/ Full archive

NERC standard grants (est. July 2022 deadline) – internal competition launched: internal EOI Deadline 11/3/22

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.

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

BU has a process for determining which application will be submitted to each NERC Standard Grant round. This takes the form of an internal competition, which will include peer review. The next available standard grant round is estimated to be in July 2022. The deadline for internal Expressions of Interest (EoI) which will be used to determine which application will be submitted is 11 March 2022.  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.

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. Applicants will be expected to make use of External Application Reviewers.

RDS Contacts

Please contact Ehren Milner, RDS Research Facilitator – emilner@bournemouth.ac.uk if you wish to submit an Expression of Interest.

Research Seminar Series (AKA Having Fun With Research!)

The BU Law Community is launching its Research Seminar Series (AKA Having Fun With Research!) which will run on Wednesday afternoons throughout this semester.

It will bring together law academics and students to meet as fellow legal scholars and share an exciting smorgasbord of our research and demonstrate research methodologies in practice.

Full details can be found at: www.bournemouth.ac.uk/law-community

HE policy update for the w/e 28th January 2022

innovation, international, NHS

The big news this weekend was the quiet announcement of at least part of the government’s response to the Augar review – a freeze on the inflation linked threshold increase for student loan repayments.

Student loan repayments

The statement that generated a fair amount of weekend press coverage is here.  It looks like a very technical announcement but this is at least part of the long awaited response to the Augar report – fiddling with repayment arrangements to reduce the overall cost of HE to the government.  They have not (yet) done the other things that were rumoured, like change (reduce) the interest rate or extend the repayment period but of course none of that has been ruled out.

  • I intend to bring forward regulations that will keep the repayment threshold for Plan 2 student loans [post 2012 loans] – the income level above which post-2012 student loan borrowers are required to make repayments – at its current level for the financial year 2022-23. The threshold will be maintained at its financial year 2021-22 level of £27,295 per year, £2,274 a month, or £524 a week.
  • The post-study interest rate thresholds that apply to Plan 2 loans will also be kept at their current levels in accord. For financial year 2022-23, the lower interest rate threshold will remain at £27,295 – to align with the repayment threshold – and the upper interest rate threshold will remain at £49,130.
  • I can also confirm today that the repayment threshold for postgraduate student loans will remain at its current level of £21,000 per year, £1,750 a month or £404 a week for financial year 2022-23.

As Jim Dickinson points out for Wonkhe, in an article which is worth reading:

  • The announcement officially marks a first formal break in policy on loans since Theresa May’s “British Dream” – in the speech where she launched the Augar review, she also raised the repayment threshold to £25,000 and announced it would be annually uprated by earnings, “putting money back into the pockets of graduates with high levels of debt”.
  • As such, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) saysthat the announcement effectively constitutes a tax rise by stealth on graduates with middling earnings.

Ah, the days when the government was worried about having lost the student vote.

Student Loan Rate: Wonkhe tell us that the Telegraph has an explainer on student loans and repayments as the loan interest rate hits 4.4 per cent.

PQs:

Parliamentary News

Antisemitism on campus remains a key focus for Education Secretary, Nadhim Zahawi. This week he hosted a closed door antisemitism summit with this news story setting the scene. Wonkhe have a short piece on the topic and there is a Government news story.

Michelle Donelan blogged for Conservative Home: Our new plan to crack down on low-quality higher education. The blog sweeps through the intent behind the regulatory changes we explained in last week’s policy update and then continues to trot through a reiteration of previously trailed Government intent for several policies related to HE.

Michelle Donelan also launched a campaign for every university to sign a pledge to end the use of non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) when handling complaints of sexual misconduct, bullying and harassment. Speaking about the “#CantBuyMySilence” campaign, supported by former equalities minister Maria Miller, she told BBC Woman’s Hour: This is a moral contract and I don’t think any vice-chancellor is going to look me in the eyes and not do this. Taking to Twitter she added: Victims of sexual harassment in universities should no longer be silenced by NDAs. I’m committed to stamping out sexual harassment on our campuses. That’s why I’m campaigning for every university to sign the pledge to end the use of NDAs in these circumstances. The DfE also issued the press release: Ministers and campaigners back new pledge to end the use of Non-Disclosure Agreements within universities to silence complainants in sexual harassment cases.

PQ: NDAs in schools

Finally the DfS is considering restructuring their staff and activities.

Research

Quick News

  • The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry reporteda lack of digital skills among those currently working in the life sciences sector, they intend to work with HE institutions and industry placements to increase the needed digital skills.
  • Science, Research and Innovation Minister George Freeman has made an announcement on the future uses and considerations of genomic science. And the Government Office for Science has published a report on genomics beyond healthcare
  • The reproducibility and research integrity inquiry continues (see here), the last session centred around AI.
  • Former universities minister (and current chair of the University APPG), Chris Skidmore, has been appointed as a member of the UK delegation to the new UK-EU Parliament Partnership Assembly. Skidmore has saidhe aims to highlight the need for continued partnership and collaboration in R&D, higher education and approaches to tackling climate change.
  • UK’s future exhaustion of intellectual property rights regime – consultation outcome inconclusive

Blogs:

Parliamentary Questions

Student Statistics

HESA published their HE Student Statistics for 2020/21, their summary here. It is interesting data because 2020/21 was the first full academic year within the Covid pandemic bringing nuance to the statistics. Wonkhe have a chew through the data here and highlight the key points as:  HESA puts an 8% increase in student numbers down to a combination of demographics, pre-existing trends; more students meeting offers due to centre assessed grades, and a 16 per cent increase in students deciding to progress to postgraduate study. There’s been a dramatic drop in the number of students studying abroad for part of the year, and following a drop in qualifications awarded in all categories in 2019–20, there has been an increase everywhere except postgraduate research for 2020–21.

The ONS also published the experimental statistics from the Student Experiences Insights Survey which surveyed final year HE undergraduate students on their behaviours, plans, opinions and well-being within the influence of Covid. Main points are here.

Complaints: Wonkhe – The Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA) has published its Operating Report for 2021, which saw record numbers of complaints and a six per cent increase on the 2020 numbers. OIA was successful in settling 15 per cent of cases. The Operating Plan for 2022 has also been released which focuses on four key areas; reviewing student complaints, sharing learning, effective working with others, and continued organisational development. Operating Plan here.

Admissions

UCAS End of Cycle provider level data (2021 cycle) was released. UCAS set out the top analysis points here. They include

  • 606,645 people of all ages applied to HE in 2021 (+5% on 2020), with 492,005 accepted (+1%).
  • 81% of students gained a place in their first choice university or college (up from 76%).
  • Overall, 38.3% of UK 18 year olds gained a placed in 2021 (up from 37% in 2020 and 34.1% in 2019).
  • 9% of students eligible for FSM entered higher education – a record high. 2021 also saw a record proportion of students from the most disadvantaged areas enter university or college.
  • The number of applicants achieving the top A level grades almost doubled compared to 2020 (19,595 from 12,735) and nearly quadrupled from pre-pandemic levels (5,655 in 2019). As a likely result, 103,010 UK young people were accepted at higher tariff providers, up 11% from 92,650 in 2020.
  • UCAS’ Career Finder apprenticeship searches jumped 50% in a year to 1.5 million, with half of UCAS pre-applicants telling us they are interested in learning about apprenticeships as well as traditional undergraduate degrees.
  • UCAS state the UK remains globally attractive UCAS, with their recent ‘Where Next: the experience of international students connecting to UK higher education’ report indicating that nearly 9 out of 10 students find the UK a positive place to study. (Other key points from the report here.)
  • Internationally, a total of 142,925 people of all ages applied (-5% on 2020), with 70,005 accepted (+1%). 111,255 people applied from outside the EU (+12%) with 54,030 accepted (+2%); while 31,670 people from within the EU applied (-40%) with 16,025 were accepted (-50%).
  • Unconditional offer-making fell from a high of 15.7% of all offers made in 2020 to 3.3% in 2021, with ‘conditional unconditional offers’ all but eliminated within this cycle.

Wonkhe have a quick data run through with their usual charts and short explanations style highlighting some of the key points and nuanced anomalies.

Clare Marchant, Chief Executive at UCAS, said:

  • “The 2021 cycle was the first admissions cycle that took place end to end during a global pandemic, and the tremendous hard work and resilience of students has been justly rewarded with the increase in placed applicants as well as those getting their first choice…Today’s data also shows a significant move away from unconditional offer making as universities have sought to provide greater stability to students and address concerns from schools and colleges.
  • This year sees the return to exams and is the second year of what will be a decade of growth of 18 year olds in the UK population. As we are set to hit a million applicants by 2026, it will be even more important that the higher education admissions system meets the needs of students in this increasingly competitive environment.

Alistair Jarvis CBE, Chief Executive of Universities UK said:

  • The data on unconditional offers shows that universities have responded to recommendations in our Fair Admissions Review, aimed at building greater levels of transparency, fairness, and trust in the system, and worked hard to provide stability during the uncertainty caused by the pandemic.
  • To build on this progress, we are currently working with UCAS, universities and school leaders to develop a new admissions code of practice that will further improve fairness, deliver for students, and continue universities’ commitments to widening access and participation in higher education.

PQ: 2022 exams going ahead and outline of adaptations. The latest DfE exams explainer to students is here.

Another Wonkhe blog considers whether there is diversity of access within the increased student numbers– in essence the answer is ‘yes – but…’!

80 HE providers (including BU) have confirmed they will accept the new T level qualification for entry onto at least one courses. Of the 80 providers 10 are Russell Group members. Here’s the list of HE institutions accepting T levels.

The content and assessment of GCSE French, German and Spanish will change. Contact us if you’d like a short summary.

Access & Participation

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) has published Education, social mobility and outcomes for students receiving free school meals in England: initial findings on earnings outcomes by demographic and regional factors. These are experimental statistics delving down to a deeper level than previously possible as the education data is linked with LEO’s earnings data at the population level.  Key points:

  • At age 25 years, 23% of free school meal (FSM) recipients recorded earnings above the Living Wage (42% were below the threshold; 29.2% recorded as no earning).
    Comparison: 43.5% of people not eligible for FSM recorded earnings above the Living Wage. For both females and males, the difference between FSM recipients and non-recipients earning the living wage was broadly similar in every region.
  • Females earn less – 18% of FSM females recorded earnings above the Living Wage compared with 28% of FSM males. Non-FSM people recording earnings above the Living Wage were 39.3% (female) and 47.5% (male). In every region, the proportion of males who received FSMs earning above the Living Wage was larger than the proportion of female FSM recipients.
  • The East of England had the greatest proportion of FSM recipients with recorded earnings above the Living Wage (29.5%), the smallest proportion was in the North East (19.9%).

PQs:

Care Leavers

Wonkhe: The Student Loans Company has published new data on the number of care leavers and estranged students who received student finance between 2017-18 and 2021-22 which are lower than in 2020–21 but still show an increase on 2017.

Ofsted has published findings from a survey of children in care and care leavers on the planning and preparation that happens before they leave the system. Over a third of care leavers feel that they left care too early, regardless of whether they were ready or not. And care leavers’ experience of preparation has been varied.

Ofsted set out the key findings as:

  • More than a third of care leavers felt that they left care too early. This was often because the move out of care happened abruptly and they were not ready for all the sudden changes.
  • Of those who did feel that they left care at the right time, not all felt they had the required skills to live more independently. Many care leavers told us that they were not taught essential skills, such as how to shop, cook or manage money.
  • Many care leavers felt ‘alone’ or ‘isolated’ when they left care and did not know where to get help with their mental health or emotional well-being. Many care leavers had no one they could talk to about how they were feeling or who would look out for them. A third of care leavers told us they did not know where to get help and support. For many, no plans had been made to support their mental health or emotional well-being when they left care.
  • Although statutory guidance requires that young people should be introduced to their personal adviser (PA) from age 16, over a quarter of care leavers did not meet their PA until they were 18 or older. Care leavers saw PAs as helpful in preparing to leave care, but a fifth felt they met them too late. Two fifths of the children still in care told us that they did not yet have a PA, meaning that some about to leave care still did not know who would be helping them.
  • Some care leavers could not trust or rely on the professionals helping them to prepare for leaving care. Care leavers needed someone they could rely on for help when they felt scared or worried, but sometimes they felt that professionals were ‘rude’ or ‘uninterested’, or showed a lack of respect, for example by cancelling meetings, turning up late or ignoring their feelings.
  • Care leavers were not involved enough in plans about their future. Around a quarter of care leavers reported they were not at all involved in developing these plans. Some felt that, even when they expressed their wishes, they were not listened to, or that they did not fully understand the options. Some felt that plans did not match their aspirations. For many, this had a long-term impact on their education or career path, as well as their emotional well-being.
  • Many care leavers had no control over where they lived when they left care, and many felt unsafe. Only around a third of care leavers had a say in the location they’d like to live in and even fewer (a fifth) in the type of accommodation. One in 10 care leavers never felt safe when they first left care. Many care leavers were worried about the area or people where they lived. Sometimes the area was completely unfamiliar to them or was seen as a crime and exploitation hot spot. Many care leavers also felt unsafe living on their own.
  • Many care leavers felt unprepared to manage money. Some were not aware of what bills they needed to pay, or how to budget. In some cases, this led to them getting into debt, losing tenancies, or not being able to afford food or travel. Some care leavers were still in debt years later. When they were asked what made them feel unsafe when they first left care, being worried about money was the most common reason reported. A few care leavers reported getting into crime when they left care in order to get money, or because they were not able to manage their finances.
  • Some care leavers said they did not find out about their rights until they were already in serious difficulties. In some cases, care leavers were already in debt or homeless before they were told about the help they could access. Only around half remembered being told about the support and services available in the local care leaver offer. A similar proportion reported being told how to complain and even fewer were told how to get advocacy support. Care leavers (or their carers) who had engaged advocacy services had found this help to be vital.

The National Foundation for Educational Research in England and Wales warns that the changes to Free Schools Meals eligibility will make tracking the progress of disadvantage pupils ‘almost impossible’. Full report here.

Student accommodation

The Scottish Government is considering regulating purpose built student accommodation.

PQs:

PQs

Other news

Green Jobs: The Government  published its response to the Environmental Audit Committee’s report on green jobs. The committee’s report found that the Government was not sufficiently grappling the skills gap needed for net zero, resulting in missed opportunities. The Government’s response outlines the Government’s actions on green jobs and confirms that the new Green Jobs Delivery Group will include ministers from multiple departments alongside an industry co-chair.

Non-vaccinated nursing students: Wonkhe – Nursing students in England who have not been double vaccinated against Covid-19 by April will not be able to undertake clinical placements, risking their ability to complete and join the register. Newly updated guidance published by Health Education England (HEE) on changes to vaccination rules notes some temporary exemptions for unvaccinated nursing students who have recently had a confirmed Covid-19 infection which prevents them from having the jab for 28 days after, and for those who are pregnant and may choose to take a “short-term medical exemption”. The Royal College of Nursing continues to call for a delay to the implementation of the policy.

Skill Shortages: The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) has published experimental statistics on skills shortages and skills gaps in the DCMS sectors for 2019.

 Skills Shortages

  • 4% of DCMS Sector vacancies were attributed to skills shortages (i.e. applicants did not have the right skills, qualifications and/or experience), lower than 24.4% for All Sectors.
  • 2% of DCMS Sector businesses have at least one skills shortage vacancy, compared with 5.5% of All Sectors.

 Skills Gaps

  • 8% of the DCMS Sector workforce had skills gaps (staff judged to be not fully proficient in their role), slightly higher than 4.5% for All Sectors.
  • 2% of DCMS Sector businesses have at least one skills gap, the same as for All Sectors (13.2%).

Subscribe!

To subscribe to the weekly policy update simply email policy@bournemouth.ac.uk. A BU email address is required to subscribe.

External readers: Thank you to our external readers who enjoy our policy updates. Not all our content is accessible to external readers, but you can continue to read our updates which omit the restricted content on the policy pages of the BU Research Blog – here’s the link.

Did you know? You can catch up on previous versions of the policy update on BU’s intranet pages here. Some links require access to a BU account- BU staff not able to click through to an external link should contact eresourceshelp@bournemouth.ac.uk for further assistance.

JANE FORSTER                                            |                       SARAH CARTER

VC’s Policy Advisor                                                              Policy & Public Affairs Officer

Follow: @PolicyBU on Twitter                    |                       policy@bournemouth.ac.uk

Request for feedback – MHRA clinical trials consultation

NHS, Research Ethics

The Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (the MHRA) have launched a public consultation into clinical trials.

The aim of the consultation is to streamline approvals, enable innovation, enhance clinical trials transparency, enable greater risk proportionality, and promote patient and public involvement.

There will be a 1 hour meeting on Monday 14th February at 1pm until 2pm, where you can offer your thoughts and feedback for BU’s institutional response.

If you wish to attend the meeting, please get in touch to be added to the invitation.

If you are unable to make the above time but wish to offer your thoughts, please email clinicalresearch@bournemouth.ac.uk to ensure your feedback is included.

Getting started with research at BU – videos

Research Development and Support (RDS) run induction sessions for all new starters and those who want a refresher in research. We revamped these last year so that we could have more interactive conversation on the induction day. In order to do this, we created a series of videos, which were sent to attendees three weeks’ beforehand.

These videos are available to all BU staff who want to get started with research at BU or want a refresher.

The videos can be found on Brightspace. The link should take you to the section ‘RDS Academic and Researcher Induction’ (if it doesn’t, you just need to scroll down to this section). There are nine videos in total (most are quite short and the longest one (five) runs to ~20 minutes). The video topics are:

  1. Overview of research at BU and Research Development and Support (RDS)
  2. Overview of the Funding Development Team
  3. Overview of the Project Delivery Team
  4. Overview of the Knowledge Exchange and Impact Team
  5. Applying for Research Funding at BU
  6. Managing your awarded grants
  7. Research Outputs
  8. Research Ethics
  9. Research Impact

If you can’t access the Brightspace link, please contact us at ResearchDev@bournemouth.ac.uk.

As a reminder, you can find a whole host of supporting information on research at BU on the research blog under ‘research toolkit‘ and ‘research lifecycle‘.

PGR Supervisory Lunchbites | Supporting dissemination of PGR research

PG research, Training

Hosted by the Doctoral College, these one hour online lunch bite sessions supplement the regular New and Established Supervisory Development Sessions and are aimed at all academic staff who are new to, or experienced at, supervising research degree students and are interested in expanding their knowledge of a specific aspect or process in research degree supervision.

Each session will be led by a senior academic who will introduce the topic, and staff will benefit from discussions aimed at sharing best practice from across BU. Bookings are arranged by Organisational Development.

This session is focused on exploring ways to help PGRs disseminate their research work. This discussion will be led by Professor Matthew Bennett, FST.

Staff attending will: 

  • have gained additional knowledge of ways to disseminate PGR work to maximise academic and societal impact

Further details on the session as well as information on future lunchbite sessions can also be found on the staff intranet.

Date: Monday 7 February 2022

Time: 12:00 – 13:00, Teams

To book a place on this session please complete the booking form.

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

Research process seminar this week: Critical Discourse Analysis. Tuesday 1 Feb at 2pm on Zoom

You are warmly welcomed to this week’s research process seminar. The topic is critical discourse analysis and the session is led by BU’s Dr Catalin Brylla.

Critical Discourse Analysis looks at how social discourses are embedded in media texts through narrative and aesthetic elements. We will look at the case study of audio-visual media and disability representation, which can be applied to other discourses of stigma or social hegemonies.

These sessions are always practical and interactive, so please come along if you want to learn more about this methods.

Tuesday 1 Feb at 2pm on Zoom

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

Meeting ID: 929 210 3478

Passcode: rps!4fmc

All staff and PGR students welcome. Hope to see you there

 

 

Reminder: Workshop on including impact in grant applications

Impact and Funding Applications Training: Wednesday 16th February 15:30-16:30 Online

How to write about impact in your funding bids

Writing about impact in a grant application can be challenging. However, a strong description of the benefits you hope your project will have on society and the economy, and the means you will take to get there, can make all the difference between getting funded or not.

Book your place now on the online training session Impact and Funding Bids on 16th February at 3.30pm and we will help you understand what you need to include for the best chance of success, and look at the different ways impact may be considered within each call.

Although the session will include a brief look at definitions of impact, if you are new to this area it is advised that you watch the 10-minute introduction to impact video on Brightspace beforehand to get the most out of the training.

Book your place.

Research Ethics @ BU

Research Ethics

Research EthicsAll research undertaken by BU staff and students is subject to appropriate ethical reflection, leading to a formal ethics review as appropriate.

When is a formal ethics review appropriate?  It is not possible to produce a definitive list, but key examples include all research involving human participants, tissue or personal data, experimentation on animals, animal tissue, genetically modified organisms, research on sensitive issues, research that might have an impact on the environment or our cultural heritage.

An ethics opinion from an appropriate Reviewer must be obtained before you can commence any data collection activity.

  • For staff and PGRs (high risk) this will be provided by a Central Research Ethics Panel
  • For PGRs (low risk) this will be provided by an Ethics Champion (Department)
  • For UG/PGT students (high risk) this will be provided by an appropriate Ethics Programme Team
  • For UG/PGT students (low risk) this will be provided by the Named Supervisor.

Data collection activities should not start until you have received a Favourable Opinion and your checklist has been approved online.

What type of activity may not require a formal ethics review?  Examples include patient and public involvement (PPI) to inform future research, audit, course or service evaluation.  Please refer to the research ethics code of practice (specifically 5.1 and 5.5).

How to seek a formal ethics review

  • Complete the online ethics checklist and don’t forget if recruiting human participants to attach relevant supporting documents such as Participant Information Sheet (PI Sheet), Participant Agreement Form (PAF), a copy of the questionnaire, interview/focus group schedule including questions, recruitment materials such as a poster, social media posts etc – any material that a participant will read needs to be reviewed.

Key Resources

To conclude this week’s spotlight on research ethics, ‘Research cannot be rendered ethical by completing a one-off administrative task… researchers and evaluators need to work in an ethical way throughout the research process[1].’

As we discussed earlier this week, it is important to think of the ethics process as a ‘live’ issue.  Some key examples are given below:

  • The data. What have you collected; does it contain personal information/special category data?  Are your data management plans still relevant?
    • If collecting personal or special category data, you need to consider data minimisation. This means minimising the scope of the data (i.e. data fields) which are necessary for the research.  Steps include limiting the scope of the data collected, deleting data fields when no longer required, masking some data fields to reduce identification risk or fully anonymising data, setting access restrictions in respect of data in an identifiable form.
  • Wellbeing both physical and emotional. This is important when in the field, for you and your participants but also extends to the data analysis phase, particularly if reliving the discussion, which can be traumatic depending on the topic.
  • Planned aftercare: If recruiting participants what relationship might develop between you and your participants? How will the activities conclude and what would be appropriate participant aftercare?
  • Planned dissemination/outputs: could the results be misused by people with different agendas?
  • Ethics submission. It is your responsibility to ensure that where the scope of the research project changes, such changes are evaluated to ensure that the Favourable Opinion you have been issued remains appropriate.    If your agreed research protocol has changed, you should complete an Amendment Request Form before changes are implemented.

Help is always on hand

If you have a question related to research ethics, there are a few avenues where you can seek advice:

  • Students should contact their supervisor in the first instance
  • Staff can contact a member of the Research Ethics Panels for an informal chat.
  • You can also contact a member of the RDS Governance Team by emailing Research Ethics

[1] Helen Kara, 2018. Research Ethics in the real world, Policy Press

UKCGE Recognised Research Supervisors: Congratulations

PG research

 

 

 

 

 

 

Congratulations to the following doctoral supervisors who have successfully gained UKCGE (UK Council for Graduate Education) Recognised Research Supervisor status:

  • Dr Lyle Skains (FMC)
  • Dr Fiona Cownie (FMC)
  • Dr Kaouther Kooli (BUBS)
  • Dr Mark Readman (FMC)
  • Dr  Xiaosong Yang (FMC)
  • Dr Geli Roushan (FLIE)

These individuals join 9 other colleagues from across BU (BUBS (1); FHSS (7); FST (1)) who have already gained this national recognition for their doctoral supervision. To submit the portfolio, you must have at least one doctoral completion.

There are opportunities for anyone who has experience of doctoral supervision to find out more at forthcoming Doctoral College Supervisory Lunch Bites on Wednesday 2 March and Monday 16 May. These sessions provide an introduction to the UKCGE’s Good Supervisory Practice Framework and the Research Supervision Recognition Programme which allows established supervisors to gain recognition for this challenging, but rewarding, role. Staff attending the sessions will be able to:

  • use the Framework to navigate the wide-ranging, highly complex and demanding set of roles that modern research supervisors must undertake to perform the role effectively
  • reflect on their own practice, compared to a benchmark of good practice
  • identify strengths and weaknesses and build upon the former and address the latter with targeted professional development
  • work towards recognition of their expertise by a national body.

These sessions will be led by Dr Martyn Polkinghorne, UKCGE Recognised Research Supervisor; BUBS: Principal Academic; FLIE: Education Excellence Theme Leader; TeachBU: Academic Lead. Dr Polkinghorne is a national reviewer for the scheme on behalf of UKCGE.

The Faculty of Health & Social Sciences is also running 3 sessions to support staff in reflecting upon their practice, and build in underpinning evidence. This open to staff from all faculties to find about the scheme and start to think about the different components. Further details can be found here.

Research Ethics – Central Research Ethics Panels

Research Ethics

By Prof Jonathan Parker, Chair of the Social Sciences & Humanities Research Ethics Panel

Research EthicsIt can be very easy to become a little confused about research ethics processes within universities. The spread of research ethics review has grown inexorably in the UK since 2005 when the, then, Department of Health introduced research ethics scrutiny into social care following developments since Nuremberg and the Declaration of Helsinki which established biomedical ethical review processes to safeguard against potentially serious harms to research participants. The introduction of research ethics into arts, humanities, and social sciences, alongside biomedical and natural science research, has not always been easy, and confusions with homogenous processes have been critiqued. However, over the last 16 years, UK universities have seen the establishment of research ethics review processes through the formation of research ethics panels. These differ across universities in their operational minutiae and focus, although there are similar forms and underlying criteria in each to ensure that funding bodies, publishing houses and universities can assure themselves of due process and consideration in safeguarding both those participating in research studies and themselves.

At BU, research ethics is governed by an overarching university research ethics committee, which is chaired by an independent lay member. This committee deliberates the processes of research ethics in two operational panels and develops strategies and policy that are presented to Senate for consideration and ratification. It is the two research ethics panels with which most academics are likely to have dealings. We have one panel specifically dedicated to science, technology and health research chaired by Prof Sam Porter and a second concerned with the social sciences and humanities (including practice-based arts) chaired by Prof Jonathan Parker. Both panel chairs are supported by a deputy – Associate Prof. Dr Jayne Caudwell in science, technology and health and Prof Richard Berger in social sciences and humanities. The panels comprise members from across the university’s faculties and departments aiming for broad expertise, disciplinary scope and balance. Roles on the panels are undertaken for a period of three years, with the opportunity of renewal (maximum five years), to ensure there is continual refreshing of the membership, thinking and practice and also continuity.

Each panel meets on a monthly basis to scrutinise research ethics checklists and accompanying documentation, such as Participant Information Sheet and Participant Agreement Forms, from academic staff and PGRs (high risk) to ensure that ethical, moral and governance issues are met and to offer advice and support to researchers. The researchers, themselves, are invited to attend discussion at a panel meeting, which currently takes place online, and to present their studies and engage in debate about the ethical implications of their work and how potential harms can be prevented and mitigated. The process is designed to be collegiate and supportive and to ensure that research can be undertaken. Of course, attending the panel can raise anxieties but members try hard to put people at their ease and to keep the focus on developing the best possible research project in ethical terms. The panels are there to consider first and foremost any ethical issues that may arise within the proposed research and how this is addressed. However, it may be the case that questions are raised about the way the research is presented in outward facing documents or how the research is designed. The reasons for this are not to take issue with the academic thrust or to champion a particular methodology or research philosophy but to consider the effects on people and the confidence they can have in the research – so, they become an ethical concern.

What we look for in a good, ethically sound research proposal is:

  • A clear, coherent approach to the research
  • Explicit consideration of issues affecting potential participants, researchers, general public, discipline and university
  • A concern for moving beyond from simply ‘doing no harm’ to actively benefitting people and society wherever possible
  • A focus on maintaining dignity, privacy and confidentiality
  • Ensuring people are not identified and that participants can be assured of their anonymity, or able to waive that where appropriate and wanted, when research is disseminated
  • Finding ways for people often excluded or hidden from having a voice to participate and be included within research studies
  • Emphasising the voluntary nature of participation and consent for involvement except in the most exceptional circumstances
  • Sound data management plans and safe, GDPR compliant storage of data

The panels only scrutinise PGR (high risk) and staff research and do not get involved in PGR (low risk), undergraduate or PGT projects as these remain within the purview of supervisors, ethics champions (pgr) and the respective programme ethics teams (ug/pgt) within departments. However, where members of staff have developed specific projects as part of the taught curriculum these may be viewed by panel as they become staff research.

The panels are constantly refreshing as mentioned above and if you are interested in developing your expertise in research ethics you may wish to put yourself forward as a potential member. Our RDS Research Governance Team, Sarah Bell and Suzy Wignall, without whom the panels could not operate, circulate calls at appropriate times and should you be interested you should contact your Deputy Dean for Research and Professional Practice.

Research Collaboration with Bournemouth University,  Zimmer Biomet, and Bournemouth Hospital

A team of academics from the BU’s Design and Engineering Department in collaboration with Royal Bournemouth Hospital and Zimmer Biomet, an international medical device company, have just started a new research project. The aim is to investigate the difference between various joint fore sensor developed by different manufacturers. It is speculated that the knowledge of exact initial load intensity in joint during surgery and tracking its position is important and has a direct impact on the outcome of orthopaedic surgeries.

The aim is to use available knee joint force and tracking transducers to evaluate their performance when measuring both structural and dynamics integrity of knee joint during and after TKRA. Ideal load balance in the knee increases the life of the knee, reduces pain and discomfort, improved gait symmetry, improve range of motion hence promoting close to normal activities such as running or jugging.  Our team is led by Prof A. Harvey, a consultant knee specialist at RBCH supported by Professor Siamak Noroozi. Other members of the team are Dr. Roya Haratian, Ms Samira Al-Nasser plus external supervisors/advisors.

This project’s aim is to investigate the effectiveness of the use of the new generation of smart joint transducers within the clinical setting, using Cadaver. The objective of this   investigation is to inform orthopaedic operations/surgery in real time needed to achieve optimum load and load balance.

Accurate measurement, tracking and balancing of the joint contact force is directly linked to the in-service performance of the joint and its durability. Current practices in setting the ideal joint tension or assessing optimum joint kinematics during joint operation,  are subjective and artisan at best. The aim of this investigation is to evaluate if exact and repeatable joint forces that can be measured or set during operation. The new generation of smart sensors can track and measure the contact forces and contact location and kinematic performance of the joint in real time.

Optimum kinematics and optimum load balancing can potentially extend the life of the implant, minimising the risk of premature joint failure that requires expensive revision surgery. The transducer validation procedure will include assessments of reliability, ease of application, relative accuracy against benchmarks, if available,  as well as and structural and dynamics integrity of the joint, to show their effectiveness as compared to an overall load measurement using hand or Robotics manipulators. Other issues such as compliance with relevant BSI (British Standard Institution) and MHRA (Medicine and Health Regulatory Agency) will also be investigated.

It is speculated that joint force tracking and balancing artefacts/transducer technologies can improve the outcomes of all orthopaedic surgeries. This is done by improving the accuracy and repeatability of the joint replacement surgery. A useful transducer should be able to accurately measure the joint contact forces and track its location over the surface of the insert in real time. This, in time, can lead to identifying the ideal joint load intensity and its relationship to age, gender, size etc..

The NJS (National Joint Registry) reports that on average every year 11% of hip, 6% of knee, 1% of ankle, 11% of shoulder, and 33% of elbow joints require surgical revision. This costs the NHS (National Health Services) around £2,000,000,000 every year. Our technology will reduce the subjectivity of primary joint replacement surgery, minimise risks, and improve outcomes. In turn this will reduce the need for revision joint replacement surgery and result in a much more cost-effective service.


Number of joint surgeries and the need for revision in 2016 [NJS Report 2016]

An ideal system should use a combination  AI (Artificial Intelligence) as well as , IMU (Inertial Measurement Unit), Image processing, and in-depth knowledge of Mechanical and Electrical/Electronics engineering, GUI (Graphical User Interface designs), Signal Processing, Material science and control strategies.

Through a a number of cadaveric studies, the project will evaluate the validate the and effectivness of such transducer’s operation.  We will also increase our understanding of the need for optimum joint tension intra-operatively, so that we can use the transducer safely and effectively during knee joint replacement surgery.

This outcome of this research will help to improve our understanding of the forces involved and the outcome of all joint replacement surgeries.  Such tools help  surgeons to make real time fine adjustments during the procedure to ensure optimal component implantation.  This innovative approach will allow accurate and instantaneous intraoperative assessment of joint contact forces and tracking its location. We also anticipate that these studies will further our understanding of the optimal load intensity in joints and the surrounding tissues. During the operation, the smart/intelligent transducer element of the system will enable surgeons to accurately track and measure the joint contact forces and location and the resulting muscle tensions at various positions and orientations.

This project will bring together some large institutions such as the NHS, Zimmer Biomet –UK and several very skilled surgeons, and engineers, allowing implementation of these medical devices. This is in keeping with the industrial strategy document relating to early diagnosis and precision medicine, healthy ageing, cutting-edge healthcare which the government identifies as a strategic area of investment.

These new technologies also support the need for the development of new mechatronics degree or specialist unit for those studying medical, biomedical, and biomechanical related degrees. This research can also be attractive as short courses to train/up-skill experienced doctors and orthopaedic surgeons. This will enable Bournemouth University to become a centre of excellence for all UK joint force measurement and kinematic assessment research.

The social impact of this project would be in terms of improving living standards and economic growth by increasing productivity and driving growth across the whole country (Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, 2017). The NJR (National Joint Registry) data as evidenced in Figure 1 also shows the need for the growth in industries that inform joint surgeries. This is due to the cost of unscheduled revision surgeries due to mechanical failure of the joint from excess loading or poor alignment etc. This indirect cost saving comes from reduction of revision surgeries as the result of using our technologies. Hence reducing cost while improving quality of care using advanced technologies. The report also highlights, it is essential that all options that could improve the nation’s health related businesses for the long term are explored for possible investment. This will provides a long-term solutions that both directly and indirectly improve the quality of life of those who need or depend of surgical intervention or need assistive technologies, or GPs who need to monitor performance without the need for referring to large specialist centres, or consultants who wish to predict plan their surgeries in advance and need to determine the required mechanical advantages of their interventions.

Such tools will reduce the pressure on GPs & orthopaedic surgeons. It also over time creates the database of good practices towards the gold standard of “Getting it right first time”, which reduces NHS cost and the pressure they work under. For patients, it means improved quality of life by minimising the needs for future revision surgeries and faster recovery to more normal or symmetric gait hence reducing pain and/or fatigue etc.

Building scams intelligence within student in the South West. Can you help Trading Standards?

student research

I am reaching out in the hope that some of you will be able to help Trading Standards, who are currently hoping to reach students (primarily 1st years) with their short survey around financial scamming.
This issue is so relevant right now and Trading Standards are looking to carry out an Educational Campaign to help protect students from scamming and it would be amazing if you were able to help kickstart this.
Their project aims to expand on a piece of work carried out by student volunteers at Plymouth Uni with Plymouth TS and Devon & Cornwall police. Trading Standards South West has been given the go ahead to roll the project out regionally to see if the results are reflective of wider scale issues about scam reporting, etc. The project is looking:
  • To coordinate with universities and further education to benchmark where scams and fraudulent activity is currently reported and explore barriers to reporting
  • To gather intelligence directly from the universities and further education centres of the scams and fraudulent activity currently being targeted at their students
  • To run an education campaign in Q4 2020/21 based on the emerging threats and intelligence gathered
  • To evaluate the project and determine which routes of intelligence work best within these establishments and determine whether a dedicated student reporting mechanism is required, which may be hosted within Trading Standards

Colleagues across the South West are therefore exploring opportunities with their local higher education providers to obtain feedback on the scams experience prevalent within the student population, emerging threats, etc.

Here is the link to the initial survey: https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/N86NS8H

Thank you in advance to anyone who may be able to share this with their students.

Research Ethics – Pitching the Participant Information Sheet at the Right Level

Research Ethics

by Prof Sam Porter, Chair of the Science, Technology & Health Research Ethics Panel

Research EthicsOne of the core principles of ethical research is that people should have a free choice as to whether or not they wish to participate in a research project, and that they should know what that will involve and how it might affect them before they make that choice. In short, they should give their informed consent. What we wish to concentrate on in this blog is the ‘informed’ bit of this phrase. In our work on ethics panels, we have sometimes observed applications in which almost all the concentration is on the ‘consent’ part, making sure that the paperwork giving permission to proceed is correct and watertight. This is unfortunate, because if someone is not properly aware of what they are letting themselves in for, then their consent is meaningless; it is ‘uninformed‘. This isn’t a matter of researchers deliberately setting out to hoodwink and deceive potential participants; it’s more a matter of them pitching the information at a level that compromises clarity and ease of understanding.

What we wish do here is to provide a few pointers that will help ensure that your Participant Information Sheet is written in a style that facilitates effective dissemination to potential participants of the information they require to make an informed decision.

  1. Avoid blinding by science: researchers can be so immersed in their research that the language of their subject area becomes so natural to them they assume that everyone shares that language. Rest assured that they do not. It is really important to avoid technical research terms in a Participant Information sheet and to describe what you are doing in language that will be understood by those not involved in your research speciality.
  2. Indeed, we would go farther than that. The language used in a Participant Information Sheet should be accessible to all those who are being asked to participate. Perhaps because they spend their working lives in tertiary educational environments, researchers tend to greatly overestimate people’s linguistic capacities. The US National Center for Biotechnical Information recommends that a patient information sheet should be pitched at a reading age of 11-12 years old. Indeed, this may not be young enough. There is evidence to indicate that the average adult reading age in the UK is 9 years old. Remember, this is an average which means lots of people have a younger reading age.
  3. Whatever you may think of its editorial line, you could do worse than model your language level on that of The Sun, which has a young reading age and adopts a clear, no nonsense, if sometimes overly aggressive style. While use of the active voice and a conversational tone is much more effective than passive formality, a Participant Information Sheet should always be polite, respectful and invitational in its approach.
  4. Pitching a Participant Information Sheet at a young reading age is not about being patronising but being clear. Indeed, the clarity that it demands is a very good exercise for researchers to make sure that, without the camouflage of technical jargon and convoluted language, their research project has a transparent logic and is practically cogent.
  5. Of course, one size does not fit all. For example, if you were conducting research into a health service organisation, it could be appropriate to include more professionally-oriented information in a Participant Information Sheet seeking to recruit senior health service managers than if members of the general public were being asked to be involved. Still, we would recommend always erring on the side of simplicity and clarity, rather than assuming knowledge that people may not have. If groups with different sorts of knowledge and perspectives are being asked to be involved, we would advise that separate, specifically targeted Information sheet should be used to inform the members of each group.
  6. You can check the reading level of your Participant Information Sheet on Word. We’ve done just that for this blog, and, despite its linguistic informalities, it has come out with a score of 43.8 on the Flesch-Kincaid reading-ease test, which puts it in the category of ‘Difficult to read’! Looks like it’s a matter of doing as we say, not as we do! Though, in our defence, that’s not easy.
  7. We tried harder and came up with: ‘People need to know what’s involved in being in a research project. They need to know before they agree to take part. Researchers need to be clear and simple when they tell them. They shouldn’t use jargon. They should use easy words and short sentences. They should think about using different ways to tell different types of people’. That got us a score of 85.2 – ‘Easy to read. Conversational English for consumers,’ which isn’t too bad in that it’s got us over the NCBI’s threshold of a reading age of 11-12 years, but that’s still two years older than the average UK adult’s reading age.