Category / BU research

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.

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.

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

The Big Red Button

Actually it was yellow and there were several!  And yes we submitted our REF submission this morning; something of an anti-climax to be honest after three years of preparation and a huge amount of work by a large number of people especially over the last few weeks.  In terms of statistics we have:

  • submitted in eight units, notably for the first time in Psychology as well as in Leisure and Tourism;
  • 33% of eligible academic staff have been returned, up by 10% on RAE-2008 with a growth of 15% in eligible staff over the same period;
  • just over 40% of eligible staff were considered for selection;
  • our biggest submission, just short of 30 FTE, and is Geography/Archaeology;
  • we have submitted 22 Impact Case Studies and prepared many more. 

These numbers and statistics do not reflect the huge amount of work done by our UoA Leaders and their advisors, or the academics who have contributed the outputs to be returned and we salute you all for your work.  But in truth this is not the work of a few but a collective endeavour – academic and non-academic colleagues – a tribute to us all.  Without the selfless work of academics covering teaching while others have focused on research, without others generating RKE income, or supervising PGR students our collective success would not have been possible.  As such it is something that we should all feel proud of since we have all contributed whether returned with outputs or not.  As such we should be proud, whatever the outcome next December, of what we have achieved together.  The blood, sweat and toil is still written large in a few peoples’ mind at the moment; but boy will it be worth it and thank you!

Epidural simulator wins Institution of Engineering and Technology Innovation Award

A medical device developed by Bournemouth University (BU) and Poole Hospital to make epidural injections safer and more effective has received a prestigious innovation award.
 
The epidural simulator uses software to predict where a patient’s epidural space will be, and helps doctors electronically measure the loss of pressure that occurs when they reach the space, to prevent errors.
 
The project won the Information Technology category at the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) Innovation Awards, which received more than 400 entries from over 30 countries.
Dr Venky Dubey, PhD student Neil Vaughan, and awards host and former Apprentice winner Tim Campbell.

L-R: Dr Venky Dubey, PhD student Neil Vaughan, and awards host and former Apprentice winner Tim Campbell.

“We knew that our project is unique as it blends engineering expertise and knowledge of clinicians directly dealing with the problems in their day to day care,” said Dr Venky Dubey, Associate Professor in Research at BU, who is leading the epidural simulator project alongside PhD student Neil Vaughan and Dr Michael Wee and Dr Richard Isaacs from Poole Hospital.
 
“We have done this several times in the past, competing with international institutions of repute like MIT and Harvard, but what is unbelievable this time is that we have won it against giant companies vying for this coveted award.
 
“Honestly, we are shocked to have won this award. It’s like winning a Technological Oscar for our hard work”.  
 
He added: “This clearly shows that there is a technology gap in patient care for epidurals and the associated safety issues. This award recognises our innovative approach that has the potential to reduce patient injury and improve training experience of anaesthetists.”
 
The IET Innovation Awards celebrate the best innovations in science, technology and engineering. The ceremony took place at The Brewery, in London last week.
 
The judging panel for the Information Technology category, in which the epidural simulator was named winner, said: “The standard for the IT Category is always high and this year was no exception. The 2013 winning entry provides an innovative training solution to teach the epidural procedure to medical practitioners.”

How to get published in journals

Working in academia, you need to be published but knowing how to write a great article and where to send it can be challenging. The tricks to getting strong journal publication will be covered in this 2 hour session as part of the BRAD framework on December 6th. You will receive advice on how to publish and how to escalate your academics writing levels.

This is an interactive session where you can bring examples of your journal writings for constructive feedback and help in getting it fabulous. You can book your place via the Staff Development webpage.

 

Latest major funding opportunities

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

Please note that some funders specify a time for submission as well as a date. Please confirm this with your RKE Support Officer.

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

‘How do I write a successful research grant?’

…is a question I hear all the time. It’s really tough to know how to do this if you haven’t ever received training in it so you are not alone if you too have asked this.  If you are curious as to how you can write a winning research proposal but haven’t been able to join the Grants Academy or EU Academic Development Scheme, then we have a session  aimed at you as part of the BRAD framework.

On the morning of Wednesday November 27th an external expert bid writer will give some fantastic tips in a condensed 3 hour session on how to write a research grant. You will learn some of the tricks involved in writing a proposal for any funding body and will get an invaluable insight into what reviewers look for.

Spaces for this session are limited, so you will need to book via the Staff Development webpage.

The BU Research Application Process – everything you need to know

As processes for submitting a research proposal change, it can be difficult to keep up with what the correct steps are. The expertise of your key R&KEO team contacts also can be overlooked – but we can make this process easier for you. From helping you through the ethics checklist to costing your proposal to helping you write your impact statement to ensuring your eligibility for particular schemes.

This session, held as part of the BRAD framework will cover all you need to know, have a Q&A session and also the opportunity for a 1-2-1 with one of the team to answer any questions you need answered. The session is taking place on the afternoon of 4 December and spaces for this session are limited, so you will need to book via the Staff Development webpage.

 

BU Professor at COST Action Training School (Malta)

Bournemouth University contributed to the successful Cost Action Training School 2013 earlier this month (see: www.um.edu.mt/events/costactiontraining2013/). The Training School ‘Writing for maternity services research, theory, policy and practice: Integrating new theoretical insights from the iR4B COST Action’ was held at the University of Malta.
The 24 trainees who were successful in their application came from a wide-range of European countries. At the Training School each trainee was linked to one of six experienced trainers, three from Ireland: Prof. Declan Devane, Dr. Valerie Smith, and Prof Cecily Begley, and three from the UK: Prof. Soo Downe, Dr. Lucy Firth, and BU Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen. These trainers brought to the Training School not only their extensive experience as writers, but also that of scientific editors, reviewers for academic journals, and PhD supervisors.

(photo by Mário Santos, Portugal).

The Training School included presentations on how to incorporate notions of salutogenesis and complexity into maternity care and midwifery publications, issues around writing academic English as a non-native English speaker, plagiarism, how to start writing an academic paper for a MSc or PhD thesis, and many more related topics.
In their feedback some trainees stressed that this is the kind of helpful information every postgraduate student and budding academic should know about. Others said “I wish I had known that before as no one ever addresses these issues.” The trainees discussed the outlines of their papers, and they were given ample time to draft papers under the watchful eye of their trainer. All trainees have committed to submit a paper derived from the Training School by early Spring 2014.
COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) is one of the longest-running European frameworks supporting cooperation among scientists and researchers across Europe. For further information on OST in general see: http://www.cost.eu/ ).

Bournemouth University was represented by Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen based at the Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health in the School of Health & Social Care.

Corrosion Experimental Techniques to Simulate Operating Conditions

Bournemouth University’s Sustainable Design Research Centre has recently added stat-of-the-art Temperate-Humidity Environmental Chamber (THEC) to its resources, which has the ability to configure the resistance capabilities of various materials and coatings against environmental influences of temperature combined with humidity.

THEC provides facility to conduct corrosion simulation to investigate the durability of coatings and metal alloys subject to extreme operating conditions, in addition the susceptibility of components to corrosion that will eventually lead to malfunction. These simulated corrosion experiments monitor effectiveness of various materials under varying environmental conditions at an early stage to avoid catastrophic failures. These results inform prediction techniques to deploy to assess failure mechanisms and useful life of various structures, components and systems.

THEC has a temperature range of -40°C (aerospace applications) to +180°C (process industries applications) and from 0 (dry) to 100 (wet) Relative Humidity (%age). The test chamber can accommodate test samples of 350(W) x 300(D) x 310(H) mm. The chamber has vast applications when it comes to analyse the durability of coatings and strength of materials not only for daily life domestic products but also in aerospace and automotive industries. The chamber can also be used to analyse the safe working conditions for various electronic components and in Renewable Technology applications.

Environmental simulation is analysed through a PC interface using specialist analytical tool which enables to further optimise the utilisation of environmental testing systems, e.g. deployed in various research & development programmes, production and quality assurance. The operation of both the chamber and analytical tool provides opportunities of time and cost savings for the industry. Evaluation and documentation of various test cycles helps to evaluate the performance of vast variety of industrial products and other applications.

SDRC capabilities in experimental and modelling techniques to predict useful life of components, structures & systems subject to corrosion has the potential to inform design for durability and reliability.

If you would like further or specific information in this subject please contact

 

Dr Zulfiqar Khan (Associate Professor)

Director SDRC

Email: zkhan@bournemouth.ac.uk

 

 

 

Masterclass: Systematic Reviews

One way of collating and assessing the best possible evidence is through a method called ‘systematic reviewing’. Systematic reviewing is a specific research method whereby a structured, rigorous, and objective approach is used to provide a critical synthesis of the available evidence on a particular topic. This masterclass will examine the rationale for systematic reviews and take participants through the various elements of a systematic review: selecting (electronic) databases; literature searching; data extraction; data synthesis; interpretation and reporting.

Date: 9-10 January 2014
Time: 9.30am – 4:30pm
Venue: Executive Business Centre, Bournemouth University, 9 Holdenhurst Road, Bournemouth,
BH8 8EB. View on map>>

The course will include:

  • Designing a review protocol
  • Formulating a question
  • Identifying and selecting relevant studies
  • Systematic data extraction and collection
  • Synthesis and analysis of the data
  • Writing up & reporting systematic reviews.

Masterclass facilitators
Prof. Vanora Hundley is a midwifery researcher who has conducted a number of reviews of interventions intended for use in low income countries. She is also a Faculty Fellow with the Cochrane Collaboration College for Policy at George Mason University, USA, which produces and disseminates reviews that are relevant to public policy.
Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen is a medical sociologist with extensive experience in conducting systematic reviews. He has run similar workshops on systematic reviews in Nepal, and has published on the importance of systematic reviews.  
The facilitators will be assisted by Dr. Marylin Cash is researcher in the School of Health & Social Care where she recently completed a review on the portrayal of childbirth in the media. 

 

Booking information
Cost: £200 (£150 for Bournemouth University students and staff)
Please book online by midday on 6 January 2014.

Find out more and book your place >>
Or contact wellbeing@bournemouth.ac.uk

“The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.”

Oscar Wilde had his views on popularity, but he didn’t live long enough to see BU’s staff profile pages.

Since going live with the new staff profile pages on 2nd October, we have had 17,598 visits to the site.  Given below are some interesting statistics on who is looking at us and what they’re looking at:

Country / Territory  – Visits

1. United Kingdom – 54.02% 

2. United States – 7.56%

3. India – 2.94%

4. Germany – 2.03%

5. Canada –  2.13%

6. China – 1.64%

7. Australia – 1.97%

8. Malaysia – 1.53%

9. Netherlands – 1.18%

10. Greece – 0.77%

Rest of the World – 24.2%

Top 10 Pages (Based on page views)

1. People  –  9.69%   

2. Home  –  8.89%

3. Search Results  – 6.46%

4. Keywords  – 1.05%

5. Dr Hossein Hassani –  0.76%

6. Professor Stuart Allan – 0.58%

7. Dr George Filis –  0.51%

8. Professor Timothy Darvill – 0.48%

9. Dr Roman Gerodimos  –  0.39%

10. Professor Jens Holscher  – 0.38%

It is also useful for us to know how visitors found our pages and on what devices they are viewing the pages:

Channels             Visits

1. Organic Search  79.94%  – this is through Google, Bing, etc.

2.  Direct                    9.84% – they have a link set up to the page

3.  Referral                9.30% – from another web site but mainly BU’s web site, Research Blog, etc.

4.  Social                     0.87% – Twitter, Facebook, etc.

5.  (Other)                 0.02%

6.  Email                     0.02%

Usage across devices is as follows:

  • 85.64 % Desktop
  • 8.4% Mobile
  • 5.95% Tablet

The above shows that we are networking on a global scale and that the majority of visitors are searching the site rather than just viewing one individuals page.  It also demonstrates that the time taken to create our new profile pages has been worthwhile and highlights the importance of keeping your BRIAN account up to date.

If you have any queries about BRIAN or the Staff Profile Pages then please direct these to BRIAN@bournemouth.ac.uk