/ Full archive

‘Seen but Seldom Heard’ an on-going collaboration between BU academics and Victoria Education Centre, Poole, is taking to the stage again

Uncategorized

Seen but Seldom Heard multi-media performance, July 8th, 7pm, West Lulworth Village Hall

 

West Lulworth Village Hall

Church Road, West Lulworth, Dorset BH20 5SG Monday 8 July 2013, 7pm (doors open).

 

‘Seen but Seldom Heard’, an on-going collaboration between BU academics and Victoria Education Centre, Poole, is taking to the stage again – this time in the seaside village of West Lulworth.

  The aim of Seen but Seldom Heard, a participatory research project using arts-based methods, is to offer a group of young disabled people a ‘voice’ to collectively question and challenge existing dominant perceptions and representations of disability by sharing their own personal stories through the medium of performance poetry.

   Next Monday’s event will celebrate the achievements of the current group of young poets before many of them leave school this summer. Compered by professional performance poets, Liv Torc and Johnny Fluffypunk, the evening will showcase work using multi-media performance including film, live poetry reading, comedy and song. Four students who received one-to-one mentoring from the professional poets, funded by BU AimHigher, will also perform their individual ‘sets’.

 Seen but Seldom Heard will continue in 2013/14 with a new group of young poets from Victoria Education Centre with further performances already being planned.

Major Funders – Update

BU research, Funding opportunities, Research news

The following opportunities have been announced. Please follow the links for more information:

You can set up your own personalised alerts on ResearchProfessional. If you need help setting these up, just ask your School’s RKE Officer in RKE Operations or see the recent post on this topic.

“BU ACADEMIC PARTICIPATES IN INTERNATIONAL ROUNDTABLE CONSULTATION TO DEVELOP ENTREPRENEURIAL LEADERSHIP INITIATIVE

Uncategorized

“BU ACADEMIC PARTICIPATES IN INTERNATIONAL ROUNDTABLE CONSULTATION TO DEVELOP ENTREPRENEURIAL LEADERSHIP INITIATIVE

 Stephen Copp has recently participated by invitation in an international roundtable consultation at Oxford University for senior academics, business practitioners and religious leaders interested in the intersection of business, faith and development and its global implications. This opportunity arose as part of the development of the Entrepreneurial Leadership Initiative (“ELI”) launched earlier this year by the Oxford Centre for Christianity and Culture. “

Bringing industry and education together through the ‘F’ word…

BU research, Fusion

… Fusion, of course! Dan Jackson, Melanie Gray and Tasos Theofilou report on setting up a national competition for PR students.

This time last year we had just submitted a Fusion bid with the aim of setting up a national PR competition for final year UG and PG students. The idea was simple: we set up an intra-university and PR industry body; give it a catchy name – we chose ‘Amilla’, which is Greek for ‘healthy competition’; get a big-name PR agency to set a brief for students to respond to; teams of students from across UK PR education then submit a written pitch, with the best five being invited to the PR agency’s offices to pitch and a winner announced amid great fanfare.

We knew it was a good idea, we knew what we needed to do, but getting others to believe in it and commit to it was always going to be the biggest challenge. Thankfully, the Fusion committee believed in it and we received funding to support our endeavors. We set up a website, recruited and met with a coordinating committee, articulated a mission, set the competition rules – so far so good.

Looking back, this was the easy part. We had so far targeted those we knew would be most enthusiastic and able to contribute. The bigger challenge was persuading other colleagues in PR education to champion the competition and encourage their students to participate. Again, we knew the idea was strong – it’s about having greater ambition for our students and giving them a greater external platform, which can enhance their employability etc etc! – however, getting other PR lecturers to support the venture was a surprisingly big challenge, which stretched us to our limits.

In the end we got an adequate number of entries, and were able to shortlist five teams for the finals. The finals day was a genuine success, with strong representation from the PR industry and PR education from across the country. The quality of student work was outstanding and was highly praised by the PR agency that was judging. The feedback from participating students was overwhelmingly positive.

So it is onwards and upwards for next year’s competition, which will be hosted by the University of Central Lancashire. We will continue to grow the network of PR educators and industry, and have a sustainable model from which to move forwards.

Oh, and in case you were wondering who won the first Amilla competition, it was a team of BU students. And before you start thinking of the other ‘F’ word, it definitely was not a FIX!!

 

 

 

 

Keeping abreast of new research in infant feeding

BU research, PG research, Research news

The Nutrition and Nurture in Infancy and Childhood Conference, providing an international interdisciplinary arena, offered the ideal opportunity for us to present infant feeding research and teaching materials developed at BU. With a wide range of research studies presented over the course of three days, we were able to absorb new and innovative research enhancing our understanding of socio-cultural, political and economic influences upon infant and child feeding practices both in the UK and across the world.

Alison presented for the first time preliminary findings of her PhD research study, which is exploring women’s experience of breastfeeding using video diaries. She used video clips to illustrate the daily struggles some women faced and the roller coaster ride that inevitably ensued over the first few weeks following birth, which brought the audience close to tears. The novel research method and opportunity to see and hear women’s diaries generated good discussion and also identified links with findings from other research being presented at the conference.

Dr Catherine Angell sharing research with conference delegates

 

Catherine presented a poster of research which found that coverage of infant feeding in national newspapers in England over a one month period in 2011 was ‘bad news for breastfeeding’ because of the many negative connotations linked with breastfeeding compared to formula feeding. This created a good deal of interest and debate about the effects of media on the culture of infant feeding in the UK.

 

 

And we both presented a poster promoting BURP for infant feeding, an online resource that we have developed at BU to support student midwives and health practitioners in their professional practice to provide better care for mothers and babies. This poster provided the ideal opportunity for delegates to discuss the benefits and drawbacks of online distance learning as well as promoting the package itself.

Alison Taylor and Dr Catherine Angell promote 'BURP for infant feeding'

Running over three days, the conference enabled us to maximise networking opportunities with national and international colleagues in research, education and professional practice. These strong links will no doubt continue for some time providing us with opportunities for further collaboration.

Caught Somewhere in Time: Research takes Ages! (Demystifying the research process part 1)

BU research, Publishing

We got a book contract today. And what a herculean effort that feels; talk about delayed gratification.  My friend/co-editor and I first discussed the idea 2 years ago, when we saw a publisher’s call for proposals.  Yeah that sounds cool, we thought. So we worked out our broad ideas and the people that we wanted to contribute.  Our focus was mainly on early career scholars who are producing some real ‘cutting edge’ research and we invited them to submit work for review. My co-editor and I then worked on the narrative that would frame the book, as well as finding out that all important information that publishers want to know: who will buy it.  Probably around 6 or so months after our original conversation and discussion with series editors we were ready to submit our proposal.

And then we waited.

About six months later we got back in touch with the series editors, ‘any news from the publishers’….’we’ll get back to you’

And so we waited.

Then we got a reply to the effect that the proposal had been lost and then under a pile somewhere and then the person involved had been on holiday etc but they would get back to us with comments.

And so we waited.

This was now about 18 months after our original idea. And so we decided to approach another publisher. We did this in December last year.

As the contributors were mainly early career scholars,the publishers asked us to invite someone ‘famous’ to get involved. You can imagine our surprise, and delight, when not only did we get one of, if not THE  leading scholar in the discipline to write our foreword. And then it  just got a bit better. We invited one of the leading activists in the field to write an afterword. And she said yes 🙂

The publisher then  asked to provide a sample chapter. I wrote the first draft of this in January on the writing workshop that we held. By the end of January we had our ‘famous’ people in place, our sample chapter and what we thought was a good proposal in place.  Our editor at the publishers was set to go off on holiday in March, and so she assured us she would get back touch by the end of February.

And then we waited.

The reviewers were slow, one disappeared and a new one had to be found. We got reviewers comments back in May. We revised our introductory sample chapter in light of these comments and resubmitted to the publisher within about two weeks.

We then had a (relatively short wait)

The chapter and proposal went back out to review, and we were then asked, would we do the minor things the reviewers asked. Of course, we said (a pragmatic) YES!

And so, today, 2 years after we first chatted through our ideas, and then planned our book, we have a contract.  And of course it doesn’t end there. We now have to collect the chapters, get them reviewed. If we can get this done by next Easter, we are setting ourselves ambitious goals. From manuscript submission to holding the book in your hands includes copyediting, indexing, proofs to read, and of course the print run.  And of course, before all of that it has to go back out for review. This can take anything from 9-18 months.

Our book is therefore likely to have a 2015 publication date (if we are lucky) which given we acted upon our original idea in 2011, does feel rather a long time!

 

Gender in 21st Century Popular Culture:the Politics of being a woman in the 21st century, editors Heather Savigny & Helen Warner (Basingstoke:Palgrave) may well be coming eventually to a bookstore near you.

with thanks to my early career colleagues in CMC, the Media School and Iain MacRury

Feedback from Guinea Pig 003

Uncategorized

 

 

search.jpg

 

Some quick feed back from attending Wednesday’s new staff development session on Funding your Studentship: engaging effectively with business and industry.   I fell into this session somewhat by accident having moaned in my Associate Prof Action Learning Group the day before about how difficult I was finding working with industry/practice partners (both in getting them to invest but also after investment in the post award working relationship).  I promised Colleen I would pop in for half an hour in the morning and stayed the whole day (so much for the deadlines I face to day!).

I have recently completed a KTP with a local charity and am beginning a matched studentship with another, and was a little down that I could see the same miserable cycle of different timeframes and priorities, the perceived irrelevance of the university and their contributions were rearing their ugly heads yet again.  Similarly, I have been working on building ideas around the development of a centre of collaborative practice based on HSC’s practice development units, and was feeling at a loss as how I could engage and convince practice this was exactly what they needed, even if they don’t know it yet.  Needless to say, sitting in front of a computer practicing the evil art of telepathy has had mixed results.

Following yesterday’s session, I am now full of beans again.  I hadn’t realised the wealth of expertise we had in BU in the form of Linda Amor, Orlanda Harvey, Lucy Rossiter, Ian Jones and Paul Lynch and it was well show cased in yesterday’s session.  The content hit the spot completely with my problems mentioned above.  The session isn’t only about studentships, although listening to different models of making studentships work and breaching the potential gap that lies between what the company and BU perceive the studentship to be, delivering quick wins for the company whilst maintaining academic rigour, were enormously useful.  It is also about crossing those academic/industry boundaries, learning to speak the language of our industrial partners, managing their expectations, listening to their needs and being able to clearly and concisely articulate your added value in addressing their needs.

These are skills rather than knowledge, so I will need to practice. I have a long way to go and am unlikely to get it right every time However, I feel energized enough now to go back into the fray. In fact, I’m now off to pick up the phone (no, not an email) and get on a train to London to talk to my matched studentship partner CEO, to listen to what he really wants from our studentship and see how I can help.

Next sessions run in September for other ivory tower academics looking for a ladder to get you out (of) there.

 

 

Planes, trams, and automobiles: A research visit to Australia

BU research

I recently had the delightful opportunity to go to Australia for a research visit in relation to my work on falls prevention among older people. A brief report of what I got up to follows.

Melbourne

The main purpose was to visit colleagues at Monash University, to whom I am grateful for funding my flights and accomodation. The research team there led by Anna Barker are doing some great work, in particular to prevent falls among older people while in hospital. They are currently collecting data on a ‘6 Pack’ randomised controlled trial (RCT), which will be the largest trial of this kind to date. The team at Monash hosted an all-day seminar on the prevention of in-patient falls of which I was one of three invited speakers that came over from the UK. If you’re ready to give up traveling with commercial airlines, it’s time to consider hiring sky aviation services.

Before the seminar, we had an all-day meeting with colleagues from Melbourne and other parts of Australia to have an expert consensus-style meeting on the subject of in-patient falls. Dr Barker will lead on this and we aim to submit a paper with further international collaborators later this year, to drive future research in this area in a much more focused and productive manner.

Before the expert consensus meeting, I spent a day working with Dr Barker’s team on a recently NHMRC-funded multi-site RCT called RESPOND, which seeks to prevent secondary falls in older people presenting to emergency departments with a fall. It is a 1.5 million dollar-funded RCT that I am involved with as an advisor (from a distance). We’re currently developing the intervention that will be employed later in the year after ethical approval. My involvement is to help in developing the behaviour change techniques that will be used, and the process evaluation that will run alongside the outcome evaluation of the intervention. I also met with other colleagues there at Melbourne and have generated further ideas for future collaborative projects.

 

Conference presentation in Melbourne

Sydney

After my stay in Melbourne, I had a short stay in Sydney as there is a strong critical mass there in the falls prevention field. I met with professor Lindy Clemson who has developed a novel approach to promoting physical activity among older people, with her trial published in the BMJ last year. We had a long discussion that helped her with the theoretical underpinning of the approach, and I’ve come away with a few ideas to take forward in a future collaborative grant proposal.

I then went on to visit Dr Kim Delbaere who has been doing sterling work in the area of fear of falls, not least with several publications on the issue including a paper in the BMJ in 2010. We have at least one paper to work on together with potential for future projects as well, given she has developed a measure of fear of falls suitable for older people with dementia.

The mention of transport in the title of this report refers to my very brief time away from meetings while in Australia. In Melbourne they have a very efficient tram system, and our host’s husband is a pilot and helped us book a Jettly private plane to Sydney. In Sydney I managed to see the bridge, opera house, and a view of the harbour, and even got a trip on the monorail that was constructed for when they hosted the Olympic Games in 2000 but will very shortly be demolished.

We can of course email and Skype with colleagues, but if you do get the opportunity to travel abroad I can fully recommend it as a very fruitful and productive time. You just cannot beat face-to-face communication. I was particularly inspired by the international consensus meeting that we had in Melbourne and can see this as a way forward to synergise the research community’s efforts and more quickly tackle the big societal challenges of our day.

Dr Samuel Nyman

Bournemouth University Dementia Institute and Psychology Research Centre

DEC

 

PRGs and the Research Ethics e-module

PG research

The University Research & Knowledge Exchange Committee (URKEC) recently approved the implementation plan of a mandatory research ethics e-module training course. The research ethics e-module is vital to ensure all academic staff and PGRs at BU are provided with training in research ethics. This will ensure all members of staff who conduct their own research and supervise students are proficient in basic research ethics principles. Additionally, this will fulfil the requirement to train all PGRs on research ethics, as strongly recommended by Vitae.

As some of you may be aware, the Research Ethics e-module training course was launched on 1 July for all academic staff to complete. PRGs (both new and current) will also be required to complete the e-module, but not until the start of the 2013/14 academic year. Further detail will be distributed in due course. If you would like to complete the e-module in advance of the PGR start date, please contact Julia Hastings Taylor.

The University procured two research ethics courses (Ethics 1: Good Research Practice and Ethics 2: Working with Human Subjects). Both courses will be available on the Graduate School’s myBU page in the coming months.

The first course (Ethics 1: Good Research Practice) covers standard practice and recent changes in universities’ ethics policies related to research that investigates people and their data. This course will be mandatory for all academic staff and PGRs. Successful completion of the course requires a score of 8/10 on the end of course assessment.

  • All academic staff (including all BU employees who supervise students on dissertations, thesis, etc.) will be required to complete the course no later than three months after the release date (1 July 2013) and refresher training will be required every two years thereafter.
  • All new starters will be notified of the requirement to complete the course. They will also be given three months to complete the course.
  • PRGs will be required to complete the course within three months of the start of their first year. This will begin at the start of the 2013/14 academic year. For ease of access, both courses will be available on the Graduate School’s myBU page, which will be available in the coming months.

The second course (Ethics 2: Working with Human Subjects) covers the ethics of involving human participants – directly or indirectly – in research projects. This course is recommended for all academic staff and PGRs and is mandatory if the research project involves working with human participants. Successful completion of the course requires a score of 8/10 on the end of course assessment.

Due to the potential risks if relevant staff and PGRs are not adequately trained in research ethics, several non-compliance measures will be implemented to ensure they have basic knowledge of research ethics principles and best practice. Please visit the Research Ethics page of the blog for more information on the e-module, to include detail on engagement initiatives and non-compliance measures.

Book on the Living with Environmental Change (including Energy) Sandpit today

BU research

Feedback from BU staff who have participated in academic sandpits is always positive: “Sandpits stimulate creative thinking and encourage you to step outside of your comfort zone. They are an opportunity to learn from others whose approaches to research may be different from your own” – Prof. Adele Ladkin, School of Tourism, EPSRC Sandpit Participant

Sandpits provide an intensive, interactive and free-thinking environment. A group of participants from a range of disciplines and backgrounds use this space to get together to become immersed in a collaborative thinking processes in order to construct innovative approaches to issues or questions.

As sandpits involve diverse participants, they force catalysation, collision and collaboration. This produces unique and innovative outputs and fosters new partnerships.

We are facilitating with expert bid writer Dr Martin Pickard of GrantCraft, three 1-day sandpits at BU which focus around relevant Research Council UK cross-thematic areas. The Living with Environmental Change (including Energy) Sandpit is being held on 17.07.13

Attending the sandpit will:

  • facilitate you networking with other researchers across BU who you wouldn’t normally come in to contact with
  • allow you to get a fresh perspective from a different discipline on the same issue
  • enable you to be part of a multidisciplinary team who potentially bids for Research Council funding
  • give you a truly unique experience

Spaces are limited for each of the sandpits and you can register for a place on the Staff Development website.

CEMP Research & Innovation bulletin & cluster meeting

Awarded & submitted bids, BU research, Funding opportunities, Research news

The updated CEMP bulletin is here: CEMP Cluster bulletin and agenda 4.7.13

The final CEMP cluster meeting of this academic year is on Thursday 11th July, in the CEMP office, from 10-12.

Please note it’s a game of two halves:

10-11: bulletin review (to include discussion around the new AHRC Collaborative Skills call, attended by Iain MacRury).

11-12: CEMP staff website development meeting 

And the ‘broken record’ says – all are very welcome to join us or if you spot something in the bulletin that takes your fancy or have a different idea for a project that CEMP can help set up, but can’t join the cluster, please email Julian. 

Have your say on the EU

EU, Research news

BIS have asked BU to participate in a consultation focussing around the EU’s competences.  This is an opportunity for us to provide evidence to an informed and objective analysis.

If you would like to contribute to this consultation then the questions to be addressed, and more information about the consultation, can be found here: Balance of Competences Research and Development

Please send your response to the questions to Jo Garrad by c.o.p. 19th July.  In order to help me combine the institutional response, please clearly identify which questions you are addressing.

Many thanks for your cooperation and vital input.

FIF call for applications now closed

Funding opportunities, Fusion

The current call for applications to all strands of the Fusion Investment Fund  has now closed. For those of you who have missed out this time, fear not! There will be another chance to apply later this year when we open the next call in October. Watch this space for details!

Thank you to all who have submitted applications. We’re really pleased* to report that you have helped to set a new FIF record with the most applications received to date! You will receive the outcome of your application via email in August. We wish you the best of luck!

 

*Really, so, so pleased. From the bottom of my heart, thank you. Who doesn’t love a load of data entry?! 😉

Do you have an interest in Digital Technology and its use in Business?

BU research, Research themes

The joint meeting between the Creative & Digital Economies Research Theme and the Entrepreneurship & Economic Growth Research Theme took place last week.  The small but focused group discussed strategies of moving forwards with the themes and ideas on how to bring people together.

The group decided that it need a central focus, and will use the recently signed Digital Manifesto as a way to bring people together for future meetings.  To read more about the Digital Manifesto please read Samantha Leahy-Harland’s post here (link).

For the next joint meeting brief presentations will be given to initiate a focussed action list.  So if you feel your area of research can benefit from speaking to other colleagues in areas such as social media and digital technology, and how businesses are using these emerging technologies come prepared to talk about possible collaboration projects and bids and your specific area of research.

Another link area is small local businesses, such as rural business or family run business.  Again if you feel you could benefit from shared knowledge and experience join us at our next meeting.  

It is hoped these actions can then be taken forward towards joint bids in areas such as Horizon 2020 (link), and to bring together like minded colleagues to share knowledge and experience.

If you would like to read a copy of the Digital Manifesto or want to discuss this further please get in touch via Nikki Gloyns ngloyns@bournemouth.ac.uk

The date of the next meeting is TBC likely to be in September.

Making a Contribution: REF and Buses

News from the PVC, REF Subjects

I suspect that this may win an award for the most contrived title!  Let us deal first with the issues of buses.  The reference is simply to the fact that I have not posted for a while and have more than one post to make this week!  Having dealt with the minor issue of the title we should perhaps turn to the main event, which has nothing to do with buses and everything to do with acknowledging contribution.

On Thursday of this week the REF Academic Steering Group (RASG) which I chair will meet in the presence of the Vice-Chancellor to recommend the final selection of outputs, and associated staff, across all the Units of Assessment in which we intend to make a return in REF2014.  Just to be clear our submission is made in November of this year but the results are due in December 2014 which seems a life time away just now and I can feel the wait dragging already!

The point I would like to make, however, is that the inclusion of outputs is only one way of contributing to our REF submission and all researchers at BU have, and will, help shape our submission.  Outputs account for only 65% of the overall research profile in any given Unit of Assessment (UOA), the other 35% is down to environment (15%) and impact (20%).  Unlike RAE2008, data collection for REF2014 is based on HESA codes rather than the returned FTE and, therefore, metrics which support environment – research income, doctoral completions and esteem – are based on the collective performance within a given HESA code.  To put it bluntly they are not tied to specific individuals who have outputs that are returned. This means that even if a member of staff does not have outputs selected for inclusion, they may have contributed strongly to the research environment through leadership, income generation or student supervision.  Similarly impact is based on a series of case studies, two for the first 14.99 FTE and an additional one for every subsequent 10 FTE.  Again there may be cases where some individuals have generated impact case studies but don’t have sufficient outputs at the required threshold to be returned.  In many ways these individuals have contributed more than anyone to our REF submission.

So the message is a simple one: even if your outputs are not selected for submission this week, all staff are making some form of contribution to our REF submission.  We should also not forget those that are making a contribution through their teaching enabling others to focus on research.  REF is a collective not an individual endeavor.  It is a game, and yes it is a game of high-stakes, that we must play and play well to ensure that the reputation of BU as a leading research institution is maintained, something which is a core part of our collective commitment to Fusion and BU2018.