/ Full archive

Phytoplankton research aboard R.V. Cefas Endeavour

Dr. Dan Franklin and Deborah Steele, School of Applied Sciences, have joined forces with scientists from across Europe on a research cruise in the North Sea exploring the abundance and growth of plant cells (phytoplankton).

The research team conducted their study aboard the R.V. Cefas Endeavour, using specialised optical instruments called flow cytometers, which analyse thousands of cells per second.

Using this technology the scientists have built up a comprehensive picture of what grows where and how productive the different cells are.

This data will improve the way plant growth is seen by satellites and will help to map out fish production, which is ultimately dependent on phytoplankton growth.

Dan Franklin said: “We were exceptionally lucky with the weather and enjoyed calm seas throughout the cruise. Our track took us North from Lowestoft, across to the Dogger Bank, east into Dutch coastal waters before returning to Lowestoft via the Greater Gabbard wind farm in the Thames estuary. The fact that we had calm seas made the lab work much easier. I found the habitat complexity and biodiversity of the North Sea a revelation – everywhere was different. When not working long hours in the laboratory, we were fortunate to see plenty of wildlife such as whitebeak dolphins, various seabirds such as gannets and guillemots, and possibly minke whales and orcas.”

The research trip was made possible by the generosity of CEFAS, the government laboratory responsible for monitoring fish stocks, promoting the sustainable use of marine resources and improving the marine environment. BU extends thanks to CEFAS for this opportunity.

You can view an excellent video of dolphins from the trip below:
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DhzSaq_KS4

EC Strategy Launched to Improve Biodiversity

The European Commission has launched a new strategy to protect and improve the state of Europe’s biodiversity over the next decade. Six priority targets have been set which address the main drivers of biodiversity loss. They are:

  • Full implementation of existing nature protection legislation and network of natural reserves, to ensure major improvements to the conservation status of habitats and species
  • Improving and restoring ecosystems and ecosystem services wherever possible, notably by the increased use of green infrastructure
  • Ensuring the sustainability of agriculture and forestry activities
  • Safeguarding and protecting EU fish stocks
  • Controlling invasive species, a growing cause of biodiversity loss in the EU
  • Stepping up the EU’s contribution to concerted global action to avert biodiversity loss.

The strategy is in line with two major commitments made by EU leaders in March 2010 – halting the loss of biodiversity in the EU by 2020, and protecting, valuing and restoring EU biodiversity and ecosystem services by 2050. It is also in line with global commitments made in Nagoya in October 2010, in the context of the Convention on Biological Diversity, where world leaders adopted a package of measures to address biodiversity loss world wide over the coming decade.

As an integral part of the Europe 2020 Strategy, the biodiversity strategy will contribute to the EU’s resource efficiency objectives by ensuring that Europe’s natural capital is managed sustainably, as well as to climate change mitigation and adaptation goals by improving the resilience of ecosystems and the services they provide.

Full details of the strategy and its launch can be found here.

Sneaky and dishonest?: Covert research a much maligned, forgotten jewel in the crown

Guidance

Prof Jonathan Parker, School of Health and Social Care, reflects on covert reseach methods and their use in the social sciences…

There have been a wide range of important studies that have used covert methods, that have collected data from people who do not know they are being studied at the time, who would not give permission or, had permission been sought, where the data may have been dubious or biased. Researchers justify their actions by stating the need to gain access to inaccessible groups, to illuminate important social issues, and to uncover the unpalatable. Famous examples include, of course, Rosenhan’s[1] study of the ways in which mental illness may be attributed by location and situation (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/179/4070/250.short), Holdaway’s[2] insider research into the police, and Hunter S. Thompson’s[3] research into Hell’s Angel communities.

Covert methods have fallen out of vogue and are often difficult to get through postgraduate committees or, indeed, university and other research ethics committees, which increasingly promote a risk averse and pedestrian approach to scrutiny. The reasons for this include the important focus, within disciplinary ethical codes, academic and professional ethics committees, on informed consent, and promote a seemingly natural desire for excising duplicity and dishonesty from data collection in research. However, there are arguments that suggest covert methods may not always be dishonest or duplicitous and, indeed, not to use them in certain circumstances, may be, unwittingly, unethical (see Parker et al., forthcoming[4]).

The use of undercover reporting in investigative journalism, for example relating to NHS hospitals and patient treatment, and more recently non-NHS hospitals; whilst not research, illuminates many hidden and dubious practices in current society, representing some of the social good that can be drawn from such methods, and indeed ‘impact’ (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/226545.php).

Where do our research ideas come from in the social sciences? Often from lectures and dialogue within these with students, from supervision, and observations we make in everyday life. That we have collected initial soundings and thoughts from these settings and situations, which has not been scrutinised or completed without informed consent is not questioned: it would be ridiculous to assume we needed informed consent to undertake our daily practices!

There are inherent dangers in covert research which cannot be nor should not be ignored. We have a responsibility as a university to our research students and academic staff and their safety and there are, in some cases, dangers of physical violence or personal abuse in researching undercover. There are also potential reputational and relational issues for universities to consider. These risks must be assessed but we must also ask who shoulders the responsibility for the risk and whether it is important to support cover research because of its illuminative, social importance. We must acknowledge too that some unpalatable areas or risky areas can be negotiated, such as in Fielding’s[5] study of the National Front. However, permissions themselves may detract from the study quality, raise the potential for social desirability responses and selecting data collection methods requires careful thought for the best research and best practices.

As we strive for research excellence and relevance here at BU, we should grapple enthusiastically with the issues and challenges involved in covert research and back it wholeheartedly where its importance is clear. A flaccid response can lose the excitement and challenge involved in the production of new knowledge from in depth engagement with individuals, groups and societies. URECs need to highlight legal challenges, of course. Current mental capacity legislation (which my own research for the Social Care Institute for Excellence and Department of Health suggests transposes ethical scrutiny drawn from moves to protect the public from dangerous medical experimentation Parker et al. 2010[6]) demands ethical scrutiny by appropriate committees, but used well can promote and support ethically-driven knowledge creation and exploration of hidden issues that require methods that cannot and should not involve informed consent. To avoid or proscribe such research methods in all cases leads us down a safe but uninteresting and, potentially, unethical, track.

[1] Rosenhan, D.L. (1973) On being sane in insane places, Science, 179, 4070, 250-258.

[2] Holdaway, S. (1983) Inside the British Police: A force at work, Oxford: Blackwell.

[3] Thompson, H.S. (2003/1965) Hell’s Angels, London: Penguin.

[4] Parker, J., Penhale, B. and Stanley, D. (forthcoming) Research ethics review: social care and social science research and the Mental Capacity Act 2005, Ethics and Social Welfare

[5] Fielding, N. (1982) Observational research on the National Front, in M. Bulmer (ed.) Social Research Ethics: An examination of the merits of covert participant observation, London: Macmillan.

[6] Parker, J., Penhale, B. and Stanley, D. (2010) Problem or safeguard? Research ethics review in social care research and the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Social Care and Neurodisability 1, 2, 22-32.

Get your own business cards!

Last month I attended the GrantCraft: Research Workshop Day that Corrina arranged and which many of you attended. The session, facilitated by Dr Martin Pickard, was a huge success and we will definitely be inviting Martin back to run a similar workshop at BU again.

During the ‘Impact and Benefits’ session the importance of business cards in establishing academic networks was discussed, and I was surprised to note that less than 10% of the audience already have cards.

The Vitae website notes that business cards are essential in establishing academic networks, and that networks enable researchers to:

  • create a professional image
  • exchange information and keep up-to-date with new developments
  • identify potential areas for collaboration
  • establish disciplinary, cross-disciplinary, cross-institutional and cross-sector groups
  • get published

With this is mind the Research Development Unit has funding available to purchase some business cards for academics who need them. If you’d like some business cards then let us know and we’ll see what we can do! Email us at researchunit@bournemouth.ac.uk

Keywords for Research

Guidance

Matthew’s previous blog post (Research Ontology of Find an Expert!) introduced the concept of using the Science-Metrix ontology as the starting point for how BU will classify research in the future.

To date we have not received any responses from BU staff as to whether you think these keywords are suitable, or any suggestions for alternative keywords.

These keywords will be extremely important going forwards as they will be the words used to classify your research expertise in the future, both internally and externally.

The ontology is based on 176 discipline sub-fields which can be viewed here. We are aware these might not be a finished product for BU’s needs but we need your input to further refine them for our use.

Your comments and ideas are very welcome and should be added as comments to the blog post.

BU Research Themes – have your say!

The future BU Research Themes are starting to take shape but your input is still needed!

Several champions have already stepped forward to start defining the themes, and these can be read on a special part of the blog – BU Research Themes. Everyone is encouraged to read and comment on these emerging ideas. Once fleshed out these themes will shape the future BU research strategy and will inform how research is presented on the BU website.

No one has yet stepped forward to define the following potential Research Themes:

  • Recreation and Leisure
  • Creative and Digital Economies

If you have an interest in either of these themes then please do help us to flesh these themes out. See our previous Research Themes blog post for details of how to get involved. The completed templates were due back last week but the deadline has been extended until Friday 10 June.

Speak now or forever hold your peace!

Partner Search: Crowberry Consulting

Crowberry Consulting is a female run company based in the North West of England with over 11 years industry experience of delivering sustainability projects. We have previously bid for IEE projects, and have extensive contacts in UK based universities and Turkish Research Institutes. Our academic qualifications include: MBA Environmental Management, MSC Environmental Impact Assessment, BSC Ecology, MA Environmental Consulting, and BSC Biology.

Crowberry Energy is a not for profit social enterprise working with SMEs and large listed companies, to implement carbon management and carbon foot-printing, sustainable development policies, and specific standards such as ISO14001, BS EN 16001, BS8901, and the Carbon Action Standard for UK CRC compliance. We also provide specialist training in the areas of:

  • Carbon Foot printing and Carbon Management
  • How Green is Your Office
  • CSR – Corporate Social Responsibility

For more details about this SME, please click here.

Basic Research needs EU Funding Boost says Microsoft

The UK arm of Microsoft has backed UK universities in urging the EC to increase its support for basic research. As part of its submission to the Commission’s consultation Microsoft says that the private sector already funds its fair share of basic research and that the EU now need to take a lead. The submission states: “Universities and public research institutions are uniquely positioned to take on basic or pure research with no immediate commercial product in research that most companies would be unlikely to tackle but that has the potential to be transformative…Without greater investment in basic research, there is a danger that these fundamental game changing and important advances will happen outside Europe.” The consultation closed on 20 May and the Commission will announce its next move in November, based on its findings.

Cross BU themes – big but still narrow?

Outlines for the big themes are unfolding, or are they? Let me share some observations. Several weeks ago, the professoriate had an immensely fruitful brainstorming meeting to discuss, among other things, how we can take forward the promotion of cross-University research collaboration and which big research themes would be suitable given their current representation in the funding landscape and their contribution towards societal need. Of the impressive and broadly supported list that emerged, three themes have so far been tackled: Technology and Design, Ageing, and Health & Wellbeing. Their recent descriptions on the research blog, however, reveal what I think may turn out to be a fundamental dilemma. Those three themes, the way they are outlined, can still be run by their home Schools alone and look like the continuation of big themes that were in existence already before we started to brainstorm rather than the roadmap to a wider integration of thoughts and people. I hasten to add here that I hold up my hands for not having engaged enough myself with two of the themes that my area of expertise can contribute to, but my impression is that there may be more people like me out there who just need that little kick. Therefore, for the penny it is worth, here are my suggestions for broadening out the themes on ageing and health & wellbeing.

The ageing society is at the fore, and will continue to be so for generations to come. However, do we trace old age back in time – and by that I mean from prehistory well into post-medieval periods? Do we settle happily with the perpetuated notion that people in the past all died young? How would a better understanding of the size and importance of the elderly cohort in past societies change our perception of old age today? How can we interrogate the most immediate source material to learn about humans in the past – their skeletal remains? Biological Anthropology (or Bioarchaeology) is set up to make the contribution here. First of all, dying young was by no means everybody’s fate. Not infrequently, people lived to respectable high age, comparable with, say, that during the Victorian period (once they survived infancy and early childhood). Vastly improved methods of age assessment from human skeletal remains now provide an increasingly clearer picture of life and death in the past. This information can be most beneficially used to inform research on the life course, differential mortality and patterns of longevity for girls and boys, women and men, in the context of prevailing socio-cultural, political and economic circumstances. I am sure; this can strike a chord with the outline on the ageing theme as it stands.

In a similar vein, health & wellbeing has for a long time concerned biological anthropologists. Palaeopathology is one of the prominent and rapidly expanding sub-fields of the discipline. Using sound, clinically-informed diagnostic approaches, patterns of disease (infectious, metabolic, degenerative, dental, neoplastic etc.) and evidence for treatment and care of the infirm can be reconstructed that provide a fascinating insight into living conditions and ambient socio-ecology of times past.  Naturally, this also feeds back into the Ageing theme, as morbidity is one of the prime causative factors of differential mortality. Palaeopathological diagnosis extends into deep time as well and extends as far back as to include our hominin ancestors who were all but exempt from chronic disease that left traces of skeletal alterations.

I am aware that these two sketches may go too far for some, but I am at the same time convinced that a holistic approach, which explicitly includes the past and which embraces both biological and social sciences, will be able to contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of two defining and prominent themes that have a strong pedigree at BU. All comments welcome.

Forthcoming FP7 environment focused conferences

Enterprise Europe Network South West European Funding for Environmental Projects: to promote the opportunities for European funding in the environmental sector.

EC FP7 Knowledge-Based Bio-Economy Info Day: an info day for anyone interested in the 2012 call, and the EC will present on the three work programme activities.

FP7 Environmental Brokerage Event & Conference: will focus on the work programme challenge ‘improving resource efficiency’ and coinciding with the Environmental (Bio) Technologies conference on 5th – 8th September.

1st European Gender Summit: will address issues related to new perspectives on research and innovation and has already attracted 45 high-level speakers.

RCUK welcomes Hargreave’s Review on IP and Growth

Research Councils UK (RCUK) has welcomed the findings of the Hargreaves Review of Intellectual Property and Growth, published on 18th May.
The review looks at how the Intellectual Property Framework contributes to growth and identifies barriers; RCUK believes that the implementation of the review’s recommendations will help to remove potential barriers to innovation and, by contributing to the UK’s attractiveness as a base for scientific discovery, will enable UK Research to further contribute to growth, prosperity and wellbeing of the UK.
RCUK welcomes the recommendations that will allow greater mass digitisation which will allow digital preservation of our cultural and scientific output, and enable researchers to use data and text mining to deliver new discoveries in medicine and other areas of research.

REF Impact Observations

Research assessment

Shortly we will learn the REF panel criteria and guidance submissions due to be published in July.  At BU we have engaged with some excellent initiatives such as the recent REF event to help focus our approach to the impact case studies. The measurement of benefit that UK research has on society is an opportunity to understand the value of our work. Already it is well documented that the concept of research impact has for the moment protected some sources of external funding at least for the next few years. As academics concerned with the REF we now need to consider delivering the evidence of our research impact from 2008 resulting from good BU research. This research could have happened almost as far back as 1993.

Impact is a difficult concept and not easy to measure in terms of the REF. From an engineering viewpoint impact is difficult to quantify as like the REF it involves knowledge of time in addition to the force. Engineering impact force increases as time decreases. This view of time relates to the general research impact debate. We now have the opportunity to look back and review BU research almost over the lifetime of the University.

Dr Andy Mayers has been formally appointed Patron for Bournemouth and District Samaritans

Dr. Andy Mayers, School of Design, Engineering and Computing, has been formally appointed Patron for Bournemouth & District Samaritans. This represents an opportunity not only to increase and enhance student experience via volunteer placements, but also to benefit the wider community through development of a night-line and crisis centre for the Samaritans based at Bournemouth University. Additionally, Andy will be part of the ‘wellness at work‘ initiative that is being developed within HSC (physical health and stress), counselling services, pastoral care (with Bill Merrington), and mental health (including sleep). In his new role, Andy will be the ‘public face’ of the Samaritans for Bournemouth and surrounding towns.

Dr Zulfiqar Khan is elected as Fellow of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers

Dr Zulfiqar Khan, School of Design, Engineering and Computing, has achieved the status of Fellow of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (FIMechE).

 

The title is the highest elected grade of membership within the IMechE. Fellowship is awarded to members who have demonstrated significant individual responsibility, sustained achievement and exceptional professionalism during their careers.

This is an excellent achievement – congratulations Zulfiqar! 😀

Opportunity for Placement Fellowships with the AHRC and ESRC

Funding opportunities

ESRC logo

As part of their Placement Fellowship Scheme the AHRC and ESRC welcomes applications from academics interested in working in a research capacity with the British Council. The scheme encourages arts and humanities researchers to spend time within a partner organisation to undertake policy relevant research and to develop the research skills of partner employees.

Placement fellowships are available with 1) British Council, 2) Museums Association and 3) Welsh Government. Donwload the call information and guidelines here:

BRITISH COUNCIL

MUSEUMS ASSOCIATION

Welsh Government 1

Welsh Government 2

Welsh Government 3

Welsh Government 4

The deadline is 28 June 2011.

If you are interested in submitting a bid then please contact the CRE Operations team who will guide you through the submission process.

Investigating Academic Impact event at LSE on 13 June

Research assessment

The LSE Public Policy Group is running a free one day event on evidencing the impact of research.

Date: Monday 13 June 2011 
Time: 10-5pm 
Venue:  New Academic Building, LSE, London

Academics are increasingly being pressed to provide evidence of impact from their research on the world outside academia. And universities will have to provide evidence of impact as part of the new Research Excellence Framework. But there is confusion about the different definitions of impact that exist amongst funding bodies and research councils, and also about methods of measuring impact.

This one day conference will look at a range of issues surrounding the impact of academic work on government, business, communities and public debate. We will discuss what impact is, how impacts happen and innovative ways that academics can communicate their work. Practical sessions will look at how academic work has impact among policymaking and business communities. Also how academic communication can be improved and how individual academics can easily start to asses their own impact.

PANELS:
Research Impact and the REF
Professor Rick Rylance (Chief Executive, Arts and Humanities Research Council)
David Sweeney (Director of Research, Innovation and Skills, HEFCE)
Professor Paul Wiles (Panel Chair, social work and social policy panel, REF impact pilot)

Current Thinking in Assessing Impact
Professor Patrick Dunleavy (Impact of Social Sciences project, London School of Economics)
Professor Alan Hughes (Centre for Business Research, University of Cambridge)
Tomas Ulrichsen (Public and Corporate Economic Associates)

Innovative Methods for Impact and Engagement
Professor Stephen Curry (blogger, Imperial College London)
Martyn Lawrence (Senior Publisher, Emerald Insight)
Paul Manners (Director, National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement, UWE)
Mike Peel (Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics / Wikimedia UK)

BREAKOUT SESSIONS:
Academic impact on policy-making
Maria O’Beirne (Analysis and Innovation Directorate, Department for Communities and Local Government)
Jill Rutter (Better Policy Making Programme Director, Institute for Government)

Knowledge transfer and the role of research mediators
Nick Pearce (Director, IPPR)
Professor Judy Sebba (University of Sussex)

Academic impacts on industry and business
James John (Director of Strategy, director of strategy, civil government, HP)

A ‘how to’ guide to measuring your own academic impact
Jane Tinkler (Impact of Social Sciences project, London School of Economics)

Improving academic communication
Professor Patrick Dunleavy (Impact of Social Sciences project, London School of Economics)
Chris Gilson (Managing Editor, British Politics and Policy blog, London School of Economics)

This event is free and open to all but pre-registration is required. For more information phone and email the PPG team on 020 7955 6064 or 020 7955 6731 or by email on impactofsocialsciences@lse.ac.uk|. You can find more information on the Investigating Academic Impact website.