/ Full archive

Institutional Learning from Funder Feedback: Institutional support to develop PDRAs within a project

Awarded & submitted bids

 

 

An insight from Associate Professor in Archaeology/Director of IMSET- Dr. Emma Jenkins

In recent years the Department of Archaeology and Anthropology have actively sought to recruit and support ECRs. This reaps benefits not just for the individuals concerned but also for the department; it’s great to have academically young and enthusiastic colleagues who are at the cutting edge of research and bring new expertise and collaborations. It’s basically a win/win situation! That being said, as a department we take the development of our ECRs seriously and are generally a supportive bunch. With ECRs who are submitting to an external funder such as the British Academy or the Leverhulme Trust, this starts with us working with them on their initial proposal. We provide constructive feedback and help them to write a fundable application going as far as to regularly  Skype with overseas colleagues to provide feedback back in the distant days pre the pandemic when no one had ever heard of Zoom! We also pick them up and get them back on track if they are initially unsuccessful and encourage them to apply elsewhere or to apply again in the next round.

Once a position has been secured, we continue that support. We try and ensure that our ECRs take advantage of the training and other opportunities that BU offers for example by getting a departmental mentor, attending writing workshops, and training schemes such as the Research Council Development Scheme and applying for additional funding for example the Acceleration Of Research & Networking fund (ACORN) which is aimed specifically at ECRs and allows them to gain leaderships skills. We also encourage them to apply for additional external prizes that would enhance their CV, for example the Philip Leverhulme Prize. Where appropriate we provide opportunities for teaching and student supervision that fall within their remit of research expertise and encourage them to take on light departmental administrative duties such as being responsible for the departmental social media posts-something which the ‘young-uns’ are much better at anyway! The bridging fund offered by the university which provides the salary of an existing ECR for up to six months if they are awaiting the outcome of a further funding proposal is also invaluable for retaining good ECRs. In summary I would say that the efforts that the department has made to make the department a welcoming and supportive environment for ECRs has paid off enormously with a sizeable increase in our ECR numbers which in turn has made the department a much more fun and dynamic place to work.

UKCGE Route to Recognition for Supervisory Practice: Deadline for Submission March 2022

PG research

 

 

 

 

 

Are you an established research degree supervisor?

Would you like your supervisory practice acknowledged at national level? Join a growing number of BU staff who have gained recognition.

The UK Council for Graduate Education (UKCGE) has developed the Good Supervisory Practice Framework and the Research Supervision Recognition Programme to allow established supervisors to gain recognition for this challenging, but rewarding, role.

  • Acknowledging the Complexity of Your Role: The Good Supervisory Practice Framework helps you navigate the wide-ranging, highly complex and demanding set of roles that modern research supervisors must undertake to perform the role effectively. Informed by academic research and approved by the sector, the 10 criteria of the GSPF acknowledges this complexity and sets a benchmark of good practice for all supervisors.
  • Identify your professional development needs: Reflecting on your own practice, compared to a benchmark of good practice, often reveals new perspectives on the challenges inherent in supervision. Identifying your strengths and weaknesses enables you to build upon the former and address the latter with targeted professional development.
  • Recognition of your expertise by a national body: Becoming a UKCGE Recognised Research Supervisor, you can demonstrate to your university, peers and candidates that your supervisory practice has been recognised by a national body.

Details of how to apply can be found here.

  • Individuals to complete application form, including 2 supporting statements from a co-supervisor and a PGR.
  • Individuals to submit application to the Doctoral College by 22 March 2022, including email support from your Deputy Dean for Research & Professional Practice
  • Doctoral College to submit applications to UKCGE by 25 March 2022
  • UKCGE to review application and feedback to individuals.

In line with the UKCGE guidance, individuals should send their completed application to the Doctoral College (fknight@bournemouth.ac.uk) before the BU Window Closing date below:

The key dates for the next application windows and review outcome dates are:

BU Window Closes UKCGE Window Closes Expected Outcome
22 March 2022 25 March 2022 July 2022
25 October 2022 28 October 2022 February 2023

A session providing an introduction to the scheme will be run as part of the Supervisory Development Lunchbite Sessions will be held on Monday 16 May 2022.

Deadline approaching | Apply now for a cluster of postgraduate researchers and postdoctoral research fellows

Funding opportunities, PG research

RESEARCH CAPACITY TRANSFORMATION SCHEME – Call for expressions of interest

Apply now for a cluster of postgraduate researchers and postdoctoral research fellows – closing date for EoIs on 7th March

Bournemouth University’s (BU) recognises that postgraduate researchers (PGRs) and postdoctoral research fellows (PDRFs) are critical to a high performing research environment. Working under the direction of academic research leadership, they provide academic staff with research capacity, which enables the production of research outputs, strengthens research impact, and increases grant bidding.

 

Key information

The Research Capacity Transformation Investment Scheme is focused on building capacity to undertake cutting-edge research securing external research funding. A cluster hiring approach will be used to appoint inter- and/or multi-disciplinary teams of PDRFs and PGRs that focus on a common theme to create “clusters” undertaking strategically important and targeted research. The scheme will invest in:

  • 10 PDRFs and 10 PGRs in September 2022, across 2-5 clusters
  • 5 PDRFs and 5 PGRs in September 2023, across 1-2 clusters.

The clusters need to build critical mass in areas of research strength and provide a team-based, fused experience for PDRFs and PGRs that is anchored in one or more existing high performing entities, such as Research Centres or Institutes. Applications must include external match-fund partners for the PGR studentships.

Full details of the scheme, including the policy document, can be found on BU’s staff intranet.

Application Process

The application process will be in two stages:

To ensure there is timely progress, Research Development & Support and the Doctoral College will manage the funding application process 2022, with oversight of the recruitment process.

The indicative timetable for the 2022 allocation and recruitment is as follows:

Date Action
Monday 7th March 2022 Closing date for submission of EoIs (see Appendix 1) at 12 noon
Monday 21st March 2022 Successful applicants invited to provide a full application form (see Appendix 2)

Unsuccessful applicants notified
Monday 25th April 2022 Closing date for submission of full applications at 12 noon
w/c Monday 16th May 2022 Successful outcomes announced and recruitment to commence

Unsuccessful applicants notified
June 2022 Adverts for positions to close
July 2022 Interviews and selection
From 1st September 2022 Successful PDRFs to start (funding available from 1 September 2022)
From  26 September 2022 or 23 January 2022 Successful PGRs to start (funding available from 26 September 2022 with an alternative start date of 23 January 2023)

 

Submission Deadline:

Before completing the EoI or full application form, please ensure that you have read all the relevant guidance (including the policy document) and information available on the Staff Intranet.

Applications should be emailed to researchcapacitytransformation@bournemouth.ac.uk before the following deadlines:

Monday 7th March 2022          Closing date for submission of EoIs at 12 noon

Monday 25th April 2022          Closing date for submission of full applications at 12 noon

 

Supporting Documentation

Recruitment of PGRs will be in line with the BU Match-Funded Studentship Allocative Process .

For additional queries, please email researchcapacitytransformation@bournemouth.ac.uk

 

FAQs

  • What can I request?
    • Each proposal should contain a request for a minimum of 2 PGRs and 2 PDRFs, to a maximum of 5 PGRs and 5 PDRFs, or any combination.
  • Do I have to find a match-funding partner for the PGR element of the scheme?
    • You must be able to produce evidence of external partners providing match-funds at the full application stage.
  • Why can’t I request funding for one PDRF or one PGR?
    • This scheme is intended to provide investment into research teams, rather than discrete pockets of activity.
  • What type of proposal is likely to be supported?
    • It is recommended that you review the criteria against which applications are assessed against to ensure that you demonstrate how your proposal meets the criteria.
    • Colleagues are reminded that reviewers of concepts are likely to be from a wider range of disciplinary areas. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that you write your proposal is a way which is clear for all to understand and avoids highly technical or discipline specific language.
  • I’m still confused. Where do I go for help?

Dr. Alina Dolea selected 2022-2024 Research Fellow of USC Center on Public Diplomacy

Dr. Alina Dolea, Principal Academic in Media, Communication and Politics, has been selected 2022-2024 Research Fellow of the Center on Public Diplomacy at the University of Southern California. She is currently the Chair of the Public Diplomacy Interest Group and member in the Board of Directors of the International Communication Association, that gathers more than 4,500 members in 80 countries and is officially associated with the United Nations as a non-governmental association. Alina’s research is situated at the intersection of public diplomacy, migration, media and communication studies, with a focus on discourse and her 2022–24 CPD Research Fellowship project is titled “Diaspora diplomacy, emotions and disruption”.

https://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/story/welcoming-2022%E2%80%9324-cpd-research-fellows

Her project aims to explore the neglected role of emotions in the study of diaspora diplomacy, especially in a COVID-19 context that legitimized diaspora as a transnational actor in its own right in public diplomacy. More importantly, diasporas have emerged as disruptors, challenging their more traditional roles of agents, instruments, and partners in PD. Conceptually, the project brings together strands of literature in public diplomacy, migration and diaspora studies, as well as international relations with a focus on emotions to answer the key research question of “how can we integrate studies on emotions in diaspora diplomacy to understand their enabling but also their disruptive role?”. While emotions have started to be studied in PD, exploring systematically the role of emotions in diaspora diplomacy can actually offer new insights into the wider current debate on the public as a problem, as well as shed light on questions regarding disruption in PD.  Methodologically, it proposes an analysis of diasporas from within to unpack the seeming ‘uniformity’ of diaspora and the homeland loyalties conflated in the concept of citizen diplomat, as well as to capture contestation and challenges. Emotions in diaspora diplomacy are operationalized and explored through a series of interviews with representatives of diaspora groups and associations to identify the construction of emotional ties, a typology of roles and identities that diaspora representatives assume. While focused on the Romanian diaspora in the UK, this project can inform studies on other diasporas to trace emergent emotions and their potential disruptive impact. Proposing a critical perspective on emotions and transnationalism of diaspora, this research can ultimately advance the study and policy making in diaspora diplomacy. As such, it is of relevance to policymakers, practitioners, scholars, as well as journalists interested in understanding these increasingly complex diaspora emotional ties.

More details about the USC CPD Research Fellowship program can be found here: Welcoming the 2022–24 CPD Research Fellows | USC Center on Public Diplomacy (uscpublicdiplomacy.org)

Dr Alison Cronin celebrates publication of her second book on corporate crime

Publishing


Dr Alison Cronin and Prof Christopher Harding’s new book on corporate crime has now been published. This cutting-edge book critically reviews the field of attempted legal control and regulation of delinquent conduct by business actors in the form of exploitative, collusive and corrupt behaviour. It explores key topics including victimhood, accountability, theories of trading and shared responsibility.

The authors reflect on the attempts that have been made globally to use criminal law and other methods of formal legal control, as well as more flexible and innovative approaches under the heading of ‘regulation’, to address the problem of bad business practice. The book argues for a return to first principles and that the possibility of a reconfiguration of economic ordering and market and trading culture should be considered; as business malpractice is largely inherent in the dominant capitalist model, that model is in need of repurposing and reform.

BU’s new Read and Publish deal with Cambridge University Press

Guidance, open access, writing

We have a new Read and Publish deal with Cambridge. By entering the location and institution you will see the publishing agreement as below and also have links to eligible journals.

To be eligible, articles must:

Embedding Impact in Funding Applications

Writing about impact in a grant application can be challenging, but a strong description of the benefits you hope your project will have can make all the difference between getting funded or not.

This refers to Research Impact. Although some projects will have a theoretical scope with no discernible benefit outside academia, these are unlikely to be eligible for external funding.​

You can find our A brief guide to impact on Brightspace which explains what we mean by Impact.

The Funding Landscape

​Funders consider the whole call when reviewing applications, so think about what is currently big in policy/research/the media etc. The panel review all applications which have been shortlisted and will assess the potential impact of funding a group of them, not just individual projects.

PPI/participatory/engaged research has never been more important. Studies show that effective and meaningful co-production/involvement of beneficiaries enhances impact at every stage of the study​ so make sure to thread it throughout where appropriate.

A quick note on UK Research and Innovation (UKRI). Recently the Research Councils dropped their required ‘Pathways to Impact’ attachment. This does not mean that impact is no longer important in applications, but that they want to see it woven throughout.

Funder Requirements

Requirements will vary by funder, call, theme, endowment etc., so always read the guidance and speak to your Research Facilitator for advice.

Academic excellence is fundamental. Consider additional collaborators if they would provide a different angle, and include knowledge mobilisers or those who are needed for implementation.

Look out for key words in the guidance that highlight impact: engagement, non-academic partnerships/governance, regional/national significance etc. ‘Value for money’ is also common- potential research is a social return on an investment and cost consequences are scrutinised.

For projects working with developing countries you need to aim for impact on the involved population​. Try to demonstrate that the generation of impact will be led by those it most affects.

Impact in the Application

For a standard UKRI application you should be aiming to include impact in each section:

Objectives and Aims: integrate your research goals and your impact goals​ – funders want to see the need for the research.

Plain English Summary: non specialists need to be able to understand the impact so the panel can assess properly the problems you are solving and the proposed beneficiaries.

Case for Support: most of this needs to contain impact including the background to the project and its potential contribution, methods of research and their relevance/suitability, track record of the team, delivery milestones, monitoring and evaluation, success criteria etc. ​

Justification of Resources: cost impact in, you are encouraged to!​ Consider public engagement resources, evaluation costs, staff members – UKRI say that they want to see 10-15% of costs going to impact.

Work Packages (WP): either have an Impact WP, or include some impact in all of your WPs​

Fast Track Impact is full of great resources including How to integrate impact into a UKRI case for support​

For all funding applications:

Make impact easy to find: use formatting, cross referencing or signposting. This can also help with wordcounts, as flowcharts and diagrams if allowed often don’t count as text.

Involve beneficiaries/stakeholders/end users in the design of the research and impact plan: BU has brilliant resources for involving the public in research, so do contact PIER or VOICE for advice.

Think about the project’s longevity​: consider what follow-on support you might need to generate/upscale impact, or how you might leverage further investment after the funding. This is difficult but funders like to see project sustainability and an exit plan.

Troubleshooting

If you have trouble identifying your potential impact, consider:

  • Aims – what do you want to change with your research?​
  • Beneficiaries/stakeholders – who will benefit?​
  • Activities – how will you reach your goals?​
  • Evaluating and evidencing – how will you demonstrate change?​

A Theory of Change model (diytoolkit.org) can be helpful in plotting these concepts.

 

Finally, remember that embedding impact at the start will improve both the application and your research, and that you should be aiming for game-changing (but realistic) results.

Some useful resources are listed below, and you can always get in touch with your Impact Advisors at impact@bournemouth.ac.uk.

Stakeholder analysis (ODI)​

Research Impact toolkit (ESRC)​

Impact tracking and evaluation (Matter of Focus)​

Impact planning guide + template (Fast Track Impact)​

Planning for impact – NIHR toolkit for researchers – ARC (many links)​

PiiAF (Public Involvement Impact Assessment Framework)​

Towards co-production in research with communities (AHRC)

PGR Supervisory Lunchbites | ALS Inclusivity / Disability Awareness Week

PG research, Training

The Doctoral College and Additional Learning Support, Student Services, are pleased to present this ALS Inclusivity / Disability Awareness Week specifically for those supporting postgraduate research students. There are three sessions, each of which will be focused on providing individuals with an understanding of different disabilities, and to develop an insight into how to best support PGRs with disabilities. The sessions will also address what reasonable adjustments can be made and what is the role of the supervisor.

The following sessions will be run:

  • Tuesday 8 March: ADD/ADHD/Dyspraxia led by Ildiko Balogh, Student Services
  • Wednesday 9 March: SpLD/Dyslexia led by Regina Karousou, Student Services
  • Thursday 10 March: Autism Spectrum Disorder led by Steevie Watson, Student Services

Staff attending will: 

  • have gained additional knowledge of specific disabilities
  • have gained additional knowledge of additional support available to PGRs with specific disabilities
  • have gained additional knowledge of how supervisor can support PGRs with specific disabilities
  • be aware of the relevant sections of the Code of Practice for Research Degrees
Lunchbite Session Date Time Location
Supporting PGRs with ADD/ADHD/ Dyspraxia Tuesday 8 March 2022 12:00 – 13:00 Online
Supporting PGRs with SpLD/Dyslexia Wednesday 9 March 2022 12:00 – 13:00 Online
Supporting PGRs with Autism Spectrum Disorder Thursday 10 March 2022 12:00 – 13:00 Online

To book a place onto a session please complete the booking form.

Further details and future sessions can also be found on the Supervisory Development Lunchbite Sessions staff intranet page.

Equality Diversity and Inclusivity (EDI) toolkit – NIHR webinar

NHS, Post-award, Research Integritiy

  

Dear colleagues

– Are you an NIHR funded researcher?
– Are you planning to submit a grant application to NIHR?

NIHR Research Design Service East Midlands are hosting a webinar introducing the new EDI (Equality, Diversity and Inclusivity) toolkit and is a valuable starting point for researchers seeking to develop more inclusive research proposals.

The NIHR Research Design Service (RDS) has developed an EDI toolkit to support researchers to consider and embed EDI at each stage of their research project, from inception through to dissemination, implementation and impact.

The 90 minute webinar is on 30th March 2022 at 13.30.

More information and link to book here.

Your local branch of the NIHR RDS (Research Design Service) is based within the BU Clinical Research Unit (BUCRU)

We can help with your application. We advise on all aspects of developing an application and can review application drafts as well as put them to a mock funding panel (run by RDS South West) known as Project Review Committee, which is a fantastic opportunity for researchers to obtain a critical review of a proposed grant application before this is sent to a funding body.

Contact us as early as possible to benefit fully from the advice

Feel free to call us on 01202 961939 or send us an email.

Conversation article: Protecting children in the metaverse – it’s easy to blame big tech but we all have a role to play

Professor Andy Phippen writes for The Conversation about child safety in virtual spaces…

Protecting children in the metaverse: it’s easy to blame big tech, but we all have a role to play

Newman Studio/Shutterstock

Andy Phippen, Bournemouth University

In a recent BBC news investigation, a reporter posing as a 13-year-old girl in a virtual reality (VR) app was exposed to sexual content, racist insults and a rape threat. The app in question, VRChat, is an interactive platform where users can create “rooms” within which people interact (in the form of avatars). The reporter saw avatars simulating sex, and was propositioned by numerous men.

The results of this investigation have led to warnings from child safety charities including the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) about the dangers children face in the metaverse. The metaverse refers to a network of VR worlds which Meta (formerly Facebook) has positioned as a future version of the internet, eventually allowing us to engage across education, work and social contexts.

The NSPCC appears to put the blame and the responsibility on technology companies, arguing they need to do more to safeguard children’s safety in these online spaces. While I agree platforms could be doing more, they can’t tackle this problem alone.

Reading about the BBC investigation, I felt a sense of déjà vu. I was surprised that anyone working in online safeguarding would be – to use the NSPCC’s words – “shocked” by the reporter’s experiences. Ten years ago, well before we’d heard the word “metaverse”, similar stories emerged around platforms including Club Penguin and Habbo Hotel.

These avatar-based platforms, where users interact in virtual spaces via a text-based chat function, were actually designed for children. In both cases adults posing as children as a means to investigate were exposed to sexually explicit interactions.

The demands that companies do more to prevent these incidents have been around for a long time. We are locked in a cycle of new technology, emerging risks and moral panic. Yet nothing changes.

It’s a tricky area

We’ve seen demands for companies to put age verification measures in place to prevent young people accessing inappropriate services. This has included proposals for social platforms to require verification that the user is aged 13 or above, or for pornography websites to require proof that the user is over 18.

If age verification was easy, it would have been widely adopted by now. If anyone can think of a way that all 13-year-olds can prove their age online reliably, without data privacy concerns, and in a way that’s easy for platforms to implement, there are many tech companies that would like to talk to them.

In terms of policing the communication that occurs on these platforms, similarly, this won’t be achieved through an algorithm. Artificial intelligence is nowhere near clever enough to intercept real-time audio streams and determine, with accuracy, whether someone is being offensive. And while there might be some scope for human moderation, monitoring of all real-time online spaces would be impossibly resource-intensive.

The reality is that platforms already provide a lot of tools to tackle harassment and abuse. The trouble is few people are aware of them, believe they will work, or want to use them. VRChat, for example, provides tools for blocking abusive users, and the means to report them, which might ultimately result in the user having their account removed.

A man assists a child to put on a VR headset.
People will access the metaverse through technology like VR headsets.
wavebreakmedia/Shutterstock

We cannot all sit back and shout, “my child has been upset by something online, who is going to stop this from happening?”. We need to shift our focus from the notion of “evil big tech”, which really isn’t helpful, to looking at the role other stakeholders could play too.

If parents are going to buy their children VR headsets, they need to have a look at safety features. It’s often possible to monitor activity by having the young person cast what is on their headset onto the family TV or another screen. Parents could also check out the apps and games young people are interacting with prior to allowing their children to use them.

What young people think

I’ve spent the last two decades researching online safeguarding – discussing concerns around online harms with young people, and working with a variety of stakeholders on how we might better help young people. I rarely hear demands that the government needs to bring big tech companies to heel from young people themselves.

They do, however, regularly call for better education and support from adults in tackling the potential online harms they might face. For example, young people tell us they want discussion in the classroom with informed teachers who can manage the debates that arise, and to whom they can ask questions without being told “don’t ask questions like that”.

However, without national coordination, I can sympathise with any teacher not wishing to risk complaint from, for example, outraged parents, as a result of holding a discussion on such sensitive topics.

I note the UK government’s Online Safety Bill, the legislation that policymakers claim will prevent online harms, contains just two mentions of the word “education” in 145 pages.

We all have a role to play in supporting young people as they navigate online spaces. Prevention has been the key message for 15 years, but this approach isn’t working. Young people are calling for education, delivered by people who understand the issues. This is not something that can be achieved by the platforms alone.The Conversation

Andy Phippen, Professor of IT Ethics and Digital Rights, Bournemouth University

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

Institutional Learning from Funder Feedback: Research Methods

An insight from Associate Professor – Dr. Ian Jones.

One of the great benefits of acting as a reviewer – whether of funding applications or research papers – is being able to learn what is happening at the ‘cutting edge’ of a field, not only in terms of subject knowledge, but also in terms of methodology. Here, we can learn from both good, and not so good practice. Having recently reviewed a number of applications for the funding scheme associated with my own professional body, It was clear that such a task has clearly had a significant impact upon my own understanding of what makes ‘good’ research, and what makes a ‘good’ application for funding.

Perhaps the key term from the latest round of reviews – to me at least – was that of ‘coherence’, and coherence between various different elements of a proposed methodology. Often within applications there is an understandable focus upon ‘methods’ rather than ‘methodology’. To me, this means a missed opportunity to generate such coherence – and subsequently a missed opportunity to justify the key methodological decisions. As one example we can look at the importance of the ontological and epistemological basis of the work (perhaps more relevant within the social, rather than the natural sciences) which is often overlooked, or only briefly addressed. Often, even a relatively brief acknowledgement of these ideas can help to justify choices in terms of methods, sampling and data analysis. This can be taken further with reference to another – often overlooked – detail, that of the research design. Often, whilst research designs are outlined, their role as a ‘link’ between the epistemology of the study and the data collection and analysis methods is often omitted, where again, it can lead to a real sense of coherence within the methodology. The best bids had not only detail about the broader methodology, but also a real coherence between each element, with a consistent story being told, from the philosophical assumptions of the study, which guided the research design, where each method had a clear link both to the broader epistemological issues, and also the subsequent analysis and interpretation of the data.

Finally, and crucially from a reviewer’s perspective, the idea of coherence between researcher, subject and methodology is essential, often being the first question, a reviewer will be required to address. The research itself is not independent of the researcher, and does the study show coherence in terms of not only researcher-subject coherence (does the researcher have an established record in the area) but also researcher-methodology coherence (what evidence is there that the researcher could undertake this methodology successfully), again focusing not just on methods, but the broader methodology as a whole (for example is there coherence between the choice of research design, and the researcher’s own experiences and attributes (often key, for example, in ethnographic designs).

None of these points are ground breakingly original, but it is interesting to see that there is still great variation in how methodologies are constructed. And assessing such methodologies has proved to be of immense value when think about my own work.

This week’s research process seminar. Studying “responsibility”. Tuesday 1 March at 2pm on Zoom.

You are very welcome to join us for this week’s research process seminar. Hosted in FMC but open to all.

Journey of studying “responsibility” by Dr Xin Zhao

In this session, I will share my experience of studying the notion of “responsibility,” including the terms “responsible power” and “common but differentiated responsibilities” in the political realm (from the perspective of China), and using responsibility to construct the “us vs. them” division. I will also share my recent works on justice, a specific trajectory of “responsibility” in the Chinese context. I hope that more collaborative opportunities will arise.

Tuesday 1 March at 2pm on Zoom.

https://bournemouth-ac-uk.zoom.us/j/9292103478?pwd=UzJnNTNQWDdTNldXdjNWUnlTR1cxUT09

Meeting ID: 929 210 3478

Passcode: rps!4fmc

Research Professional – all you need to know

Funding opportunities

Every BU academic has a Research Professional account which delivers weekly emails detailing funding opportunities in their broad subject area. To really make the most of your Research Professional account, you should tailor it further by establishing additional alerts based on your specific area of expertise. The Funding Development Team Officers can assist you with this, if required.

Research Professional have created several guides to help introduce users to Research Professional. These can be downloaded here.

Quick Start Guide: Explains to users their first steps with the website, from creating an account to searching for content and setting up email alerts, all in the space of a single page.

User Guide: More detailed information covering all the key aspects of using Research Professional.

Administrator Guide: A detailed description of the administrator functionality.

In addition to the above, there are a set of 2-3 minute videos online, designed to take a user through all the key features of Research Professional. To access the videos, please use the following link: http://www.youtube.com/researchprofessional

Research Professional are running a series of online training broadcasts aimed at introducing users to the basics of creating and configuring their accounts on Research Professional. They are holding two monthly sessions, covering everything you need to get started with Research Professional. The broadcast sessions will run for no more than 60 minutes, with the opportunity to ask questions via text chat. Each session will cover:

  • Self registration and logging in
  • Building searches
  • Setting personalised alerts
  • Saving and bookmarking items
  • Subscribing to news alerts
  • Configuring your personal profile

Each session will run between 10.00am and 11.00am (UK) on the second Tuesday of every other month. You can register here for your preferred date:

8th March 2022

10th May 2022

12th July 2022

13th September 2022

8th November 2022

These are free and comprehensive training sessions and so this is a good opportunity to get to grips with how Research Professional can work for you. Previous recordings can be found here if you can’t attend a session.

Have you noticed the pink box on the BU Research Blog homepage?

By clicking on this box, on the left of the Research Blog home page just under the text ‘Funding Opportunities‘, you access a Research Professional real-time search of the calls announced by the Major UK Funders. Use this feature to stay up to date with funding calls. Please note that you will have to be on campus or connecting to your desktop via our VPN to fully access this service.

Doctoral College – Postgraduate Researcher Opportunities with the British Federation of Women Graduates

PG research

BFWG Academic Awards 2022 (closing date Friday 4 March) & Research Presentations Day

  • Academic Awards are made to women doctoral students who will be in, or going into, their third year (or part time equivalent) of work for a research PhD/DPhil etc. in the autumn of 2022.  Awards are, in effect, one off prizes varying in value from £1,000 to £6,000 and are given for outstanding academic excellence coupled with written and verbal communication skills. For further details please go to BFWG – The British Federation of Women Graduates look up under ‘Awards/Scholarships’ where more information, including criteria for eligibility, can be found. Closing date: Friday 4th March at 5pm.
  • Research Presentations Day Saturday 14th May 2022. Are you a postgraduate woman student? Do you have research you would like to present to a discerning audience – and have the chance of winning a small prize of £120 for the best presentation to a general audience? Or would you like to join with us, just to meet and listen to other postgraduate women students presenting their research? Our Research Presentations Day (RPD) offers these opportunities. Past attendees, both presenters and audience, have found the Day thoroughly enjoyable and helpful in developing presentation skills.  If you think you would like to submit an abstract please look at BFWG webpages BFWG – The British Federation of Women Graduates or contact rpd@bfwg.org.uk for further details. Closing date for applications is March 31st 2022.  All – students, academics, anyone else interested (male or female) – are welcome to attend as audience. Lunch is included and there is a door charge of £10 but no charge for bona fide students whether attending as presenters or as audience.

Medical Research Council – Better methods, better research

Funding opportunities, innovation, NHS

MRC are opening up a £2,000,000 fund on 6th May for improving the methods used by others in biomedical and health research.

Deadline: 15th June 2022

The full economic cost of your project can be up to £625,000. MRC and NIHR will fund 80% of the full economic cost.

This is an ongoing scheme. Application rounds open twice per year, closing in June and November

More details on the funding opportunity here.

Your local branch of the NIHR RDS (Research Design Service) is based within the BU Clinical Research Unit (BUCRU)

We can help with your application. We advise on all aspects of developing an application and can review application drafts as well as put them to a mock funding panel (run by RDS South West) known as Project Review Committee, which is a fantastic opportunity for researchers to obtain a critical review of a proposed grant application before this is sent to a funding body.

Contact us as early as possible to benefit fully from the advice

Feel free to call us on 01202 961939 or send us an email.

Institutional Learning from Funder feedback

This week, we’ll be running a series of blog posts on Institutional learning from funder feedback. These will include experiences from academics on research methods and research design, advice on embedding impact throughout your application, institutional support available to develop PDRAs on your projects, advice on developing partners.

Friday’s blog looked at the support the Research Facilitators can provide when you want to repurpose your unfunded research application. But what do we do to ensure we also learn and tailor our support? Well, many things but …

Behind the scenes, we have curated a “funder feedback” database which contains the good, the bad and the ugly. We analyse all the feedback every six months. Identifying common themes (good and bad) and areas of improvements are identified, which feeds into the Research and Knowledge Exchange Framework, Research Facilitators one to one support and even weekly blog series!!

If you still haven’t passed on your funder feedback good, bad and the ugly for this academics year, please do send it over to me apekalski@bournemouth.ac.uk, as you know all too well feedback from funders are like hens teeth!

Tomorrow, we will be gaining a great insight from Dr Ian Jones on research methods and methodologies.