Category / data management

Conducting research in the NHS – what you need to know

Are you interested in conducting your research project in the NHS? Have you got plans to do so in the future? Or, are you simply interested in the prospect of doing this at some point during your academic or professional career?

If you are then there are additional requirements in order to make this a reality…however, don’t worry, because the R&KEO office can assist you in achieving these, helping to streamline the process.
Get in touch with researchethics@bournemouth.ac.uk with any queries you may have.

Please note that BU is required to act as the Sponsor for clinical studies conducted in the NHS, by its students or staff members. The Sponsor is defined as ‘the person or body who takes on ultimate responsibility for the initiation, management and financing (or arranging the financing) of a clinical research study.’
Get in touch with researchethics@bournemouth.ac.uk as soon as feasible if you think that your study will require BU to act as Sponsor

Postgraduate Researcher Specialist Training- Spaces Available

Postgraduate Researchers make sure you are GDPR compliant by this Friday 25 May 2018
*Managing Research Data – Legal Compliance and Record Management – Tuesday 22 May 2018 – 14:00-16:00  Book Now

Specialist Training
*Introduction to NVivo – Thursday 24 May 2018 – 09:00-16:00 Book Now

*Advanced NVivo – Friday 25 May 2018 – 09:00-16:00
email pgrskillsdevelopment@bournemouth.ac.uk to book

*Please note these sessions are for PGRs only, bookings will be closely monitored.

 

Dr Eliza Watt’s Contribution to the UN GGE 2015 Norms Proposal

Dr Eliza Watt Commended on Her Excellent Contribution to the Commentary on the UN Group of Government Experts 2015 cyber norms proposal coordinated by Leiden University’s Hague Programme for Cyber Norms

In response to rapidly emerging threats and risks relating to state behaviour in cyberspace the United Nations Group of Government Experts (UN GGE) issued in 2015 a list of recommendations of responsible state behaviour. Three years later, Leiden University’s Hague Program for Cyber Norms successfully concluded its commentary project on these recommendations, titled ‘Civil Society and Disarmament 2017: Voluntary, Non-Legally Binding Norms for Responsible State Behaviour in the Use of Information and Communication Technologies: A Commentary’ (the Commentary).

Dr Eliza Watt, a Bournemouth University law lecturer and researcher at the Centre for Conflict, Rule of Law and Society (CRoLS), was invited to take part in the consultation process and to contribute to the commentary on UN GGE 2015 Recommendation 13(e). The Recommendation calls upon states to guarantee full respect for human rights ensuring the secure use of ICTs. Dr Watt made a valid contribution to the Commentary, including the analysis of the scope of application of human rights treaties in cyberspace, in particular the extraterritorial obligations of states under these treaties and the extent of states’ obligations when conducting cyber surveillance activities. She has also provided a synthesis on the proposal by the Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (CoE) regarding its multilateral ‘non-spy’ treaty put forward in 2015. In addition, Dr Watt also recognized the need for a clear definition and distinction being made in law between cyber surveillance and cyber espionage. Her other contributions related to the issues of data protection, focusing on the CoE  2001 Additional Protocol  to the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with Regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data regarding supervisory authorities and transborder data flows. Her recommendation in this context related to the CoE Draft Modernized Convention on the Automatic Processing of Personal Data published in 2016 as representing perhaps the only prospect for a universal standard in the field of data privacy.

Dr Watt has been commended for her ‘excellent contribution to the Commentary’ by one of its co-authors, Dr Barrie Sander of Leiden University.

A ‘user friendly’ guide to personal information disclosure

As the controversy over the use of personal data by Cambridge Analytica and Facebook continues to rage, many firms around the world are bracing themselves for further revelations of data privacy infringement.

Conor O’Kane (FMC) was recently asked to provide his expert opinion on the issue of data transparency and privacy. His research examines how provisions in the new General Data Protection Regulation impacts on personal information disclosure.

In a recent US Senate hearing, Mark Zuckerberg, was criticised for the complexity of Facebook’s privacy approach, with Senators asking why the firm couldn’t provide more user friendly information on their disclosure policies. In line with this sentiment, the Daily Mirror asked Conor to write an article summarising the controversy for their readership.

The online version of the article can be found at:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/facebook-admits-grabbing-personal-data-12312131

BORDaR – a new dedicated research data repository.

Thursday 8 February saw the launch of BORDaR (Bournemouth Online Research Data Repository), Bournemouth University’s new research data repository, which provides a secure and open access home for data emanating from BU’s world leading research projects.

Our support for Research Data Management (RDM) begins here and is complemented by a RDM Library Guide which has been developed specifically for BU staff.  Use this guide to help you deposit your data Open Access as mandated by your research funder and to increase your research impact for REF 2021 – you can find guidance on developing a Data Management Plan, managing, documenting, depositing, sharing and securing your data.  You can also email bordar@bournemouth.ac.uk with your query.

Back in November a repository naming competition was held and from the Faculty of Science & Technology, Paul Cheetham’s suggestion of BORDaR was chosen as the winner by BU’s RDM Steering Group.  As his prize Paul received a much cherished copy of Armin Schmidt’s Earth resistance for archaeologists, from Pro-Vice-Chancellor Professor (Research and Innovation), John Fletcher.

Brexit Impact – Creative industries, tourism and digital single market

The House of Commons Digital, Culture , Media and Sport Committee has published a report on the potential impact of Brexit on the creative industries, tourism, and the digital single market – click here for the full report.

Here are excerpts from the Conclusions and Recommendations

The UK creative, tech and tourism industries need sufficient access to talent to continue as world leaders. That is self evidently in the nature of being a global centre of excellence in these areas. The then Secretary of State, Rt Hon Karen Bradley MP, said that Brexit is an opportunity to think about “how we can upskill our native workforce”, but this alone will not address the challenges that businesses face today particularly in an increasingly globalised and international sector. Brexit will place a greater urgency on developing the skills of the domestic workforce, but we cannot allow a skills gap to occur which could create shortages of essential workers for businesses in the UK as a result of our departure from the EU. (Paragraph 32)

The then Secretary of State’s assertion that analysis of the workforce must be completed on a sector–by–sector basis is a sensible approach. However, the lack of detail regarding precise numbers is problematic. There is a lack of clarity about reliance on EU workers. For instance, figures cited to us for the number of people working in tourism ranged from 3 million to 4.5 million. (Paragraph 33) It is imperative that any analysis examines regional demand for staff and the operational requirements of businesses and organisations, ranging from very small start-ups to international corporations.

Irrespective of Brexit, the Government should overhaul the existing visa system for non-EU nationals, who also make a valuable contribution to the UK economy, including our creative, technology and tourism industries. These industries rely on EU workers, and their commercial success is built on having a diverse workforce. The Government must heed warnings that SMEs across creative industries and tourism will not have the capacity to manage a new system that foists additional bureaucracy upon them. (Paragraph 52) We believe that salary levels are a crude proxy for value and fail to recognise the central role that workers from the EU and beyond play in making British businesses successful. We recommend that the Government explores ways in which commercial value, and value to specific sectors of the economy, can be factored into the UK’s post-Brexit immigration system. (Paragraph 53)

Simplicity should be a key feature of the future migration arrangements that the UK will agree with the EU. In particular, the creative industries and performing arts need a system which complements the spontaneity that defines live performance. (Paragraph 54)

The ability to utilise Creative Europe to secure additional sources of funding, combined with the freedom it gives to British organisations to lead projects with partners from across the EU (and outside the EU), means that there are clear incentives to maintain our participation. (Paragraph 67.) If the UK were to depart Creative Europe, this would represent a significant blow to the performing arts, museums, galleries, publishing and many other sectors in the creative industries. The limitations of participation experienced by other non-EU members illustrates that reaching agreement may not be straightforward but, equally, neither the UK nor EU member states will benefit from the UK’s departure. (Paragraph 68)

The Government should publish a map of all EU funding streams that support tourism and creative projects, whether dedicated to this specific purpose or not. This mapping exercise should:
– spell out where previous EU funding has, directly or indirectly, benefitted these sectors;
– indicate those streams that will need to be replaced;
– provide an overview of the total sum of funding that the UK government will provide to cover these costs; and
– clarify the role of the devolved administrations in the present arrangements and their proposed role in the future in the eyes of the UK Government.
In addition, the Treasury and DDCMS should illustrate how ‘value for money’ will be measured in any assessment of those EU funds that will be honoured by the Government’s guarantee. (Paragraph 79)

Some businesses, in the fashion and textiles sector, for instance, do see opportunities to improve trade links beyond the EU post-Brexit, and to develop strategies to support more UK-based production.(Paragraph 88)

The success of the UK’s digital economy is underpinned by ongoing data transfer across the globe and particularly within the EU. In order to preserve the UK’s policing and security arrangements, and to maintain commercial confidence, the Government must aim to deliver certainty from March 2019 onwards. (Paragraph 117) It is important to recognise that Brexit creates a potential risk that the UK’s ability to transfer data across borders will be limited.

The conclusions of the House of Lords Committee expose two key concerns.
Firstly, leaving the EU may not give the UK the flexibility to develop data protection law in the manner called for by witnesses such as Dell EMC.
Secondly, once we leave the EU, our influence over the development of the legal framework that will guide UK law will be reduced, undermining our ability to agree structures and exemptions for the UK, and diminishing our role as a world leader in data protection law. (Paragraph 119)

Brexit puts at risk the UK’s position as a world leader in developing and implementing the regulatory system for data protection. To address this concern, the Government should lay before Parliament an action plan which describes how, post-Brexit, the UK will be able to develop policy on data protection to support businesses and protect consumers, in order to keep pace with the demands of fast moving and developing technologies. (Paragraph 120)

It is very encouraging that the tourism and aviation sectors believe that existing aviation arrangements will be replicated once the UK has left the EU. Unfortunately, the then Secretary of State could provide very little detail as to the nature of the discussions, potential stumbling blocks and, crucially, the timing associated with reaching an agreement. The Government should recognise that it needs to provide certainty to an industry that is already marketing holidays for summer 2019, and for the consumers who will purchase them. (Paragraph 132) We believe reaching an early agreement in relation to aviation is a key priority for the Government. Nevertheless, the Government must provide an assurance that contingency plans are being made in the event of no deal being agreed and provide more information as to what any contingency arrangements would mean for businesses and travellers. (Paragraph 133) The development of a new system of entry to the UK for EEA visitors will be a key aspect of the UK’s relationship with the EU after Brexit. In its consideration of the implications of altering the principle of free movement, the Government must be aware of the detrimental impact this could have for the UK as a tourist destination. Businesses and organisations within the tourist industry are understandably concerned and we believe that the Government should be cautious about taking any steps which could harm the ‘welcome’ the UK provides to tourists. (Paragraph 138) Given the potential benefits to the British tourist industry, while the Government is grappling with the challenges posed by Brexit, it would be wise to design a new system also to encourage more tourism from non-EU markets. We recommend that the Government publishes an analysis of how the visa system could be developed to boost inbound tourism by visitors from beyond the EU. (Paragraph 139)

Preserving a strong, robust Intellectual Property framework is crucial for the continued success of the creative industries after Brexit. As such, the Government should clarify its position on whether EU Intellectual Property transposed into UK law (via secondary legislation or otherwise) will continue to apply after Brexit, and if not, what contingency plans the Government has in place to ensure that the current level of Intellectual Property protection remains following the UK’s departure from the EU. At the very least, the Government should commit to ensuring that the current level of Intellectual Property protections offered by EU and UK law, including those that are vital to the success of the Creative industries, will remain unchanged. (Paragraph 158.) Equally, the Government should clarify how it intends Intellectual Property enforcement to operate after the UK has left the EU. The Government should lay out its plan for cooperation with EU states after Brexit on Intellectual Enforcement Property matters, and outline what improvements, if any, it intends to make to the current enforcement framework. (Paragraph 159)

If Country of Origin rules cease to apply after Brexit then we must expect this will have an impact on the broadcasting industry within the UK. The Government must set out the steps it is taking to avoid that outcome, explaining its negotiating objectives and the timescale for such negotiation. The Government should provide an update to the Committee on progress made in securing a deal by the end of May 2018. (Paragraph 184.) The Government should also confirm as soon as possible that it intends for the United Kingdom to remain members of the European Single Market and under the terms of the current Country of Origin rules, for a transitional period after Brexit, until the end of 2020. (Paragraph 185)

The concerns of audio-visual sector, including broadcasters, producer and rights holders, over terms of the Draft Digital Single Market Directive which would affect territorial licensing are just one example as why it is crucially important that the UK needs to preserve its influence while Brexit proceeds. The Government should clearly spell out its strategy for doing so and how it proposes to embed its future participation in the widening of the digital single market in any Withdrawal Agreement. (Paragraph 191)

 

Help us choose a name for BU’s new Research Data Repository

We are now in the final stages of developing a repository solution for Bournemouth University research data.  Like its partner BURO (Bournemouth University Research Online), BU’s open access research output repository that shares your BRIAN deposits with the world, the new research data repository will provide a secure yet open access place to archive and showcase all of your research data once your research projects are complete.

Now we really need your help and creativity in suggesting a good name for this new Research Data Repository.

Some keywords to consider, but not exclusively, are Bournemouth University, research, data, repository and archive.  Remember, the name will be something that identifies our data repository and BU’s high quality research for many years to come, so think carefully.  Please note Data McDataface has already been discounted!

Please email your suggestions to rdm@bournemouth.ac.uk by Friday 24th November?

If your suggestion is judged to be the winning entry by the RDM Steering Group you will receive a mystery prize!

Find out more about Research Data Management (RDM) at BU via:

You can sign up to attend a RDM workshop here.

 

HE policy update for the w/e 1st September 2017

We continue our series of summer updates focussing on themes rather than news with a look at learning gain.  We have updates on the Industrial Strategy Bell review of Life Sciences, and an update on the TEF from UUK.

Learning Gain

Learning gain has become a potential hot topic for universities over the last year – could it be the magic bullet for problems with TEF metrics?  Why is it a policy issue and what are the implications of the policy context for universities and students?  Wonkhe recently published a helpful summary in July by Dr Camille B. Kandiko Howson, from Kings College.

Background – TEF – The Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) includes learning gain alongside student outcomes more generally as one of its three main criteria for assessing teaching excellence (the others are teaching quality and learning environment).  The relevant TEF criteria are:

Student Outcomes and Learning Gain  
Employment and Further Study (SO1) Students achieve their educational and professional goals, in particular progression to further study or highly skilled employment  
Employability and Transferrable Skills (SO2) Students acquire knowledge, skills and attributes that are valued by employers and that enhance their personal and/or professional lives
Positive Outcomes for All (SO3) Positive outcomes are achieved by its students from all backgrounds, in particular those from disadvantaged backgrounds or those who are at greater risk of not achieving positive outcomes

Further definition was given in the “Aspects of Quality” guidance (see the TEF guidance issued by HEFCE):

Student Outcomes and Learning Gain is focused on the achievement of positive outcomes. Positive outcomes are taken to include:

  • acquisition of attributes such as lifelong learning skills and others that allow a graduate to make a strong contribution to society, economy and the environment,
  • progression to further study, acquisition of knowledge, skills and attributes necessary to compete for a graduate level job that requires the high level of skills arising from higher education

The extent to which positive outcomes are achieved for all students, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds, is a key feature. The distance travelled by students (‘learning gain’) is included”.

And it goes on:

  • Work across the sector to develop new measures of learning gain is in progress. Until new measures become available and are robust and applicable for all types of providers and students, we anticipate providers will refer to their own approaches to identifying and assessing students’ learning gain – this aspect is not prescriptive about what those measures might be.”

The TEF guidance issued by HEFCE included examples of the sorts of evidence that universities might want to consider including (amongst a much longer list):

  • Learning gain and distance-travelled by all students including those entering higher education part-way through their professional lives
  • Evidence and impact of initiatives aimed at preparing students for further study and research
  • Use and effectiveness of initiatives used to help measure and record student progress, such as Grade Point Average (GPA)
  • Impact of initiatives aimed at closing gaps in development, attainment and progression for students from different backgrounds, in particular those from disadvantaged backgrounds or those who are at greater risk of not achieving positive outcomes.

TEF Assessment – If you have been following the debates about the TEF in Year 2 (results now published), you will be aware that the assessment of institutions against these criteria was done in two ways – by looking at metrics (with benchmarking and subdivision into various sub-sets), and by review of a written provider assessment.

  • The metrics that were used in TEF Year 2 for Student Outcomes and Learning Gain were from the Destination of Leavers from Higher Education survey (DLHE), specifically the DLHE declared activity 6 months after graduation – were they in employment of further study, and if in employment, was it “highly skilled” as defined by SOC groups 1-3 (managerial and professional).
  • So the metrics used in Year 2 of TEF do not cover learning gain at all. In fact they only really relate to SO1 above, are of limited use in terms of employability for SO2. DLHE doesn’t measure employability, only employment. Of course, DLHE is being replaced, after major consultations by HESA throughout 2016 and 2017 with the new Graduate Outcomes survey, which will take a longer-term view and look at a broader range of outcomes. (read more in our Policy Update of 30th June 2017).
  • So for the TEF year 2, any assessment of learning gain was done through the written submissions – and as noted above there are no measures for this, it was left to providers to “refer to their own approaches to identifying and assessing students’ learning gain”.

Universities UK have published their review of Year 2 of the TEF (see next section below) which includes a strong endorsement from UUK members for a comparative learning gain metric in future iterations of the TEF.

Measuring Learning Gain – As referred to above, there is a HEFCE project to look at ways of measuring learning gain.

They are running 13 pilot projects:

  • careers registration and employability initiatives – this  uses surveys and is linked most closely to SO2 – employability
  • critical-thinking ‘CLA+’ standardised assessment tool – also uses the UK Engagement Survey (UKES). CLA+ is a US assessment that is done on-line and asks students to assess data and evidence and decide on a course of action or propose a solution. As such, it measures general skills but is not subject specific.
  • self-efficacy across a range of disciplines
  • skills and self-assessment of confidence measures
  • a self-assessment skills audit and a situational judgement test
  • HE in FE
  • A multi-strand one: standardising entry and exit qualifications, new measures of critical skills and modelling change in learning outcomes
  • a project that will analyse the Affective-Behaviour-Cognition (ABC) model data for previous years
  • research skills in 6 disciplines
  • psychometric testing
  • learning gain from work-based learning and work placements
  • a project evaluating a range of methodologies including degree classifications, UKES, NSS, Student Wellbeing survey and CLA+
  • employability and subject specific learning across a range of methods – includes a project to understand the dimensions of learning gain and develop a way to measure them, one to look at R2 Strengths, one to look at career adaptability and one looking at international experience.

These are long term (3 year) projects – HEFCE published a year 1 report on 6th July 2017 – you can read more on our 14th July policy update – this flags a couple of challenges including how to get students to complete surveys and tests that are not relevant to their degree (a problem also encountered by the UKES). The report suggests embedding measurement “in the standard administrative procedures or formal curriculum” – which means a survey or test through enrolment and as part of our assessment programme.

To become a core TEF metric there would need to be a national standard measure that was implemented across the sector. That means that have to be mass testing (like SATs for university students) or another national survey alongside NSS and the new Graduate Outcomes survey (the replacement for DLHE) – with surveys on enrolment and at other points across the lifecycle.

Some BU staff are taking a different approach – instead of looking at generic measures for generic skills they have been looking at measuring specific learning gain against the defined learning outcomes for cohorts of students on a particular course. This is a much more customised approach but the team have set some basic parameters for the questions that they have asked which could be applied to other courses. The methodology was a survey. (Dr Martyn Polkinghorne, Dr Gelareh Roushan, Dr Julia Taylor) (see also a more detailed explanation, March 2017)

Pros, cons and alternatives

In January 2016, HEPI published a speech delivered in December 2015 by Andreas Schleicher, Director for Education and Skills, and Special Advisor on Education Policy to the Secretary-General at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in Paris. In the speech, the author argues strongly for institutions worldwide to measure and use learning gain data. He supports the use of specific measures for disciplines although points out the difficulties with this – not least in getting comparable data. So he also focuses on generic skills – but he doesn’t suggest a specific methodology.

An HEA presentation from December 2016 mentions a number of inputs that “predict both student performance and learning gains” – including contact hours, class size (and a host of other things including the extent and timing of feedback on assignments).

It is worth looking quickly at GPA (Grade Point Average) as this is also mentioned in the TEF specification as noted above. The HEA are looking at degree standards for HEFCE now, having done a pilot project on GPA in 2013-14.  The report notes that “potential capacity to increase granularity of awards, transparency in award calculations, international recognition and student engagement in their programmes”. The summary says, “The importance to stakeholders of a nationally-agreed, common scale is a key finding of the pilot and is considered crucial for the acceptance and success of GPA in the UK”, and that “The pilot providers considered that the development of widespread stakeholder understanding and commitment would require clear communication to be sustained over a number of years.”

Wonkhe have a round up on the background to the GPA debate from June 2016,

Although the big focus for the TEF was on outputs not inputs, the Department for Education has announced that it will start to look at including some of the inputs. See our HE policy update for 21st July where we look at the new teaching intensity measure that will be part of the subject level TEF pilots. You can read more about this in a THE article from 2nd August:

  • The pilot “will measure teaching intensity using a method that weights the number of hours taught by the student-staff ratio of each taught hour,” explains the pilot’s specification, published by the Department for Education“. Put simply, this model would value each of these at the same level: two hours spent in a group of 10 students with one member of staff, two hours spent in a group of 20 with two members of staff, one hour spent in a group of five students with one member of staff,” it explains. Once contact hours are weighted by class sizes, and aggregated up to subject level, those running the pilot will be able to calculate a “gross teaching quotient” score, which would be an “easily interpretable number” and used as a “supplementary metric” to inform subject-level assessments”.

The contact hours debate is very political – tied up with concerns about value for money and linked to the very topical debate on fees (speech on 20th July by Jo Johnson .and see our HE Policy Update for 21st July 2017)

This is all very interesting when, as mentioned above, the TEF specification for year two put so much emphasis on measuring outcome and not just inputs: “The emphasis in the provider submission should be on demonstrating the impact and effectiveness of teaching on the student experience and outcomes they achieve. The submission should therefore avoid focusing on descriptions of strategies or approach but instead should focus on impact. Wherever possible, impact should be demonstrated empirically. “

Experts and evidence – There will be a real push from the sector for evidence that the new teaching intensity measure and reporting of contact hours and other things really does make a difference to students before it is included in the TEF. The HEA’s position on this (2016) is a helpful summary of the debate about contact hours.

There is an interesting article in the HEPI collection of responses to the Green Paper in January 2016  from Graham Gibbs, former Professor at the University of Winchester and Director of the Oxford Learning Institute, University of Oxford, and author of Dimensions of quality and Implications of ‘Dimensions of quality’ in a market environment. He supports the use of learning gain metrics as a useful tool. He points out that “cohort size is a strong negative predictor of both student performance and learning gains”. He also adds “Russell Group Universities have comparatively larger cohorts and larger class sizes, and their small group teaching is less likely to be undertaken by academics, all of which save money but reduce learning gains”. He does not accept that contact hours, or institutional reputation (linked to high tariff entry and research reputation) impact learning gain.

There is an interesting article on the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) website here written by the authors of an article that looked at class size.

Impact so far – So what happened in the TEF – a very quick and incomplete look at TEF submissions suggests that not many institutions included much about learning gain (or GPA) and those that did seem to fall into two categories – those participating in the pilot who mention the pilot, and some who mention it in the context of the TEF core data – e.g. Birmingham mention their access project and learning gain (but don’t really evidence it except through employment and retention). Huddersfield talk about it in the context of placements and work experience but again linked to employment outcomes, although they also mention assessment improvement.

Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) – year 2 review

Universities UK have published their review of Year 2 of the TEF following a survey that UUK did of their members.

The key findings from the report are:

  • There appears to be general confidence that overall process was fair, notwithstanding the outcomes of individual appeals. Judgements were the result of an intensive and discursive process of deliberation by the assessment panel. There was a slight correlation between TEF results, entry tariff and league table rankings.
  • It is estimated that the cost of participating in the TEF for 134 higher education institutions was approximately £4 million. This was driven by the volume of staff engagement, particularly senior staff.
  • Further consideration will need to be given to how the TEF accounts for the diversity of the student body, particularly part-time students, and how the TEF defines and measures excellence. [UUK also raises a concern about judgements possibly being skewed by prior attainment]
  • If subject-level TEF is to provide students with reliable information it must address the impact of increased metric suppression [this relates to metrics which could not be used because of small numbers, particularly for part-time students and for the ethnicity splits], how judgments are made in the absence of data [particularly an issue for those institutions affected by the NSS boycott], the comparability of subject groupings and the increase in cost and complexity of submissions and assessment.

[To address the issue with suppression, the report noted that the splits for ethnicity will be reduced from 6 to 3 for subject level TEF (p35)]

These findings also suggest that if the TEF is to make an effective contribution to the ongoing success of the whole UK sector, the following issues would merit consideration as part of the independent review:

  • How the TEF defines and measures excellence in a diverse sector and supports development of teaching and learning practice.
  • The role that the TEF plays across the student decision-making process and the relationship with the wider student information landscape.
  • The process for the future development of the TEF and the role of the sector, including students and devolved nations.
  • The relationship between the TEF and quality assessment, including regulatory baselines and the Quality Code.

Figure 4 shows the data benchmarking flags received by providers at each award level – these two charts are interesting because they show that providers with negative flags still received gold (and silver).

The survey also asked about future developments for the TEF with learning gain being a clear leader – ahead of teaching intensity. HEFCE is running learning gain pilots, as discussed above, and teaching intensity will be the subject of a pilot alongside subject level TEF. Interestingly, on p 33 a chart shows that nearly 70% of respondents believed that “there is no proportionate approach for producing a robust subject level TEF judgement which will be useful for students”.

Industrial Strategy

Following our update on the Industrial Strategy last week there are a couple of updates. Innovate UK has announced funding for businesses to work on innovative technologies, future products and services. The categories link closely to the Industrial Strategy priorities including digital technologies, robotics, creative economy and design and space applications as well as emerging technologies and electronics.

There was also an announcement about funding for innovative medicines manufacturing solutions.

Sir John Bell has published his report for the government on Life Sciences and the Industrial Strategy. There are seven main recommendations under 4 themes, which are summarised below. You can read a longer summary on the BU Research Blog.

Some interesting comments:

  • The key UK attribute driving success in life sciences is the great strength in university-based research. Strong research-based universities underpin most of the public sector research success in the UK, as they do in the USA and in Scandinavia. National research systems based around institutes rather than universities, as seen in Germany, France and China, do not achieve the same productivity in life sciences as seen in university-focussed systems.” (p22)
  • “The decline in funding of indirect costs for charity research is coupled to an increasing tendency for Research Councils to construct approaches that avoid paying indirect Full Economic Costs (FEC). Together, these are having a significant impact on the viability of research in universities and have led to the institutions raising industrial overhead costs to fill the gap. This is unhelpful.” (p24)
  • “It is also recommended, that the funding agencies, in partnership with major charities, create a high-level recruitment fund that would pay the real cost of bringing successful scientists from abroad to work in major UK university institutions.” (see the proposal to attract international scientists below).
  • On clusters “Life sciences clusters are nearly always located around a university or other research institute and in the UK include elements of NHS infrastructure. However, evidence and experience suggests that governments cannot seed technology clusters and their success is usually driven by the underpinning assets of universities and companies, and also by the cultural features of networking and recycling of entrepreneurs and capital.” And “Regions should make the most of existing opportunities locally to grow clusters and build resilience by working in partnership across local Government, LEPs (in England), universities and research institutes, NHS, AHSNs, local businesses and support organisations, to identify and coalesce the local vision for life sciences. Science & Innovation Audits, Local Growth Funds and Growth Hubs (in England), Enterprise Zones and local rates and planning flexibilities can all be utilised to support a vision for life sciences. “ (see the proposal on clusters under “Growth and Infrastructure” – this was a big theme in the Industrial strategy and something we also covered in our Green Paper response)
  • On skills: “ The flow of multidisciplinary students at Masters and PhD level should be increased by providing incentives through the Higher Education Funding Council for England.2 and  “Universities and research funders should embed core competencies at degree and PhD level, for example data, statistical and analytical skills, commercial acumen and translational skills, and management and entrepreneurship training (which could be delivered in partnership with business schools). They should support exposure to, and collaboration with, strategically important disciplines including computer and data science, engineering, chemistry, physics, mathematics and material science.”

Health Advanced Research Programme (HARP) proposal – with the goal to create 2-3 entirely new industries over the next 10 years.

Reinforcing the UK science offer 

  • Sustain and increase funding for basic science to match our international competition – the goal is that the UK should attract 2000 new discovery scientists from around the globe
    • The UK should aim to be in the upper quartile of OECD R&D spending and sustain and increase the funding for basic science, to match our international competitors, particularly in university settings, encouraging discovery science to co-locate.
    • Capitalise on UKRI to increase interdisciplinary research, work more effectively with industry and support high-risk science.
    • Use Government and charitable funding to attract up to 100 world-class scientists to the UK, with support for their recruitment and their science over the next ten years.
  • Further improve UK clinical trial capabilities to support a 50% increase in the number of clinical trials over the next 5 years and a growing proportion of change of practice and trials with novel methodology over the next 5 years.

Growth and infrastructure – the goal is to create four UK companies valued at >£20 billion market cap in the next ten years.

NHS collaboration – the Accelerated Access Review should be adopted with national routes to market streamlined and clarified, including for digital products. There are two stated goals:

  • NHS should engage in fifty collaborative programmes in the next 5 years in late-stage clinical trials, real world data collection, or in the evaluation of diagnostics or devices.
  • The UK should be in the top quartile of comparator countries, both for the speed of adoption and the overall uptake of innovative, cost-effective products, to the benefit of all UK patients by the end of 2023.

Data – Establish two to five Digital Innovation Hubs providing data across regions of three to five million people.

  • Create a forum for researchers across academia, charities and industry to engage with all national health data programmes.
  • Establish a new regulatory, Health Technology Assessment and commercial framework to capture for the UK the value in algorithms generated using NHS data.
  • Two to five digital innovation hubs providing data across regions of three to five million people should be set up as part of a national approach and building towards full population coverage, to rapidly enable researchers to engage with a meaningful dataset. One or more of these should focus on medtech.
  • The UK could host 4-6 centres of excellence that provide support for specific medtech themes, focussing on research capability in a single medtech domain such as orthopaedics, cardiac, digital health or molecular diagnostics.
  • National registries of therapy-area-specific data across the whole of the NHS in England should be created and aligned with the relevant charity.

Skills

  • A migration system should be established that allows recruitment and retention of highly skilled workers from the EU and beyond, and does not impede intra-company transfers.
  • Develop and deliver a reinforced skills action plan across the NHS, commercial and third sectors based on a gap analysis of key skills for science.
    • Create an apprenticeship scheme that focuses on data sciences, as well as skills across the life sciences sector, and trains an entirely new cadre of technologists, healthcare workers and scientists at the cutting-edge of digital health.
    • Establish Institutes of Technology that would provide opportunity for technical training, particularly in digital and advanced manufacturing areas.
    • There should be support for entrepreneur training at all levels, incentivising varied careers and migration of academic scientists into industry and back to academia.
    • A fund should be established supporting convergent science activities including cross-disciplinary sabbaticals, joint appointments, funding for cross-sectoral partnerships and exchanges across industry and the NHS, including for management trainees.
    • High quality STEM education should be provided for all, and the government should evaluate and implement additional steps to increase the number of students studying maths to level 3 and beyond.

JANE FORSTER                                                             |                               SARAH CARTER

Policy Advisor                                                                                               Policy & Public Affairs Officer

65111                                                                                                              65070

Follow: @PolicyBU on Twitter                      |                               policy@bournemouth.ac.uk

 

Bristol Online Surveys (BOS) are transferring to Jisc

Bristol Online Surveys (BOS)

BOS is currently managed by the University of Bristol and provided as a service to the UK HE community.  On 1 August 2017, ownership will be transferred to Jisc.  Following transfer to Jisc it is expected that the ‘look and feel’ of BOS should remain the same.

BOS account access is set up by IT Services who are account administrators.  Researchers wishing to use a BOS survey should put a request through the IT Service Desk (SNOW).

It is important to note that on  1 August 2017, BOS will be unavailable for around 48 hours.  We do not know the exact time period at the moment.  More information is available on the BOS site:

https://www.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/transfer-to-jisc-faqs-and-information/

Transfer to Jisc: FAQs
Transfer to Jisc: FAQs for Primary Contacts

The challenges and rewards of teaching qualitative analysis with software

Qualitative research is gaining momentum in social sciences, education and health, with new developments appearing every year for gathering, analysing and disseminating data. This session will focus on the teaching and learning potential of specialised programmes for the process of systematising and analysing qualitative data.

The session will cover the basic features of computer assisted qualitative data analysis software (CAQDAS) and their possible role in students’ understanding of qualitative analysis. Specifically, it will be suggested that the process of data analysis and related techniques (content, thematic, framework and discourse analysis, to name a few) should beadvanced before students engagement with CAQDAS, but that CAQDAS have the potential to enhance students’understanding of qualitative data analysis in practice. The session will outline some practice-based recommendations for engaging students when running interactive qualitative data analysis sessions in general andworkshops for CAQDAS in particular.

Aims and objectives:

  • To introduce attendees to the basic and advance features of CAQDAS
  • To discuss the challenges and rewards of teaching qualitative analysis using CAQDAS
  • To stimulate discussion around qualitative methods teaching

Save the date: Monday 24 April, 12.00-13.30. Talbot Campus.

Bookings should be made through the Intranet, with Organisational Development.

The session will be facilidated by Dr Jacqueline Priego, who has been delivering CAQDAS workshops and training postgraduate students and researchers on qualitative analysis since 2010. She is also available for queries relating to MAXQDA and QDAMiner (not supported at BU).

Making the Most of Writing Week Part 7: BUCRU – not just for Writing Week!

We’re coming to the end of Writing Week in the Faculty of Health and Social Sciences and by now you will have made a good start or have put the finishing touches to your academic writing projects. Over the last week, we have given you some tips on writing grant applications and highlighted some of the expertise within BUCRU. If you didn’t get the chance to pop in and see us we thought it would be useful to remind you what we’re about and how we can help.

Bournemouth University Clinical Research Unit (BUCRU) supports researchers in improving the quality, quantity and efficiency of research across the University and local National Health Service (NHS) Trusts. We do this by:

  • Helping researchers develop high quality applications for external research funding (including small grants)
  • Ongoing involvement in funded research projects
  • A “pay-as-you-go” consultation service for other work.

How can we help?

BUCRU can provide help in the following areas:

  • Study design
  • Quantitative and qualitative research methods
  • Statistics, data management and data analysis
  • Patient and public involvement in research
  • Trial management
  • Ethics, governance and other regulatory issues
  • Linking University and NHS researchers

Our support is available to Bournemouth University staff and people working locally in the NHS, and depending on the support you require, is mostly free of charge. There are no general restrictions on topic area or professional background of the researcher.

If you would like support in developing your research please get in touch through bucru@bournemouth.ac.uk or by calling us on 01202 961939. Please see our website for further information, details of our current and previous projects and a link to our recent newsletter.

Making the Most of Writing Week Part 6: What to do with your data

You don’t have to spend Writing Week working on grant applications. You may already have a dataset and now you finally have some time to do something with it. But where to start? It’s often a good idea to go back to your original research questions/aims/objectives. As we said yesterday, a well thought out research question can help shape your analysis strategy.
Hopefully you will have a record of which variables you were measuring and how data were coded. Were any calculations performed using the raw data to create new variables? How were these done? This is all part of good data management. To find out more visit the information pages created by the Library and Learning Support Team.
Once you are reacquainted with your data, it’s often a good idea (in the case of quantitative data) to start plotting graphs to find out more. Always keep in mind the original aims of the study, it’s easy to wander down a path of distraction. If you are feeling confused by all of this or, have got yourself lost down a data track, the BUCRU team are at hand to help.
Peter Thomas is available on Tuesday and Wednesday while Sharon Docherty is available Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday this week. Why not drop us an email or pop by to see us in R505?

Research Data Management and you!

Research Data Management is a hot topic, especially when applying for grants. We all have our own strategies for managing our data as a product of research. Sometimes data management is in the form of a box or filing cabinet in a locked office, an external hard drive, purchased cloud storage or a hard drive. Whilst this approach is comfortable and familiar, it’s unlikely to comply with funder requirements neither currently nor in the future.

The Library has a created a guide that will help with navigating the diverse requirements of grant funding councils, writing data management plans and all its intricacies. The guide, ‘Research Data Management’ is available here .

We welcome your feedback about this resource, please contact rdm@bournemouth.ac.uk.

There is also a very informative youtube video Data Sharing and Management posted by NYU Health Sciences Library.