Yearly Archives / 2020

Conversation article: Police forces must take firm and unified stance on tackling sexual abuse of position

Clickmanis/Shutterstock

Fay Sweeting, Bournemouth University

PC Stephen Mitchell of Northumbria Police was jailed for life in 2011 for two rapes, three indecent assaults and six counts of misconduct in a public office, having targeted some of society’s most vulnerable for his own sexual gratification. The case prompted an urgent review into the extent of police sexual misconduct and the quality of internal investigations. One of the recommendations required forces to publicly declare the outcomes of misconduct hearings.

A review of police sexual misconduct in the UK by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary revealed on average 218 cases a year between 2014 and 2016, or around one case per 1,000 officers. A follow-up report from last year shows 415 cases over the following three years, an average of around 138 a year.

But while these serious crimes are still relatively rare, sexual misconduct is a serious matter with implications for the public’s view and trust of the police as an institution. In many cases, the officers’ actions have potential to re-victimise those who are already victims of domestic abuse or rape. Such abuse of position is also likely to be under-reported, with victims fearing they will not be believed.

Compared to other forms of police corruption, sexual crimes committed by serving officers is under-researched, with the majority of existing research focusing on the US and Canada. I am police officer conducting PhD research on sexual misconduct among police officers and barriers to reporting sexual misconduct. In a new paper, my colleagues and I sought to explore the situation in England and Wales by examining the outcomes of police disciplinary proceedings.

Analysing documents from 155 police misconduct hearings, we identified eight different behaviours:

  1. Voyeurism – for example using a police helicopter camera to observe women sunbathing topless in their private gardens.
  2. Sexual assaults, relationships or attempted sexual relationships with victims or other vulnerable persons. While the national figures show some 117 reports of sexual assaults by police officers, the disciplinary hearings we studied featured primarily cases of professional malpractice through consensual but inappropriate relationships that fell below the threshold of criminal behaviour.
  3. Sexual relationships with offenders. Similarly, while the data was heavily sanitised for publication there were only a very small number of cases where assault was involved. In most cases, these were consensual relationships, albeit inappropriate ones.
  4. Sexual contact involving juveniles, including the making of or distribution of pornographic images of children.
  5. Behaviour towards police officers, including sexual assaults on colleagues and sexually inappropriate language and behaviour.
  6. Sex on duty, chiefly between colleagues or officers and their partners.
  7. Unwanted sexual approaches to members of the public – for example, pressuring a member of the public who is not a victim or witness for their phone number and then sending sexually inappropriate messages.
  8. Pornography, such as posting intimate images of former partners on revenge porn sites and, in one case, using a police camera to record a pornographic film.

It’s useful to see how the offences in England and Wales differ compared to the US and Canada. For example, US researcher Timothy Maher defines what he calls “sexual shakedowns”, a category of offence not recorded in the UK, where an officer demands a sexual service, for example in return for not making an arrest.

This is particularly prevalent in cases involving sex workers, and also other marginalised women such as those with low education levels, or those experiencing homelessness, drug and alcohol abuse or mental health issues. In a US study of women drawn from records of drug courts, 96% had sex with an officer on duty, 77% had repeated exchanges, 31% reported rape by an officer, and 54% were offered favours by officers in exchange for sex.

When US officers targeted offenders for sexual gain, it was often for the purpose of humiliation or dominance – an unnecessary strip search, for example. On the other hand, our research indicates the problem in the UK is more of officers targeting vulnerable victims or witnesses in order to initiate a sexual relationship.

Unhappy woman with face in hands
Women who are already suffering domestic violence are often among those police officers have had inappropriate sexual relationships with, considered an abuse of position.
Mark Nazh/Shutterstock

The most common sexual offences by officers

We found the most common type of sexual misconduct was officers having sexual relationships with witnesses or victims, accounting for nearly a third of all cases. Many of these victims had histories of domestic abuse, substance abuse or mental illness, making them highly vulnerable.

In general, the victims revealed many of the same risk factors as those found in people targeted by sex offenders. There are also similarities between the actions of these police officers and similar offences by prison officers or teachers, who are also more likely to select victims they believe are easily controllable and less likely to speak out.

The second most common type involved the way police officers treated their colleagues – most often a higher-ranking male officer towards a lower-ranking or less experienced female officer. Generally, higher ranking officers have less contact with the public and more contact with staff, which may at least partially explain this finding. But in the US and Canada this type of sexual misconduct is more likely to be directed towards a colleague of the same rank.

As in the US, we found that the vast majority of officers involved in sexual misconduct are male. For the handful of female officers in our sample, almost all were involved in sexual relationships with offenders. Hearing documents do not provide in-depth information, and in media coverage – such as that of PC Tara Woodley, who helped her sex offender partner evade police – it is harder to understand who held the power and control in these relationships.

Misconduct hearings, with variable results

The outcomes of sexual misconduct hearings differed, with officers more likely to be dismissed for having sex with victims in forces from the south of England than in the north, while officers having sex on duty were more likely to be dismissed in the Midlands. Officers above the rank of sergeant were more frequently dismissed than constables, suggesting there is less tolerance of misconduct for those of higher rank. Compare this to similar cases in the NHS, where nurses involved in sexual misconduct are more likely to be struck off than doctors.

Our findings suggest that police forces in England and Wales are taking sexual misconduct seriously, with 94% of all cases leading to formal disciplinary actions, and 70% leading to dismissal. But the variation of outcomes across the country is a concern, and there is evidence of misconduct hearing panels not following the College of Policing’s guidance, as seen in a recent case of racist comments by West Midlands police officers.

I believe that the majority of my colleagues uphold the moral and ethical values expected of them, but more needs to be done. The HM Inspectorate of Constabulary’s report from last year argues that police forces are not moving quickly enough to deal with the issue, citing lack of investment, training and poor record keeping. There can be no place in the police for those who would abuse their position.

Fay Sweeting, PhD Candidate in in Forensic Psychology, Bournemouth University

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

Final Week to Apply | Call for Abstracts – Annual Postgraduate Research Conference

There is just under one week remaining to submit your abstract for The 12th Annual Postgraduate Research Conference.

With the option to present an oral presentation or have your poster displayed virtually to the wider BU community, these are both opportunities to showcase your research and enhance presentation skills whether you have just started on your research degree or are coming towards the end of your research.

Send your abstract to pgconference@bournemouth.ac.uk by Monday 2 November, we look forward to receiving them.

Registration to attend will open soon!

NERC standard grants (Jan 2021 deadline) – internal competition extended

**The original EoI deadline of 23rd Oct has been extended to 30th Oct**

NERC introduced demand management measures in 2012. These were revised in 2015 to reduce the number and size of applications from research organisations for NERC’s discovery science standard grant scheme. Full details can be found in the BU policy document for NERC demand management measures available here.

As at January 2020, BU has been capped at one application per standard grant round. The measures only apply to NERC standard grants (including new investigators). An application counts towards an organisation, where the organisation is applying as the grant holding organisation (of the lead or component grant). This will be the organisation of the Principal Investigator of the lead or component grant.

BU process

As a result, BU has introduced a process for determining which application will be submitted to each NERC Standard Grant round. This will take the form of an internal competition, which will include peer review. The next available standard grant round is 12th January 2021. The deadline for internal Expressions of Interest (EoI) which will be used to determine which application will be submitted is 30th October 2020.  The EoI form, BU policy for NERC Demand Management Measures and process for selecting an application can be found here: I:\RDS\Public\NERC Demand Management.

NERC have advised that where a research organisation submits more applications to any round than allowed under the cap, NERC will office-reject any excess applications, based purely on the time of submission through the Je-S system (last submitted = first rejected). However, as RDS submit applications through Je-S on behalf of applicants, RDS will not submit any applications that do not have prior agreement from the internal competition.

Following the internal competition, the Principal Investigator will have access to support from RDS, and will work closely with Research Facilitators and Funding Development Officers to develop the application. Access to external bid writers will also be available.

Appeals process

If an EoI is not selected to be submitted as an application, the Principal Investigator can appeal to Professor Tim McIntyre-Bhatty, Deputy Vice-Chancellor. Any appeals must be submitted within ten working days of the original decision. All appeals will be considered within ten working days of receipt.

RDS Contacts

Please contact Lisa Andrews, RDS Research Facilitator – andrewsl@bournemouth.ac.uk if you wish to submit an expression of interest.

 

 

*New* Full Economic Cost thresholds for research and knowledge exchange (RKE) activity

A review of BU’s research and knowledge exchange activity demonstrated that over the past three years BU’s RKE income met c. 80% of the full economic costs (fEC) of the projects. The review also looked at the fEC thresholds and found they were out of date and unrealistic, for example, a number of the thresholds did not match the funding models provided by funders.

The Research Performance and Management Committee (RPMC) have therefore approved changes to the fEC thresholds for RKE activities at BU. The new thresholds have been chosen to make it easier to work with organisations on RKE projects that will benefit society. Moreover, the new thresholds set realistic expectations for working with a range of funders so that research activity is sustainable at BU.

In addition to the thresholds, the RPMC has confirmed an expectation that all new costs to the project (Directly Incurred costs) must be covered by the income to be received from the funder. Ideally the income will be sufficient to also provide a contribution to the other costs to the project (i.e. existing staff time and overheads). This will enable BU to ensure RKE activities are financially viable and sustainable.

The new thresholds set a minimum fEC recovery rate by funder/activity type (see Table 1). They should be discussed with your Funding Development Officer at the start of the bidding process and before any conversations take place with external organisations/partners. All Principal Investigators will be asked to design their projects around meeting or exceeding these minimum thresholds and making sure the Directly Incurred costs will be covered. This may not be possible for all funding schemes. Where there is a strategic reason for applying to such a scheme and there is no alternative funder (such as some prestigious fellowship schemes) then this should be discussed with your Funding Development Officer who will advise on options.

If you have any queries about what this will mean for your research, please contact Ehren Milner (emilner@bournemouth.ac.uk).

Interested in Marketing Attribution? and big data analytics? 

Interested in Marketing Attribution? and big data analytics?
 
New Paper published: Buhalis, D., Volchek, K., 2020,
International Journal of Information Management [IF= 8.2 Citescore=14.1] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102253
 
Abstract: The integration of technology in business strategy increases the complexity of marketing communications and urges the need for advanced marketing performance analytics. Rapid advancements in marketing attribution methods created gaps in the systematic description of the methods and explanation of their capabilities. This paper contrasts theoretically elaborated facilitators and the capabilities of data-driven analytics against the empirically identified classes of marketing attribution. It proposes a novel taxonomy, which serves as a tool for systematic naming and describing marketing attribution methods. The findings allow to reflect on the contemporary attribution methods’ capabilities to account for the specifics of the customer journey, thereby, creating currently lacking theoretical backbone for advancing the accuracy of value attribution. Use Email Finder service from ZeroBounce to automate the list and find professional email addresses for potential consumers.
 

Doctoral College Newsletter | October 2020

The Doctoral College Newsletter provides termly information and updates to all those involved with postgraduate research at BU. The latest edition is now available to download here. Click on the web-links provided to learn more about the news, events and opportunities that may interest you.

If you would like to make a contribution to future newsletters, please contact the Doctoral College.

Guest Talk: Racial Capitalism & COVID-19

We are delighted to host Dr. Whitney Pirtle whose ground-breaking work on health inequalities and COVID-19 has helped set the agenda for debate and discussion on the impacts of the pandemic on BAME communities.

TUESDAY OCT 27th 4:00-5:00PM

Register to join us on eventbrite

Health sociologists have long explained how socioeconomic status, and later racism, are basic root causes of health disparities. Dr. Pirtle extends this work to argue that racial capitalism, or the idea that idea that racialized exploitation and capital accumulation are mutually reinformed systems, structure health inequities. Furthermore, these intersecting systems are exacerbated in the face of additional forms of oppression and in times of health crises. Synthesizing early reports and preliminary empirical studies, In this presentation, Dr. Pirtle will demonstrate how such multiple, overlapping mechanisms shape the excess deaths in COVID-19 across racial lines. This analysis demonstrates that health inequities will continue to be replicated unless we can fundamentally change our unequal system.

Whitney N. L. Pirtle is award winning author, research, teacher, and mentor. She received her B.A. from Grand Valley State University in MI, and earned her M.A. and Ph.D. from Vanderbilt University in Nashville, TN. Dr. Pirtle joined the faculty at the University of California Merced in 2014 and is currently an Assistant Professor of Sociology. She has affiliations with Public Health and Critical Race and Ethnic Studies departments and directs the Sociology of Health and Equity (SHE) Lab. Her research explores issues relating to race, identity, inequality, and health equity. Her work has been published in academic journals such as Ethnic and Racial Studies and Social Science & Medicine, as well as media websites such as Huffington Post and The Atlantic. Supported by funding from the Ford Foundation she is currently completing a book manuscript that explores the formation and transformation of the “coloured” racial group in post-apartheid South Africa. In addition, her edited volume on black feminist sociology is forthcoming with Routledge Spring 2021. She recently won the 2020 A. Wade Smith Award for Teaching, Mentoring, and Service.

The SciTech Postgraduate Research Conference 2020

The Sci-Tech PGR conference is an annual conference of oral and poster presentations by postgraduate researchers (PGRs) in the Faculty of Science and Technology at BU. Each year, the conference, organised by PGR representatives from each of the departments in the Faculty, provides a platform for PGRs across the Faculty to meet and share their research with their peers in a welcoming environment. The conference also provides valuable practice for PGRs in presentation and networking skills vital to a successful career in research. This year, the SciTech PGR Conference Committee hosted the Conference virtually via Zoom on Friday 9 October 2020 which saw fourteen PGRs from across the Faculty presenting their research in either oral presentation or digital poster format. To kick things off, Professor Tiantian Zhang, Deputy Dean of Research and Professional Practice, opened and closed the conference with an address to the participants and audience members, noting the importance of the event and praising the quality of the PGR presentations. More than 40 PGRs and Sci-Tech staff also tuned in to listen to the talks, join discussions, and support the presenting PGRs.

The conference had previously been scheduled for May 2020 but was postponed to October 2020 due to Covid-19 restrictions. While in previous years the conference was held in-person at BU’s Talbot Campus, this year the conference took place virtually over Zoom. While hosting a virtual conference may have felt like unchartered territory for those on the planning committee, the conference was a great success! During each of the four sessions chaired by PGR representatives,  several PGRs from different Sci-Tech departments shared their screens to deliver fascinating presentations about their research.

Mixing different presentations from different departments in each session encouraged PGRs to tune in to a variety of research talks. During the course of the conference, four PGRs from the Department of Life and Environmental Sciences, three PGRs from the Department of Computing and Informatics, two from the Department of Psychology, and one each from the Design and Engineering, Creative Technology, and Archaeology and Anthropology Departments gave overviews of their research during presentations. Additionally, two PGRs from the Department of Archaeology and Anthropology provided digital posters to be viewed by conference participants, which can also be viewed here. At the end of each session, time was devoted to allow the audience to pose questions to the speakers. The presenting PGRs ranged from Master’s students through to first, second, and third year PhD students, allowing an array of research progress to be put on display. The talks ranged from, but were not restricted to, microplastics in fish, mangrove conservation strategies in Kenya, the mechanisms of fake news, ancient ports of trade, threat detection in computer vision, and malicious automotive devices. It was a good day for Sci-Tech PGR research at Bournemouth University!

Although 2020 has been a bit of a crazy year, it is so impressive that the PGR community in the Faculty of Science and Technology have been able to band together to support each other and to continue developing their research. This conference could not have happened without the support of faculty and staff in the Sci-Tech Faculty, and particularly the Research Administrators Naomi, Emily, and Karen. A huge thank-you for all the support! And of course, thank you to the staff and students who made up the audience. And we’d be remiss to not thank the conference presenters for their fabulous contributions!

Here’s to another exciting year of PGR research!

The 2020 Sci-Tech PGR Conference committee

Changes to JISC Wiley Open Access Agreement

The Jisc-Wiley Read and Publish agreement transitions funds which previously paid for subscriptions to pay for OA publishing in Wiley’s hybrid and fully open access journals. Bournemouth University through agreement with JISC benefit from this agreement.

Due to high volume of articles which far exceeded original predictions modelled by JISC and Wiley, from 12 October, this agreement will be limited to OA publishing to Wellcome, UKRI, Blood Cancer UK, British Heart Foundation, Cancer Research UK, Parkinson’s UK and Versus Arthritis funded research only, to guarantee that all research funded will be published OA in 2020.

If you have further queries regarding this, please do get in touch with OpenAccess@bournemouth.ac.uk

 

Upcoming online events

BU is a member of the Parliamentary & Scientific Committee (an APPG). Colleagues who are interested in attending any of the below online events should contact office@scienceinparliament.org.uk to book a place. Please inform the Policy team if you do book a place so we can monitor interest and uptake for these events. You will require a password to access the online meetings, this will be sent to you by the organiser after you register.

Sources, health benefits and global challenges of protein

Monday 26 October 2020, 5.30pm – 6:40pm

In partnership with the Nutrition Society

Format: presentation, speaker panel and time for questions from the online audience.

Panel:

  • Prof Andy Salter

Professor of Nutritional Biochemistry, University of Nottingham

  • Dr Jorn Trommelen

Assistant Professor, Department of Human Biology, Maastricht University

  • Prof Ailsa Welch

Professor of Nutritional Epidemiology, University of East Anglia

 

Preparing for the long-term impacts of COVID-19 on older people

Monday 9th November 2020, 5:30pm – 6.40pm

Sponsored by The Physiological Society

Online Discussion

 

Discussion Meeting on Aspects of Covid-19

Monday 23rd November 2020, 11.00am – 12.30pm

Sponsored by kind permission of UKRI

Online Discussion Meeting

 

Autonomous Transport discussion meeting

Monday 7th December 2020, timing to be confirmed

Academic insight in Parliament

Wonkhe have a new blog  acknowledging the increasing access that researchers have to Parliament and the policy making process.

The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) covers all research interests, not just science and technology. POST is Parliament’s in-house source of research expertise and provides a bridge between policy makers and external researchers. During the Covid-19 outbreak they have been trialling new ways to attract research expertise into Parliament and how to catalyse evidence based policy making. The Wonkhe blog covers what has taken place in the last few months. Do give it a read.

The Government’s Areas of Research Interest

The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) have released a new opportunity for research colleagues:

In April POST ran a survey of experts on the COVID-19 outbreak expert database that resulted in the publication of syntheses about the future effects of COVID-19 in different policy areas. From this survey POST developed Parliament’s first Areas of Research Interest (ARIs) which are lists of policy issues or questions that policymakers are particularly interested in.

Currently only the ARIs which are linked in some way to Covid have been released. However, they are not all health based and touch on a range of themes from crime, economics, inequalities, trade, supply chains, mental health, education, sustainability across several sectors, and so on.  Do take the time to look through the full question list to see if it touches upon your research area.

Alongside the publication of the ARIs is an invitation to experts to add current or future research relevant to the topics to a repository that Parliament may use to inform future policy making and Parliamentary work. Research with relevant research across any of the disciplines are invited to submit their work.

BU colleagues are strongly encouraged to take advantage of this rare opportunity to present their research to policy makers. The Policy team is here if you need any help. If you’re ready to go please do respond to the call directly, afterwards please let both the Policy team and your faculty’s Impact Officer know that you have responded.

REF 2021 – Staff Data Collection Statement (Privacy Notice)

The Data Protection Act 2018 and the GDPR require institutions to inform their staff and other stakeholders as to how data about them that are submitted to the REF will be used.

 

This applies to current staff of Bournemouth University (BU) and to former BU staff we have included in our REF submission in relation to outputs produced during their time at BU.

 

BU’s published Staff and Non Staff Data Collection Statements can be found here: https://www.bournemouth.ac.uk/research/research-environment/ref-2021

 

You can access information about BU’s REF preparation via the Research Blog and if you have any general enquiries regarding the REF you can email ref@bournemouth.ac.uk. For more information about the REF 2021 nationally please visit http://ref.ac.uk/

Revised REF 2021 Code of Practice

The Research Excellence Framework (REF) Code of Practice has been revised to accommodate national changes to the REF exercise. Please ensure you familiarise yourself with the updated document which is available here:

https://www.bournemouth.ac.uk/research/research-environment/ref-2021

 

You can access information about BU’s REF preparation via the Research Blog and if you have any general enquiries regarding the REF you can email ref@bournemouth.ac.uk. For more information about the REF 2021 nationally please visit http://ref.ac.uk/