Posts By / aharding

Harding & Pritchard paper has over 1,000 views in first month it is openly available

cover_enThe Harding and Pritchard paper titled ‘UK and Twenty Comparable Countries GDP-Expenditure on Health 1980-2013: The Historic and Continued Low Priority of UK Health-Related Expenditure’and published in the International Journal of Health Policy and Management, has had over 1,000 views in the first month it has been openly available.

For the majority of that time it has been made available in press, and only in the last few days has it been assigned to an issue. The paper illustrates the UK’s low proportional spend in relation to health related services:

It is well-established that for a considerable period the United Kingdom has spent proportionally less of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health-related services than almost any other comparable country. Average European spending on health (as a % of GDP) in the period 1980 to 2013 has been 19% higher than the United Kingdom, indicating that comparable countries give far greater fiscal priority to its health services, irrespective of its actual fiscal value or configuration. While the UK National Health Service (NHS) is a comparatively lean healthcare system, it is often regarded to be at a ‘crisis’ point on account of low levels of funding. Indeed, many state that currently the NHS has a sizeable funding gap, in part due to its recently reduced GDP devoted to health but mainly the challenges around increases in longevity, expectation and new medical costs. The right level of health funding is a political value judgement. As the data in this paper outline, if the UK ‘afforded’ the same proportional level of funding as the mean averageEuropean country, total expenditure would currently increase by one-fifth.

New Harding and Pritchard paper in international health policy journal

InternationalMapAndrew Harding and Colin Pritchard have recently had a paper published in the International Journal of Health Policy and Management.

The paper, titled ‘UK and Twenty Comparable Countries GDP-Expenditure on-Health 1980 2013: The Historic and Continued Low Priority of UK Health Related Expenditure, uses GDPEH data to outline the low proportional commitment that the UK makes to healthcare expenditure. It is well established in the health and social policy world that the UK prioritises less of its wealth to health than almost any comparable country. However, the authors use an innovative and novel means of exploring proportional differences in commitment.

The key finding is that since 1980, in order to meet the mean average European health spend, the UK would have needed to have made an additional commitment of one-fifth. For the final period, between 2010-2013 the authors show that the UK has prioritised 12% less in proportional terms (as a % of GDP) than the European average.

The paper ends with the following quote, “Echoing others who have recently contributed to discussion in this area, if other comparable countries can make a larger proportional commitment and deem it affordable, in light of aforementioned challenges, why cannot the United Kingdom prioritise accordingly?”

New HSS PhD paper!

SPSHSS PhD student Andrew Harding and fellow authors  Jonathan Parker, Sarah Hean and Ann Hemingway have recently had a paper accepted for publication in Social Policy & Society, the sister publication to the Journal of Social Policy and run by the Social Policy Association.

A critical yet under-researched area, the paper presents a comprehensive literature review that critiques current research on the outcome/impact of information and advice on welfare. A realist evaluation approach is then proposed as being capable to address critical weaknesses in existing research.

Among other areas that are covered, the paper provides an overview of the importance of information and advice in the context of the marketisation of UK welfare provision and a new ‘efficacy framework’ is developed which can be used to assess the scope of research.

A final draft post-refereeing version of the paper will be uploaded to BRIAN in due course.

Pritchard & Harding paper cited in top journal, but there’s a ‘but…’

cloudAs an ECR I am delighted to see that a research paper that Prof. Pritchard and myself wrote in 2014 has been cited in one of the most well regarded journals in the field.

Our paper on the occupational backgrounds of Non-executive directors at NHS acute trusts, published in the Journal for the Royal Society of Medicine Open, was also the subject of an article in the now defunct Independent  newspaper and a post on this blog in May 2014.

Last year, in 2015, it was cited by a paper published in the Journal for Health Services Research and Policy. I won’t name which edition or paper because there is a ‘but…’, and it concerns the carelessness of the authors who cited our work.

There is a ‘but…’ because the authors got my name wrong – both in the in text citation and in the bibliography. The good news is that it still links on citation tracking systems (such as the function on Google Scholar) as a paper that I co-wrote. Yet as an ECR, who is trying to make his way in the ‘publish or perish’ world of academia, I can’t help but feel a bit frustrated. Here’s my name in a top journal, but it’s incorrect.

So I took action, I emailed the editors. To their credit I got a response within minutes, with an apology for the carelessness of the authors and that contact with the publisher had been initiated to see if it could be corrected. Yet, due to the inflexibility of doi, apparently this is unlikely.

This then got me thinking about my first publication. I have to admit I did not check the final galley proof thoroughly enough. Indeed, when it was published, it became apparent that I had not corrected some basic incorrect spelling of names in the bibliography. In other words, some very respected authors’ names were wrong! I can happily report that this was corrected, and no offence caused (I hope!).

But the lesson here – check final galley proofs. If you cite an article, I think the very least you can do, out of respect for colleagues, is to get the authors name right. I have made this mistake, and so have authors who have cited me, so it would scream hypocrisy if I was too mad! But it does show that it might be a relatively common problem, so again – check final galley proofs!

However, once the relative pain bypassed, one our papers has still been cited in a top journal – and that is very satisfying indeed.


International Longevity Centre host blog by HSS PhD student Andy Harding

The following was hosted by the International Longevity Centre:

The Future of Welfare Consumerism: Future challenges and opportunities of welfare consumerism in health and social care

Welfare rights and financial advice_mThe rationale for the creation of the welfare state in the post war period was, in large part, because a market approach to welfare had failed. So how can the market and consumerism now be the solution? Despite this philosophical question, for more than two decades welfare consumerism and markets has been and continues to be at the heart of UK health and social care policy. This presents many challenges and opportunities for practitioners, policymakers and researchers alike – particularly concerning older people. Older people are the largest ‘customer’ of welfare services, thus any welfare policy has major ramifications for us all in later life. But what are the important issues? The important issues are basic, but at the same time complex. There is not one welfare market, and with older people not a homogenous group, there are different types and cohorts of consumers.

The basic issue is simple. It is perhaps not comfortable to label welfare as a commodity. A commodity implies a good or service that we purchase to suit a desire. Yet, rarely does welfare satisfy a desire. On the other hand, we access welfare provision because we have a need. Indeed, it is a commodity and market unlike mainstream markets. Whereas mainstream consumers can use their ‘invisible hand’ to navigate markets and access the type or brand of tea, coffee, tablet or laptop that they like, the need to access welfare is characterised by significant information asymmetries, and often complex, vulnerable and emotional circumstances.

Considering these relative complexities, we know remarkably little about how older people act in welfare markets. Although the welfare consumer might have little in common with the mainstream consumer, nevertheless consumer theory provides a platform to outline the more complex challenges for future research and policy.

Implicit in using markets as a means to allocate resources is that consumers are informed and make good quality choices. This in turn requires us to focus on how older welfare consumers become informed – are they adequately informed? Do they seek impartial and independent information and advice (I&A)? How do they act on and use I&A? How can we ensure that I&A services are funded properly and have adequate coverage? These are just some of the broader future challenges and questions that must be addressed.

These are challenges for both health and social care, where the consumerist landscape created by individual budgets and direct payments, first trail blazed in social care (and mostly lobbied for by younger groups), is now being introduced for increasing numbers of older people with chronic and longer term health conditions. Choices of provider and care package/pathway are now and will increasingly be the norm in health and social care.

In addition, my own on-going doctoral study with FirstStop, a third sector provider of information and advice on housing and care issues in later life, acts to highlight another under looked area – housing. Housing may have a longer association with markets and consumerism, yet it is nevertheless a central pillar of welfare. And for good reason – the appropriateness of housing (e.g. preventing falls and fractures in the home as the stereotypical and archetypal example) in later life can be a key determinant of health and wellbeing. In other words, appropriate housing can reduce the likelihood that an older person needs to access health services and social care.

This final point should also chime with the fiscally minded – informed older welfare consumers, through accessing good quality I&A equates to older people making more informed choices about welfare and enables independence. By implication, this means less dependency on welfare – something which, as consumers who will all grow old one day, should be desirable to us all.


Realist methodologies – it’s a case of C+M=O don’t you know

1401Having led some seminars at BU, and dipped my toe in to teaching, as a useful mechanism and resource, I have often wondered what contexts make for a good workshop. It would be my suggestion that some or all of; insightful means of relating content; inspiring delivery; a variety of taught and practical exercises; and an opportunity to network and socialise are needed for an enjoyable workshop experience. These are the contexts which I hypothesize to be conducive toward a good workshop outcome. My experiences of workshops in my early career researcher and PhD journey to date have been mostly positive, but I have never experienced all of the above in equal high measure – UNTIL NOW!

This week I have attended a 3 day workshop on Realist Methodologies. The workshop was hosted by the University of Liverpool, but delivered on their London campus in the heart of the city’s financial district.

The content and resources was communicated and contextualised by facilitators Justin Jagosh (University of Liverpool), Geoff Wong (University of Oxford) and Sonia Dalkin (Northumbria University) in a manner that was informative, insightful and engaging. There was a good mix of taught material and hands on exercises. However, there were also chances to present and constructively discuss your work to the wider and interdisciplinary group, and opportunities for one on ones with the facilitators to discuss and (de)construct your own realist projects. In addition, there was also an opportunity to chat in an informal setting over some pizza, pasta, beer and gin & tonics! All of this led to enhanced reasoning, a mechanism, with an outcome of increased understanding.

So in a way that is succinct and accessible, what is realist methodology and what how can it be applied in research? I’ve actually dropped in some hints in the two larger paragraphs above… Before the methodology is outlined, firstly it is useful to discuss the philosophical position on which realist methodologies are based.

Critical Realism

Realist methodology and evaluation is underpinned by the critical realist philosophical works of the likes of Roy Bhaskar and Andrew Sayer (to name a few). This furthers a philosophical position that “…there exists both an external world independent of human consciousness, and at the same time a dimension which includes our socially determined knowledge about reality.” (Danermark et al., 2002: 5-6). On this basis, it is possible to be a positivist and objective ontologist (what is) whilst, at the same time, being an epistemological interpretivist (what it is to know).

Going deeper (stay with me!), Roy Bhaskar proposed three realms of reality. The actual, (objective entities that manifest in the real world), real (Subjective structures, phenomena and agency that act as causal mechanisms in the real world) and the empirical (Observable human consciousness and perspectives on the actual and real). As Easton states, “The most fundamental aim of critical realism is explanation; answers to the question “what caused those events to happen?”” (2010: 121).

Realist Evaluation

Based on this, and in the context of evaluating social programmes, realist evaluation is a research approach that seeks to ‘scratch beneath the surface’ and offer a ‘real’ and plausible account of “…what works for whom, in what circumstances, in what respects and how.” (Pawson et al., 2005: 21). It does so by proposing that the outcome (O) of social programmes or interventions rest the conceptual relationship between mechanisms (M) and context (C) – expressed as the ‘O=M+C’ formula.

However, integral to mechanisms are both resources (typically the programme or intervention) and reasoning. With it sometimes hard to adequately illustrate and distinguish these two characteristics in the CMO configuration, Dalkin et al (2015) propose a new iteration of Pawson and Tilley’s (1997) original CMO formula – expressed as ‘M(Resources) + C→M(Reasoning) = O’. I’m afraid you’ll have to come and ask me in person for my CMO configuration!

In conjunction with findings and evidence from existing literature to inform research protocols, this conceptual formula is used to gather data, and interrogate to ‘scratch beneath the surface’ as to what happens in social programmes and interventions, why, for whom and in what context. Finally, and importantly to note, realist evaluation has no methodological prescriptions – although it is particularly suited to mixed methods and qualitative research methods.

The realist methodology community is a very friendly and collegiate one. Do get in touch to discuss this approach. If I can’t help you (for example, I haven’t discussed realist synthesis – a kind of systematic review approach using the realist philosophy and CMO configuration), I can pass you on to someone who might be able to (The RAMASES JISCMail list is a good start).

My next workshop has a lot to live up to!




Dalkin, S. M., Greenhalgh, J., Jones, D., Cunningham, B. & Lhussier, M. 2015. What’s in a mechanism? Development of a key concept in realist evaluation. Implementation Science, 10.

Danermark, B., Ekstrom, M., Jakobsen, L. & Karlsson, J. C. 2002. Explaining Society: Critical realism in the social sciences, London, Routledge.

Easton, G. 2010. Critical realism in case study research. Industrial Marketing Management, 39, 118–128.

Pawson, R., Greenhalgh, T., Harvey, G. & Walshe, K. 2005. Realist review – a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 10, 21-34.

Pawson, R. & Tilley, N. 1997. Realistic Evaluation, London, Sage.

New eBU submission: identification of temporal factors related to shot performance in Recurve archery

Did you grow up watching Robin Hood? Did you take a fancy to Errol Flynn, Sean Connery, Kevin Costner or Russell Crowe in their green tights? Have you ever picked up a bow and arrow, or have you ever wondered what are the critical factors in archery performance?

Andrew Callaway and international colleagues address this latter question in a new submission to eBU, BU’s immediate publication and open peer review working paper journal. The abstract and link to the paper are below:

The purpose of this study was to investigate the temporal phases of the archery shot cycle that distinguish the arrows distance from centre, in an attempt to understand critical factors that effect performance. Sixteen archers of varying ability each performed 30 shots at 18m. Ten potential predictor variables were measured for statistical modeling by stepwise multiple linear regression. The results show that pre-shot time (pre-performance routine), release time (post-performance routine), aiming time and the speed of the arrow account for 7.1% of the variation in predicting shot performance. Clicker to release (CRT) variation has previously been shown to relate to shot performance. The results of this study show that this may be true for higher-level sub-populations, but not for the general wider population. The results have implications for practice demonstrating factors that coaches should focus on to develop their athletes. Further work on pre-, but more importantly, post-performance routines are needed in this field.

The paper can be accessed here, or if off campus via ‘View’ (just type eBU into a web browser), and is open for comment and review.

An investigation into the importance of set plays within the Barclays Premier League

The interest in football goes well beyond the boundaries of it’s academic field. Such are the financial incentives and rewards in the modern game, professional football clubs now leave no stone unturned in their attempts to increase their performances on the field, win matches and increase their league position. This is the wider context for a recent submission to eBU: Online Journal, BU’s internal working paper journal designed around immediate publication and open peer review.

Based on an analysis of all 1,053 goals scored in the 2009/10 season, Jamie Osman, Andrew Callaway and Shelley Broomfield consider, ‘Just how important are set plays to teams competing in the Barclays Premier League?’.

The paper is open for wider comment and review from the BU community, and can be found here: http://ebu/index.php/ebu/article/view/36


Impact, outcome and research methods – HSC PhD student on LSE Impact Blog

With working at a university and the rise of the REF, you would have almost certainly come across the terms ‘impact’ and ‘outcomes’. Whilst there might be a great deal of similarity and overlap in the use of these terms, it is important to discuss the sometime subtle differences between ‘impact’ and ‘outcome’. What consequences might this have for the design of social research?

The health and social care literature uses these terms in a rather haphazard manner. The differences are rarely discussed and it can be suggested that many use the wrong terminology. In this blog post on the LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog, relating to the field of information and advice on welfare issues, I briefly discuss and propose that there are fundamental differences between what an impact refers to and what an outcome refers to. Furthermore, I suggest that these differences are significant and profound enough to align each to opposing research methodologies.

These thoughts relate to the key areas of my PhD project with Elderly Accommodation Counsel (EAC) in London. EAC coordinates the FirstStop service which provides information and advice to older people (and other stakeholders) on housing and care issues. My research is focused on how older people use information and advice on housing and the wider impact that this has.

If anyone has an interest in this area, do get in touch!


eBU – helping to develop academic papers for the new academic year

With the new academic year about to go into full swing, I’m sure everyone has many papers planned for the year ahead.

In the last 14 months eBU: Online Journal has a build up a steady track record of helping early career academics and more established scholars to gain feedback on their work before submitting to external journals. In fact, not only does eBU have a track record in helping academics gain feedback, but BU academics are using eBU feedback to help them publish in external journals.

From immediate publication to open peer review in a safe internal environment in weeks instead of months, eBU is ideally placed to help early career and established academics to break through the barriers that stand in the way of publication – surely you’d be foolish not to consider using eBU for your next paper!

HSC study focus of Independent newspaper article

Professor Colin Pritchard

Published research in the Journal for the Royal Society of Medicine Open (JRSM Open for short), conducted by Professor Colin Pritchard and Andrew Harding in HSC, is today (Friday 02/05/14) the focus of an article in the Independent newspaper.

Andrew Harding

After the Francis Report into the scandal at Mid Staffordshire lay considerable blame at the Board for failing to tackle “…an insidious culture…focused on doing the system’s business – not that of the patient…”, Professor Pritchard and Andrew Harding looked at the occupational backgrounds of non executive directors (NEDs) of 146 NHS acute trusts (n=1,001 NEDs). The NHS is modelled on corporate governance, where a board of directors are scrutinised and held to account by non executive directors.

Considering NEDs principle task is to hold the executive, and thus the NHS, to account, the study found a shocking lack of non executive directors with medical, clinical or patient representation or background. As the Independent headline indicates, only 8% of non executive board members were healthcare professionals. Instead, it was far more prevalent and common for non executive directors to be from a commercial, or financial background – with a high proportion having been employed or current employees of major financials firms such as Deloite, KPMG, Grant Thornton, Merrill Lynch, Price-WaterHouse Coopers and JP Morgan. Females NEDs and those from ethnic minorities were also found to be in short supply.

For a full breakdown of the findings the article can be found, and is openly available here.


2014 sees a surge in engagement with eBU

Through immediate internal publication and open peer review, eBU is ideally placed to support the developmental needs of authors at any career stage, and I’m pleased to say that, so far, the 2014 issue has seen a levels of engagement from across the career spectrum. eBU has had two working paper submissions so far in 2014 (and there are plenty more in the archived 2013 issue!).

Firstly, under the Lifelong Health and Wellbeing theme, Sheetal Sharma (HSC) and colleagues submitted a paper titled Eliciting Nepali women’s views on childbirth and the newborn. A full text file of this paper has been openly reviewed and can be viewed here – http://ebu/index.php/ebu/article/view/17.  I understand Sheetal has just submitted this paper to an external journal, so best of luck and we await with great excitement to hear the outcome!

Secondly, under the Education, Learning and Practice theme, Jonathan Williams (again HSC) has submitted a paper titled Is student knowledge of anatomy affected by a Problem-Based Learning approach? A full text file of this paper can be read here – http://ebu/index.php/ebu/article/view/24.

eBU was also delighted to be able to support outputs from the 2014 PGR conference, and a number of PGRs have decided to use eBU to showcase their work. Why not take a look at the following abstracts and posters:

Business, Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth

Alice Bonasio – PGR Conf 2014 Abstract: Customer Engagement Through Crowd-Funding and Social Mediahttp://ebu/index.php/ebu/article/view/21

Lifelong Health and Wellbeing

Ben Hicks – PGR Conf 2014 Abstract: Using commercial computer game technology to benefit men with dementia residing in rural areas of Dorsethttp://ebu/index.php/ebu/article/view/19

Sheetal Sharma – PGR Conf 2014 Abstract: Pregnant and ‘dirty’ for 40 days: A qualitative study of childbirth practice, beliefs and myths in Nepalhttp://ebu/index.php/ebu/article/view/20

Jonny Branney – PGR Conf 2014 Abstract: Is spinal manipulation associated with changes in cervical inter-vertebral motion?http://ebu/index.php/ebu/article/view/23

Research Methods and Practice

Jenny Roddis – PGR Conf 2014 Poster: Experience of interviewing: face-to-face vs. telephonehttp://ebu/index.php/ebu/article/view/22

Technology & Design

Manuel Salvador – PGR Conf 2014 Poster: Automating Data Pre-processing for Online and Dynamic Processes in the Chemical Industry: http://ebu/index.php/ebu/article/view/18

eBU news, updates and success story!

eBU news: updates and achievements

It’s been a while since I posted about eBU. Since my last post there has been some exciting updates and progress to report. There are some new faces to welcome, a reminder to encourage students to submit, news that eBU is supporting outputs from the PGR conference and will support outputs from an exciting new conference, and…  (drum roll…) a paper originally submitted to eBU has been published in an external journal!

Welcome aboard!

Heather Savigny has joined me as a co-editor. I have met with Heather a few times now, and it is obvious that she is passionate about developing writing and scholarly skills. On this basis, Heather is a perfect addition to the team. We have both met with the new PVC Prof John Fletcher, and I’m glad to say that, like his predecessor, he is very supportive of eBU. Shelly Maskell from R&KEO has also come aboard and will provide vital support in helping develop eBU.

Encourage students to submit

One immediate challenge for eBU is not appeal to students. eBU launched a bit too late last year to appeal to students who would have made important submissions at the end of last academic year (dissertations etc), but hopefully we will be well placed to appeal to them this year! So I urge all academic staff to encourage students who produce good quality to a) encourage them to spend a little bit more time and format their work into a publishable output and b) offer some support to this end.

PGR conference

eBU is well placed to help early career researchers and students make that leap into the ‘publish or perish’ world of academia. On this basis, it is a tool that PGRs should take advantage of. We are actively encouraging people who presented their work at the PGR conference to submit their work to eBU. We have received a good number of abstracts and posters already, and eBU will be a great platform to showcase this work BU wide. Outputs associated with the PGR conference to have deadlines, and these are:

  • Please submit posters before Friday 14th March.
  • Please submit abstracts before Friday 14th March.
  • Please submit conference papers before 12th April

I would encourage those who made an oral presentations to write it up as a conference paper. There is guidance for PGRs on myBU and on the Graduate School website, but do feel free to get in touch with any questions. We don’t generally set deadlines, so please remember that you can submit any other papers you might have in the pipeline (e.g. review papers) at any time, and we will guarantee a quick internal and open peer review.

Future scope

Congratulations to Luciana Esteves from ApSci, who has been successful in winning some Fusion funding to kick-start an annual undergraduate research conference at BU – SURE@BU. This is something to look out for in the future, but it is worth stating now that eBU will play a key role in the publication of conference abstracts, posters, conference papers etc.


I’m glad to report that one of the submissions to eBU has been published by an external journal, and I believe others will shortly follow suit. The successful paper in question is a paper that I wrote with colleagues. However, it is a useful little case study to illustrate how and why eBU works.

Myself and colleagues in HSC and outside (University of Exeter, University of Plymouth and Westbourne Medical Centre) submitted a grant application in the second half of last year. In most grant applications you have opportunity to summarise the key literature, and this one was no different. Unfortunately whilst the grant application was unsuccessful, I took a senior colleagues advice and spent a little bit of time turning the application into a paper. After a few weeks I submitted it to eBU (the phrase ‘put your money where your mouth is’ comes to mind!). As I had a bit of a vested interest it was processed by editorial colleagues and reviews were uploaded after a few weeks. It really helped having two sets of informed but fresh eyes scrutinise the paper, and changes were made on the basis of these reviews. The paper was submitted to a journal and accepted with suggestions for minor changes.

When I wrote this article I was a Research Assistant here and, like many early career researchers, I had aspirations of becoming published in peer reviewed journals. One of my trepidations was getting that first publication. I’m now a PhD student here, and I’m sure the floodgates will open (along with another colleague have since have had another accepted!) as I now have many ideas for potential papers and now – thanks to eBU – I have no fear of the unknown!

Andy Harding

Doctoral Researcher and eBU co-editor


eBU papers viewed over 800 times by BU community!

The internal side of eBU has only been live for a matter of months. However, in this time eBU has internally published and reviewed 6 papers. Initially envisaged as a developmental vehicle for early career scholars, submissions are coming (and welcome!) from both senior academics and authorship teams comprising students and staff.

Submissions include original research on the emotional geographies and dynamics of doctoral supervision (Fox), e-learning resources on nutrition for supporting cancer survivors (Murphy et al), and destination management in the creative industries (Long). Review papers have also been submitted on the role of patient choice and older people (Harding et al), banking for the public good (Mullineux) and consumer attitudes toward organic food (Howlett et al).

The breadth of submissions and the extent of author engagement are clearly positive. However, I am pleased to report that I am able to offer a better measure of the success, engagement and coverage that eBU is having. As the headline to this blog states, eBU submissions have been viewed over 800 times. This is a monumental amount of engagement, and shows the value of eBU and the interest it has built up among the BU community.

If you have something to submit for immediate internal publication and open peer review or want to view existing papers, you can access eBU when on campus by typing ‘ebu’ into your web browser address bar. Logging into eBU can be achieved by using your regular BU username and password credentials. When off campus eBU can be accessed via ‘View’ (if you do not have View on your home PC or laptop, it can be downloaded here).

Finally, watch this space for the external side of eBU!

Change of venue for eBU drop in session

The venue has changed for the first drop in session for prospective authors and those interested in eBU: Online Journal.

I had advertised sessions on Talbot on Monday 7th and Tuesday 8th – both in PG30d. However, the Monday session will now take place in TAG01. I shall place a sign on the door of PG30d in order to redirect people!

The revised eBU drop in sessions are now as follows:

Monday 7th October 11am – 2pm TAG01

Tuesday 8th October 11am – 2pm PG30d

And on the Lansdowne:

Wednesday 9th 11am – 2pm EBC ground floor cafe

Co-producing and co-creating with eBU

As I’m sure you are all aware of, co-production and co-creation are key facets of Fusion. What better way of engaging in co-production and co-creation than through pursuing publications with students?

eBU is well placed to help academics co-produce and co-create outputs with students for peer review publications. eBU is encouraging academics to act as gatekeepers who, upon marking or seeing high quality student work, will approach students with the view to asking them if they wish to take this further and publish.

Putting your work ‘out there’ is daunting enough for anyone, let alone an early career scholar or student. Primarily as a publishing forum for internal peer review, eBU is a place where these types of outputs can be constructively critiqued in a safe internal environment. This provides students and/or early career scholars with some valuable experience of opening his/her work up to review internally, before doing so in the wider world.

eBU works on the basis of immediate publication (subject to an initial quality check) and open peer review. Once published on the internal site, we aim to upload reviews within 3 weeks. Authors are then encouraged to use the comments to aid publication in an external journal. Alternatively, authors also have the option of publishing on the external eBU site. Please note that only using eBU as a forum for internal peer review (with the intention to publish externally – which we encourage!) WILL NOT ENDANGER FURTHER PUBLICATION.

With the academic year only just underway it may not be the right time to identify high quality student output and enquire if they wish to make changes and reformat any output for publication. However, can I ask staff to make all students aware of eBU. It’s a win-win situation – engaging with eBU will boost your publication rate and give students something positive to put on their CV for their chosen career path.

To access eBU, when on campus simply type ‘ebu’ into your web browser address bar.