/ Full archive

Freshwater Taxonomy success!

BRIAN, Funding opportunities, PG research

Last week (11-15 September 2017) saw the successful delivery of the NERC-funded Advanced Training Course Freshwater Taxonomy and Field Identification Skills, awarded to Professor Genoveva F. Esteban (SciTech, Department of Life and Environmental Sciences) in collaboration with the Freshwater Biological Association (https://www.fba.org.uk/fba).  The course is free for PhD students and early-career researchers.  With a strong emphasis on training excellence and practical hands-on experience this short course offers expert tuition in freshwater fieldwork, taxonomy, and freshwater science. The course provided in-depth training on the well-established use of macro-invertebrates as the core component of freshwater bio-assessment and also included specific training in field and laboratory methods for investigating and identifying microscopic organisms like diatoms, meiofauna and protists. The participants’ feedback was outstanding; Davina Hill from the University of Cumbria tweeted “Thanks for a fascinating and inspiring course in Freshwater Taxonomy. Recommended!”

The course will also be delivered in 2018 (dates to be confirmed). Please contact Genoveva F. Esteban gesteban@bournemouth.ac.uk for further information. Photograph courtesy of Hai Luu.

Should you involve patients and the public in your research? Patient and Public Involvement Session 17th October 2017

Involving patients and the public in all stages of research is becoming increasingly important in order to secure research funding, with many funders even making involvement a condition of funding. More importantly, involving patients and the public in research can make the design stronger, and ensure greater impact from your research.

As part of the Research and Knowledge Exchange Development Framework, RKEO are holding a session on Applying for funding from NIHR – Patient and Public Involvement (PPI). At this session, you’ll hear from a Research Fellow / former PPI Senior Programme Manager at the NIHR about what is meant by PPI, and to understand how this can be applied to your research. You’ll also hear from the RDS South West PPI Lead on the importance of involving the public and patients in research.

If you’d like to understand more about what PPI is, and how it can improve your research then come along to this introductory session.

Date: Tuesday 17th October 2017

Time: 09:30-11:30

Venue: Lansdowne Campus

Book your space via the RKE Development Framework page for this event.

For further information, please contact Lisa Gale-Andrews, RKEO Research Facilitator.

The importance of justifying yourself! Writing a Justification of Resources Session 12th October 2017 – last chance to book!

Funding opportunities

Many people see the ‘Justification of Resources’ document as another thing to quickly pull together and tick off the list, after having already completed a 70+ page funding application. As a result, it often doesn’t get the prior consideration needed to write a good one – even though applications are often rejected due to insufficient justification of resources.

As part of the Research and Knowledge Exchange Development Framework, RKEO are holding a session on ‘Writing a Justification of Resources’. The session will provide an overview of the Justification of Resources document, and will offer tips for writing this section of the application form. Examples of effective Justifications of Resources will be provided.

Date: Thursday 12th October

Time: 09:30-11:00

Venue: Lansdowne Campus

Book your space via the RKE Development Framework page for this event.

For further information, please contact Lisa Gale-Andrews, RKEO Research Facilitator.

Have you been unsuccessful with a grant application and don’t know what to do next? Don’t give up! Come to our session on ‘Confronting your unsuccessful application’ 15th November 2017

Rejection is always hard to deal with, and with success rates for research grant applications as low as 10% for some funders, many of us can expect to face rejection at some point in our careers.

But what do you do next when you hear your application was unsuccessful? As part of the Research and Knowledge Exchange Development Framework, RKEO are holding a session on ‘Confronting your Unsuccessful application’. This one-day event will combine:

  1.  information about how individuals deal with rejection
  2.  advice and guidance on how this can be turned into something positive
  3.  advice on how feedback can be approached
  4.  the opportunity for individuals to work on revising their bids, using the above as a basis for doing so.

The afternoon session will comprise of 1-2-1 sessions with the external facilitator, to get specific advice relating to your application.

There are 15 spaces available for academic staff whose funding application has been rejected and wish to re-submit to another funder, within the next 12 months.

Date: Wednesday 15th November 2017

Time: 09:00-13:30 with opportunities for a 1-2-1 appointment in the afternoon session

Venue: Lansdowne Campus

Book your space via the RKE Development Framework page for this event.

For further information, please contact Lisa Gale-Andrews, RKEO Research Facilitator.

REF 2021 workshops – what makes a 2*, 3* or 4* output?

Research assessment

We have a series of externally-facilitated REF outputs workshops scheduled to take place in early 2018 as part of the RKE Development Framework. Each session is led by REF 2014 sub-panel member who will explain how the panel interpreted and applied the REF 2014 guidance when assessing the quality of outputs. The workshops are open to all academic staff to attend.

The expected learning outcomes from the workshops are for attendees to:

  • Gain insight into how the REF panels applied the REF criteria when considering the significance, rigour and originality of outputs;
  • Understand the differences between outputs scored 4*, 3*, 2*, 1* and Unclassified;
  • Gain insight into what is meant by ‘world leading’ and ‘internationally excellent’;
  • Understand how scores borderline cases were agreed and what the tipping points were to either break the ceiling into the higher star level or to hold an output back a star level;
  • Understand how panels used other information such as metrics, markers of journal quality or prior knowledge in output assessment;
  • Gain insight into how future outputs could be strengthened for REF2021.

 

We’ve got dates for half of the UOAs so far:

  • UOA 2/3 – Prof Dame Jill Macleod Clark – date tbc (likely to be mid to late February 2018)
  • UOA 4 – Prof Marion Hetherington – 10 January 2018
  • UOA 11 – Prof Iain Stewart – 29 January 2018
  • UOA 12 – Prof Chris Chatwin – 8 January 2018
  • UOA 14 – Prof Jon Sadler – date tbc
  • UOA 15 – Prof Graeme Barker – date tbc
  • UOA 17 – Prof Terry Williams – 17 January 2018
  • UOA 18 – tbc
  • UOA 20/21 – Prof Imogen Taylor – 15 January 2018
  • UOA 23 – Prof Jane Seale – 26 January 2018
  • UOA 24 – tbc
  • UOA 27 – Prof Pat Waugh – 16 January 2018
  • UOA 32 – Prof Stephen Partridge – date tbc
  • UOA 36 – Prof Peter Lunt – date tbc

Bookings for these can be made via the Staff Intranet: https://staffintranet.bournemouth.ac.uk/workingatbu/staffdevelopmentandengagement/fusiondevelopment/fusionprogrammesandevents/rkedevelopmentframework/researchexcellenceframework/

RKE Development Framework Pre-Award Sessions – Last chance to book!

The Funding Development Team will be delivering a number of Pre-award sessions as part of the Research and Knowledge Exchange (RKE) Development Framework on Thursday 28th September.

The RKE Development Framework offers a range of opportunities for academics at all career stages to develop their skills, knowledge and capabilities in relation to research and knowledge exchange. The Framework gives the opportunity to demonstrate your commitment to take the next step in reaching your research goal and the professional development you need to get there. The pre-award pathway offers all of the starting information required by academics and researchers at BU to undertake research bidding.

The following Pre-Award sessions are on offer;

Getting started on applying for research funding

This session will explore how best to adapt research in response to the changing external environment. The workshop will provide information on the best routes to funding based upon career stages and also introduce how RKEO can help.

Thursday 28th September 2017 10.30 – 11.30      Lansdowne Campus

Pre-award finance

This session will introduce researchers to Full Economic Costs (fEC), transparent approaches to costing (TRAC) and the BU Financial Regulations. Guidance will be offered on how to cost projects in a way that funders will find acceptable. Training will be provided on producing the ‘Justification of Resources’ document required by many funders.

Thursday 28th September 2017 12.00 – 13.00      Lansdowne Campus

BU processes for applying for funding

This workshop will provide a short introduction/refresher on how to apply for external funding at BU. The latest update on the policies and processes will be introduced as part of this short session.

By the end of the session you will be familiar with the processes required to apply for funding at BU.

Thursday 28th September 2017 13.30 – 14.30      Lansdowne Campus

Quality approvals at BU

This course is aimed at those who are, or wish to be, a designated Faculty and UET Activity Quality/Peer reviewers. This session will provide an introduction/refresher of academic review policies at BU.

Thursday 28th September 2017 15.00 – 16.00      Lansdowne Campus

If you haven’t already booked and would like to attend, please click on the links above and book yourselves in. We look forward to seeing you there.

Public Lecture Day – a trip to the past

We had some amazing research shared at our Public Lecture Day last week, the audience was captivated in the historical and archaeological research conducted at BU, there’s probably never been such a large group of people talking so enthusiastically about chickens!

We were joined by;

Dr. Vanessa Heaslip talking about the Human Henge project and Cultural Heritage Therapy

Penelope Foreman who taught us the use of colour in Neolithic monuments of Northern Europe.

Dr. Julia Best who got us excited about chickens and their use in Iron Age to Medieval Europe.

Dr. Angela Turner-Wilson who gave us insight into the Health and Wellbeing of the Roman World

Dr. Vanessa Heaslip who taught everyone the benefits of Cultural Heritage Therapy and how this inspired the Human Henge project.

 

It was great to see such a fascinating spread of research shared with an engaged audience, who were hungry to learn more in the Q&A sessions.

Look out for our film!

We were lucky enough to be able to film the September 2017 Public Lecture Day so if you couldn’t join us on the day, you will get the chance to engage with us on Facebook when we upload the talks… make sure you keep an eye on your feed for them!

Our next Public Lecture Day will be in the new year, if you would like to find out more closer to the time feel free to sign up to our mailing list by emailing us.

Photo of the Week: Pollen from a Bumblebee

Pollen from a Bumblebee

Pollen from a Bumblebee

Our next instalment of the ‘Photo of the Week’ series features Dr Paul Hartley’s image of the pollen from a bumblebee.  The series is a weekly instalment, which features an image taken by our fantastic BU staff and students. The photos give a glimpse into some of the fascinating work our researchers have been doing across BU and the wider community.

The image shows optical sections through a marsh thistle pollen grain taken using a Leica SP8 confocal microscope. Pollen grains have a morphology unique to the flowers they originate from.

Researchers in the Department of Life and Environmental Science are using this principal to establish the foraging range of bumblebees and other important pollinators. This grain of marsh thistle pollen was collected from the pollen sacks of bumblebees foraging in the Purbeck lowland heaths. Marsh thistle was not recorded in the vicinity of the bee but was recorded further afield. This illustrates that bumblebees use multiple habitat areas and wide foraging ranges to find their preferred resources.

This research supports and guides important questions regarding ecology as well as strategies to conserve a wide range of important pollinators.

If you’d like find out more about the research or the photo itself then please contact Dr Hartley.

This photo was originally an entry in the 2017 Research Photography Competition. If you have any other questions about the Photo of the Week series or the competition please email research@bournemouth.ac.uk

Newly discovered 6m-year-old Cretan footprints stolen – finder writes about how we must protect precious sites

File 20170915 13360 lvndej
Vandalised site, showing fresh sand along the edges of the slab where it has been lifted and the holes left by the removal of two blocks in the centre.
Babis Fassoulas, Author provided

There has been a lot of interest in our discovery of nearly-6m-year-old footprints on Crete, first reported by the The Conversation – suggesting that human ancestors could have roamed Europe at the same time as they were evolving in East Africa.

Sadly the site was vandalised in the last week, with four or five of the 29 tracks stolen. We are fortunate that many of the best tracks remain – the people who did it clearly didn’t know what they were looking for. Our guess is that they were simply intending to sell them.

The theft occurred despite the site being afforded protection under Greek heritage law and being in the care of local officials. Police, we are told, have made an arrest in connection with the incident, and it is hoped that the missing material will be returned soon. The damage, however, is irreparable.

The site has now been buried.
Babis Fassoulas, Author provided

The Cretan authorities moved swiftly to bury the site temporarily while a more permanent conservation solution, such as moving the entire surface, is sought. We are lucky that the whole area has been 3D-scanned with an optical laser scanner in high resolution as part of the original study. In due course this data will be made available via the Natural History Museum of Crete and the Museum of Evolution at Uppsala University in Sweden. So there will fortunately not be much of an impact on the research.

Yet the event is devastating. To understand the significance to someone who studies ancient tracks like these, consider it equivalent to an attempt to steal part of the Sphinx at Giza or vandals dislodging one of lintel blocks at Stonehenge.

Unfortunately, the theft and vandalism of tracks is nothing new. For example, there was a recent case on the Isle of Skye in Scotland of vandalised dinosaur tracks dating from around 165m year ago that lead to a police probe. The ethics around the collection and sale of fossils and artefacts is complex, and many of the great scientific collections today are based on collection and sales by amateurs in the past. Ultimately, it seems wrong to collect and sell artefacts that there’s only a limited number of.

Conversation challenges

But how can you conserve what is essentially a slab of soft rock, close to the sea and open to the elements? Oddly, erosion at such sites is to be encouraged because it often helps reveal new surfaces which may contain additional prints.

It’s tricky – a problem I first faced following my discovery of the Ileret hominin footprints, the second oldest such tracks in the world at the time, and preserved in nothing but packed silt.

The site has been buried in haste to avoid further thefts.
Babis Fassoulas, Author provided

I did some research on this with colleagues and concluded that the only option is to excavate and digitally record them in 3D. This can be done either with a laser scanner or just with a digital camera in the field. Some 20 pictures of a track from different angles is enough to create a 3D image. These days 3D printers can easily create models for museums and for collectors.

Digital preservation is probably the key for the Cretan tracks as well. This worked well for the 2,100-year-old human footprints of Acahualinca
in Managua (Nicaragua), where the originals are perfectly preserved under a roof built over the site, and in an adjacent museum.

The 120,000-year-old human footprints at Nahoon Point in South Africa are marked by a footprint-shaped visitors’ centre that looks great from Google Earth. There are also a number of excellent examples of dinosaur track sites preserved in museums and under shelters, such as those at Las Cerradicas in Spain.

Perhaps the most controversial of conservation solutions has been to bury the world’s oldest confirmed hominin footprints – from Laetoli in Tanzania – which were first documented in the late 1970s. These tracks were buried as a way of protecting them from weathering and natural-decay.

There has been extensive debate about what should happen at this site and many scientists are unhappy about the lack of access. Plans for the site over the years have varied from an on-site museum to the removal of the whole slab to another site. The debate continues, but ultimately it is money that precludes a solution that would allow access to the public and scientists alike.

The footprints pictured in the research paper are still intact.
Author provided

Indeed, the challenge is always money. It is expensive to erect and maintain protective structures, and to gain funds you need publicity to ensure that all the stakeholders involved are aware of the scientific, social and emotional value of a site.

One of the reasons for publicising the Trachilos tracks was not only to get the discovery debated in open scientific circles, but also to raise its public profile – thereby seeking better protection and ultimately its preservation in a local museum. That would bring visitors and fuel local revenue.

The ConversationThe trouble is the very publicity aimed to assist the site’s protection may have led to an enhanced perception of its monetary value. After all, the site had been known locally for years. Publicity though, is a double-edged sword and we have been lucky on this occasion to avoid the full length of its blade.

Matthew Robert Bennett, Professor of Environmental and Geographical Sciences, Bournemouth University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

HE policy update for the w/e 15th September 2017

REF 2021

As we noted last week, on 1st September 2017 HEFCE published the initial decisions on REF 2021. This does not include decisions regarding submitting staff, output portability or the eligibility of institutions to participate in the REF. There is another consultation on those issues and BU’s response is being prepared by RKEO – please contact Julie Northam if you would like to be involved.  This week, the four UK funding bodies published a summary of the responses to the previous consultation. The document summarises the 388 formal responses to the consultation.

“Consultation responses welcomed an overall continuity of approach with REF 2014 and recognised that this would reduce the burden on institutions and panels. Broad support was expressed for the principles behind Lord Stern’s recommendations. There were mixed responses to some of the proposed approaches to implementing the changes, in particular:

  • all-staff submission
  • non-portability of outputs
  • institutional-level assessment
  • open access and data sharing.

Feedback on these areas included concern about their effects on different disciplines or types of institution, their impact on specific groups, in particular early career researchers and those with protected characteristics, and the burden of implementation.“

Some highlights:

  • Over a third of respondents suggested that the proposal might result in changes to contractual status, with some staff being moved to Teaching-only contracts. A small number of HEI respondents suggested that they would make such contract changes if the proposal is implemented.
  • “the predominant suggestion (by one-fifth of respondents addressing this issue) was that HEIs should retain a key role in identifying staff with significant responsibility for research”.
  • Many respondents stressed the importance of research independence as a criterion, especially for staff employed on Research-only contracts. The majority of respondents argued for a nuanced approach to the inclusion of research assistants where they could demonstrate research independence. There was some support for using the REF 2014 independence criteria, although many requested clearer guidance to limit the burden on HEIs.
  • Of those who commented on question 9c., asking for views on the minimum number of outputs per staff member, over half supported setting a minimum requirement of one output per person. Over one-third were in favour of no minimum at all. This support was often linked to the use of contracts to determine research-active status and concern about the ability to submit large numbers.
  • Of those who provided a clear view, around three-quarters did not support the introduction of non-portability rules.
  • Just over 50 per cent of respondents to Question 38 agreed in principle with the introduction of an institutional element to the environment template; this support came with a lot of caveats.
  • Almost half of the responses to Question 26 supported the principle of maintaining the volume of impact case studies overall. The majority recognised that this would affect the ratio of case studies required per FTE when applied alongside the submissions of all staff with significant responsibility for research. Respondents were keen to know the multiplier as soon as possible, to enable HEIs and submitting units to plan the number of case studies required.
  • A third of responses agreed that the minimum number of impact case studies per submission should be reduced to one. This was felt to be of particular benefit to smaller submitting units. However, a number of respondents discussed the risks associated with a minimum of one case study.
  • A small number of respondents drew attention to the Teaching Excellence Framework, which was mentioned in the context of incentivising research-led teaching and minimising burden on HEIs. It was stressed that an aligned approach is necessary to avoid creating a division between teaching and research

Office for Students

Higher Education Commission launched its report: ‘One size won’t fit all: the challenges facing the Office for Students’ The report makes recommendations for the OfS, following hot on the heels of those made by the Minister last week – it looks at alternative and niche provision. There’s a Wonkhe article here

Strategic challenges for the OfS:

  • The unintended consequences of policy reform and funding continue to favour the offer of certain modes of study and undermines choice for students
  • The balance between upholding quality and encouraging innovation is not achieved, either damaging the sector’s reputation or meaning the sector does not keep pace with changes in technology and the labour market
  • Innovation and growth in the sector does not effectively align with the industrial strategy or aspirations for regional growth
  • Price variation and two tier provision result in greater segregation across the system damaging social mobility
  • The student experience of higher education is undermined as some providers struggle with competition and funding challenges
  • Institutional decline, and ultimately failure, reduces choice and the quality of provision in certain areas, or damages the student experience or the perceived value of their qualification
  • The Office for Students in its new role as the champion of ‘choice for students’ and ‘value for the tax payer’ must address these challenges. It is hoped that the findings in this report and the recommendations outlined below will aid the new regulator in ensuring the continued success of the sector.

The report includes an interesting overview of how we got to where we are now, and then moves on to look at some knotty issues facing the sector, including alternative models, and a number of themes that arise in that context (such as access, support for students and progression). They look at class and course size, which is interesting given the new TEF focus on “teaching intensity”, practitioner lecturers, industry experience, sandwich degrees and apprenticeships. There is a chapter on funding, costs and fees and of course the report looks at part-time and accelerated courses, also another hot topic for universities as well as alternative providers.   The report also examines some of the perceived barriers to innovation which were cited in government papers – validation (which is described a barrier to innovation rather than entry) and retention being a problematic measure for alternative providers.

The consequences lf all this start in chapter 4 (page 55) where the report turns to recommendations for the OfS as the regulator.

The recommendations are:

  • Universities should learn lessons from the further education sector to create an environment that feels more accessible to students from low participation backgrounds.
  • The OfS should work with HEIs and alternative providers to identify how personalised and industry-orientated provision can be scaled up and replicated across the system.
  • The OfS, as a principal funder and regulator of the HE sector, should develop ways of incentivising industry practitioner involvement in universities.
  • Universities should consider flexible models of placements for sandwich degrees in order to meet the needs of SMEs.
  • The OfS should closely monitor the impact of degree apprenticeships on sandwich courses and other work based learning provision.
  • The OfS should address cost issues around part-time study and accelerated degree programmes, so as to support wider provision of these non-standard modes.
  • We recommend that the OfS monitors the implications of different delivery costs between HE and FE, not least in terms of enabling entry to part-time and mature students.
  • Research should be commissioned by the OfS to better understand how students, especially from disadvantaged backgrounds, can be encouraged to use sources of information more critically in their HE choices.
  • The Office for Students should provide Parliament with an annual report mapping the diversity of provision across the higher education sector, commenting on trends and explanations for changing patterns of provision.
  • The DfE and the EFSA should consider the viability of allowing employers to use the apprenticeship levy to fund work-relevant part-time HE
  • The DfE should consider the extent to which accelerated and flexible programmes could be supported by changes to the funding based on credit.

Fees and funding

There was a debate in the House of Commons this week on an Opposition motion to reverse the legislation on tuition fees – these debates are non-binding and after the DUP said they would support them the government declined to have a formal vote – so they were passed. The same thing happened on a motion about the pay cap in the NHS.   As they were non-binding, this is largely symbolic, but much has been made about the “anti-democratic” implications of this..

Meanwhile, the Resolution Foundation hosted a lively debate on fees and funding – you can see the (very long) recording on YouTube, and the Times Higher did their own short version. Rumours persist that despite Jo Johnson’s staunch defence of the system, No. 10 may be getting cold feet, and the new fee cap for 2019/20 has still not been announced….

And Philip Hammond contributed to the speculation while giving evidence at the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee (reported widely, here is the Telegraph link):

“I do think there’s a significant difference between a graduate who leaves university with a, perhaps, quite significant level of debt and a well-recognised degree in an area which is known to provide strong employment opportunities; and a graduate on the other hand who perhaps has a very similar level of debt but who may not have a degree that is going to enhance his or her employment opportunities in the same way..

“We need to look at…the information we provide to students to enable them to make value-for-money assessments about what they are buying and what it’s going to cost them.”

And to contribute to the debate, the Commons Education Committee have launched an inquiry into value for money in HE. They are inviting written submissions on the following issues by 23rd October 2017:

  • Graduate outcomes and the use of destination data
  • Social justice in higher education and support for disadvantaged students
  • Senior management pay in universities
  • Quality and effectiveness of teaching
  • The role of the Office for Students

JANE FORSTER                                            |                       SARAH CARTER

Policy Advisor                                                                     Policy & Public Affairs Officer

65111                                                                                 65070

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

cfp Extended deadline:‘Psychosocial Reflections on a Half Century of Cultural Revolution: The 50th anniversary of seasons of love and protest

Association for Psychosocial Studies Biennial Conference

Bournemouth University, 5th-7th April 2018

‘Psychosocial Reflections on a Half Century of Cultural Revolution:

The 50th anniversary of seasons of love and protest’

Join us to reflect on revolutionary relationships and revolutionary politics which challenged authority then and which influence us now.

The cultural forces and the political movements of 1967 and 1968 aimed to change the world, and did so. Recent development of some populist and protest politics could be seen as a continuation of the revolutionary movements in the 1960s. Hedonic themes that recall the summer of love suffuse contemporary life, and self-reflection and emotional literacy have also become prominent values, linked towards human diversity and the international community.

We invite you to offer psychosocial analyses of the development and legacy today of the ‘revolutions’ in love, sex and politics. This could be via explorations of contemporary issues in politics, culture and artistic expression, or through historical studies. All proposals for papers must indicate how they address both psychological and social dimensions of their topic.

Send your abstract of 250-300 words to: APS2018@bournemouth.ac.uk

Deadline: 1st October 2017. Confirmation of acceptance: 1st November.

We welcome contributions from academics and practitioners from different fields and disciplines and very much look forward to seeing you there!

 

 

 

 

 

http://aps2018.bournemouth.ac.uk/

 

FMC Placement Development Advisor Vianna Renaud presents at the RAISE17 Conference in Manchester

conferences, Student Engagement

Last week Faculty Placement Development Advisor Vianna Renaud presented at the RAISE17 Conference at Manchester Metropolitan University. With over 235 delegates representing institutions throughout the UK and Ireland, this conference was focused on student engagement with the theme, “Perspectives on student engagement; looking forward..thinking back.” This was the perfect event to share best practice and information regarding the latest trends in the sector.

Presenting on the campus wide Placement PAL pilot project last year, it was a wonderful opportunity to share with colleagues from a variety of institutions. I found the conference to be of great benefit as there was an open and collaborative atmosphere in the room. The delegates were clearly passionate about this subject area with the same desire to share and learn with colleagues.

RAISE is a network of academics, practitioners, advisors and student representatives drawn from the Higher Education Sector who are working and/or interested in researching and promoting student engagement.  For further information, conference programme and proceedings:

RAISE 17 Conference

 

ADRC attend the Fifth Annual Wessex Clinical Research Network Ageing Research Meeting

Jane Murphy from the Ageing and Dementia Research Centre (ADRC)  was invited to join the ‘Fifth Annual Wessex Clinical Research Network Ageing Research Meeting’ on 13th September 2017  at Royal Bournemouth Hospital.  There were a wide range of interesting and insightful presentations  by clinicians of mostly NIHR funded research in ageing including frailty, dementia and neurodegenerative disorders and stroke. The Specialty National Lead for Ageing, and Lead for Ageing and Dementia Theme NIHR CLAHRC Professor Helen Roberts chaired the morning session  followed by Dr Divya Tiwari,  Clinical Research Network (CRN) Wessex Ageing Specialty Lead who chaired the afternoon session.

Martine Cross, The Research Delivery Manager for  Ageing at the  Wessex CRN presented a key update on projects and plans.  Please note that Martine will be coming to BU and for academics with an interest in ageing research and considering applying to NIHR, it would present an ideal opportunity to meet Martine and know more about  the Wessex CRN and discuss your plans.

For expressions of interest to join the meeting, please email  Michelle O’Brien, ADRC  administrator (adrc@bournemouth.ac.uk) and  we will send further details.

 

 

Conference on the impact of complications and errors in surgery held at BU

conferences, Fusion, REF Subjects, Research Ethics

Things can go wrong in surgery, and dealing with the consequences of complications and errors is part and parcel of a surgeon’s life. Last week a conference was held at BU’s Executive Business Centre which explored the impact that adverse events have on surgeons and examined how these effects can be ameliorated. Eminent presenters from across the UK shared insights from their surgical careers and personal experiences, presented the latest research in the area, and considered how better support and training could be provided for surgeons.

The conference was organised by the Bournemouth Adverse Events Research Team, a joint research venture between psychologists at BU and surgeons at Royal Bournemouth Hospital, who are currently researching the impact of complications and errors which inevitably arise during surgery on surgeons.  Professor Siné McDougall, one of the research team, said: “Today is about trying to think about what we can do to support surgeons. When things do go wrong, the focus is rightly on patients and their family. However, surgeons are also dealing with their own feelings, particularly if they have made a mistake which they deeply regret.”

It was clear that the conference had touched on a key issue for surgeons.  This was summed up by the keynote speaker, Professor Sir Miles Irving, Emeritus Professor of Surgery at Manchester University, who said “The proceedings were excellent and clearly demonstrated that you have latched on to a problem which has the potential to become even more significant if not addressed.”  The Bournemouth Adverse Events Team is looking forward to continuing research in this area which will address this issue.

Tax Research Network (TRN) 26th Annual International Conference, 4-6 September 2017

Tax Research Network (TRN) 26th Annual International Conference, 4 – 6 September 2017

The Accounting, Finance & Economics Department of the Faculty of Management has this week hosted the Tax Research Network (TRN) 26th Annual Conference at the EBC.  Professor John Vinney opened the TRN Conference 2017 with a welcome address on behalf of the University and the event was run by Dr Alan Kirkpatrick and Dr Phyllis Alexander over three days (including a Doctoral Colloquium).

The event was a great success and thanks are due to our colleagues Charmain Lyons, Research & Knowledge Exchange Office and Rebecca Marney, BU Events Management Team for their considerable help.

The TRN has a wide international membership.  The delegates attending included some of the best known international and UK-based academics in taxation as well as senior figures from the professional bodies that sponsored the event: Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW), both the global body and the regional organisation, ‘ICAEW Southern’ and the Chartered Institute of Taxation as well as Chartered Accountants Ireland.

The Keynote sessions were a particularly successful feature of the Conference.   The themes were:

  • ‘Challenges for taxation policy makers’ presented by Professor Judith Freedman of Oxford University:
  • ‘Making Tax Digital’ presented by Professor John Hasseldine of the University of New Hampshire: and,
  • ‘Tax and Trade – implications of Brexit and the special case of the UK-Irish border’ with presentations by Dr Brian Keegan who is Director of Taxation Policy at Chartered Accountants Ireland and by BU academics Dr Alan Kirkpatrick and Professor Tim Lloyd from the panel with further contributions from Professor Jens Holscher.  The other panellists were Judith Freedman (Oxford Univ), Ian Young (ICAEW) and Anne Fairpo (Temple Tax Chambers and a past President of the Chartered Institute of Taxation).

This event has helped to showcase BU’s facilities and expertise in the field of taxation research and education.

Dr Alan K Kirkpatrick, PhD MSc (Oxon) BA (Hons) Econ SFHEA FCA

Senior Academic in Accounting and Taxation, Director of TRIBUTE Tax Research,

Faculty of Management

 

Digital Health Technology Catalyst 2017 – Round 1. DEADLINE 11/10/17

Are you working with an SME on a digital health project?  Innovate UK have announced funding opportunities related to Digital Health. Feasibility projects funding is between £50-£75k for a one year project.  Industrial research and developmental project have funds available for £500k-£1m for projects lasting up to three years and work with at least one other partner.  All projects must start by February 1st 2018.  Projects must have the potential to achieve at least one of the following:

  • Improve patient outcomes
  • Transform healthcare delivery
  • Enable more efficient delivery of healthcare

Please note, all projects must be led by a UK business.  For further details, please go here.