruiting and supporting participants to engage in meaningful PPI
Dr Mel Hughes & Angela Warren, Carer and Service User Partnership, Bournemouth University
Monday 24th April, 11-12.30 pm
How can today’s patient help research tackle tomorrow’s health challenges?
Simon Denegri National Director, Patients and the Public in Research (INVOLVE)
Book your place now: https://patientandpublicinvolvement.eventbrite.co.uk
Refreshments are available and there will be plenty of time for discussion at the seminar end. Any questions please contact:
Dr James Gavin
Phone +44 (0)1202566303
Phone +44 (0)1202566303
Higher Education and Research Bill – the Bill continues its committee stage in the Lords, with long and lively debates. Only government amendments have been approved so far, apart from last week’s amendment to clause 1. The list of amendments has continued to grow in the meantime, there is a genuine risk that they may not get through it all and run out of time. The next sessions are 23rd, 25th and 30th January. Some interesting new proposed amendments over the last week:
Research Professional cover the Minister’s uncompromising stance towards amendments. They suggest the Government is listening and may yet propose amendments to address some of the issues raised by the Lords, but points out that there is a risk of further symbolic resistance as more Lords ‘dig their heels in’.
Research integrity select committee – A Commons Science and Technology Committee has launched an inquiry into research integrity. The inquiry is accompanied by the recently published POSTnote: Integrity in Research which discusses the questionable practices and considers whether a regulatory body for UK research would be beneficial. The original committee investigation into peer review from 2010/11 is here which led UUK to set up concordat to support research integrity. A call for written evidence to the Committee has been published. We will be working with RKEO to consider whether BU should submit evidence, please contact email@example.com if you would like to be involved. Issues raised in include:
Contract cheating – WonkHE reported on the difficulties in preventing cheating with the rise in companies offering one-off essays and dissertations. The BBC (May 2016) ran an article about a commercial essay writer motivated by revenge for believed racial discrimination and noted five methods universities can undertake to tackle plagiarism. Lord Storey is leading the campaign for a proposed amendment within the HE and Research Bill which aims to make providing or advertising cheating services an offence, focussing on ‘unfair disadvantage’. The Australian Government currently have a national project reporting in 2018 that aims to stamp out ‘contract cheating’. Finally a THE article explains ta new law may only have a deterrent effect; countries with contract cheating laws do not in practice have many successful prosecutions.
Digital skills crisis – The Government have published their response to the Science and Technology Select Committee’s special report on the digital skills crisis within industry and teaching capacity within schools – it lists a number of areas that need focus: cyber-security, big data, the Internet of Things, mobile technology and e-commerce. There is a focus on degree apprenticeships, immigration and the Shadbolt and Wakeham Reviews of relevant degree provision.
Fees: the Government published a Statutory Instrument that allows institutions to increase tuition fees by inflation, this came into effect on 6 January 2017. This enables the first year of the TEF related fee increases – all institutions which have been designated as meeting expectations in year 1 of the TEF can now increase fees by inflation in September 2017. Some institutions have announced their intention to apply this to all students – including existing students – but BU will only change fees for new students. You can read more about the process and background to this on the intranet. The change went through as a formality – there is already legislation in place – but there are still amendments to be debated in the Higher Education and Research Bill seeking to break this link.
PM’s Brexit speech: If you missed this, the main points of the PM’s speech this week are below. Universities and research received a high number of positive mentions, which is encouraging:
Industrial strategy – A Green Paper is expected around 23 January on the Government’s industrial strategy. Meanwhile Labour’s Industrial Strategy Consultation closes on 16 February.
New DLHE – Dan Cook writes for WonkHE on the new DLHE describing a centralised model aiming to achieve high response rates, allow for continuation of post-graduation support to alumni from HEIs, and exploring a dashboard so institutions have near-real time interaction with their data.
Widening Participation and Outreach–
HESA 2015/16 staff data was released on 19th January.
Nationality of academic staff:
(Atypical contracts and not knowns account for the percentages not totalling 100%)
We have written in many previous BU blogs about progress of our THET-funded project in southern Nepal (e.g. here AND here ). Today’s blog reflects on the use on BU’s unique FUSION approach in our project ‘Mental Health Training for Maternity Care Providers in Nepal‘.
Our BU-led project brings highly experienced health professionals, such as midwives, health visitors or mental health nurses, to Nepal to work as volunteer trainers. The training is aimed at community-based maternity care practitioners and addresses key mental health issues relevant to pregnancy and for new mothers and offers the required communication skills. These health professionals will bring their experience as health care providers as well as trainers in the field of mental health and maternity care/midwifery, mental ill-health prevention and health promotion. They volunteer for two to three weeks at a time to design and deliver training in southern Nepal.
The Centre for Midwifery & Maternal Health (CMMPH) collaborates in this project with Liverpool John Moores University (LJMU), the Department of Health, and Physical & Population Education at Nepal’s oldest university Tribhuvan University’s (TU). The project is supported in the field by a local charity called Green Tara Nepal. Our project is part of the Health Partnership such as Nepal. HPS itself is funded by the UK Department for International Development and managed by THET (Tropical and Health Education Trust).
Our maternal mental health project is a good example of BU’s FUSION approach as it combines EDUCATION (through the training of Auxiliary Nurse-Midwives in Nepal) by UK volunteers (representing PRACTICE) through an intervention which is properly evaluated (representing RESEARCH) is a perfect example of BU’s FUSION in action. Moreover, the project will be partly evaluated by FHSS’s Preeti Mahato as part of her PhD thesis research. This PhD project is supervised by Dr. Catherine Angell (CEL & CMMPH), BU Visiting Professor Padam Simkhada (based at LJMU) and CMMPH’s Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen.BU’s focus on the FUSION of research, education and professional practice is a unique variant of the way UK universities (and many abroad) blend academic teaching, research and scholarship. FUSION is a key concept derived from BU’s strategic Vision & Values).
Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen
Earlier this week the latest issue of the Journal of Asian Midwives came out with an editorial which is an illustration of the first point giving information to the readers . The topics addressed in this editorial included the announcement that this new journal was now indexed in the CINAHL Database, a recent major international conference in the field and a call for the forthcoming 2017 ICM (Internation Confederation of Midwives) tri-annual conference. Today saw the publication of an editorial on the Zika virus and its potential impact in Nepal in the journal Medical Science . This guest editorial co-written by BU’s Visiting Faculties Dr. Brijesh Sathian and Prof. Padam Simkhada with Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen (Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health) calls for action in Nepal. A country where malaria is endemic. The Zika virus uses mosquitoes like the ones spreading Dengue fever and malaria. Zika is a virus we do not wish to see spreading in countries where malaria is already rife. The editorial warns that precautionary measures are needed to prevent a Zika outbreak as the spread of the virus to the country seems inevitable, the only uncertainty is when it will be arriving.
Both journals are Open Access which means these editorials can be read by anybody with internet access free of charge.
BU Humanisation Conference 21st June 2016
Venue: Room EB708, Executive Business Centre, 89 Holdenhurst Road, BH8 8EB
Please find the Programme for the Humanisation conference on the 21st June 2016 attached.
Please feel free to pass the information on to others internal and external to the university (academic and practice) who you feel may be interested
The conference is being run at no cost and so you need to make your own arrangements for lunch. Let Dr. Caroline Ellis-Hill ( firstname.lastname@example.org ) know by the 15th June if you wish to attend .
If you only want to attend for part of the day, please state which part of the day you’d like to attend.
|10.00||Dr Caroline Ellis-Hill||Welcome|
|10.10||Anne Quinney||Humanisation of the BU Generic Student Assessment Criteria.|
|10.30||Dr Sean Beer||Perceptions of the authenticity of food: a study of residents in Dorset (UK)|
|10.50||Prof Ann Hemingway||Innovative routes to Wellbeing: Equine Assisted interventions|
|11.30||Jane Fry||Sharing human concerns: utilising an embodied interpretative approach to convey findings from a descriptive phenomenological study|
|11.50||Dr Carole Pound||Humanising care: translating theory into practice in stroke care|
|12.10||Rutherford and Dr. Emer Forde||The Rutherford Introspective Photography: Promoting self-reflection and wellbeing of GP trainees through photography.|
|12.30||Free time Please see information about local venues for lunch|
|2.00||Dr Vanessa Heaslip||How phenomenology enables insight into the Human lives of Gypsy Roma Travellers’|
|2.20||Mevalyn Cross||Experiencing the Humanisation Framework together|
|2.40||Dr Jan Mosja||Chaplaincy at the bedside. Learning from Buddhist chaplains and their contributions to the humanisation of health care.|
|3.00||Sally Lee||Humanising and the Care Act well-being principle|
|3.20||Dr Mary Grant and Dr Catherine Lamont Robinson||HeART of Stroke: feasibility study of an Art & Health intervention following a stroke|
|3.40||Thanks, Tea and Close|
The Concordat to Support Research Integrity provides a comprehensive national framework for good research conduct and its governance. It outlines five commitments which the University must be compliant with as recipients of HEFCE funding.
HEFCE’s letter to all the heads of HEFCE-funded higher education institutions explains the requirement for institutions to comply with the Concordat to Support Research Integrity. It sets out HEFCE’s view of compliance with the Concordat, and provides advice for institutions on finding further information. The five commitments are:
Each commitment outlines the responsibilities of the researcher, the employers of researchers and the funders of research.
A link to the Concordat can be found here:
Maternal Mortality in Nepal
Abstract: The session links various social and political factors that affect maternal mortality. Women dying in pregnancy and childbirth is very much a problem of and in low-income countries. This talk focuses on Nepal, one of the poorer countries of the world, to highlight a range of maternal health issues and wider influencing factors including globalisation and the influence of global organisations such as the World Health Organisation.
For further information regarding the Social Science seminar series, get in touch with Dr Mastoureh Fathi (email@example.com).
As an ECR I am delighted to see that a research paper that Prof. Pritchard and myself wrote in 2014 has been cited in one of the most well regarded journals in the field.
Our paper on the occupational backgrounds of Non-executive directors at NHS acute trusts, published in the Journal for the Royal Society of Medicine Open, was also the subject of an article in the now defunct Independent newspaper and a post on this blog in May 2014.
Last year, in 2015, it was cited by a paper published in the Journal for Health Services Research and Policy. I won’t name which edition or paper because there is a ‘but…’, and it concerns the carelessness of the authors who cited our work.
There is a ‘but…’ because the authors got my name wrong – both in the in text citation and in the bibliography. The good news is that it still links on citation tracking systems (such as the function on Google Scholar) as a paper that I co-wrote. Yet as an ECR, who is trying to make his way in the ‘publish or perish’ world of academia, I can’t help but feel a bit frustrated. Here’s my name in a top journal, but it’s incorrect.
So I took action, I emailed the editors. To their credit I got a response within minutes, with an apology for the carelessness of the authors and that contact with the publisher had been initiated to see if it could be corrected. Yet, due to the inflexibility of doi, apparently this is unlikely.
This then got me thinking about my first publication. I have to admit I did not check the final galley proof thoroughly enough. Indeed, when it was published, it became apparent that I had not corrected some basic incorrect spelling of names in the bibliography. In other words, some very respected authors’ names were wrong! I can happily report that this was corrected, and no offence caused (I hope!).
But the lesson here – check final galley proofs. If you cite an article, I think the very least you can do, out of respect for colleagues, is to get the authors name right. I have made this mistake, and so have authors who have cited me, so it would scream hypocrisy if I was too mad! But it does show that it might be a relatively common problem, so again – check final galley proofs!
However, once the relative pain bypassed, one our papers has still been cited in a top journal – and that is very satisfying indeed.
Professor Edwin van Teijlingen will be running a Skills Building Workshop at the 14th national Nepal Study Days of the Britain-Nepal Academic Council (BNAC) in Liverpool. FHSS Professor van Teijlingen is a long-standing member of BNAC. Registration for this year’s Nepal Study Days is open now, if you are interested click here! Edwin van Teijlingen has conducted many qualitative studies and supervised many postgraduate students doing focus group research. He has published widely on qualitative methods, including research papers on Focus Group Research.1-3
Anybody interested in learning more about Focus Group Discussions as a research method should consider signing up for up for Bournemouth University’s two-day Masterclass ‘Focus Group Research‘ to be held next week Monday 18th and Tuesday 19th April in Bournemouth. Over a two-day period this Masterclass will cover the journey for a research project on focus group research. Basic previous knowledge on qualitative research will be assumed.
All staff and students welcome. Please feel free to bring your lunch.
Voices of the Secret State: Human Rights Activism among North Korean
Defectors in the UK
Abstract: My paper aims to highlight the lived experiences and identity formation of North Korean defectors settled in the UK who are involved in human rights activism. Whilst violations of human rights in North Korea are well documented, human rights activism by its defectors is less well known. Since 2004, approximately 600 North Koreans have settled in the UK. Free NK, a human rights organisation born out of this settlement, has been active in illuminating the reality of North Korea whilst also working towards subverting the regime by informing its fellow remainders about the outside world through the distribution of newspapers. This paper is drawn from ongoing research on North Korean defectors living in the UK. The data is collected using life history interviews to capture their lived experiences and to identify a range of factors which have influenced their involvement in the activism whilst also seeking to find better ways of improving the wellbeing and quality of life for those activists. The presentation will focus on the in-depth story of a North Korean defector who has founded Free NK. Themes that will be addressed in this story include the reason why he has fled North Korea; the processes of getting to the UK; challenges he has faced in his human rights activism.
Dr Hyun-Joo Lim is a lecturer in Sociology and the programme leader for BA Sociology and Social Policy at BU. She is originally from South Korea and has been engaged in various research projects that explore issues around migration, ‘race’/ethnicity, gender and identity. Her previous research examined East Asian mothers in Britain.
For more information about Social Science seminar series please get in touch with Dr Mastoureh Fathi (firstname.lastname@example.org).
All staff and students welcome. Please feel free to bring your lunch.
“Performative Social Science” was a term first coined by Norman Denzin in 2001, the year that Kip Jones received his PhD and began to explore new ways to communicate Social Science findings to wider audiences.
What is Performative Social Science (PSS) then, Art or Science? It isn’t one or the other. It is enriching the ways in which Social Science subjects might be researched and/or findings disseminated or communicated to various communities. Ideally, audiences should be almost unaware of the seams where practitioners have cobbled together in-depth, substantial scholarship with artistic endeavor. PSS is defined as the use of tools from the Arts or Humanities in investigating and/or disseminating Social Science research.
The Seminar will explore Jones’ journey from early productions produced on his PC in his bedsit, to gatherings (physical and virtual) of like-minded academics (Illustrated above), to the production of a major short film based in solid qualitative research methods including auto-ethnography, and back again to ‘kitchen sink’ work, producing creative productions which inform his future efforts.
If you have any queries, please get in touch with seminar series coordinator Dr Mastoureh Fathi, email@example.com
As mentioned by Emily in her August HE Policy post, a draft concordat has been published which seeks to make research data in the UK more openly accessible for use.
The concordat has been drafted under the auspices of the UK Open Research Data Forum [Note 1] by a multi-stakeholder working group, which includes HEFCE, Research Councils UK (RCUK), Jisc, the Wellcome Trust and Universities UK. It aims to help ensure that the research data gathered and generated by members of the UK research community is made openly available for use by others wherever possible, in a manner consistent with relevant legal, ethical and regulatory frameworks and norms.
The concordat aims to establish a set of expectations of good practice, with the intention of making open research data the standard for publicly funded research over the long term. It recognises the different responsibilities of researchers, their employers and the funders of research, although the intention is not to mandate, codify or require specific activities.
The full draft concordat can be found here – http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/opendata/
Key principals are outlined below:
Definition of Research Data used:
“Research Data are quantitative information or qualitative statements collected by researchers in the course of their work by experimentation, observation, interview or other methods. Data may be raw or primary (e.g. direct from measurement or collection) or derived from primary data for subsequent analysis or interpretation (e.g. cleaned up or as an extract from a larger data set). The purpose of open research data is to provide the information necessary to support or validate a research project’s observations, findings or outputs. Data may include, for example, statistics, collections of digital images, sound recordings, transcripts of interviews, survey data and fieldwork observations with appropriate annotations.”
Open access to research data is an enabler of high quality research, a facilitator of innovation and safeguards good research practice.
Good data management is fundamental to all stages of the research process and should be established at the outset.
Data must be curated so that they are accessible, discoverable and useable.
Open access to research data carries a significant cost, which should be respected by all parties.
There are sound reasons why the openness of research data may need to be restricted but any restrictions must be justified and justifiable.
The right of the creators of research data to reasonable first use is recognised.
Use of others’ data should always conform to legal, ethical and regulatory frameworks including appropriate acknowledgement.
Data supporting publications should be accessible by the publication date and should be in a citeable form.
Support for the development of appropriate data skills is recognised as a responsibility for all stakeholders.
Regular reviews of progress towards open access to research data should be undertaken.
New versions of the ethics forms available now, have a look at the research ethics page for the full details, under useful documents.
The new forms are the Participant Info Sheet and the previously titled Consent form, now titled Participant Agreement Form.
Please make sure you start using the new versions from now on, and please do let us know how you find them.
BU Ethics team
The most recent edition of the international journal Women & Birth includes a discussion paper highlighting the role of the academic journal editor, an often misunderstood ‘job’ in academic scholarship . The Bournemouth University authors of this paper are all three active as journal editors and sit on several editorial boards of scientific journals. The role of the journal editor may not be well known by budding authors. The purpose of this article is to explain the editor’s role in order to encourage future participation in reviewing and publication.
This latest paper is part of a series of articles written by staff in the Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health (CMMPH) on academic writing [2-4]. These ‘how-to-do’ papers offer advice to junior researchers and postgraduate students. Several of the papers in this series are co-authored with Bournemouth University’s Visiting Faculty, including Dr. Brijesh Sathian (based in Nepal), Prof. Padam Simkhada (Liverpool John Moores University), Ms. Jillian Ireland (Poole Hospital NHS Foundation Trust), Prof. Debra Bick ( King’s College, London), Dr. Bibha Simkhada (Inter, Nepal) and Dr. Emma Pitchforth (RAND Europe, Cambridge). The range of publications includes papers on advice for article titles , tricky issues such as authorship and author order [6-7], selecting the most appropriate journal for your paper  and writing up qualitative research . Whilst a further paper offers advice on writing an abstract for a scientific conference .
Edwin van Teijlingen, Vanora Hundley & Jenny Hall
Twitter: @EvTeijlingen @VanoraHundley @hallmum5
The value of providing undergraduate students with experience of conducting first hand, empirical research is widely recognised. As a social anthropologist, I’ve long been interested enabling students to discover and engage in ethnographic research. I’m presently developing a new taught unit in which for our BA Sociology and BA Sociology and Anthropology students will carry out ethnographic projects developed in collaboration with local community organisations. This endeavour necessarily poses challenges. One of them is time. Undergrad students’ learning is divided into units delivered over semesters, but a semester is very short time frame in which to design, carry out and write up an ethnographic project. The other is the nature of the collaboration with the non-academic partner, whether that be an NGO, community group, local government partner etc. How can this collaboration be shaped in a way which is beneficial to both parties?
This term I have visited IUPUI (Indiana University Purdue University in Indianapolis), USA. IUPUI is a public university in which dialogue and engagement between faculty and students, on the one hand, and citizens, organisations and businesses, on the other, is a priority for both teaching and research. My visits have provided me with an opportunity to see a diverse range of ways in which this dialogue is promoted and sustained. Here I will summarise some of the strategies I have seen in action at IUPUI which are most pertinent to the kinds of collaborative, community-engaged student ethnographic projects I hope to develop at BU.
1. Investing time
The importance of investing time in developing relationships with local organisations which will have a stake in the research cannot be overstated. Whoever the partner is and whatever the nature of the collaboration, the project is enormously enhanced when both parties make time to talk to each other, arrive at a suitable, realisable aim of the project, and figure out how they are going to achieve it within the fixed timescale. This is of course easy to state and much harder to realise, as it involves all parties investing a very scarce resource, time, into the process. I followed an ethnographic research methods course closely during my visits, a project exploring urban regeneration within a low-income neighbourhood. This made clear the benefits of that early investment of time. Both the academic course leader and management, staff and volunteers at the community development organisation in the local area set aside considerable time in identifying the possibilities and foci of student research projects, long before the teaching proper started. This communication and collaboration also continued throughout the course itself, adjusting to changing and contingent circumstances as the student research projects progressed.
2. Framing the question
Central to the process above is negotiating the research question; what is it that the students will research and why? The question needs to address the interests and priorities of both partners. It must contain the potential for students to formulate their empirical focus and interpret their data in the light of theories and critical questions within their disciplines, and to produce findings which are of some benefit or use to non-academic partners, organisations and citizens. At IUPUI, I found out about series of student projects on urban development issues such as poverty, homelessness, housing, city regeneration strategies, gentrification and food production and consumption, to name some of them. These kinds of topics resulted in findings and interpretations which had both critical value as pieces of academic work and practical value to local people and organisations.
3. Moving teaching to community settings
I closely followed two courses which were taught off-campus in community settings – one in a church / community centre, the other in a women’s correctional facility. The success of any ethnographic project hinges on proximity and familiarity and so establishing this sense of closeness is obviously of enormous value to students. Teaching in a setting within which students will find an immediate mutuality of interest in their engagement with the people and organisations they are going to study helps students think of themselves as ethnographers. It provides the basis for developing relationships, trust, access and cooperation within the community, and for fostering local understanding of what the project is about. This is also a valuable experience that students take with them into their future careers.
4. Finding (new) ways of disseminating the research findings
Academics at IUPUI employed many different means of disseminating their students’ research projects and findings, enabling it to reach audiences within but also well beyond the city itself. Students were strongly encouraged and sometimes financially supported to attend national and international conferences. Funding was raised for publishing pamphlets, books and eBooks about their empirical studies and findings. Time was invested in developing impressive academic blogs and websites about their research. I provide a few links to just some of this fantastic work below.
I have gained many insights, ideas and sense of possibilities from my visits to IUPUI, and I’d like to extend my warm thanks to all colleagues and students whom I had the pleasure of meeting. Special thanks to Professor Susan B. Hyatt, whose scholarship inspired my visits and who made the whole thing possible in a practical sense.
Links to some online examples of IUPUI collaborative student research and scholarship:
– The ‘Neighborhood of Saturdays’. Student research project about urban multi-ethnic neighborhood in Indianapolis.
– ‘Eastside Story: Portrait of a Neighborhood on the Suburban Frontier’: Student project exploring historical change and community identities in a suburban area of Indianapolis.
– ‘Urban Heritage? Archaeology and Homelessness in Indianapolis’. A student project using archaeological methods to explore experiences of homelessness.
– ‘Ransom Place’ project: Collaborative project on culture, consumption and race in an African American neighbourhood in Indianapolis: http://www.iupui.edu/~anthpm/ransom.html
– ‘Archaeology and Material Culture’: blog of Professor Paul Mullins.
The March 2015 newsletter of the Dutch University of Groningen’s School for Behavioural & Cognitive Neurosciences dedicated two pages to the question: ‘How to pick the right journal?’ The author of the English-language newsletter contribution, Liwen Zhang, offer its readers a brief introduction on journal selection for a scientific manuscript. The newsletter piece is based on two papers which both share their submission stories and suggestions of journal selection. We were pleased to see that one of these two papers is by two Bournemouth University professors: Hundley and van Teijlingen. Their paper which gives advice on one specific aspect of academic publishing is called ‘Getting your paper to the right journal: a case study of an academic paper’ . It was published in the Journal of Advanced Nursing in 2002.