/ Full archive

Research Centres at BU: What is the way forward?

Research organisation is a vexed question.  How should we organise ourselves to maximise our research potential and foster innovation and collaboration while boosting our collective output?  Over the course of my career I have seen and participated in many different forms of research centre or grouping, from informal clusters of academics sharing ideas over coffee, to formally defined research centres.  The key to the success of all these different centres is meaningful intellectual interaction leading to a sense of purpose and output; not just talking shops, but ones focused on talk and action!  Some of the most successful centres I have seen consist of little more than a couple of established academics – say a Professor and a lecturer – and around them they have built through their own funding bids a fluid team of talented post-docs and research assistants who create the energy and drive as they push to develop their own career and often land that first lecturing job.  The role of the Professor is simply to guide and channel this energy, writing the applications to retain or employ new ‘bright things’.  This is the model I understand best with Professors leading from the front and generating their own research teams.  There are a few examples of this within BU, but not many, and I would like to see many more in the next few years.  It is a model that drives research growth and develops critical mass without a dependence on established posts.  It is also common in most research active Universities across the World.

At BU we have in recent years ‘forced’ research centres into existence, insisting that every academic belongs to a centre.  They have become establishment structures often at odds with academic groups and departments, which have a broader focus, often led by frustrated field marshals unable to inspire or direct the troops within them.  This was all elegantly brought out in the review undertaken by Professor Adrian Newton a few years ago.  A key point here was that structures for research were often at conflict with structure for education, yet at the heart of BU’s future is the duality of education and research feeding from one another in a creative fashion.  It is one of the reasons why one of the out comes of this review was a focus on academic groups or departments which combine both research and teaching.  The question needs to be asked therefore about what to do with our structure of research centres?

I have almost finished visiting all twenty five of BU’s current Research Centres and the picture is very mixed.  While some are clearly vibrant units where academics are working together to create exciting output both in education and research, others are dysfunctional neither meaningful academic networks, nor effective leadership vehicles.  Added to this mix we have the term Centres of Research Excellence, prevalent in the Strategic Plan of a few years a go.  But we never actually defined what these where and none where officially recognised, although several aspire to the crown.

To my mind there are two alternative ways of approaching the issue of research centres.  The first is based on silo-free, organic academic networks in which academic staff are free to choose where, and with whom, they work and collaborate both on education and research.  Research clusters or centres will form where there is real synergy and research output.  In this model the key is to create an environment where this can happen – where staff can mix freely and find collaborators easily both within and beyond BU and we are actively tackling this at the moment through the Collaborative Tools for Academics Project.  In this approach research would be manifest simply through output produced via the big BU Research Themes we are currently defining and not through static structures of centres or clusters.  Academic Groups and Departments would off course remain and may or may not map on to these organic, output driven clusters of academic talent.

The alternative model is to maintain and/or re-fresh our current structure of centres.  Effectively to reinforce the imposed structures which currently for some prescribe and limit academic freedom and collaborative potential.  Despite these issues it is perhaps a more inclusive model since everybody belongs somewhere, but our recent history suggests that this model limits collaboration and innovation.  There is also a hybrid model in which we recognise a few – literally one or two – Centres of Research Excellence defined clearly by a performance threshold based on output, income, reputation and research impact.  Such status would have to be won and could also be lost if performance declined.  The rest of our research would be defined via a fluid series of clusters and centres which could form and re-form as academic interaction changes over time as with the first model.

Which ever of these models we favour, and for what its worth I am inclined to either the former or the hybrid model, it is essential that we see centres of activity in the broadest sense combining both research and education.  That conflicts with academic groups based on line-management are minimized, but that we create an environment where silo-free collaboration across BU is a reality not just a dream.  So as part of the re-think around the Research Strategy at BU I am interested in hearing from you on this broad topic and look forward to your comments.

Matthew Bennett

PVC (Research, Enterprise & Internationalisation)

Drive knowledge flow, influence, network and get insider information with Knowledge Transfer Networks

Knowledge Transfer Networks (KTNs) act as a single national network in a specific field, bringing together businesses and academics to stimulate innovation through knowledge transfer. By joining a Technology Strategy Board’s KTN you can help drive the flow of knowledge both within and in-and-out of specific communities and improve your ability to network, keep up to date with the very latest information and news, funding opportunities, policy, regulation and strategy. KTNs exist in many different areas so why not join one today?  Aerospace, Aviation and Defence, Biosciences, Creative Industries, Digital, Electronics, Sensors, Photonics, Energy Generation and Supply, Environmental Sustainability, Financial Services, FP7UK, HealthTech and Medicines, ICT, Industrial Biotechnology, Materials

Our jazzy new EU tab!

Some of you sharp-eyed bloggers may have noticed we have a brand new EU tab.  This marks the Research Development Unit’s dedication to increasing the awareness of EU funding and supporting you to maximise networking opportunities. The EU blog will feature essential information including networking events, forthcoming information days, key policy changes, internal workshops and of course calls for proposals.

All stories from this tab will feature in our snazzy daily digest email so make sure you’ve signed up so you don’t miss out!

Fuel Cells and Hydrogen JTI: Summary of European Information Day for 2011 Call

On 12 May, the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking held an information day on the 2011 Joint Technology Initiative (JTI) Call for Proposals. The event gave an overview of the FCH JTI, statistics from past calls and details of the current 2011 Call (including the topics, evaluation schedule and funding rates as well as hints and tips). There was also an explanation of the ‘project fee’ and some news on the planned changes to the rules on the ‘correction’ factor currently applied to the European Commission’s funding to the projects. A copy of the presentations can be found on this website.

Networking Opportunities at BU conference

The 4th International Conference on Education for Sustainable Development and Global Citizenship (Global Vision, Local Action), is taking place on the 8th and 9th September at the Executive Business Centre . This conference will provide a great opportunity for staff development and an excellent platform for staff to network and engage with like-minded academics for potential research collaborations.

New UK Online Seminar on Current Call for Fuel Cells and Hydrogen JTI

The Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Joint Technology Initiative (FCH JTI), which is run by the Fuel Cells and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking (FCH JU), currently has an open call (FCH-JU-2011-1). For applicants based in the UK, there will be a webinar on the 24th May 2011 (12.30 to 2pm) on the 2011 Call for Proposals. Register for the UK webinar and read details on how to join the UK KTN Focus Working Group on the FCH JU 2011 Calls.

Consultation on Developing the Strategic Innovation Agenda for Innovation & Technology

A stakeholder consultation as part of the process to develop the Strategic Innovation Agenda (SIA) for the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) is being held.  This is an important consultation as it will be the main opportunity for the research and innovation community to shape the future of the EIT. It sets out a number of key questions covering the overall core objectives, potential themes for future Knowledge Innovation Communities and the criteria on which these should be selected. The consultation will close on 30 June 2011 and it will be possible to either answer the online questionnaire or submit separate position papers covering the main issues covered in the questions. Website on EIT consultation

Peer review and busy academics…

Prof Edwin van Teijlingen, School of Health and Social Care, reflects on the benefits of getting involved in peer review…

Prof Edwin van TeijlingenOne of the main elements of quality control in academic publishing is the process of peer review of articles.  Editors of scientific journals will send manuscripts submitted to their journal out to a number of reviewers who are experts on, for example, the research topic, the method, theoretical approach or the geographical in the manuscript. 

Typically journal editors will quickly read the summary or abstract of the submission and on the basis of this decide whether or not to send out the paper for review. The process mentioned above ‘blinds’ as the editor or editorial assistant removes his name from the manuscript before sending it to peer reviewers. However, in many of the newer Open Access journals the review is ‘open’.  This means the reviewers note the name and affiliation of author(s) and the author(s) will receive the feedback and verdict of named reviewers.  Reviewing is an essential element of the process of academic quality control.  More over the reviewers are ordinary academics who volunteer to do this work without additional pay.   Similarly, most editors of academic journals are also volunteers and unpaid.

journalsThose of us who are actively involved in publishing about academic research are regularly asked to review articles for journals in their field.  I usually am invited to review a paper twice or three times a month and I try to do at least one a month.  The reasons for reviewing papers are plentiful.  First, I believe in the essence of peer-reviewing as a system to maintain scientific quality.  Secondly, you get to read some interesting research findings before anybody else, or the flip side, you get some pretty awful papers which makes you realise your own work quite good.  Thirdly, it is something expected of all-round academic, as task you can add to your CV, etc.  Fourthly, if I want my submitted papers to receive proper attention in the review process I feel I must to the same for someone else.  Lastly, I get a chance to see ‘the other side’ as I am also an editor.

As an editor or member of an editorial board I regularly invite, beg or plea to colleagues to review a paper for the journals I’m involved with.  Some times it is more difficult than others to get people to volunteer for the review process. I know how hard it can be to get a decent reviewer for a particular manuscript.   An example of the latter is a recent paper submitted to BMC Pregnancy & Childbirth for which I needed to find reviewers.  In the first week of April I invited eight reviewers from across the globe (as the paper focused on maternity care in a developing country); on the basis of its past experience BMC Pregnancy & Childbirth suggests to its Associate Editors that they invite eight reviewers per paper to ensure at least two agree to review.

Later last month I was asked by the editorial assistant to find a few more potential reviewers for the same paper as none of the people I had originally invited has: (a) accepted the invite; or (b) replied at all.  So, I emailed a few reminders to those who had not replied and found four extra names as possible reviewers.  To my surprise, I received another email yesterday from the editorial assistant that no one had accepted the invitation to conduct a review yet.  There were now nine who had formally declined and the remainder had not replied at all.  So this morning I invited two more reviewers and sent a reminder to those who had not replied at all.

My plea in this blog is encourage BU researchers to get involved in peer reviewing.  If we want to benefit from others reviewing our work, we need to be prepared to do the same in return.  I think, especially for more junior researcher such as Ph.D. and Doctoral students, acting as a reviewer is a good learning exercise as well as way of becoming part of the scholarly community.

I would like to thank Ms. Sheetal Sharma, Ph.D. student in the School or Health & Social Care, for her comments on the draft text of this blog.

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen
School of Health & Social Care

Associate Editor BMC Pregnancy & Childbirth Guest Editor Special Issue on ‘The Maternity Workforce’ for Midwifery (2011)

Is Knowledge Transfer Important to BU?

Dr Martyn Polkinghorne highlights the importance of Knowledge Transfer to the EU…

Well certainly the EU Commission thinks so. In fact it’s so important that the EU Commission says that member states (e.g. the UK) should “ensure that all public research organisations define knowledge transfer as a strategic mission” and that they should “support the development of knowledge transfer capacity and skills in public research organisations, as well as measures to raise the awareness and skills of students – in particular in the area of science and technology – regarding intellectual property, knowledge transfer and entrepreneurship”.1

Supporting intellectual property, knowledge transfer and entrepreneurship are currently activities successfully being undertaken by BU’s Centre for Research & Enterprise (CRE).

When considering Knowledge Transfer as a strategic mission for public research organisations, the EU Commission also states that it wants to move towards a position in which “ knowledge transfer between universities and industry is made a permanent political and operational priority for all public research funding bodies within a Member State, at both national and regional level”.2

More information regarding the EU Commission’s views can be accessed here.

So is Knowledge Transfer important to BU? My personal view is that at a time when BU is looking to increase its portfolio of research funding (including EU sources of funding) it certainly looks as if knowledge transfer may become increasingly important.

What do you think? Let me know your own thoughts and opinions.

Dr Martyn Polkinghorne

Knowledge Transfer Programmes Centre Manager

1 Commission Recommendation on the management of intellectual property in knowledge transfer activities and Code of Practice for universities and other public research organisations, pp 3, 2008

2 Commission Recommendation on the management of intellectual property in knowledge transfer activities and Code of Practice for universities and other public research organisations, pp 8, 2008