/ Full archive

Researcher Development Framework

student research, Training

Vitae is an organisation set up to promote career development in both postgraduate researchers and academic staff. Their Researcher Development Framework is intended to help people monitor their skills and plan their personal development. At BU we will be using this framework to format the training on offer for the postgraduate research students and academic staff.

The Vitae website is an excellent resource and the organisation regularly runs free training events for researchers, PGRs and those involved in research development. Upcoming events include Vitae Connections: Supporting Open Researchers.

Vitae_RDF_logo_2011The Researcher Development Framework (RDF) is the professional development framework to realise the potential of researchers. The RDF is a tool for planning, promoting and supporting the personal, professional and career development of researchers in higher education. It was designed following interviews with many successful researchers across the sector and articulates the knowledge, behaviours and attributes of a successful researcher.

There is a planner available on the Vitae website to help you assess which stage you are at with your skills and a tutorial providing guidance on how to use the framework.

Top 10 tips from researchers on using the Researcher Development Framework (RDF):

1. You might choose to use the RDF for short term as well as long term development. The RDF can be used in planning for your long term career ambitions but also to make a feasible short term plan. It can be useful to imagine your long term ambitions in order to focus your career path however the reality of progressing through to the higher phases may be more difficult to plan. In the short term, making decisions about how to progress to the next phase or what sub-domains are most important for you will be easier. Try to be realistic when setting these short term goals.

2. Use the RDF to highlight your strengths and areas for development and how these might be used to benefit/influence your personal, professional and career development.

3. Use the RDF to highlight your applicable and transferable skills. This is important for career progression within or outside academia.

4. Prioritise those areas which are most relevant. You don’t have to try to develop in all the areas of the RDF at once. There may be some sub-domains/descriptors where there is less relevance in progressing through the phases for you.

5. Draw on experiences outside of work to evidence your capabilities.

6. Progression to the highest phase in a descriptor will not be applicable to everyone but being aware of the possibilities can aid personal and career development.

7. Talk to others to get their views about your strengths and capabilities. Your supervisor, manager, peers, family and friends are a great source of information to find out more about yourself. Talk to them about how they perceive your capabilities. By understanding how others view you, you will be able to make more informed choices about your future.

8. To move from one phase to the next why not explore attending courses. These courses may be run at a local level (within your University) or may only be run nationally or internationally so awareness of opportunities for training is important. Vitae also run a wide range of courses which address many aspects of personal and career development.

9. Some phases may only be reached through experience and practice however good self-awareness and professional development planning will aid the process.

10. Networking is likely to enable you to reach more experienced phases.

Recent methods papers at BU

Publishing

In the past six weeks we saw the publication of three methods papers by BU academics.     BU’s Joanne Mayoh and her colleague Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie in the USA published a paper on mixed-methods approaches in phenomenology.1  They argue that phenomenological research methods work extremely well as a component of mixed-methods research approaches. The purpose of this article is twofold, they provide: (1) a philosophical justification for using what they label mixed-methods phenomenological research (MMPR); and (2) examples of MMPR in practice to underline a number of potential models for MMPR that can practically be used in future research.

In the Faculty of Health & Social Sciences Catherine Angell and Jane Hunt with Professor Emerita Jo Alexander offer methodological insights into the ‘draw and write’ research method. 2   Their literature review identified that the method has been used inconsistently and found that there are issues for researchers in relation to interpretation of creative work and analysis of data. As a result of this, an improvement on this method, entitled ‘draw, write and tell’, was developed in an attempt to provide a more child-orientated and consistent approach to data collection, interpretation and analysis. This article identifies the issues relating to ‘draw and write’ and describes the development and application of ‘draw, write and tell’ as a case study, noting its limitations and benefits.

Finally, BU Visiting Faculty Emma Pitchforth and CMMPH’s Edwin van Teijlingen together with Consultant Midwife Helen MacKenzie Bryers published a paper advocating mixed-methods approaches in health research.3  This paper outlines the different paradigms or philosophies underlying quantitative and qualitative methods and some of the on-going debates about mixed-methods. The paper further highlights a number of practical issues, such as: (1) the particular mix and order of quantitative and qualitative methods; (2) the way of integrating methods from different philosophical stance; and (3) how to synthesise mixed-methods findings.   This paper is accompanied by an editorial in  Nepal Journal of Epidemiology. 4

 

Professor Edwin van Teijlingen

Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health

 

References:

  1.  Mayoh, J., Onwuegbuzie, A.J.  (2015) Toward a Conceptualization of Mixed Methods Phenomenological Research, Journal of Mixed Methods Research 9(1): 91-107.
  2. Angell, C., Alexander, J., Hunt, J.A.  (2015) ‘Draw, write and tell’: A literature review and methodological development on the ‘draw and write’ research method.  Journal of Early Childhood Research, 13(1): 17-28.
  3. MacKenzie Bryers, H., van Teijlingen, E. Pitchforth, E. (2014) Advocating mixed-methods approaches in health research, Nepal Journal of Epidemiology 4(5): 417-422.
  4. Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E., Wasti, S.P., Sathian, B. (2014) Mixed-methods approaches in health research in Nepal (editorial) Nepal Journal of Epidemiology 4(5): 415-416.

 

US Funding Opportunities – videos

Awarded & submitted bids, Funding opportunities, Research assessment, Training

For one month only (expiry: 6th March 2015), we have access to the following ARMA* videos:

ARMA Introduction to US Funding

In this video, Dr Stephen Conway, Senior Assistant Registrar at the University of Oxford, delivers an essential introduction to US funding. Dr Conway covers strategic priorities and the current drivers. He goes on to exemplify a case study from the University of Oxford. Outputs of the project are examined and conclusions are drawn.

ARMA – Applying for US Funding

Speakers: Patricia Hawk – Director of Sponsored Programs, Oregon State University and Vivian Holmes, Director of Sponsored Research Operations, The Broad institute of MIT and Harvard.

Patricia Hawk and Vivian Holmes deliver essential information to support US applications for funding. The process from the initial search, to proposal preparation and specifics such as allowances for salaries, equipment and travel are examined.

ARMA – Managing US Awards

Speakers: Patricia Hawk – Director of Sponsored Programs, Oregon State University and Vivian Holmes, Director of Sponsored Research Operations, The Broad institute of MIT and Harvard.

Patricia and Vivian deliver this essential guide to managing US awards which includes the types of grant, shared responsibilities, management of project costs, performance issues, project reporting, federal payment methods, close-out responsibilities, audit and VAT.

* Associate of Research Managers and Administrators

You can access a short trailer on the ARMA website and an excerpt, giving the top ten tips for US funding opportunities. The latter also discusses why a service such as RKEO is the essential partner in developing and managing your bid, regardless of the funder’s location.

To access these resources, please contact Charmain Lyons (mailto:clyons@bournemouth.ac.uk) and she will send you the code and joining instructions.

 

 

Leading Sociologist to Present Workshop on Achieving and Demonstrating Research Impact!

REF Subjects, Research assessment

Professor John Scott, a leading figure in British Sociology, is visiting the University to present a workshop on ‘Achieving and Demonstrating Research Impact’ 9am to midday on 26th March in S202, Studland House, Lansdowne Campus.  The workshop will consider both the achievement and demonstration of impact and will comprise three linked sessions:

 

  1. What is ‘impact’ and how can it be achieved?
  2. How can impact be demonstrated?
  3. The future of the REF

 

Hope you can make it as this will be of cross-University interest!

Funding Alert

Understanding, countering and mitigating security threats Research and Evidence Hub

The ESRC, in partnership with the UK security and intelligence agencies, is pleased to invite proposals for the world-class interdisciplinary Research and Evidence Hub on Understanding, Countering and Mitigating Security Threats.

The aim of the Hub is to maximise the impact of existing research in order to inform approaches to countering contemporary security threats to individuals, communities, and institutions. High quality, innovative and ambitious proposals from interdisciplinary academic teams are sought which will work collaboratively with government agencies to maximise the impact of research, while retaining academic independence.

The Hub will work as a catalyst, bridging academic and UK security and intelligence communities. Its main focus will be to enhance and translate existing evidence to inform decisions aimed at mitigating security threats to individuals, communities, institutions in the UK, and to UK interests overseas – without displacing those threats to others.

It is intended that the amount available for the Hub will be up to £1.8 million at 100 per cent full economic cost (fec) per annum, of which 80 per cent (ie up to £1.44 million per annum or up to £4.32 million over a three-year period) will be covered by the UK security and intelligence agencies, through an ESRC-administered grant. Funding is intended to be available for three years, with a possible extension for another two years following a review.

Application process

The deadline for submitting proposals is 16.00 on 24 March 2015.

Shortlisted proposals will be invited for interview in early July 2015. Funding decision will be announced in early August 2015, and Hub is expected to start in October 2015 or as soon as possible thereafter.

Please contact the Funding Development Team in RKEO if you are interested in applying.

Guest Talk “Machine Learning and Computer Vision for Intelligent Surveillance”, 11am 06Feb TAG32

Fusion

I would like to invite you to a research presentation by Prof. Bailing Zhang, from Xi’an Jiaotong Liverpool University. We are hosting Prof. Zhang here for a week under the support of BU Fusion Funding. Please feel free to forward this invitation to your colleagues and PhD students if it is of their interests.

 

Title: Machine Learning and Computer Vision for Intelligent Surveillance

Time: 11:00-12:00

Date: Friday, 06 Feb 2015

Room: TAG32 (Talbot Campus)

 

Abstract:

The aim of intelligent video surveillance is to develop a way to provide reliable real-time alarms and situation awareness from existing surveillance networks without the enormous cost of intensive human monitoring. The tasks of video surveillance often include the detection of  the presence of people and vehicle and tracking them, and the subsequent analysis of their activities. Such research projects have broad implications for Homeland Security, law enforcement and many other types of military applications. There are many challenges to analyse a vast number of video streams in real-time to detect a range of events relevant to security needs. Computer vision and machine learning are the two interwove technologies for most of the modeling issues in video surveillance, for example, recognizing human behaviors. In this seminar, Dr. Bailing Zhang will briefly outline the ongoing projects with his group at XJTLU and discuss some relevant issues.

 

Biography:

Bailing Zhang received the Master’s degree in Communication and Electronic System from the South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China, and Ph.D. degree in Electrical and Computer engineering from the University of Newcastle, NSW, Australia, in 1987 and 1999, respectively. He is currently Associate Professor in the Department of Computer Science and Software Engineering at Xi’an Jiaotong-Liverpool University, Suzhou, China. He had been a Lecturer in the School of Computer Science and Mathematics in the Victoria University, Australia since 2003. His research interest includes machine learning and computer vision, with applications in surveillance and biometrics. Bailing Zhang has over 100 referred papers published.

————–

Dr. Xiaosong Yang

Senior Lecturer in Computer Animation National Centre for Computer Animation
Faculty of Media and Communication
Bournemouth University
Email: xyang@bournemouth.ac.uk
http://staffprofiles.bournemouth.ac.uk/display/xyang

BU featured in the Report of the Speaker’s Commission on Digital Democracy

The Speaker’s Commission on Digital Democracy launched on the 26th January 2015 after a long period of consultation and research. CIPPM’s Argyro Karanasiou has provided evidence discussing lawmaking the digital era and her work is cited (n 18, 23, 73) in the report, which can be found here. Evidence has also been submitted by the Media School (D Lilleker, R Gerodimos, D Jackson, D Yuratich) about the citizen’s disengagement with the commons, also cited in the report (n 87).

On Tuesday 3/2/2015 Argyro attended the reception in the Speaker’s House, House of Commons given to celebrate the launch of the report and to thank all contributors.

UUK Student Funding Panel

The UUK Student Funding Panel was established in 2014 to consider the design of the current student fees and loans system in England. The panel is asking for additional evidence and views on how to ensure the higher education system is sufficiently diverse and flexible to deliver an outstanding learning experience to all students.

The panel is seeking comments on the following particular questions:

What evidence exists to suggest that there is unmet demand for more flexible forms of provision?

What are the main forms of more flexible provision that are in demand, and which groups do they appeal to?

To what extent should the current fees and loans system incentivise innovation in teaching?

Are there changes to the system that could be made to improve incentives?

If you would like to contribute, please email Colette Cherry at ccherry@bournemouth.ac.uk before the 8th February.

Many thanks

RKEO Coffee Morning – Today!

Guidance, Info Days, Post-award, Publishing, Research Ethics, Research Integritiy

The RKEO coffee morning is today in the RKE Office on the 4th Floor Melbury House (Lansdowne Campus) starting at 9.30am. The morning will concentrate on the wonders of the Project Delivery Team within RKEO, its personnel, the work they do and how they can help you with live surgeries and demonstrations on open access, BRIAN, the online ethics checklist and RED so please come along!

The Team has three specialist areas: Finance, Outputs and Governance which feed into Faculty dedicated teams. So if you want to know more about managing projects, applying for ethics approval, how to use BRIAN, Open Access or anything else Research and Knowledge Exchange focused please come along and have a chat with us, or just to enjoy a coffee and cake.

 

The coffee morning will be held in the RKE Office on the 4th Floor Melbury House (Lansdowne Campus) starting at 9.30am on Wednesday 4th February.

 

We look forward to seeing you!

Publishing

Tourism, a global industry, brings with it a number of public health problems, one of which is the spread of sexually transmitted infections transmitted between travellers and hosts.
Previous studies have largely focused on sex workers and sex tourists. This latest paper ‘Nepalese Trekking Guides: A Quantitative Study of Sexual Health Knowledge And Sexual Behaviour’ published yesterday in the Journal of Manmohan Memorial Institute of Health Sciences assesses sexual behaviour, knowledge and condom use among male trekking guides in Nepal. 

A self-administered questionnaire survey (n=324) was conducted using snowball sampling amongst men working as mountain trekking guides in Nepal. Most respondents (59%) had  initiated sex before the age of 18. Most (84 %) reported sexual relations with a woman other than their partner, 46% reported foreign partners, 43% had Nepalese partners, and 28% had concurrent foreign and Nepalese partners. Most (70 %) reported ever having sex with a foreign woman and two-thirds had had sexual intercourse with foreign women in the previous 12 months. Participants’ age, education status, age of first sex, smoking and drinking habits and English proficiency were significant predictors of having sex with foreign women.About 60% reported condom use during their most recent occasion of extra-martial sex. A similar proportion had used a condom during last sexual intercourse with a foreign woman. The likelihood of condom use was associated with a guide’s age, educational level, ethnicity, age of first sex and work experience. Most trekking guides reported sexual relations with foreign women as well as irregular use of condoms. Although sexual health knowledge about among trekking guides is high, some misconceptions still result in unsafe sex. Hence there is an urgent need to revise the existing training for trekking guides and implement appropriate health promotion programmes.

Reference:

Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E., Regmi, P., Bhatta, P., Ingham, R., Stone, N. (2015) Sexual health knowledge and risky sexual behaviour of Nepalese trekking guides. Journal of Manmohan Memorial Institute of Health Sciences 1 (4): 35-42.

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH

 

 

 

£1 million available to help UK manufacturing firms develop skills to maximise value of innovation

Business Engagement, Funding opportunities, Knowledge Transfer

 

The UK Commission for Employment and Skills (UKCES) has launched a new competition challenging manufacturing firms to maximise the value of innovation.

Manufacturing firms have been invited to bid for a share of £1 million to boost UK innovation. The UK Commission for Employment and Skills (UKCES), launching the ‘Skills for Innovation in Manufacturing’ competition , challenges firms to come up with new ways of developing the skills and business practices needed to maximise the value of innovation to the UK economy.

In recent years, the UK has risen up the Global Innovation Index, moving from 14th in 2010 to second place in 2014. However, a government assessment of the UK’s science and innovation system, undertaken for the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) in 2014, identified planning, recruiting, training, retention, progression and performance management as weak parts of the system, with worrying deficiencies in basic skills, STEM skills and management. Businesses’ skills, workplace practices, and management are critical to ensuring the value of innovation is maximised.

Paul McKelvie OBE, a Commissioner at the UK Commission for Employment and Skills (UKCES), which is running the competition, commented:

“It is fantastic that the UK is ranked as a front-runner in terms of innovation, second only globally to Switzerland. However, we need to do more to capitalise on this if we want to reap the economic reward and remain competitive. To do this effectively, we need to explore the ‘human factor’ in innovation. This means understanding how to better manage innovations; both in the way processes work and how any innovation is taken to market. It is the development of these skills that we want businesses to focus on when responding to our invitation.

“This competition is a great opportunity for businesses in the manufacturing sector to come together and come up with ideas and solutions that they want to trial and develop to better maximise the value of innovation. By running this competition, I hope that a range of insights will be drawn from the projects we support to improve future business practice and public policy.”

The UK Futures Programme competition invites employer-led proposals from businesses of all sizes in the manufacturing sector to run initiatives lasting 12 months, that focus specifically on the skills required to manage an innovation process and exploit innovative products or services for commercial value. Proposals must be joint investments with employers investing in cash, in kind or both alongside a maximum government contribution of £150,000 per project.

The competition closes at midday on Wednesday 11 March 2015. For more information or to apply visit the competition page.

Partners sought to help increase the utility of a novel microinfusion pump for programmable infusion of support in vivo drug discovery

Business Engagement, Funding opportunities, Knowledge Transfer

 

Through CRACK IT Solutions, Primetech is seeking partners interested in applying their novel microinfusion pump system (iPRECIO® SMP-200) to research and drug discovery programs to improve the accuracy of their drug delivery approaches and the clinical relevance of the results achieved. For more information or to contact Primetech, visit the website.

How to get published in an academic journal: top tips from editors

Publishing

Original article – http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/jan/03/how-to-get-published-in-an-academic-journal-top-tips-from-editors?CMP=new_1194

Journal editors share their advice on how to structure a paper, write a cover letter – and deal with awkward feedback from reviewers.

 

Writing for academic journals is highly competitive. Even if you overcome the first hurdle and generate a valuable idea or piece of research – how do you then sum it up in a way that will capture the interest of reviewers?

There’s no simple formula for getting published – editors’ expectations can vary both between and within subject areas. But there are some challenges that will confront all academic writers regardless of their discipline. How should you respond to reviewer feedback? Is there a correct way to structure a paper? And should you always bother revising and resubmitting? We asked journal editors from a range of backgrounds for their tips on getting published.

The writing stage

1) Focus on a story that progresses logically, rather than chronologically

Take some time before even writing your paper to think about the logic of the presentation. When writing, focus on a story that progresses logically, rather than the chronological order of the experiments that you did.
Deborah Sweet, editor of Cell Stem Cell and publishing director at Cell Press

2) Don’t try to write and edit at the same time

Open a file on the PC and put in all your headings and sub-headings and then fill in under any of the headings where you have the ideas to do so. If you reach your daily target (mine is 500 words) put any other ideas down as bullet points and stop writing; then use those bullet points to make a start the next day.

If you are writing and can’t think of the right word (eg for elephant) don’t worry – write (big animal long nose) and move on – come back later and get the correct term. Write don’t edit; otherwise you lose flow.
Roger Watson, editor-in-chief, Journal of Advanced Nursing

3) Don’t bury your argument like a needle in a haystack

If someone asked you on the bus to quickly explain your paper, could you do so in clear, everyday language? This clear argument should appear in your abstract and in the very first paragraph (even the first line) of your paper. Don’t make us hunt for your argument as for a needle in a haystack. If it is hidden on page seven that will just make us annoyed. Oh, and make sure your argument runs all the way through the different sections of the paper and ties together the theory and empirical material.
Fiona Macaulay, editorial board, Journal of Latin American Studies

4) Ask a colleague to check your work

One of the problems that journal editors face is badly written papers. It might be that the writer’s first language isn’t English and they haven’t gone the extra mile to get it proofread. It can be very hard to work out what is going on in an article if the language and syntax are poor.
Brian Lucey, editor, International Review of Financial Analysis

5) Get published by writing a review or a response

Writing reviews is a good way to get published – especially for people who are in the early stages of their career. It’s a chance to practice at writing a piece for publication, and get a free copy of a book that you want. We publish more reviews than papers so we’re constantly looking for reviewers.

Some journals, including ours, publish replies to papers that have been published in the same journal. Editors quite like to publish replies to previous papers because it stimulates discussion.
Yujin Nagasawa, co-editor and review editor of the European Journal for Philosophy of Religion, philosophy of religion editor of Philosophy Compass

6) Don’t forget about international readers

We get people who write from America who assume everyone knows the American system – and the same happens with UK writers. Because we’re an international journal, we need writers to include that international context.
Hugh McLaughlin, editor in chief, Social Work Education – the International Journal

7) Don’t try to cram your PhD into a 6,000 word paper

Sometimes people want to throw everything in at once and hit too many objectives. We get people who try to tell us their whole PhD in 6,000 words and it just doesn’t work. More experienced writers will write two or three papers from one project, using a specific aspect of their research as a hook.
Hugh McLaughlin, editor in chief, Social Work Education – the International Journal

Submitting your work

8) Pick the right journal: it’s a bad sign if you don’t recognise any of the editorial board

Check that your article is within the scope of the journal that you are submitting to. This seems so obvious but it’s surprising how many articles are submitted to journals that are completely inappropriate. It is a bad sign if you do not recognise the names of any members of the editorial board. Ideally look through a number of recent issues to ensure that it is publishing articles on the same topic and that are of similar quality and impact.
Ian Russell, editorial director for science at Oxford University Press

9) Always follow the correct submissions procedures

Often authors don’t spend the 10 minutes it takes to read the instructions to authors which wastes enormous quantities of time for both the author and the editor and stretches the process when it does not need to
Tangali Sudarshan, editor, Surface Engineering

10) Don’t repeat your abstract in the cover letter
We look to the cover letter for an indication from you about what you think is most interesting and significant about the paper, and why you think it is a good fit for the journal. There is no need to repeat the abstract or go through the content of the paper in detail – we will read the paper itself to find out what it says. The cover letter is a place for a bigger picture outline, plus any other information that you would like us to have.
Deborah Sweet, editor of Cell Stem Cell and publishing director at Cell Press

11) A common reason for rejections is lack of context

Make sure that it is clear where your research sits within the wider scholarly landscape, and which gaps in knowledge it’s addressing. A common reason for articles being rejected after peer review is this lack of context or lack of clarity about why the research is important.
Jane Winters, executive editor of the Institute of Historical Research’s journal, Historical Research and associate editor of Frontiers in Digital Humanities: Digital History

12) Don’t over-state your methodology

Ethnography seems to be the trendy method of the moment, so lots of articles submitted claim to be based on it. However, closer inspection reveals quite limited and standard interview data. A couple of interviews in a café do not constitute ethnography. Be clear – early on – about the nature and scope of your data collection. The same goes for the use of theory. If a theoretical insight is useful to your analysis, use it consistently throughout your argument and text.
Fiona Macaulay, editorial board, Journal of Latin American Studies

Dealing with feedback

13) Respond directly (and calmly) to reviewer comments

When resubmitting a paper following revisions, include a detailed document summarising all the changes suggested by the reviewers, and how you have changed your manuscript in light of them. Stick to the facts, and don’t rant. Don’t respond to reviewer feedback as soon as you get it. Read it, think about it for several days, discuss it with others, and then draft a response.
Helen Ball, editorial board, Journal of Human Lactation

14) Revise and resubmit: don’t give up after getting through all the major hurdles

You’d be surprised how many authors who receive the standard “revise and resubmit” letter never actually do so. But it is worth doing – some authors who get asked to do major revisions persevere and end up getting their work published, yet others, who had far less to do, never resubmit. It seems silly to get through the major hurdles of writing the article, getting it past the editors and back from peer review only to then give up.
Fiona Macaulay, editorial board, Journal of Latin American Studies

15) It is acceptable to challenge reviewers, with good justification

It is acceptable to decline a reviewer’s suggestion to change a component of your article if you have a good justification, or can (politely) argue why the reviewer is wrong. A rational explanation will be accepted by editors, especially if it is clear you have considered all the feedback received and accepted some of it.
Helen Ball, editorial board of Journal of Human Lactation

16) Think about how quickly you want to see your paper published

Some journals rank more highly than others and so your risk of rejection is going to be greater. People need to think about whether or not they need to see their work published quickly – because certain journals will take longer. Some journals, like ours, also do advance access so once the article is accepted it appears on the journal website. This is important if you’re preparing for a job interview and need to show that you are publishable.
Hugh McLaughlin, editor in chief, Social Work Education – the International Journal

17) Remember: when you read published papers you only see the finished article

Publishing in top journals is a challenge for everyone, but it may seem easier for other people. When you read published papers you see the finished article, not the first draft, nor the first revise and resubmit, nor any of the intermediate versions – and you never see the failures.
Philip Powell, managing editor of the Information Systems Journal

Enter the Guardian university awards 2015 and join the higher education network for more comment, analysis and job opportunities, direct to your inbox. Follow us on Twitter @gdnhighered.