/ Full archive

New volume on skyscape archaeology edited by Dr Fabio Silva

A new volume on skyscape archaeology, co-edited by Dr Fabio Silva of IMSET and the Department of Archaeology and Anthropology, has been published this week.

Solarizing the Moon: Essays in Honour of Lionel Sims (Archaeopress, 2022) gathers contributions from thirteen anthropologists, archaeologists and cultural astronomers that delve into three key areas: (1) Anthropology and Human Origins, (2) Prehistory and Megalithic Monuments, and (3) Theoretical Developments. These represent the research interests of our colleague Prof Lionel Sims (Emeritus, University of East London), who passed away in 2021, and which this volume celebrates.

More details, including a free download of the introduction, can be found here.

 

Would you like to be involved in research that uses new, exciting digital health technologies?

Would you like to be involved in research that uses new, exciting digital health technologies?

If this sounds appealing, then we would like to invite you to become a participant in our research, which is organised in conjunction with Xim Ltd. developers of the Lifelight app.

You will be asked to attend Bournemouth Gateway Building on 1 occasion for 30 minutes and receive a £5 lunch voucher to be used at any BU catering outlet. If you don’t know your blood pressure we will require another 5 minute session for pre-screening, but if you work in one of our BU buildings we may be able to come to you for the pre-screening.

Please see the attached research poster for more details. If you would like to know more, then snap the QR code to read the full participant information sheet or contact Malika Felton

(mfelton@bournemouth.ac.uk) to be emailed a copy. Should you wish to take part, then please contact the research team expressing your interest.

July update on Horizon Europe

According to UK Research Office (UKRO), ​the UK Government has announced a new package of measures to support applicants to Horizon Europe affected by the delays in association. The measures aim to ensure the stability for UK researchers and businesses and their European partners.

The measures will only come into force if the UK is unable to associate to Horizon Europe and will ensure that there is no funding gap. The UK government remains committed to a strong research collaboration with Europe and has reiterated that association remains its preferred outcome. The UK Government is ready to formalise association to EU programmes at the earliest opportunity.

Full details about the new measures are available on the dedicated page of the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS) website.

The main message from the Government to the UK academics and research institutions remains the same – UK organisations can continue to apply to Horizon Europe in line with the European Commission’s ‘Q&A on the UK’s participation in Horizon Europe’ document.

The General Annexes attached to the main Horizon Europe work programme (2021-2022) ensure that UK applicants are treated as if the UK is an associated country throughout the process, from admissibility and eligibility to evaluation, up until the preparation of grant agreements. However, grant agreements can only be signed by UK participants if the association has come into force. Before that, normally, UK organisations will receive grant funding from the UK Government.

To finish this update and the whole academic year on an optimistic note, I am glad to tell you that in July 2022 BU academics have been awarded two Horizon Europe collaborative grants. This is amazing – congratulations!

UPDATE: just after publication of this blog we received information the from European Commission that the third Horizon Europe grant has been awarded to BU in July.

I wish all academics to enjoy the rest of the summer and keep promoting their research ideas in way of developing and submitting external grant applications. Majority of RDS pre-award staff will also be enjoying summer holidays in August to continue providing support after their return.

P.S. the recording and presentation from this year’s last funding briefing (Horizon Europe: Searching for funding opportunities and finding a call) is available on Brightspace. See you in September funding briefings again!

New paper by Dr. Orlanda Harvey

Congratulations to Dr. Orlanda Harvey and Dr. Margarete Parrish both in the Department of Sociology and Social Work on the acceptance of their latest paper ‘Mixed-methods research on androgen abuse – a review’ by the journal Current Opinion in Endocrinology & Diabetes [1]. Orlanda was invited to write this review on the basis of her PhD research project.  Her PhD used a mixed-methods approach with people using un-prescribe /recreational Anabolic Androgenic Steroid (AAS) in several high-income countries including the UK.  Anabolic Androgenic Steroids are synthetic drugs mimicking male sex hormones, especially testosterone, and are often used for their anabolic effects, for example, increasing muscle and strength.  This PhD study resulted in several high-quality academic publications [2-4] as well as a feature article in HED Matters under the title ‘ECR Spotlight: From Social Work to Studying Steroids’ [5].
Congratulations!
Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen
CMMPH
References:
  1. Harvey, O., van Teijlingen, E., Parrish, M. (2022) Mixed-methods research on androgen abuse – a review, Current Opinion in Endocrinology & Diabetes (accepted)
  2. Harvey, O., Parrish, M., van Teijlingen, E, Trenoweth, S. (2021) Libido as a reason to use non-prescribed Anabolic Androgenic Steroids, Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy 29:3,276-288,DOI10.1080/09687637.2021.1882940
  3. Harvey, O., Keen, S., Parrish, M., van Teijlingen, E. (2019) Support for people who use Anabolic Androgenic Steroids: A Systematic Literature Review into what they want and what they access. BMC Public Health 19: 1024 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7288-x https://rdcu.be/bMFon
  4. Harvey, O., Parrish, M., van Teijlingen, E., Trenoweth, S. (2020) Support for non-prescribed Anabolic Androgenic Steroids users: A qualitative exploration of their needs Drugs: Education, Prevention & Policy 27:5, 377-386. DOI 10.1080/09687637.2019.1705763
  5. Harvey, O., (2019) ECR Spotlight: From Social Work to Studying SteroidsHED Matters 2(2):16-19.

A review paper published in a highly influential journal Materials Science and Engineering R (impact factor 36.21)

Dr Yi Huang from Department of Design and Engineering of FST recently published a review paper with several international collaborators. The team including the collaborators from City University of Hong Kong, São Paulo State University, Universitat Politècnica de València, UC Santa Barbara, University of Southampton worked together to publish a high quality review paper in a highly influential journal, Materials Science & Engineering R (impact factor 36.21).

The review paper explores the possibility of combining corrosion resistance and biocompatibility with the outstanding mechanical behaviour of heterostructured stainless steel into a promising option for usage as a low-cost yet highly-effective advanced material. This review paper will play a vital role in acting as a future reference for further understanding and designing new multi-functional heterostructured stainless steels.

 

Dealing with difficult reviewers

This week saw the publication of another Bournemouth University paper on academic writing and publishing.  This latest paper ‘Struggling to reply to reviewers: Some advice for novice researchers‘ has been published in the scientific journal Health Prospect: Journal of Public Health.  This  journal is published in Nepal and it is Open Access, hence freely available across the globe.

Peer review is the process by which academic journals assess and regulate the quality of content they publish, by inviting academic experts to review your submitted manuscripts.  It is a process of quality control. Once you have submitted your paper to a journal the editor will select potential peer reviewers within the field of research to peer-review your manuscript and make recommendations. In many case the peer review process can be a positive experience for you as it allows you to develop your skills and improve your written work.  For example, good reviewers may notice potential imbalances, point out missing key references or highlight different potential perspectives, and thus help you to enhance the overall quality of the paper.  On some occasions, however a reviewer can be a complete pain in the neck!

The paper is written by a multidisciplinary team based in the Department of Nursing Sciences (Dr. Regmi), the Department of Social Sciences and Social Work (Dr. Harvey), and the Department of Midwifery & Health Sciences (Dr. Taylor & Prof. van Teijlingen).  The authors bring their combined expertise in midwifery, social work, health education, sociology and health services research to offers the readers advice how to deal with the more difficult reviewers.

 

Reference:

  1. Harvey, O., Taylor, A., Regmi, P.R., van Teijlingen, E. (2022) Struggling to reply to reviewers: Some advice for novice researchers Health Prospect: Journal of Public Health 21(2):19-22

Your Feedback can help support PGR Recruitment

We’re always looking at what we have capacity to do in the Doctoral College to support PGR recruitment across all four faculties. Across 2021/22 the PGR Admissions team:

  • Introduced a new 1-2-1 Teams appointments service for potential applicants to discuss their application with us
  • Held PhD Studentship drop-in sessions for current BU students to come and chat to us about our list of studentship projects
  • Created a new Visiting PGR process and BU website page
  • Delivered an improved weekly PGR admissions report for faculties to identify areas for targeted growth
  • Started a new working relationship with the International Recruitment team to create updated PGR marketing & communications content

To help us consider PGR Admissions activities across the 22/23 academic year, we’d like to invite our academic staff involved in PGR recruitment to provide us with some feedback. We anticipate this survey will take no more than 5 minutes to complete

This short survey is split into two parts – your thoughts on the current PGR admissions process, followed by a chance for you to tell us how we can best support recruitment in your field. We’ve provided some ideas for what the Doctoral College might have resource to do this year, but we are excited to hear what you might consider to be the best ways to bring in new PGRs to your research area.

You can help us improve PGR Admissions by completing this survey.

Funding Development Briefing – Spotlight on…Horizon Europe: Searching for funding opportunities and finding a call

Horizon Europe: New opportunities for international cooperation | EURAXESSThe last funding RDS Funding Development Briefings for the academic year will be on Wednesday, the  27th of July at 12 noon. These will restart again with a new programme in September.

Each session covers the latest major funding opportunities, followed by a brief Q&A session. Some sessions also include a spotlight on a particular funding opportunity of strategic importance to BU.

Next Wednesday 27th July, there will be a spotlight on the Horizon Europe: Searching for funding opportunities and finding a call

We will cover:

  • Overview of Horizon Europe Funding 2023-2024
  • Internal process
  • Q & A

For those unable to attend, the session will be recorded and shared on Brightspace here.

Please join the briefing by clicking the link below.

Click here to join the meeting

RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS NEEDED FOR TWO COVID STUDIES

Are you continuing to suffer from long term symptoms of COVID-19? 

We are looking for participants to take part in two separate COVID-19 studies, examining things like symptoms and daily activities and memory loss and concentration. 

We would like to hear from those with continued symptoms of COVID-19 who have interests in one or both of the following:

1 – Tracking symptoms of COVID-19 and how they impact daily activities (remote study with 2 face-to-face assessment visits on campus). 

https://bournemouth.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/long_covid19_research

2 – Identify memory and concentration difficulties resulting from a COVID-19 infection (online survey). 

https://bit.ly/evocate-lcs

If you are interested in either of the above please see the above links/QR codes or contact Dr Matthew Armstrong – marmstrong@bournemouth.ac.uk 

 

The Conversation article: UK abortion laws are more precarious than they seem – replacing the Human Rights Act could unsettle them further

BU Lecturers in Law Jamie Fletcher and Karolina Szopa write for The Conversation about the legal status of abortion in the UK, following the overturning of Roe v Wade in the US…

UK abortion laws are more precarious than they seem – replacing the Human Rights Act could unsettle them further

zjtmath / Shutterstock

Jamie Fletcher, Bournemouth University and Karolina Szopa, Bournemouth University

The state of abortion laws in the US has many in the UK wondering about reproductive rights in their own country. While abortion is largely accessible in the UK, its legal status is more precarious than many understand. Whichever government is in power next, it has the ability to either solidify abortion access or put it further into jeopardy. With this in mind, the next prime minister should reconsider plans to replace the Human Rights Act 1998 with the proposed bill of rights.

In June 2022, Justice Secretary Dominic Raab introduced the bill of rights bill, which, if passed, will repeal and replace the Human Rights Act. When asked about inserting a right to abortion in the bill of rights, Raab said this wasn’t necessary, claiming that abortion is “settled in UK law”. Without the Human Rights Act, however, abortion in the UK is far from settled.

This is because no law created by parliament is ever truly settled. This is a principle of the British constitution known as parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament is free to pass laws on any issue without being limited by an existing law created by a previous parliament, or any court. This differs from the US, where courts can strike down laws if they conflict with the constitution.

Applied to abortion, this means parliament can legislate any new abortion laws it desires. No court of law or authority could prevent parliament from arriving at a new legal position that would restrict or prohibit abortion access.

The legal status of abortion access in the UK, through the Abortion Act 1967, is more precarious than common understanding. Having an abortion is still a criminal act. A 19th-century law, which remains in place, states that any woman who intends to cause her own miscarriage commits a criminal offence that can result in life imprisonment.

The Abortion Act merely creates a limited exception when two doctors agree that the abortion is necessary and approve the procedure within 24 weeks of conception. At least two women in England and Wales are currently being prosecuted for illegally procuring abortions.

Separate legislation, passed in 2019, removes criminality for abortion in Northern Ireland. Still, due to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, this legislation lacks any degree of permanency. The right to access abortion in Northern Ireland remains as fragile as in the rest of the UK.

The law granting a right to abortion access in Northern Ireland is re-voted on every year in the House of Commons. Votes in 2020, 2021 and 2022 show that around 25% of MPs are consistently opposed to abortion rights. If political winds change in the future, this percentage might increase and bring forward the true extent of this fragility.

Abortion and the Human Rights Act

Raab’s claim that abortion law is settled might have been based on European human rights law, which applies in the UK through the Human Rights Act. However, this would be incorrect – European human rights law, so far, has offered only minimal protection to abortion access. The right to private and family life enshrined in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) protects personal autonomy and bodily integrity.

Because the issue of abortion raises difficult moral questions over when life begins, the European Court of Human Rights has left it to each country to determine its own laws on abortion. This approach has been applied to other issues including same-sex marriage. Baroness Hale, during her time on the supreme court, remarked that the European court has given countries an “unusual” amount of leeway to determine their abortion laws.

The European court has made it clear that where a pregnancy would directly endanger a pregnant person’s life, their safety must take priority over the life of the foetus. Nonetheless, the court has yet to intervene in countries with restrictive abortion laws, such as Malta, Liechtenstein or Poland.

Domestic law and the power of the courts

Domestic human rights law, on the other hand, offers some support to Raab’s claim of abortion being settled. In a 2018 ruling, the UK supreme court held that domestic laws restricting access to abortions in cases of rape, incest or fatal foetal abnormality would be interpreted as being incompatible with the ECHR right to private and family life.

This interpretation of the right to privacy effectively limited Parliament’s ability to pass more restrictive abortion laws. But it was only possible due to the Human Rights Act, which grants UK judges interpretive powers when it comes to human rights law.

Dominic Raab mid-speech in front of a UK flag and an EU flag
Justice Secretary Dominic Raab is spearheading the plan to replace the Human Rights Act.
Alexandros Michailidis / Shutterstock

The new bill of rights purports to enhance UK courts’ ability to make judgments like the one described above, by declaring that European Court of Human Rights case law will no longer be “part of domestic law”.

But what it actually does is restrict the courts’ powers when it comes to the European Convention on Human Rights. The bill only permits the creation or expansion of new rights when domestic courts view it as being “beyond reasonable doubt” that the European Court will change its previous decided position on the issue.

There is presently not enough evidence to suggest “beyond reasonable doubt” that the European court will change its current legal framework on abortion. This would mean that under the bill of rights, a future UK supreme court would be prevented from reading Article 8 as requiring access to abortion in certain cases, as it did in 2018. Domestic courts would no longer be able to protect access to abortion in the UK and would return the issue almost entirely to parliament and political winds.

While there might be some support for the claim that abortion is sufficiently protected in law, this will be greatly undermined if the Human Rights Act is repealed. The next prime minister could commit to including a provision within the Bill of Rights specifically aimed at protecting abortion rights – or even better, reverse course entirely and keep the Human Rights Act in place.The Conversation

Jamie Fletcher, Lecturer in Law, Bournemouth University and Karolina Szopa, Lecturer in Law, Bournemouth University

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