/ Full archive

EThOS – Find out more about the British Library’s free online thesis service

The British Library are hosting their first EThOS webinar:

Using doctoral theses in your research: a guide to EThOS

EThOS is the national database for PhD theses, managed by the British Library. It’s a fantastic resource for researchers, with over 100,000 UK theses freely available to download and use for your own research, and another 200,000 available to search and scan on demand.

Join the free webinar to learn how EThOS works. Find out how to search for and download theses, and what to do if a thesis isn’t available. If you’re a PhD student, find out what will happen to your thesis once it’s completed. They will also explain how EThOS works with UK universities to support the whole research cycle, making the theses more visible and available for new researchers to use and build on.

This webinar is aimed at researchers, students, librarians and anyone who is interested in finding and using PhD theses.

Webinar on 10 December 2013, 11.00am GMT

Register at https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/5131544266794515713

For BU-specific advice on accessing theses and for accessing other sources of theses information such as the Proquest Dissertations and Theses database, which provides access to global theses information, use the Locating Theses Researcher Guide on the Researcher Library Web Pages.

Contact your Library Subject Team for more help and advice around accessing theses.

Research Professional – all you need to know

Every BU academic has a Research Professional account which delivers weekly emails detailing funding opportunities in their broad subject area. To really make the most of your Research Professional account, you should tailor it further by establishing additional alerts based on your specific area of expertise.

Research Professional have created several guides to help introduce users to ResearchProfessional. These can be downloaded here.

Quick Start Guide: Explains to users their first steps with the website, from creating an account to searching for content and setting up email alerts, all in the space of a single page.

User Guide: More detailed information covering all the key aspects of using ResearchProfessional.

Administrator Guide: A detailed description of the administrator functionality.

In addition to the above, there are a set of 2-3 minute videos online, designed to take a user through all the key features of ResearchProfessional.  To access the videos, please use the following link: http://www.youtube.com/researchprofessional 

Research Professional are running a series of online training broadcasts aimed at introducing users to the basics of creating and configuring their accounts on ResearchProfessional.  They are holding monthly sessions, covering everything you need to get started with ResearchProfessional.  The broadcast sessions will run for no more than 60 minutes, with the opportunity to ask questions via text chat.  Each session will cover:

  • Self registration and logging in
  • Building searches
  • Setting personalised alerts
  • Saving and bookmarking items
  • Subscribing to news alerts
  • Configuring your personal profile

Each session will run between 10.00am and 11.00am (UK) on the fourth Tuesday of each month.  You can register here for your preferred date:

28th January 2014

25th February 2014

25th March 2014

These are free and comprehensive training sessions and so this is a good opportunity to get to grips with how Research Professional can work for you.

‘The financial bit is like a different language’

This is a phrase I have heard rather often from our staff when preparing a research grant or undertaking the post award management. And they are quite right – it is a tricky subject to understand. Thankfully as part of the BRAD framework on December 11th  you can have this explained in simple terms from an enthusiastic presenter and need be confused no more! The session will cover financial management, income, funding budgeting financial resourcing and strategic financial planning  which sounds a bit dull on screen but you will realize how important and interesting it is once you are in the session. You can book your place via the Staff Development webpage.

Sustainable Design Research Centre: nano-coating experimental resource

BU’s Sustainable Design Research Centre has recently added nano-coating experimental resource to its labs

Schaeffler is match funding a PhD studentship (£24K plus £41K in kind) looking into Electroplated composite coatings with incorporated nano particles for tribological systems with a focus on water lubrication. Schaeffler develops and manufactures precision products for machines, equipment, vehicles and aerospace applications. Schaeffler is a leading manufacturer of bearings worldwide and a renowned supplier to the  automotive industry.

This research lies within the Sustainable Design Research Centre’s Tribology theme. This research aims to understand friction, wear, and corrosion performance of electroplated nano-composite coatings especially with special focus in water lubricated mechanical components. These issues are of significant importance in terms of industrial applications. The proposed project will enhance reliability, durability and life cycle issues while incorporating sustainability aspects.

In order to carry this research forward SDRC has recently added a nano-coating facility to its leading research labs in Tribology, Corrosion, Nano-Coatings, Renewable Technology (Thermodynamics & Heat Transfer) and Sustainable Design.

General specifications of the new addition are provided here.

Control Interface

  • The MicroStar control interface features a fully-programmable microprocessor. Menus are accessible to set ampere time, real-time cycles, output tolerance settings and more. Standard features include:
    • Real Time Cycle Control
    • Ampere Time Cycle Control
    • Ampere Time Totalizer
    • Error signals for over-temperature, locked fan rotor, output out-of-tolerance and power failure/brownout conditions
    • Calibration capability through the control interface
  • Digital input for inhibit/operator control
  • FrontPanel+ Host Control Program for process set-up generation and process storage/data logging
  • RS485 and USB prots for serial control

Straight DC and Choice of Low Frequency Pulse or High Frequency Pulse Output

  • High Frequency Pulse (0-5000 Hz)
    • 0 – 40 volts average (DC) or peak (pulsed) voltage
    • 0 – 250 amps average current (or maximum DC current)
    • 10 – 400 amps peak (pulsed) current
  • Low Frequency Pulse (0-200 Hz)
    • DC to 200 Hz pulses (at an 80% duty cycle)
    • Minimum Pulse Width:  4 milliseconds ON, 1 millisecond OFF (80% duty cycle)
    • Typical Pulse Rise Time:   Less than 1500 milliseconds
    • Typical Pulse Fall Time:     Less than 1000 millisecond

If you have interests in this resource, research area or would like to know more about the research activities within SDRC please do contact.

Dr Zulfiqar Khan (Associate Professor)

Director SDRC

email: zkhan@bournemouth.ac.uk

Seatbelts, sleepless nights, REF babies and a big yellow button: my reflections on REF 2014

Last week we pushed the Big Red Button (actually many big, yellow buttons) after many years of hard work preparing and finessing every last bit of the University’s submission to REF 2014.  I first got involved with REF in late 2008 which seems like a distant memory now.  HEFCE were consulting with the sector on bibliometrics and the role that citations should play in the REF which at that point still didn’t have a submission date.  BU was lucky enough to be one of 22 institutions taking part in the bibliometrics pilot to test the reliability and validity of citations and ways of identifying authors and papers in the large publication databases, Scopus and Web of Science.  There were a lot of meetings in London and so one of my first introductions to REF was standing on a cold, dark train platform at 6am with Anita Somner, waiting to get the train to one of the REF events!  In December 2008 the RAE 2008 results came out and that prompted a series of RAE/REF roadshows – in essence Prof Nick Petford, the then PVC, and I visiting all Schools to talk about the RAE results and introducing people to REF and how it was likely to be different.

Then a lot of the central REF drive died down which on reflection was a shame but also inevitable.  In 2009 all we knew about the next REF was that it would comprise outputs, environment and impact, but the key information about the assessment was still unknown.  For example, we didn’t yet know what the role of citations would be and in which UOAs this would apply, we didn’t know how the impact element would be assessed, the weightings weren’t agreed, we didn’t know what the environment template would look like or what information would be required.  With so much unknown it was very difficult to prepare anything other than for the outputs element and so the message given out was to concentrate on publications, getting them in the strongest outlet possible (we didn’t even know at this stage whether the number of outputs required per individual would be 3, 4 or 5!), and much of this work was driven from within the Schools.

Fast forward to 2010.  We had a change of senior leadership at BU with Prof John Vinney becoming VC and Prof Matthew Bennett taking the strategic lead for RKE (officially becoming PVC in January 2011).  There was still a lot undecided about REF; HEFCE had finished the bibliometrics pilot and were currently undertaking an impact pilot to test how best to assess this part of the REF.  At BU the new leadership provided by John Vinney and Matthew Bennett kickstarted our central REF preparations.  John established the REF Academic Steering Group in summer 2010 with a remit to take the strategic lead of BU’s preparations for REF.  UOA Leaders were identified in the then 12 subject areas in which we were considering submissions and they formed the REF Academic Leadership Team.  In the absence of templates or guidance from HEFCE we started work on the first drafts of the environment narratives and did the first trawl of outputs, inviting staff to submit up to four outputs for a light-touch review exercise that winter (282 individuals submitted a total of c. 1,128 outputs).  In autumn 2010 HEFCE published the results from the impact pilot, including some good practice examples of what we then knew to be one of the submission templates – the impact case studies.  Armed with this new information we undertook impact training with all of the Schools, using the infamous seatbelt example of how research can be undertaken and disseminated to achieve interim and then final impact and being informed by HSC that a reduction of the number of people killed in car crashes was actually a negative impact as there were less organs available for donation!  I have provided this lovely linear example of impact for posterity.  Around this time we also started to write up the first impact case studies, some of which evolved into the ones submitted last week.  In 2010 HEFCE confirmed what the UOAs would be and released the first list of who would be on the sub-panels.

2011 was a good REF year!  HEFCE confirmed in March how impact would be assessed in the REF and the official guidance document was finally released in June, providing us with something concrete on which to base our REF preparations.  It was the year we employed Sally Gates as the Research Communications Manager, focusing specifically on REF with the remit of working with colleagues to write the impact case studies in earnest.  We held the first of our HEFCE-supported REF events at BU attracting over 150 delegates from 39 institutions and speakers including the Deputy REF Manager Chris Taylor (HEFCE) and key academics involved in the impact pilot, including Prof James Goodwin (Age UK), Prof Peter Taylor-Gooby (University of Kent) and Prof Jim Griffiths (University of Plymouth).  This not only gave us an insight as to what was required for this still-very-unknown impact element, but also raised the profile of BU as a research university.  We held another mock exercise in winter 2011-12 to ask a selection of external reviewers to assess the draft environment narratives and impact statements.

I think it is fair to say that 2012 was a somewhat bizarre and full-on year, primarily due to the significant changeover in staffing but also because we were only a year from submission.  The year started with HEFCE releasing the Panel Working Methods and Criteria – key documentation detailing what the panels expected to see in the submissions.  This, along with the Guidance on Submissions published the previous year, became a lot of people’s bedtime reading for the next 23 months.  Despite swearing not to do so again (!) in February we held another HEFCE-supported REF event, this time focusing on how each of the Main Panels will assess research, and attracted over 150 delegates from 32 institutions, again putting BU on the research map.  We submitted the BU REF Code of Practice to HEFCE to the first of two possible opportunties and were pleased when it was approved first time (this wasn;t the case for a lot of other institutions).  Becca Edwards joined us in April as Public Engagement Officer and was immediately keen to be involved in the impact element of the REF, showing how public engagement could be a route to impact.  In the summer we held another mock exercise – this one focusing solely on outputs (265 individuals and c. 1,325 outputs).  Then bizarrely the three key REF staff in the R&KEO had babies between September and December 2012, resulting in a changeover of staff supporting the preparations – Pengpeng Hatch replacing Anita Somner, Becca Edwards replacing Sally Gates and Rita Dugan replacing me.  In December we responded to HEFCE’s Survey of Submission Intentions, a rough approximation of which UOAs we might submit to, how many staff, and the areas of the impact case studies.  This information was used to determine whether additional expertise was required on the Sub-Panels.

And then we came to 2013 – the year of submission.  Did we feel prepared?  Kind of, although there was still an awful lot to do; in fact I would go as far to say that REF probably dominated most waking minutes of those closely involved on an increasing basis as the year progressed.  The final mock exercise was held in spring 2013 (322 individuals and c. 1,610 outputs) and was a full exercise including assessment of outputs, environment narratives, impact statements and impact case studies.  This was a huge amount of data to pull together and it was essential that it was undertaken well as the results, along with those from the exercise the previous year, would be used to determine staff selection decisions.  I came back from maternity in the midst of the review meetings that followed the mock exercise, very much a baptism of fire back into the REF.  Wherever possible we tried to emulate how the panels might assess the work in the real thing, for example, with a panel of research users assessing the impact case studies.  After these meetings RASG met with UOA Leaders in a series of gruelling meetings in a very stuffy room in Christchurch House to go through each individual member of staff and their output scores, determining who’s outputs would be included in the final submission.  These decisions were ratified by the VC in July, decisions were then relayed to staff and an appeals period ran during the summer.  During this period we continued to get new outputs externally reviewed and considered, and had c. 100 new outputs assessed during this time.  The summer saw the return of Sally Gates from maternity leave and she took on the responsibility for rewriting and finalising the impact case studies, by all accounts doing a fantastic job.  In the autumn a huge amount of work went into finalising and finessing the environment narratives and impact statements, primarily involving the UOA Leaders, Profs Matthew Bennett and John Fletcher, Becca Edwards and myself.  I know from personal experience that a lot of sleep was lost during this time and there were many iterations of the narratives written.

Tuesday 26th November, 9:30am – button pushing time.  After checking, rechecking and checking the data again it was time to submit.  The #ref2014 hashtag on Twitter had gone crazy with institutions posting that they had made their submissions and now it was BU’s turn.  There were lots of submit buttons and they were all yellow – submit, validate, submit, declare and submit, submit, are you sure you want to submit?!  We pressed them all and that was it – BU’s REF 2014 submission was sent to HEFCE only to be acknolwedged with a rather bland, system generated email confirming receipt of our submission.  Sadly there were no fireworks or party poppers or massive thanks from HEFCE for all the hard work that went into preparing every last part of the submission.  REF has involved hundreds of people from across BU – from the UOA Leaders to those academics who have produced outputs, won grant funding or supervised doctoral students, from the REF Circs Board to the REF Appeals Panel, from the RKE Ops and Graduate School staff who support research activity and checked the REF data, to the members of RASG – the REF submission is the culmination of everyone’s hard work over the past few years and for that reason I am immensely proud to have been involved.  Roll on the results in December 2014!

And you may be surprise, amazed or even horrified to know that we have already started planning for REF2020…!

Social/Medical Model and the concept of ‘Normal’ Birth

The December issue of The Practising Midwife included the slightly more theoretical article ‘Normal birth: social-medical model’.[1] The paper is written by Ms. Jillian Ireland, midwife and Royal College of Midwives (RCM) Union Learning Rep. at Poole Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and Visiting Faculty at Bournemouth University in collaboration with BU Professor Edwin van Teijlingen.

The paper argues that someone’s perspective of birth is not simply semantic. Thus, whether a midwife describes her role as being ‘with woman’ through labour or as someone who ‘delivers’ women of babies does not just demonstrates a more or less currently politically correct description. No, it suggests having different perspectives or world views of pregnancy and childbirth. Sociologists recognise two different approaches as two different models, a social model and a medical model of childbirth. The social model stresses that childbirth is a physiological event that takes place in most women’s lives. The medical model highlights that childbirth is potentially pathological. In the latter view every pregnant woman is potentially at risk, hence she should deliver her baby in an obstetric hospital with its high-technology screening equipment supervised by expert obstetricians. In other words, pregnancy and childbirth are only safe in retrospect.

The Practising Midwife’s paper argues that having some understanding of the underlying sociological models of pregnancy and childbirth can help politicians, journalists, policy-makers, midwives, doctors, and new mothers (and their partners) to put issues around ‘normal birth’ into perspective. This paper builds on previous work by the second author on the medicalisation of childbirth and the social/medical model published in Sociological Research Online[2] and Midwifery.[3]

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen
Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health


References:

1. Ireland, J., van Teijlingen, E. (2013) Normal birth: social-medical model, The Practising Midwife 16(11): 17-20.
2. van Teijlingen, E. (2005) A critical analysis of the medical model as used in the study of pregnancy and childbirth, Sociological Research Online, 10 (2) Web address: http://www.socresonline.org.uk/10/2/teijlingen.html
3. MacKenzie Bryers, H., van Teijlingen, E. (2010) Risk, Theory, Social & Medical Models: a critical analysis of the concept of risk in maternity care, Midwifery 26(5): 488-496.

Want some money?

I thought that might get your attention! The latest call of the FIF (or the ‘Fusion Investment Fund’ for those of you who haven’t yet added this acronym to your vocabulary) is open for 2 more weeks so if you haven’t applied yet or haven’t seen my previous blog posts, let me give you the highlights:

 

 

So basically you could be given a pile of cash to enable you to do what you love! Pursue that dream of undertaking world-leading research or travel across the pond to work collaboratively with experts in your field. Become a hero and take your rightful place on that pedestal that your peers and students will put you on.*

 Sound good? Find out more.

 *BU cannot guarantee this.

 The Fusion Investment Fund is managed by Samantha Leahy-Harland. Please direct all initial enquiries to the Interim Fusion Administrator, Dianne Goodman, at Fusion Fund.

CoPMRE’s Visiting Faculty Meeting November 2013

Twenty members of the Centre of Postgraduate Medical Research and Education (CoPMRE) Visiting Faculty met in Royal London House on 26th November 2013. Professor Paul Thompson updated the group on progress with innovation pathways discussed at the recent CoPMRE symposium (http://blogs.bournemouth.ac.uk/research/2013/10/22/copmre-tenth-annual-symposium-2/), the newly formed Dorset Innovations Group, the NHS Innovations South West and the Wessex Academic Health Science Network. Kevin Brooks from the Wessex Health and Innovation Cluster (HEIC) discussed potential for tapping into these innovation initiatives.

Dr David Coppini, Consultant Physician from Poole Hospital, presented his work on neuropathy in patients with diabetes, and his idea to develop technology that will help patients self-diagnose neuropathy. Professor Emma King, Consultant Head and Neck Surgeon at Poole Hospital, discussed her work on the immunology of orophayngeal cancers. Jo Garrad from RKEO demonstrated the merits of using BU’s publication management system BRIAN, and how easy and useful it is for presenting work to the world.

All round a fantastic morning. For more information contact Audrey Dixon.

Sodexo Partners with Bournemouth University and Montclair State University (USA) on menu labelling

Montclair State University (MSU) is working with Sodexo on an international menu-labelling collaboration. Dr. Charles Feldman of MSU, Dr. Heather Hartwell of Bournemouth University in England, and Sodexo at MSU are researching the effectiveness of menu-board icons in promoting healthy-meal selections by students. The findings from this research are helping Sodexo design computer-aided menus with helpful nutrient information.

Based on the research, a prototype ‘traffic light system’ has been implemented at MSU on paper menus, and on menu boards to help students determine healthy and unhealthy options – red meaning less healthy, green meaning healthy, and yellow meaning an “okay” choice.  Menus designed to promote good nutrition may have the potential to encourage healthier decisions through hidden persuaders, without restricting students’ freedom of dietary choice.

This research relationship has also resulted in student exchange and virtual interactive lectures between the two institutions. Both USA and UK cohorts are able to see and interact with each other throughout the lecture and can ask questions and debate current food topics as though they were in the same room. However, it isn’t all about work and our students are able to find out more about being at Montclair and were especially interested in the Fraternities and Sororities (fraternal social organizations for undergraduate students).

It is the second time that the School of Tourism has hosted such an activity and is certainly something that we hope to repeat in the future.

AHRC, Leverhulme Trust and British Academy visits to BU in 2014

Working on a variety of initiatives in R&KEO over the years, one element of development which we receive consistently excellent feedback, is the events we arrange where funders to come to BU and present their organisations funding priorities and advice on making an application. We have arranged for several funders to visit BU in 2014, and are advertising the first three in order for you to block out time in your diary now!

On 20 January, the AHRC will be visiting to discuss their research priorities, calls and their top tips for making a submission. On 19 February, the British Academy will be visiting to discuss proposals they fund and share their tips on making an application. On 19 March the Leverhulme Trust which funds all academic disciplines will be visiting to discuss their grants and give advice on making an application.

 

Spaces on all these events are limited due to the rooms available so booking is essential! Grants Academy members can be guaranteed a space by emailing Dianne. The booking hyperlinks are:

AHRC funder visit

British Academy funder visit

Leverhulme Trust  funder visit

Cyber Security Seminar: Shiny Expensive Things: The Global Problem of Mobile Phone Theft (David Rogers, Copper Horse)

Our next Interdisciplinary Cyber Security Seminar will take place on Tuesday, 3rd December at 5pm. Our seminars are approachable, and require nothing more than a general interest in security, and an enquiring mind.

Our speaker will be David Rogers, who is Founder and Director of Copper Horse Solutions Ltd: a software and security company based in Windsor, UK. Alongside this he teaches the Mobile Systems Security course at the University of Oxford and Chairs the Device Security Steering Group at the GSM Association. He has worked in the mobile industry for over 14 years in security and engineering roles. Prior to this he worked in the semiconductor industry. David’s articles and comments on mobile security topics have been regularly covered by the media worldwide including The Guardian, The Wall Street Journal and Sophos’ Naked Security blog. His book ‘Mobile Security: A Guide for Users’ was published in 2013. David holds an MSc in Software Engineering from the University of Oxford and a HND in Mechatronics from the University of Teesside.

Abstract: Technology in mobile devices is continuing to advance at an incredible rate, but some of the old security themes continue to persist, mobile phone theft being one of them. This talk looks at the topic of mobile phone theft and what industry’s role has been in helping to prevent it and whether that has been entirely successful. The talk looks at what could happen next and whether it is possible to standardise usable anti-theft mechanisms within devices. It will also look at technologies such as biometrics for access control and whether Police and Government actions have been adequate in dealing with the modus operandi of thieves and fencers of stolen phones.

The seminar will take place in EB202 in the Executive Business Centre, and will be free and open to all. If you would like to attend, please register at http://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/interdisciplinary-seminar-in-cyber-security-tickets-9564165677

Bangkok conference “a big success”

Speakers and delegates from 10 mainly Asian countries voted the 1st International Corporate and Marketing Communication in Asia Conference, held in Bangkok on November 18-19, “a big success”

The FIF-supported conference went so well that planning is already under way for the 2014 conference, also to be held at Chulalongkorn University in the Thai capital.

Representing BU at the conference were Prof Tom Watson, a co-organiser, and Dr Ana Adi, both of the Media School. Tom was a second day keynote speaker while Ana presented the outcome of research by her and Nathaniel Hobby on social media monitoring in higher education.

The conference, held at the Faculty of Communication Arts, was opened by the host’s Vice-President, Assoc Prof Dr Sittichai Tudsri. Including the Thai and UK organisers, 30 papers were presented by academics from Australia, Egypt, Germany, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore.

“The conference especially sought Asian perspectives: alternatives to Anglo-American models of theory, practice and education. In this aspect it succeeded to everyone’s satisfaction,” Prof Watson said. “I believe that several international joint research projects will develop from the 2013 conference, which is also a major step forward.”

He said that delegates had welcomed the conference as filling a major gap in corporate and marketing communication academic discourse in Asia. “This reflected well on BU and I’m grateful for the FIF support that helped us devise and develop the conference. It’s an investment that has long term reputational and research value.”

Already, a Media School team researching CSR has linked with colleagues at Chulalongkorn University and a further connection with an Indonesian researcher may follow soon. The BU-Chula link was confirmed at the conference.

(L-R) Conference organisers Prof Tom Watson and Assoc Prof Jirayudh Sinthuphan with keynote speaker Prof Dr Ansgar Zerfas (Leipzig University)

The Quantum Fiction of Michael Moorcock and William S. Burroughs

On Wednesday 4 December at 3p.m in TAG01, Sebastien Doubinsky from the University of Aarhus in Denmark will present a paper on the fiction of Michael Moorcock and William S. Burroughs to the Media School’s Narrative Research Group. Dr Doubinsky is a science fiction author of international renown (Absinth and the Song of SynthBabylon TrilogyQuien Es?) and also a literary critic and publisher, specialising in contemporary speculative works of poetry, criticism and fiction across four languages. All are welcome to attend and the abstract of the talk follows.

THE QUANTUM FICTION OF MICHAEL MOORCOCK AND WILLIAM S. BURROUGHS – a relative reading of The Jerry Cornelius Quartet and Nova Mob

If science-fiction is the questioning of our present through our possible future, then Moorcock and Burroughs go beyond this simplistic definition, as they also question our past. Through transparencies and cut-up techniques, they present us not only with a dystopian future, but rather with a dystopian present and future fuelled with the past. Jerry Cornelius can travel through time and the Multiverses, as well as agent Lee. The identity of the text then becomes problematic for the reader, as its polymorphous form, more often than not detached from sense, forces him into a very uncomfortable position, as “understanding” in the conventional sense becomes almost impossible. What’s more, by indicating the possibility of History through period or event references, these writers also question the coherence of fiction itself – putting it in a quantum state, that is to say in different places at the same time, with different  identities. Fiction and reality are thus displaced both within and outside of the reading frame, announcing a third possibility, which is their quintessential mirrored relativity.