Latest research and knowledge exchange news at Bournemouth University
Today colleagues will be available on both campuses to answer all your queries in regards to Open Research.
We’ll be in BG11 on Lansdowne between 9 and 12pm and FG04 on Talbot between 1 and 4pm.
Pop on down… there is cake! 🙂
A smorgasbord of content for you this week – rifle through to find the topics most of interest to you. We’ve got: pollinators, research integrity, mental health, nursing news, plastic waste, several new funded competitions from the Government, praise for the arts and creative sectors, smart energy systems, immersive technologies, the Industrial Strategy’s Grand Challenges, tackling social challenges, Guidance from Innovate UK and on Horizon 2020, an important survey on international students, new Royal Society Fellows, an article on the AI brain drain, and the forthcoming Environmental Principles and Governance Bill. Enjoy!
Pollinators
On Tuesday Ben Bradley (Conservative, Mansfield) made his case for a Private Members’ Bill to make provision about the protection of pollinators. Permission to progress the Bill was granted and our regional MP Oliver Letwin will take part in presenting the bill.
Research Integrity
Sam Gyimah was interviewed for the Commons Science and Technology Select Committee investigation into research integrity. The committee heard that universities should be held responsible for the full compliance of upholding standards of research integrity but the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation declined to assert that funding should be dependent on this. Other topics covered included concordant sign up, self-assessment and disclosure in clinical trials. Read the full summary of the session provided by Dods Consultants here.
Mental Health
The Commons Education, Health and Social Care Committees have published their response to the inquiry on young people’s mental health: The Government’s Green Paper on mental health: failing a generation. An oral parliamentary question was also asked on the topic on Tuesday:
Q – Helen Whately: I welcome the Green Paper on mental health in schools, which was published earlier this year, but it does prompt a question about the mental health of students in further and higher education. Does my right hon. Friend have any plans to look into that issue? If he does not, may I urge him to do so?
A – Jackie Doyle-Price: I thank my hon. Friend for her question and her continued industry on these matters. As she mentioned, the Green Paper outlined plans to set up a new national strategic partnership focused on improving the mental health of 16 to 25-year-olds. That partnership is likely to support and build on sector-led initiatives in higher education, such as Universities UK’s #stepchange project, whose launch I attended in September. The strategy calls on higher education leaders to adopt mental health as a strategic priority, to take a whole-university approach to mental health and to embed it across policies, courses and practices.
Nursing Places
Nursing has been in the news again this week. A series of oral parliamentary questions reveal the Government’s unwavering approach towards nurse training and on Wednesday there was a debate on the Government’s plans to remove funding from post-graduate converters into nursing (announced in February). The removal affects the two-year course for those who hold degrees in other subjects. It is controversial as this is the fastest way to train a registered nurse and there is currently a shortage of 40,000 nurses in England. The change brings the post-graduate courses in line with the undergraduate nurse training which has already lost the NUS bursary and now falls under the student loan system.
The Commons debate was secured as a result of opposition pressure, following a report by the Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which referenced evidence submitted by the Royal College of Nursing (RCN). The RCN arranged for a number of student nurses, who currently receive post-graduate funding, to visit parliament during April to meet MPs and peers and explain what financial support has meant for them.
Michael Lawton, who received the NHS post-graduate bursary and is currently working as a registered nurse, said: “Without the bursary I couldn’t have applied and I wouldn’t be in a career I love, giving patients the great care they deserve. I know I make a difference every day.
MPs I’ve spoken to are shocked at how many hours we do in clinical placement. By removing the bursary, the Government is asking people to pay to work on placements to keep the NHS afloat and that isn’t right.
Current post-graduate nursing student Georgie Ellmore-Jones said:
“After my undergraduate degree I was already in a lot of debt. When I looked at pursuing a career in nursing and saw it was funded, it made it more certain in my mind that I wanted to do it. At post-graduate level many of the students have families and children to look after so adding more debt will only discourage potential students.”
On Tuesday there were a series of oral questions on nursing to the Minister for Health (Stephen Barclay), his answers reveal the Government’s thinking towards nurse training.
Q – Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) & (Lab) Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op) & Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op): What assessment he has made of the effect of the withdrawal of NHS bursaries on applications for nursing degrees.
A – The Minister for Health (Stephen Barclay): Nursing remains a strong career choice, with more than 22,500 students placed during the 2017 UCAS application cycle. Demand for nursing places continues to outstrip the available training places.
Q – Gill Furniss: Figures from the Royal College of Nursing show that applications have fallen by 33% since the withdrawal of bursaries. At the same time, the Government’s Brexit shambles has led to a drastic decline in EU nursing applications. How many years of such decline do we have to see before the Secretary of State and the Minister will intervene?
A – Stephen Barclay: What matters is not the number of rejected applicants, but the increase in places—the number of people actually training to be a nurse. The reality is that 5,000 more nurses will be training each year up to 2020 as a result of the changes.
Q – Stella Creasy: The NHS already has 34,000 nursing vacancies. Given that there has been a 97% drop in nursing applications from the EU and that studies show that nearly half of all hospital shifts include agency nurses, will the Minister at least admit that cutting the bursary scheme has been a false economy for our NHS?
A – Stephen Barclay: It is not a false economy to increase the supply of nurses, which is what the changes have done. Indeed, they form part of a wider package of measures, including “Agenda for Change”, pay rises and the return to practice scheme, which has seen 4,355 starters returning to the profession. More and more nurses are being trained, which is why we now have over 13,000 more nurses than in 2010.
Q – Grahame Morris: I respectfully remind the Minister that this is about recruitment and retention. The RCN says that we can train a postgraduate nurse within 18 months, which is a significant untapped resource, so why are the Government planning to withdraw support from postgraduate nurses training, too?
A – Stephen Barclay: We have a debate involving postgraduate nursing tomorrow, but the intention is to increase the number of such nurses by removing the current cap, which means that many who want to apply for postgraduate courses cannot find the clinical places to do so. That is the nature of tomorrow’s debate, and I look forward to seeing the hon. Gentleman in the Chamber.
Q – Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con): Will my hon. Friend, on top of the degree nursing apprenticeships, rapidly increase the nursing apprenticeship programme so nurses can earn while they learn, have no debt and get a skill that they and our country need?
A – Stephen Barclay: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to signpost this as one of a suite of ways to increase the number of nurses in the profession. As he alludes to, there will be 5,000 nursing apprenticeships this year, and we are expanding the programme, with 7,500 starting next year.
Q – Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD): With every reputable independent body showing very clearly that we have a staffing crisis in the NHS nursing profession, can the Minister explain how cutting bursaries actually improves the situation?
A – Stephen Barclay: I am very happy to do so. We are removing the cap on the number of places covered by the bursaries and increasing the number of student places by 25%, which means that there will be 5,000 more nurses in training as a result of these changes.
Q – Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP): The Secretary of State’s removal of the nursing bursary and introduction of tuition fees have resulted in a 33% drop in applications in England. In Scotland, we have kept the bursary, a carer’s allowance and free tuition, which means that student nurses are up to £18,000 a year better off, and indeed they also earn more once they graduate. Does the Minister recognise that that is why applications in Scotland have remained stable while in England they have dropped by a third?
A- Stephen Barclay: The hon. Lady speaks with great authority on health matters, but, again, she misses the distinction between the number of applicants and the number of nurses in training. It is about how many places are available, and we are increasing by 25% the number of nurses in training. That is what will address the supply and address some of the vacancies in the profession.
Q – Dr Whitford: Workforce is a challenge for all four national health services across the UK, but, according to NHS Improvement, there are 36,000 nursing vacancies in England, more than twice the rate in Scotland. The Minister claims that more nurse students are training, but in fact there were 700 fewer in training in England last year, compared with an 8% increase in Scotland. The key difference is that in Scotland we are supporting the finances of student nurses, so will the Government accept that removing the nursing bursary was a mistake and reintroduce it?
A – Stephen Barclay: The distinction the hon. Lady fails to make is that in England we are increasing the number of nurses in training by 25%; we are ensuring that nurses who have left the profession can return through the return-to-work programme; and we are introducing significant additional pay through “Agenda for Change”. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) said, we are also creating new routes so that those who come into the NHS through other routes, such as by joining as a healthcare assistant, are not trapped in those roles but are able to progress, because the Conservative party backs people who want to progress in their careers. Healthcare assistants who want to progress into nursing should have that opportunity.
Q – Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab): When defending the decision to scrap bursaries, the Secretary of State said that, if done right, it could provide up to 20,000 extra nursing posts by 2020. Well, that figure now looks wildly optimistic, with applications down two years in a row. Is it not time that Ministers admitted they have got this one wrong and joined the Opposition in the Lobby tomorrow to vote against any further extensions to this failed policy?
A – Stephen Barclay: If Members vote against the policy tomorrow, the reality is that they will be voting for a cap on the number of postgraduate nurses going into the system, and therefore they will be saying that more people should be rejected—more people should lose the opportunity to become nurses—because they want to have a cap that restricts the supply of teaching places.
Plastics
The Government have announced a new research and innovation hub to tackle plastic waste in the oceans.
Arts Projects Support for the North
The PM spoke on Tuesday to praise Britain’s arts sector:
But of course, the value of culture and creativity lies not only in its economic strength. Just as important is the less tangible contribution that it makes to our national life. The work you do brings joy to millions. It fosters unity, gives us a common currency. It helps to define and build our sense of national character.
“Without culture […] society is but a jungle”. Your work is a vital part of our national life and our national economy, and I am absolutely committed to supporting it.
Our ambitious sector deal for the creative industries, announced just before Easter, will see a further £150 million invested by government and industry, spreading success and making the sector fit to face the future.
She also announced a £3 million fund of new money to support creative projects within the Northern Powerhouse region on Tuesday. Offering a mix of grants and loans, the social investment fund will be open to non-profit, community-based organisations that deliver a positive social impact.
Full speech here.
Smart Energy Systems
The Government announced £41.5 million funds for design and trial of of new business models that intelligently link supply, storage and demand in heating, power and transport. Thee Innovate UK competition has two elements: up to £40 million is available for 3 smart energy system demonstrators, while up to £1.5 million is available for studies into new, smarter approaches to local energy.
Audiences of the Future – Commercial opportunities in the creative industries
The Government has announced a funding competition – Audience of the future: demonstrators opening Monday 21 May. £16 million will be invested in 4 large scale creative industries demonstrator projects (£5-£10 million each) through the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund. It aims to explore future global, mass market, commercial opportunities in the creative industries. Primarily this will be through pre-commercial collaboration at scale. Projects should significantly improve the current state of art in their field. The projects must explore new ways of communication with mass audiences (100,000+) using new immersive technologies and experiences that are a significant advancement on the state of art in the chosen area. The high level of innovation and scale should be capable of transforming the sector and replicable across the creative industries. The project should generate audience and consumer information that could be used to test the viability of new business models. The Government suggests that areas with strong potential could include moving images, access to live sporting events, visitor experiences in museums and galleries, and music and theatre performance. See here for more information.
A further £1 million is available for early-stage projects (£20-60k) that seek to understand customer needs for immersive experiences and the tools needed to deliver them. Early-stage projects should use human-centered design and look at audience behaviour to develop ideas for new products and services. Particular areas could include:
See here for more information on the early-stage projects.
Resolving Social Challenges
On Thursday Oliver Dowden (Minister for Implementation) announced a series of competitions for tech firms to develop solutions tackling current social challenges. While the initiatives focus on the business sector some of the topics are interesting. Each contributes to the Government’s Grand Challenges – the data economy; clean growth; reducing plastic waster, tackling loneliness and healthy ageing and the future of mobility – the competition is designed to incentivise Britain’s tech firms to come up with innovative solutions to improve public services.
The forthcoming challenges:
The first of these competitions opens on Monday 14 May and runs for six weeks, with the remaining competitions being launched in subsequent months. Tech firms bidding to the fund will have free rein to create truly innovative fixes. Winning companies will be awarded up to £50,000 to develop their ideas.
Guidance
Innovate UK have released general guidance for grant applicants, including applying for a business innovation grant, funding rules and participation levels.
The Government have released guidance on Horizon 2020: what it is and how to apply for funding.
International Students
The Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) has been tasked by the Government to assess the impact of international students. Previously they asked for evidence of impact from the HE sector with much response from HE institutions but little response from international students themselves. To redress this evidence gap the MAC have issued a survey directly to students. Universities have been asked to disseminate this survey and encourage their students to complete it. Here is the link.
Environmental Principles and Governance Bill
Michael Gove has announced the introduction of the Environmental Principles and Governance Bill, which will “ensure environmental protections will not be weakened as we leave the EU.” It will introduce a new body to hold the Government to account for environmental outcomes. Subject to consultation, the new body could specifically be responsible for:
Best wishes,
Sarah
The call for the next round of BA/Leverhulme Small Research Grants is open. The call closes at 5pm on Wednesday 6th June 2018. Due to the expected high demand, we ask that if you are interested in applying to this call then please send your intention to bid form to your Funding Development Officer by 2nd May, after this date no new applications will be accepted.
The British Academy have provided updated guidance on the small grants – BA scheme notes for applicants and BA FAQs . They have asked that all applicants read the documentation carefully before starting their application.
Timeline
The call closes at 5pm on Wednesday 6th June 2018.
| 11th April 2018 | Call Opens – start reading guidance |
| 2nd May 2018 | Intention to bid forms to be submitted to your faculty funding development officer. |
| 31st May 2018 | Nominated referee supporting statement to be completed via FlexiGrant |
| 30th May 2018 | Your final application must be submitted on FlexiGrant by this date at the latest. |
| 31st May -6th June 2018 | Institutional checks to take place by RKEO |
The call for the next round of BA/Leverhulme Small Research Grants is open. The call closes at 5pm on Wednesday 6th June 2018.
The British Academy have provided updated guidance on the small grants – BA scheme notes for applicants and BA FAQs . They have asked that all applicants read the documentation carefully before starting their application.
Due to the expected high demand, we ask that if you are interested in applying to this call then please send your intention to bid form to your Funding Development Officer by 2nd May, after this date no new applications will be accepted.
Timeline
The call closes at 5pm on Wednesday 6th June 2018.
| 11th April 2018 | Call Opens – start reading guidance |
| 2nd May 2018 | Intention to bid forms to be submitted to your faculty funding development officer. |
| 31st May 2018 | Nominated referee supporting statement to be completed via FlexiGrant |
| 30th May 2018 | Your final application must be submitted on FlexiGrant by this date at the latest. |
| 31st May -6th June 2018 | Institutional checks to take place by RKEO |
Deadline: 27th April 2018The British Council would like to invite expressions of interest from established and early career researchers to expand our pool of reviewers for the Newton Fund and potentially other British Council programmes. The Newton Fund builds research and innovation partnerships with 18 partner countries to support their economic development and social welfare, and to develop their research and innovation capacity for long-term sustainable growth.
We are looking for early career researchers who would like to broaden their experience of peer review as a career development opportunity, and for established researchers who are willing to share and use their experience to support the review process. Please note that we can only consider researchers based at UK institutions.
We are seeking reviewers for applications to the following five panels:
In particular, we would like to hear from researchers with expertise in fields with potential development impact, but this should be interpreted broadly as much of the research we fund approaches development challenges in a highly specialised way or using innovative methods.
We will use the information provided in the form to process and consider your expression of interest. As a result, your name may be added to our pool of potential peer reviewers, and we may approach you in the future to assist us in assessing proposals under British Council research programmes.
Click here to apply.
The call for the next round of BA/Leverhulme Small Research Grants is open. The call closes at 5pm on Wednesday 6th June 2018.
The British Academy have provided updated guidance on the small grants – BA scheme notes for applicants and BA FAQs . They have asked that all applicants read the documentation carefully before starting their application.
Due to the expected high demand, we ask that if you are interested in applying to this call then please send your intention to bid form to your Funding Development Officer by 2nd May, after this date no new applications will be accepted.
Timeline
The call closes at 5pm on Wednesday 6th June 2018.
| 11th April 2018 | Call Opens – start reading guidance |
| 2nd May 2018 | Intention to bid forms to be submitted to your faculty funding development officer. |
| 31st May 2018 | Nominated referee supporting statement to be completed via FlexiGrant |
| 30th May 2018 | Your final application must be submitted on FlexiGrant by this date at the latest. |
| 31st May -6th June 2018 | Institutional checks to take place by RKEO |
Changes have been made to the NERC Research Grants & Fellowships Handbook in February 2018.
The important changes include:
For a clean copy of the NERC Grants Handbook 2018, please click here.
For a summary document outlining the above changes and an annotated NERC Grants Handbook, please contact Alice Brown, details can be found on the Funding Development Team page.
It’s been over 18 month since Bournemouth University launched its new Research & Knowledge Exchange Development Framework, which was designed to offer academics at all stages of their career opportunities to develop their skills, knowledge and capabilities.
Since its launch, over 150 sessions have taken place, including sandpits designed to develop solutions to key research challenges, workshops with funders such as the British Academy and the Medical Research Council and skills sessions to help researchers engage with the media and policy makers.
The Research & Knowledge Exchange Office is currently planning activities and sessions for next year’s training programme and would like your feedback about what’s worked well, areas for improvement and suggestions for new training sessions.
Tell us what you think via our survey and be in with a chance of winning a £30 Amazon voucher. The deadline date is Wednesday 28th March.
Open access is about making the products of research freely accessible to all. It allows research to be disseminated quickly and widely, the research process to operate more efficiently, and increased use and understanding of research by business, government, charities and the wider public.
There are two complementary mechanisms for achieving open access to research.
The first mechanism is for authors to publish in open-access journals that do not receive income through reader subscriptions.
The second is for authors to deposit their refereed journal article in an open electronic archive.
These two mechanisms are often called the ‘gold’ and ‘green’ routes to open access:
Article first published – http://www.hefce.ac.uk/rsrch/oa/whatis/
To encourage all academic communities to consider open access publishing, Authors Alliance has produced a comprehensive ‘Understanding Open Access‘ guide which addresses common open access related questions and concerns and provides real-life strategies and tools that authors can use to work with publishers, institutions, and funders to make their works more widely accessible to all.
To access and download the guide, please follow this link – http://authorsalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/Documents/Guides/Authors%20Alliance%20-%20Understanding%20Open%20Access.pdf
For any other open access related queries, please do get in touch with Shelly Anne Stringer in RKEO.
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.
Lizzie Gadd warns against jumping on ‘bad metrics’ bandwagons without really engaging with the more complex responsible metrics agenda beneath.An undoubted legacy of the Metric Tide report has been an increased focus on the responsible use of metrics and along with this a notion of ‘bad metrics’. Indeed, the report itself even recommended awarding an annual ‘Bad Metrics Prize’. This has never been awarded as far as I’m aware, but nominations are still open on their web pages. There has been a lot of focus on responsible metrics recently. The Forum for Responsible Metrics have done a survey of UK institutions and is reporting the findings on 8 February in London. DORA has upped its game and appointed a champion to promote their work and they seem to be regularly retweeting messages that remind us all of their take on what it means to do metrics responsibly. There are also frequent twitter conversations about the impact of metrics in the up-coming REF. In all of this I see an increasing amount of ‘bad metrics’ bandwagon-hopping. The anti-Journal Impact Factor (JIF) wagon is now full and its big sister, the “metrics are ruining science” wagon, is taking on supporters at a heady pace.
It looks to me like we have moved from a state of ignorance about metrics, to a little knowledge. Which, I hear, is a dangerous thing.
It’s not a bad thing, this increased awareness of responsible metrics; all these conversations. I’m responsible metrics’ biggest supporter and a regular slide in my slide-deck shouts ‘metrics can kill people!’. So why am I writing a blog post that claims that there is no such thing as a bad metric? Surely these things can kill people? Well, yes, but guns can also kill people, they just can’t do so unless they’re in the hands of a human. Similarly, metrics aren’t bad in and of themselves, it’s what we do with them that can make them dangerous.
In Yves Gingras’ book, “Bibliometrics and Research Evaluation” he defines the characteristics of a good indicator as follows:
So, you might have an indicator such as ‘shoe size’, where folks with feet of a certain length get assigned a certain shoe size indicator. No problem there – it’s adequate (length of foot consistently maps on to shoe size); it’s sensitive to the thing it measures (foot grows, shoe size increases accordingly), and it’s homogenous (one characteristic – length, leads to one indicator – shoe size). However, in research evaluation we struggle on all of these counts. Because the thing we really want to measure, this elusive, multi-faceted “research quality” thing, doesn’t have any adequate, sensitive and homogeneous indicators. We need to measure the immeasurable. So we end up making false assumptions about the meanings of our indicators, and then make bad decisions based on those false assumptions. In all of this, it is not the metric that’s at fault, it’s us.
In my view, the JIF is the biggest scapegoat of the Responsible Metrics agenda. The JIF is just the average number of cites per paper for a journal over two years. That’s it. A simple calculation. And as an indicator of the communication effectiveness of a journal for collection development purposes (the reason it was introduced) it served us well. It’s just been misused as an indicator of the quality of individual academics and individual papers. It wasn’t designed for that. This is misuse of a metric, not a bad metric. (Although recent work has suggested that it’s not that bad an indicator for the latter anyway, but that’s not my purpose here). If the JIF is a bad metric, so is Elsevier’s CiteScore which is based on EXACTLY the same principle but uses a three-year time window not two, a slightly different set of document types and journals, and makes itself freely available.
If we’re not careful, I fear that in a hugely ironic turn, DORA and the Leiden Manifesto might themselves become bad (misused) metrics: an unreliable indicator of a commitment to the responsible use of metrics that may or may not be there in practice.
I understand why DORA trumpets the misuse of JIFs; it is rife and there are less imperfect tools for the job. But there are also other metrics that DORA doesn’t get in a flap about – like the individual h-index – which are subject to the same amount of misuse, but are actually more damaging. The individual h-index disadvantages certain demographics more than others (women, early-career researchers, anyone with non-standard career lengths); at least the JIF mis-serves everyone equally. And whilst we’re at it peer review can be an equally inadequate research evaluation tool (which, ironically, metrics have proven). So if we’re to be really fair we should be campaigning for responsible peer review with as much vigour as our calls for responsible metrics.
It looks to me like we have moved from a state of ignorance about metrics, to a little knowledge. Which, I hear, is a dangerous thing. A little knowledge can lead to a bumper sticker culture ( “I HEART DORA” anyone? “Ban the JIF”?) which could move us away from, rather than towards, the responsible use of metrics. These concepts are easy to grasp hold of, but they mask a far more complex and challenging set of research evaluation problems that lie beneath. The responsible use of metrics is about more than the avoidance of certain indicators, or signing DORA, or even developing your own bespoke Responsible Metrics policy (as I’ve said before this is certainly easier said than done).
The responsible use of metrics requires responsible scientometricians. People who understand that there is really no such thing as a bad metric, but it is very possible to misuse them. People with a deeper level of understanding about what we are trying to measure, what the systemic effects of this might be, what indicators are available, what their limitations are, where they are appropriate, how they can best triangulate them with peer review. We have good guidance on this in the form of the Leiden Manifesto, the Metric Tide and DORA. However, these are the starting points of often painful responsible metric journeys, not easy-ride bandwagons to be jumped on. If we’re not careful, I fear that in a hugely ironic turn, DORA and the Leiden Manifesto might themselves become bad (misused) metrics: an unreliable indicator of a commitment to the responsible use of metrics that may or may not be there in practice.
Let’s get off the ‘metric-shaming’ bandwagons, deepen our understanding and press on with the hard work of responsible research evaluation.
Elizabeth Gadd is the Research Policy Manager (Publications) at Loughborough University. She has a background in Libraries and Scholarly Communication research. She is the co-founder of the Lis-Bibliometrics Forum and is the ARMA Metrics Special Interest Group Champion
Original content posted on The Bibliomagician reposted here with permission. Content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are cordially invited to this lunchtime seminar which is open to all BU staff.
Please feel free to bring your lunch.
Wednesday 24th January 2018
1 – 2 pm
B407, Bournemouth House, Lansdown Campus
The NIHR is the UK’s major funder of applied health research. The NIHR develops and supports the people who conduct and contribute to health research and equally supports the training of the next generation of health researchers. The NIHR CRN Study Support Service helps researchers set up and deliver high quality research to time and target in the NHS in England.
We are fortunate to have two Research Delivery Managers from the NIHR CRN Wessex, David Higenbottam and Alex Jones coming to BU who will be presenting a seminar about the network, funding opportunities and forthcoming strategic plan for 2018, followed by Q & A session.
Please email Michelle O’Brien (mobrien@bournemouth.ac.uk) if you are planning to attend. See you there!
Biographies
David Higenbottam
Has worked in research since 2012.
2012 – 2014 South Coast DeNDRoN Network Manager.
2014 – to date Research Delivery Manager for Divisions 2 and 4 (Division 4 includes dementia as one of its specialities).
Alex Jones
Worked for Hampshire & Isle of Wight CLRN from July 2013 – April 2014.
Division 5 Assistant Portfolio Manager then Portfolio Manager April 2014 – December 2017 (Division 5 includes ageing as one of its specialities).
Currently Acting Research Delivery Manager for Division 5.
Wessex CRN
The Wessex CRN was formed in April 2014, its geographic footprint is Hampshire & Isle of Wight, Dorset and South Wiltshire. It comprises 12 partner NHS organisations and 10 clinical commissioning groups. Research specialities are spread across 6 Divisions.
The BBSRCs Global Food Security (GFS) programme invites expressions of interest from post-doctoral researchers to take part in a Policy Lab on the determinants of food choice (e.g. biological, social, environmental, physical and economic) and the combination of interventions across these that will lead to healthier and more sustainable diets. Policy Labs bring together early career researchers from different disciplines to scope a policy-relevant issue, with teams forming at the workshop and then competing to write a synthesis report. The winning team at the workshop will receive a £5,000 Policy Lab award to write a policy-facing report.
See the website for details of the eligibility criteria and how to apply
Closing date for applications: 19 February 2018
NERC invites ideas for scientific advances that will, over time, contribute to addressing some of these major challenges of the 21st century: benefiting from natural resources, resilience to environmental hazards, and managing environmental change. The ideas will be used to inform the development of new strategic research investments through either highlight topics (HTs) or strategic programme areas (SPAs).
Ideas can be sent to NERC at any time and can come from any individual or group, and any part of the environmental science community (including researchers and those who use environmental science research). Ideas must be submitted using the template provided for either highlight topics or strategic programme areas; this should be up to two sides of A4 written in language that is clear to a broad section of the NERC community.
Once an idea is sent to NERC, the proposer relinquishes ownership of that idea and transfers it to NERC. NERC may choose to publish or share material received.
Please refer to the guidance below, which explains what they are looking for in more detail.
Guidance for developing and submitting ideas for strategic research (PDF, 231KB)
For further information, they have also compiled some frequently asked questions (FAQ), which cover the different aspects of the ideas process and role of SPAG.
FAQ for developing and submitting ideas for strategic research (PDF, 111KB)
You can download the appropriate template for submitting your ideas below.
Highlight topic idea template (Word, 48KB)
Strategic programme area idea template (Word, 49KB)
A summary of the ideas received by the 2016 and 2017 cut-offs is provided below.
Summary of the ideas 2016 cut-off (PDF, 124KB)
Summary of the ideas 2017 cut-off (PDF, 318KB)
Please note that timings are indicative only and so may change.
Cut-off date for HT ideas – 15 May 2018
New HTs announced, feedback on ideas available – November 2018
Cut-off date for SPA ideas – 7 September 2017
Potential SPA(s) for further development announced, feedback on ideas available – February 2018
New SPA(s) announced – Autumn 2018
NERC encourages ideas from all parts of the environmental science community and NERC staff are available to discuss potential ideas and provide advice. If you have any queries on the process or would like advice on a potential idea please contact them at idea@nerc.ac.uk in the first instance, and they will put you in touch with a NERC colleague who can help.
EPSRC is holding a two-day workshop on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing. The workshop will be highly multidisciplinary as well as bringing together those who are developing platforms and standards with researchers deploying and evaluating in real world environments.
In the Balancing Capability exercise, Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing was selected as an area to grow. While this is likely to happen due to the increasing economic and social influence of the Internet of Things and related technologies, EPSRC believe that some effort is required at this stage to ensure a balanced portfolio of funded research by the end of the delivery plan period.
Moreover, while they believe this field has a key role to play in contributing to the achievement of their cross-ICT priorities, they think that to achieve the objectives described in the priorities: People at the Heart of ICT, Safe and Secure ICT and Cross-Disciplinarity and Co-Creation a mature community discussion will be required.
Further information about EPSRC‘s portfolio and strategies, see our website.
Put broadly, Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (PUC) is the fundamental and applied research that aims achieve the integration of computing into any device in any location that interacts with our lives.
Research in this area is necessarily multi-disciplinary and in order to achieve success will draw-on and synthesise ideas at the boundary of numerous other strands of research. This includes:
Research into new forms of interaction with pervasive computer systems and related research into trust, privacy and security. This will require novel computer science and engineering while incorporating research from the social sciences, humanities and law.
Those wishing to attend the workshop should complete the short Expression of Interest (EoI) form on this page.
This is a fantastic opportunity for BU academics as a lot of our research would be classed as ‘Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing’. If you do get a place, please can you let your RKEO representative know as we are interested in how this area will grow and what calls may come out of it.
EPSRC is holding two one-day workshops for Early Career Researchers who work in the area of Physical Sciences. This is a great opportunity for BU ECRs (especially those who are new to funding) in these areas to get a first hand insight to strategies and policy changes, and to network with peers and funders.
The workshops will be held in:
The workshops will provide an update to EPSRC and Physical Sciences strategies and will communicate recent and upcoming policy changes, such as the New Investigator Awards. The workshops will be attended by a number of EPSRC staff but also by experienced academics and current or previous Early Career Fellowship holders from across the Physical Sciences portfolio who will provide guidance and mentoring. The workshops will also include opportunities for networking with other ECR colleagues.
EPSRC anticipate this event will be of greatest interest to Physical Sciences researchers who are eligible to hold an EPSRC grant and hold few or no grants as a Principal Investigator.
The aims of the workshops are to:
Those wishing to attend the workshop should complete the Expression of Interest (EoI) form on this page. This will be used to select participants based on their justification of attendance as described in their EoI submission and will take into account how their research aligns to the EPSRC Physical Sciences remit and research areas. In addition, EPSRC will also ensure a balanced representation of organisation, research area, expertise and career stage.
Places are limited and the number of participants from a given organisation may have to be restricted in the event of multiple applications. Selection will primarily be based on the justification of attendance and completion of the survey is not a guarantee of attendance.
The EoI will close at 17:00 on 31 January 2018.
If you do get a place, please let your RKEO contact know as we are interested in what information will be shared, particularly if there are new initiatives for ECRs.
BBSRC, Defra and NERC, in partnership with the Sustainable Intensification Research Network (SIRN), are holding a workshop for researchers with interests in or expertise relevant to the sustainable intensification (SI) of agriculture. This workshop aims to build on the legacy of Defra’s Sustainable Intensification and provide opportunities to link with other current sustainable intensification activities. The aims of the workshop are:
There is no cost to attend the workshop, overnight accommodation (on 28 February 2018) and meals will be provided free of charge. Attendees will be expected to cover their own travel costs.
The workshop will include:
The SIP is a Defra and Welsh Government funded initiative that was established to identify ways of increasing farm productivity, while reducing negative environmental impacts and enhancing ecosystem services. SIP is a multi-partner research programme including farmers, industry experts, academia, environmental organisations and policymakers. The Platform consists of three linked and transdisciplinary research projects designed to explore opportunities and risks for sustainable intensification at the farm and landscape scale. The SIP will end in November 2017 and through this workshop BBSRC, Defra, NERC and SIRN hope to help the SIP community and others to build on its legacy. That legacy is a broad one, which includes data, tools, resources, experimental sites and capabilities, and a large and well-connected community of practice.
This workshop is for research leaders currently working on or with interests relevant to SI.
Please fill in the from below and return to sustainable.agriculture@bbsrc.ac.uk by 5 January 2018, 4pm. If you have any questions, please use the above email address. Successful applicants will be informed by email during the week beginning 15 January 2018.
Expression of interest form for workshop participation (DOCX 147KB)You may need to download additional plug-ins to open this file.
Expression of interest form for workshop participation (ODT 130KB)You may need to download additional plug-ins to open this file.
The Research Councils have reviewed the current grant terms and conditions and are making changes to include additional information on up and coming legislative changes and additional clarity on the guidance provided these changes will start on Monday 15 January 2018.
The aims of the changes are to clearly communicate and clarify the responsibilities which are part of holding a Research Council Grant.
The changes include:
Links to the full terms and conditions can be found in the press release.
BU staff can login below:
BU Professor has been invited to a series of plenary and invited lectures.
An Interview of BU-lead EU H2020 FIRST project published in “Horizon”, the EU Research & Innovation Magazine
Update on Horizon Europe Guarantee
Research Information Network
Thinking about interdisciplinary research
Cancer Awareness Event at BU
An inspiring visit to Türkiye! Towards gender equality in research and academia
New book by Dr Duncan Randall, DNS