Yearly Archives / 2018

Funding opportunities from Innovate UK

1. SBRI: intelligent data to transform local council service delivery

This Small Business Research Initiative (SBRI) competition is funded by the GovTech Catalyst and is sponsored by Durham County Council and Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council.

This competition looks at 2 specific data-gathering techniques in local council services:

1.‘Boots on the ground’: enabling residents to collect and report accurate data about public assets, such as potholes and street lighting, to the local council.

2.‘Eyes on the street’: using local council vehicles to collect and report data as they travel around the borough.

Summary :

Call opens : 24 September 2018

Call closes : 31 October 2018

Available funding : up to £50,000 (including VAT)

Project start date : by 7 Feb 2019

Please see this link for more information about this call.

2. Call for Carbon Capture and Utilisation Demonstration

As part of the government’s Clean Growth Strategy BEIS has allocated up to £20 million to design and construct carbon capture and utilisation (CCU) demonstration projects. This programme is designed to encourage industrial sites to capture carbon dioxide which could then be used in industrial applications, while enabling learning and development of capture technologies at an intermediate scale, so reducing costs and risks.

The overall aims of the CCU demonstration programme are:

  • to demonstrate carbon capture and utilisation at a number of key industrial sites in the UK
  • to demonstrate and accelerate cost reductions in carbon capture technology in the order of 20 to 45%, i.e. £10-20/MWh
  • to encourage a project pipeline of follow-on CCU projects that will help less mature, but more novel technology to be demonstrated at scale; and
  • to improve understanding of the cost and performance of carbon capture technology
  • to de-risk the capture technology.

The programme is in 3 phases:

  • Phase 1 focuses on initial scoping study for an engineering supplier to work on BEIS’ behalf with potential host sites, carbon dioxide users and technology suppliers to produce site-specific cost estimates for deploying CCU at UK industrial sites. Wood.Plc successfully bid for Phase 1
  • Phase 2 will fund projects to conduct design studies for constructing CCUequipment at UK host sites
  • Phase 3 will fund projects to construct and demonstrate CCU

Summary :

Call closes : 11 November 2018 (Applicants must complete the application forms on this link and submit by email to Industry.Innovation@beis.gov.uk by Sunday 11 November 2018.)

Available funding : up to £5million

Project duration : up to 24 months

Project dates : finish by 31 March 2021

Please see this link for more information about this call.

3. Open grant funding competition: round 3

Up to £20million investment will be made by Innovate UK in the best cutting-edge or disruptive ideas with a view to commercialisation.

All proposals must be business focused, and can come from any area of technology, science or engineering, including arts, design, media or creative industries.

Summary : 

Call opens : 24 September 2018

Call closes : 14 November 2018

Available funding : between £25,000 and £500,000

Project duration : Between 19 and 36 months

Project dates : start by 1 April 2019 and end by 1 April 2022

Please see this link for more information about this call.

4. UK Aerospace Research and Technology Programme: fast-track collaborative R&D EoI

UK organisations can apply for a share of up to £8 million to carry out collaborative R&D, collaborative fast-track and feasibility projects that enhance the UK’s position in civil aerospace.

To be eligible for funding you must:

  • be a UK based business, academic organisation, charity, public sector organisation or research and technology organisation (RTO)
  • plan to carry out an aerospace research or technology development project in the UK
  • address the specific requirements of the UK Aerospace Technology Strategy, ‘Raising Ambition’
  • sign up to the Aerospace Technology Institute (ATI) framework agreement
  • work in collaboration with other organisations to develop proposals and deliver projects

To lead a project you must:

To collaborate you must be a:

  • business
  • research organisation
  • public sector organisation
  • charity

Summary : 

Call opens : 24 September 2018

Call closes : 5 December 2018

Available funding : between £425,000 to £1million

Project duration : Between 12 and 24 months

Project dates : start by August 2019 and end by August 2021

Please see this link for more information about this call.

5. IDP 15: the road to zero emission vehicles, large R&D

Up to £4million is available for UK businesses to apply for to research and develop technologies that accelerate the transition to zero emmision vehicles.

To be eligible you must:

  • be a UK based business, academic organisation, charity, public sector organisation or research and technology organisation (RTO)
  • carry out your project work in the UK
  • intend to exploit the results from or in the UK
  • work in collaboration with other businesses, research organisations or third-sector organisations

To lead a project you must be a UK based business, of any size.

A separate £2 million is available for feasibility study projects and a further £16 million to support proportionality smaller collaborative R&D projects.

Summary : 

Call closes : 6 December 2018

Available funding : up to £4million

Project duration : Between 12 and 36 months

Project dates : start by June 2019 and end by June 2022

Please see this link for more information about this call.

 

Funding opportunity – Serial Interactions in Imperfect Information Games Applied to Complex Military Decision-Making

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Defense Sciences Office (DSO) has issued a Disruption Opportunity (DO) Special Notice (SN) inviting submissions of innovative basic or applied research concepts in the technical domain of artificial intelligence and game theory. In particular, DARPA is interested in understanding the feasibility of applying recent developments in these areas to complex military decision making in changing multi-agent environments with imperfect information.

Please see below a summary of this funding opportunity:

Available funding: Phase 1 (Feasibility Study) – $500,000; Phase 2 (Proof of Concept) – $500,000

Award duration : Phase 1 – 8 months; Phase 2 – 10 months

Deadline for submission : 16 October 2018

Please see this link for more information about this funding call.

 

Funding opportunity – Policy research programme NIHR

There are currently two calls available under the Policy Research Programme offered by the NIHR.

Call 1 :  Infectious Disease Dynamic Modelling in Health Protection Call

The National Institute for Health Research Policy Research Programme (NIHR PRP) invites applications for the call: Infectious Disease Dynamic Modelling in Health Protection to address two key areas:

  • A stream of dynamical disease and health economic modelling relating to the national vaccination programme. This will provide an alternative or ‘second’ opinion to and run parallel with, that provided by Public Health England (PHE).
  • Modelling of other infectious diseases that lie outside the immunisation programme

This programme will provide a responsive dynamic resource to augment the analytical support currently provided within the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) and PHE, which contributes towards the development of infectious disease and immunisation.

Submission Deadline : 2 October 2018 (Stage 1); 22 January 2019 (Stage 2)

Submission outcome : December 2018 (Stage 1); May 2019 (Stage 2)

Call 2: Health Inequalities Research Initiative

The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Policy Research Programme (PRP) invites applications to undertake health inequalities research for the call: Health Inequalities Research Initiative to support policy makers in the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) in the following areas:

  • Assessing how to improve existing population wide policies aimed at improving health outcomes so that they so they also reduce health inequalities and/or do not exacerbate inequalities
  • Identifying which existing health system interventions that are specifically designed to reduce socio-economic health inequalities are effective and cost-effective
  • Assessing the effectiveness in reducing health inequalities of whole system approaches to improving the health of deprived communities;
  • Identifying opportunities and risks presented by advancements in digital technology, and practical measures to ensure such technology does not exacerbate socio-economic health inequalities

Submission Deadline : 2 October 2018 (Stage 1); 22 January 2019 (Stage 2)

Submission outcome : December 2018 (Stage 1); May 2019 (Stage 2)

Please see this link for more information about this call.

Why tech giants have little to lose (and lots to win) from new EU copyright law

File 20180919 158243 roiwue.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Copyright, and copyright laws, will not always match expectations.
inkninja, CC BY

Maurizio Borghi, Bournemouth University

The new European Union Copyright Directive, passed recently by the European parliament after a vociferous campaign both for and against, has been described by its advocates as Europe striking a blow against US tech giants in the battle for control of copyrighted content online. This is painted as a battle about who pays for creative works, culture, and the role and workings of a free press in a world where these “commodities” are exchanged freely on social media and other platforms controlled by giants such as Google and Facebook.

The sense of this battle is found in two articles from the text of the new directive. Article 11 introduces the “press publishers’ right”, also called the “link tax”. This permits publishing groups such as newspapers and other media to charge online content sharing service providers and platforms – most obviously, Google, Facebook and Twitter – a fee for a licence to link to their content. Article 13 makes online content sharing service providers responsible for the copyright content uploaded by users. Large platforms must implement filters to monitor copyright infringements and obtain licences from music, film and television rights-holders for the use of copyright content where it appears on their services – YouTube and Instagram, for example. This has led to claims that the directive would effectively ban memes, because automated checking of uploads would identify them only as copyright material, rather than allowable “fair use” or “parody”.

Unsurprisingly, publishers and copyright industries across Europe have saluted the new law as a great victory of European culture and free press against the greedy American titans. But it is not this simple.

First-mover advantage

When companies like Google and Facebook started their ascent as global players in the mid-2000s, they benefited from a generally favourable legislative framework, made of legislative vacuum and liberal legislation. Thanks to the flexible contours of the “safe harbour” provisions for internet hosting services – which essentially immunises them from any liability for content uploaded by their users – YouTube rapidly became the main channel of distribution of music. Similarly, Facebook and Google News became major distributors of news (whether good, bad or “fake”).

The ascent of these companies was not without hurdles and challenges, including a chequered history of lawsuits from music, film and television companies against content-sharing platforms, and by press publishers against news aggregators, which eventually changed the legal contours of the hosting providers’ safe harbour in the European Union. As a result of these legal disputes, the tech firms have progressively adapted their business models from head-on challenge of copyright norms to adopting a more accommodating attitude towards copyright holders and press publishers.

Google, for example, has entered into various commercial agreements with news agencies and publishers to display content in Google News and Google Books. YouTube, a Google subsidiary, has entered into revenue-sharing agreements with copyright holders based on a technology called Content ID that detects, identifies and manages copyright-protected music and video uploaded by users. Facebook has struck similar deals with major music labels and has a partnership programme with news publishers. A large amount of the content we consume today through these platforms is authorised by the copyright owners and generates some revenue for them.

It’s a bit more complicated than that.
Reddit

A hammer to crack a nut

So in this respect, what the new EU Copyright Directive now obliges the tech giants to do is largely what they do already. To be sure, it is an open question whether they pay enough for the privilege of making use of (and profiting from) all that content created by others. Admittedly, by obliging tech giants to pay press publishers and to obtain licences with copyright holders, the new directive may reduce their bargaining power with respect to the arrangements they must make with content creators, and therefore lead the copyright holders to increase their revenue share. This small (and largely uncertain) effect has some important consequences.

Take the directive’s article 13, which redefines the safe harbour for content-sharing providers. In effect, platforms like YouTube will be directly responsible for copyright content uploaded by their users (although they will continue to be shielded from direct liability for other wrongs committed by their users, such as defamation or hate speech). If this norm was in place ten or 15 years ago it would have prevented YouTube from becoming what it is today.

But now it is only good news for YouTube. The new directive will have little effect on its current business model (perhaps paying only a little more for contracts with copyright owners), but it will prevent others from challenging established firms’ dominant positions. Costs that for platforms like YouTube or Instagram today represent a small and ultimately insignificant portion of their profits are huge and potentially insurmountable barriers for new companies attempting to enter the market.

Only micro or small enterprises and non-commercial platforms – which are excluded from the effects of article 13 – will benefit from the same favourable legislative conditions that Facebook and Google experienced at the beginning of their career. But even these, as soon as they become more than start-ups, will have to operate in the same playing field as established giants – leaving them with no serious prospect of winning a substantial market share, challenging their dominance, or providing an outlet for innovation.

Quite the opposite from what was the intention, the Copyright Directive may ensure the current crop of tech giants retain their dominant position for a long time, possibly forever. Which one could say is not exactly bad news for them, and not exactly a victory for European creativity either.

Maurizio Borghi, Professor of Law, Bournemouth University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Publish Open Access in Springer Journals for Free!

BU has an agreement with Springer which enables its authors to publish articles open access in one of the Springer Open Choice journals at no additional cost.

There are hundreds of titles included in this agreement, some of which are – Hydrobiologia, European Journal of Nutrition, Annals of Biomedical Engineering, Climatic Change, Marine Biology and the Journal of Business Ethics. A full list of the journals included can be found here

To make sure that your article is covered by this new agreement, when your article has been accepted for publication, Springer will ask you to confirm the following:

  • My article has been accepted by an Open Choice eligible journal
  • I am the corresponding author (please use your institutional email address not your personal one)
  • I am affiliated with an eligible UK institution (select your institutions name)
  • My article matches one of these types: OriginalPaper, ReviewPaper, BriefCommunication or ContinuingEducation

Springer will then verify these details with us and then your article will be made available in open access with a CC BY licence.

Please note that 30 Open Choice journals are not included in this agreement as they do not offer CC BY licensing.

If you have any questions about the agreement or the process, please contact OpenAccess@bournemouth.ac.uk

ERC Work Programme 2019 published

With a slight delay, the European Research Council (ERC) has published the Work Programme for 2019. While the Starting Grant 2019 call is open and preparation of proposals may already be at their final stage, academics may refer to ERC Work Programme 2019 for further information on ERC Consolidator Grant(submission deadline 07/02/2019), Advanced Grant (29/08/2019), Synergy grant (08/11/2018) and Proof of Concept Grant (cut-off dates 22/01/2019, 25/04/2019 and 19/09/2019).

In the meantime, ERC has published an article “Applying for ERC funding – myths vs reality”. Academics might be interested to find out more about ERC grant application process from the point of view of a person who has experience from both sides of the fence; Professor Superti-Furga, a molecular and systems biologist, has won several ERC grants from 2009 to 2015 and became a member of the ERC’s Scientific Council in 2017.

The fundamental activity of the ERC is to provide attractive, long-term funding to support excellent investigators and their research teams to pursue ground-breaking, high-gain/high-risk research.

There are great support opportunities available at BU for academics planning to apply for EU and International funding. If you are considering applying for international funding, contact international research facilitator or any member of RKEO Funding Development Team at your faculty to individually discuss your ideas and the ways we could support you.

EU funding – UKRO Annual Visit to BU

As announced earlier, RKEO will host annual UK Research Office visit to BU on 10th October 2018. The event will take place in FG06 seminar room (Fusion Building). Session will be delivered by Dr Andreas Kontogeorgos, European Advisor of the UK Research Office.

Bookings for this event are now open to BU Staff and, so that catering will be arranged, confirm attendance by Wednesday, 3rd October – please book your place following a link on event’s intranet page.

The sessions for BU academics will commence at 11:30 with an update on Brexit, followed by a networking lunch. In the afternoon session there will be a review of future ICT-related calls and more detailed overview of the COST Actions funding scheme – please see full agenda below.

Time Activity
11:30 – 12:00 Brexit News, Q&A (to be continued during lunch if necessary)

(All invited/registered from 11:30 to 15:15)

12:00 – 13:00 Networking lunch
13:00 – 14:15 Cross-disciplinary nature of ICT – forthcoming Horizon 2020 calls and topics under pillars of Industrial Leadership and Societal Challenges
14:15 – 14:30 Comfort break / over-run time / time for people to come and in and out
14:30 – 15:15 COST Actions – bottom-up driven networks for expanding European Cooperation in Science and Technology
15:15 – 16:30 15 minute 1-2-1s
16:30 Close

A number of 15 minute 1-2-1 sessions available with Andreas (UKRO) and Ainar (BU International Research Facilitator) – here, you can discuss your European funding plans and ambitions with either of them. To book your 1-2-1 meeting, please make a note about this when booking for the main event or email directly to RKEDevFramework@bournemouth.ac.uk with “UKRO 1-2-1” in subject field.

If you have an interest in applying to Horizon 2020 and other European funding, please make full use of BU’s subscription by registering to receive updates from UKRO. On their website, you can access subscriber-exclusive support materials including call fact-sheets and details of future UKRO events.

Climate change: we need to start moving people away from some coastal areas, warns scientist

File 20180913 177938 1o9i6st.jpg?ixlib=rb 1.1
Jaroslav Moravcik/Shutterstock.com

Luciana Esteves, Bournemouth University

We are all too familiar with images of flooding in low lying areas after heavy rainfall or houses destroyed by coastal erosion after a storm. For an increasing number of people, coastal flooding and erosion is a real threat to property, the local economy and, in some cases, life. Hurricane Florence, for example, is forcing more than a million people on the US East Coast to flee from their homes.

Coasts support important industries (such as ports and tourism) and their populations are growing faster than inland areas. But coastal areas are also particularly sensitive to impacts of climate change, which are likely to increase the extent, intensity and frequency of coastal flooding and erosion.

So not only have we occupied areas that naturally flood and erode from time to time, we have changed the environment in ways that increase coastal flooding and erosion risk. And we continue to do so, sometimes with serious legal consequences. Meanwhile, public policies have not been very effective in managing this predicament.

Traditional hard engineering approaches of coastal protection (such as groynes, revetments and seawalls) are known to cause detrimental effects, which in the longer term can aggravate the problem they were supposed to solve. The impact of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans was a stark reminder that engineering structures are not effective against all events at all times. They are built based on trade-offs between the level of protection needed and the costs of construction and maintenance.

Soft engineering, such as beach nourishment (where sediment, usually sand, is added to the shore), can offer a level of protection and beach amenity – but these reduce through time, as erosion continues. Meanwhile, “protection” gives a false sense of safety and enables occupation of risk areas, increasing the number of people and assets in risk areas.

Attractive but dangerous locations.
Georgios Tsichlis/Shutterstock.com

A serious conundrum

Climate change has forced a paradigm shift in the way coastal flooding and erosion risks are managed. In areas of lower risk, adaptation plans are being devised, often with provisions to make properties and infrastructure more resilient. Adaptation may involve requiring raised foundations in flood-prone areas or the installation of mitigating measures, such as sustainable drainage systems. Building codes may also be established to make structures more disaster-proof and to control the types of constructions within risk zones.

But such adaptation options are often of limited use or unsuitable for high-risk areas. In such areas relocation is the only safe climate-proof response.

Planning for relocation is problematic. There are large uncertainties concerning the predictions of climate change impacts – and this makes planning a difficult task. Uncertainty is not an easy concept to incorporate in planning and coastal management. In some places, effects of sea level rise are already evident, but it’s still difficult to be sure how fast and how much it will rise.

Similarly, there is still great uncertainty about when and where the next “super storm” will happen and how intense it will be. Inevitably, areas that have already been affected by flooding or erosion will be affected again – the question is when and how badly.

Relocated

Despite these issues, relocation is increasingly being adopted as a strategy. There have been some successes at the local level. One such example is the Twin Streams project in Auckland (New Zealand), where relocation (through the purchase of 81 properties) has provided space to create community gardens and cycleways where 800,000 native vegetation plants were planted. This was made possible by engaging over 60,000 volunteer hours.

Although not on the coast, the town of Kiruna in Sweden shows that, when risks are high, forward thinking and long-term planning can make large-scale relocation possible. Kiruna is at risk of ground collapse due to mining. Over a 20-year period, more than 18,000 residents will be relocated to a new city centre 3km away. The layout of the new city centre has been designed to be more sustainable, energy efficient and have better options for cultural activities and socialising. Local residents were engaged and helped identifying 21 heritage buildings they want relocated to the new area.

Kiruna, the northernmost town in Sweden.
Tsuguliev/Shutterstock.com

The French, meanwhile, have instigated the first ever national strategy focused on relocation from high-risk areas. French policy places a duty on local authorities to develop plans by 2020, identifying the areas at serious risk of coastal flooding or erosion, what needs to be relocated and how (including sources of funding). Five pilot areas have been selected to test how the strategy might be implemented at the local level. Two of these areas have contrasting approaches and outcomes.

In Lacanau (a top surfing stop in the Bay of Biscay) coastal erosion threatens the tourism-based economy. Although public opposition was initially high, the development of a local plan has generally been positive, mainly due to the inclusive community involvement in the project. A local committee was created to act as a consultation body and decisions were informed by open discussions based on clear communication of technical, legal, financial and sociological issues.

In Ault (northern France) the experience was less positive. the risk reduction plan identified a high-risk zone within 70 metres of the cliff edge. It was decided that no new construction would be allowed here and restrictions to improvements on the existing 240 houses were imposed. This would force relocation if the properties were damaged by flooding or erosion. In May 2018 a residents group won a court case which considered the plan illegal, lifting the restrictions imposed on renovation of existing properties until a new plan is drafted.

The clifftops of Ault, France.
Massimo Santi/Shutterstock.com

Engaging communities

These examples demonstrate that engaging with local communities from the inception of any such project is essential. Unfortunately, people instinctively resist change – and relocation is a complete shift from the centuries-old approach of fixing coastlines and fighting against coastal dynamics. Our current legal and management frameworks are too geared up for maintaining the status quo. Funding and legal aid to support purchase of properties and removal of infrastructure that are not imminently deemed inhabitable are limited.

But open and inclusive debate about the need for relocation and the consequences and benefits of it can change people’s perceptions. The “Nimby” (not in my backyard) attitude is strong in coastal communities, but can subside after personal experiences of severe flooding or erosion. The environment around us is changing and we cannot continue living the way we did in the past.

Prevention is always less costly and more effective than remediation, particularly when involving people’s safety. The earlier we accept the need to change, the less damaged is the legacy we leave to the next generations.The Conversation

Luciana Esteves, Associate Professor, Bournemouth University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Professor Dimitrios Buhalis keynote on Smart Tourism and the importance of networks for destinations presentation at the European Travel Commission Workshop

Professor Dimitrios Buhalis delivered a keynote Smart Tourism and the importance of networks for destinations presentation at the European Travel Commission Workshop in Vienna.

Professor Buhalis explained how eTourism evolved in the last 30 years and explained some of his research that was published in as early as in 1993 and is still relevant (Buhalis, D., 1993, Regional Integrated Computer Information Reservation Management Systems (RICIRMS) as a strategic tool for the small and medium tourism enterprises, Tourism Management, Vol. 14(5), pp.366 378. https://doi.org/10.1016/0261-5177(93)90005-6). He then transformed ETC delegates to the future explaining how technology will shape the future of tourism by 2030.

He explained what smart tourism is and what are the benefits for tourism destinations and organisations from the emerging tourism digital ecosystem.  Latest research from key publications was also offered.

Professor Buhalis also offered the latest range of research on smart tourism as explained in a range of publications including:

Zhang, H., Gordon, S., Buhalis, D., Ding, X., 2018, Experience Value Cocreation on Destination Online Platforms, Journal of Travel Research, In print https://doi.org/10.1177/0047287517733557

Buhalis, D., Leung, R., 2018, Smart Hospitality – Interconnectivity and Interoperability towards an Ecosystem, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol.71, pp.41-50 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2017.11.011

Molinillo, F., Liébana-Cabanillas, F., Anaya-Sánchez, R., Buhalis, D., 2018, DMO online platforms: image and intention to visit, Tourism Management, Vol.65, pp.116-130 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026151771730211X

Williams, N., Inversini; A., Buhalis, D., Ferdinand, N., 2017 Destination eWOM drivers and characteristics, Annals of Tourism Research Vol.64 pp.87–101 http://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2017.02.007

Boes, K., Buhalis, D., Inversini, A., 2016, Smart tourism destinations: ecosystems for tourism destination competitiveness”, International Journal of Tourism Cities, Vol. 2(2), pp.108–124  http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJTC-12-2015-0032

Williams, N., Ferdinand, N., Inversini, A., Buhalis, D., 2015, Community Crosstalk: An exploratory analysis of destination and festival eWOM on Twitter, Journal of Marketing Management Vol.31 (9-10), pp.1113-1140 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0267257X.2015.1035308

Neuhofer, B., Buhalis, D., Ladkin, A., 2015, Smart technologies for personalised experiences. A case from the Hospitality Industry, Electronic Markets, Volume 25(3), pp. 243-254 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12525-015-0182-1

Xiang, Z., Tussyadiah, I.,Buhalis, D., 2015, Smart destinations: Foundations, analytics, and applications, Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 4(3), October 2015, pp. 143-144 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212571X15000360

Buhalis, D., and Foerste, M., 2015, SoCoMo Marketing for Travel and Tourism:  empowering co-creation of value, Journal of Destination Marketing & Management, 4(3), October 2015, pp.151–161 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212571X15000207

Neuhofer, B., Buhalis, D., Ladkin, A., 2014, A typology of technology enhanced experiences, International Journal of Tourism Research, 16: 340–350.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.1958

Mistilis, N., and Buhalis, D., Gretzel, U., 2014, ‘eDestination Marketing of the future: the perspective of an Australian Tourism Stakeholder Network ‘, Journal Travel Research, Vo.53, 1-13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0047287514522874

 

Professor Dimitrios Buhalis at the European Travel Commission Workshop in Vienna on Smart Tourism for destinations #tourism #smart #destination #smarttourism #smarttourism #IoT #ArtificialIntelligence

Good Clinical Practice refresher – 2nd October 2018

Are you currently undertaking research within the NHS and your Good Clinical Practice (GCP) training is due to expire? Or has it expired recently?

GCP certification lasts for two years, so if your training is due to expire, has expired, or you want to validate your learning, then take advantage of the upcoming refresher half day session, taking place at Royal Bournemouth Hospital on Tuesday 2nd October, 1pm – 4:30pm.

Spaces are still remaining, so if you’d like to enrol, get in touch with Research Ethics or the Wessex Clinical Research Network.

Introduction to Good Clinical Practice – 10th October

Are you interested in running your own research project within the NHS? Good Clinical Practice, or ‘GCP’, is a requirement for those wishing to work on clinical research projects in a healthcare setting.

GCP is the international ethical, scientific and practical standard to which all clinical research is conducted. By undertaking GCP, you’re able to demonstrate the rights, safety and well-being of your research participants are protected, and that the data collected are reliable.

The next GCP full day session is scheduled for Wednesday 10th October, at Dorset County Hospital, Dorchester – 8:45am – 4:30pm.

The day will comprise of the following sessions:

  • Introduction to research and the GCP standards;
  • Preparing to deliver your study;
  • Identifying and recruiting participants – eligibility and informed consent;
  • Data collection and ongoing study delivery;
  • Safety reporting;
  • Study closure.

If you’re interested in booking a place, please contact Research Ethics.
Remember that support is on offer at BU if you are thinking of introducing your research ideas into the NHS – email the Research Ethics mailbox, and take a look at the Clinical Governance blog.

New paper by recent BU Sociology graduate

Dr. Andrew Harding and his BU PhD supervisors just published a new paper from his Ph.D. research [1].   This interesting paper ‘Suppy-side review of the UK specialist housing market and why it is failing older people’ reviews the supply-side of policies and practices that impact on the shortage of supply in the contemporary specialist housing market for older people in the UK.  Andrew is currently based at Lancaster University.

Congratulations!

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH

 

Reference:

  1. Harding, Andrew, Parker, Jonathan, Hean, Sarah & Hemingway, Ann (2018) Supply-side review of the UK specialist housing market and why it is failing older people. Housing, Care and Support

 

New BU publication on maternity care & culture in Afghanistan

Congratulations to Dr. Rachel Arnold on the acceptance by Social Science & Medicine (published by Elsevier) of the second paper based on her PhD on maternity care in Afghanistan [1].  This interesting ethnography explores the experiences, motivations and constraints of healthcare providers in a large public Afghan maternity hospital. Arnold and colleagues identify barriers and facilitators in the delivery of care. Under the surface of this maternity hospital, social norms were in conflict with the principles of biomedicine. Contested areas included the control of knowledge, equity and the primary goal of work. The institutional culture was further complicated by pressure from powerful elites. These unseen values and pressures explain much of the disconnection between policy and implementation, education and the everyday behaviours of healthcare providers.

Improving the quality of care and equity in Afghan public maternity hospitals will require political will from all stakeholders to acknowledge these issues and find culturally attuned ways to address them.  The authors argue that this notion of parallel and competing world-views on healthcare has relevance beyond Afghanistan.   The paper co-authored by (a) Prof. Kath Ryan, Professor of Social Pharmacy at the University of Reading and Visiting Professor in FHSS, and BU’s Professors Immy Holloway and Edwin van Teijlingen.

 

References:

  1. Arnold, R., van Teijlingen, E., Ryan, K., Holloway, I. (2018) Parallel worlds: An ethnography of care in an Afghan maternity hospital, Social Science & Medicine 126:33-40. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.09.010.

 

My trip Madeira to talk about sports events

I have just returned from Madeira Island where I delivered the opening keynote presentation at the international seminar on the impacts of the organisation of sports events held in the autonomous region of Madeira, Portugal. The seminar was co-organised by the Madeira University and the Portuguese Swimming Federation, and was a side event of the Women’s U19 Water Polo European Championships. Besides my keynote, the seminar included panels about the economic, tourism and social-sporting impacts of sports events, with the last panel on public policy and sporting events.

My presentation focused on ‘sports events and local and tourist development’. I explained the types of impacts brought about by sporting events, and highlighted some of the challenges in measuring them. I then argued that the traditional focus on economic and tourism impacts often overlooks other important impacts, such as effects on social capital. Using the example of the Festival Makers programme developed by BU academic Dr. Debbie Sadd, I demonstrated how volunteering can develop social capital and how some of the impacts continue to be visible well beyond the event. I concluded my presentation with some ideas about strategic directions for sports events in Madeira.

Speakers at the seminar included two ministers of the regional government of Madeira, a former minister of youth and sport of Portugal, directors of major sports events in Madeira (including the founder and director of one of the top Ultra Trails in the world, the Madeira Island Ultra Trail), the presidents of the national and regional swimming associations, and academics from both Madeira and other Portuguese universities. The event attracted around 60 attendees from a variety of backgrounds such as physical education teachers, sports club managers, coaches, hotel managers, academics and postgraduate students.

I was also invited to attend the gala dinner of the Water Polo Championships at the luxurious Pestana Casino Park hotel, one of the local sponsors of the event. We were treated to a beautiful meal, as the picture attest.

Despite being Portuguese, I had never visited Madeira so this was also an opportunity to attend some of the championship matches and visit some of the island’s iconic tourist attractions. Dr. Jorge Soares, Assistant Professor of Sport Management at the University of Madeira, was my host and was kind enough to show me some of the sights, including the breathtaking sunrise at Pico do Areeiro (Areeiro Peak, 1818m), Walking though a Levada (irrigation channel), eating the locally famous dry tuna sandwich and watching the boat procession in honour of Our Lady of Pity.

I also had the chance to meet several friends from the university time who now work in Madeira.

I knew Madeira was beautiful, but I did not know that it was this beautiful. I thoroughly recommend it to anyone. A must do trip. You can easily spend a week here and not feel bored in any way. I don’t think it will take long for me to return.