Category / Guidance

BU’s keywords for research – is everything included? Part 2

A couple of weeks ago I added version 3 of the BU research ontology to the blog and asked for your advice as to whether this adequately reflected the breadth of your disciplines and expertise (see BU’s keywords for research – is everything included?). Thank you to everyone who responded to this – all of your comments and suggestions have been incorporated into version 4.

Rather than using the rigid 3-level structure, Version 4 includes the first attempt of mapping the keywords to the four broad areas of:

  • Business & Management
  • Media & Culture
  • Health & Society
  • Science & Technology

These areas will then map to the 8 emerging BU research themes. The aim of this is to provide a more flexible ontology that is adaptable to the complexities of inter- and multi-disciplinary research and that can be used to make relationships between people and disciplines (and therefore news stories, projects, outputs, etc) internally and also via the new external research webpages.

You can access Version 4 here: Research ontology v4

We’re very interested in your feedback as to whether the mapping in Version 4 is fit for purpose or whether any changes need to be made. Please add your comments to this post by Friday 2 September 🙂

Thanks to Katarzyna Musial for her help in visualising how this could work.

ESRC Future Research Leaders scheme – internal application information

ESRC logoThe ESRC’s Future Research Leaders call is currently open with a closing date of 15 September 2011.

Universities are expected to consider applications very carefully prior to submitting them to the ESRC through this call, and all applications need to be supported with a letter from the PVC (Research, Enterprise and Internationalisation).

With this in mind BU has established a process for submissions to this call. All proposals must be submitted to a special version of our internal peer review scheme (the RPRS) first and must be signed off by Matthew Bennett as PVC (Research, Enterprise and Internationalisation) prior to submission.

For applicants interested in the scheme, the key internal dates are as follows:

22 Aug Proposals to be submitted to the RPRS and sent for review.
29 Aug Proposal feedback to be returned to applicants.
29 Aug – 5 Sep Applicants to finalise proposals based on reviewer feedback.
5 Sep Final proposals to be sent to Matthew Bennett (via CRE Operations).
5 Sep – 15 Sep Matthew Bennett to review and approve final proposals (and write the PVC letter of support). Once reviewed, CRE Operations will let applicants know when to submit via Je-S.
15 Sep ESRC submission deadline.

For further information on the RPRS please see the RPRS website: http://erss.bournemouth.ac.uk/researchsupport/bids/writing/rprs.html

If you are considering applying to the scheme but have not yet confirmed this with the CRE Operations team please could you do so as soon as possible.

Do you want to engage with BRIAN? Or are you more partial to a bit of BROS?

Maybe you see Megalith as the towering winner, or you think BRAIN is the cleverest suggestion? Or is it RAD that you think is most radical?!

Symplectic Elements as the new research management system that BU is implementing this summer and it needs a name.

     

Whatever your preference remember to cast your vote before 19 August!

Happy voting! 🙂

[polldaddy poll=5372385]

Does anybody read this blog?! YES!!!!

On Friday Steve Calver ended his latest MRG post with a question: “Does anybody read this blog?” – and within an hour a reader from another university replied to say “I do!“. Which is great! So I thought I’d share some of the visitor stats so you can get an idea of who views the blog and how regularly.

We measure footfall on the blog using the fabulous Google Analytics. The stats below are based on a period of 18 days during July and August 2011.

On average during this period the blog received 166 unique visitors every day, each spending approximately 2 minutes on the site.

51% of visitors find us via internet search engines. The top search terms led readers to our blog over the past 18 days are:

  • bournemouth
  • innovation
  • bu research blog
  • bournemouth university research blog
  • security
  • digital hub bournemouth university blog
  • ict
  • health
  • hefce ref training information events
  • marie curie fellowship 2011
  • kip jones rufus stone
  • bournemouth research blog
  • transport
  • bu logo
  • racism
  • bournemouth uk
  • culture
  • eurostat
  • statistics
  • wow effect

41% direct traffic, i.e. via the web address or via the BU Staff Portal. This is excellent as it shows that you lovely people who work at Bournemouth University are using the blog – hooray!

8% of visitors are referred to our blog by external sites. Our top referring sites are:

The bottom two are interesting referrals as these are universities in the USA that have picked up on our new BU Open Access Publication Fund and promoted the idea via their own websites. This has then encouraged visitors to these sites to visit our blog.

At present 30% of visits to the blog are made by returning visitors and 70% are made by new visitors.

Our visitors to date have come from 91 different countries (as displayed in the map below). The top ten countries viewing the blog are:

  • UK
  • USA
  • Germany
  • Spain
  • India
  • France
  • Poland
  • Canada
  • Belgium
  • Italy

So why is all of this information important?

Because it shows us two important things:

1. That the blog is working internally as the main means of sharing research news and information!

2. That the blog is working externally to promote the excellent research undertaken at BU!

We’re always seeking to improve things so if you have your own webpages/blogs then please feel free to use them to promote the BU Research Blog or ask us to link to your webpages/blogs from this blog, and if you have any ideas on how to improve our blog and/or to increase readership then please let us know! 🙂

BU’s keywords for research – is everything included?

In May/June there was some discussion on the blog about developing keywords for research (research ontology/vocabulary/taxonomy) which would be used to classify BU research in future.

See previous blog posts here:

Looking to the future the finalised ontology will be extremely important in structuring how research at BU is presented, internally and externally, particularly on the external research webpages and the directory of expertise.

Responses received via the Blog indicated that the Science-Metrix ontology was too broad and that the Library of Congress ontology was too granular, so it seems that neither is a perfect fit for BU.

Using the Library of Congress ontology as a starting point we have worked with the Deputy Deans (R&E)/equivalent, Research Centre Directors and UOA Leaders to list the key specialisms applicable to BU. The resulting list is now available – you can read this by following the link below:

BU research ontology v3

We need to finalise the list by 19 August 2011. But before we finalise the list we’d very much appreciate your advice as to whether these keywords adequately cover your disciplines. If you’d like to suggest any changes to the list please could you add a comment to this post by 19 August?

In addition we are interested to know whether the proposed level structure is useful or whether one list of keywords would be preferable? Let us know your views by commenting on this post!

Referencing Dutch, Flemish & German names in the Harvard System

For academics writing and citing in the English language there is often confusion and misunderstanding about how to reference my name when quoting one of my scientific papers.  More generally, there is considerable confusion about quoting and referencing Germanic names with particles or prefix, especially since the Flemish, Dutch and German ways of doing it differ from each other.  In addition emigrants from these countries to English-speaking countries such as Canada and the United States often reference to names of Germanic origin differently again. This particularly the case when one uses the Harvard System of referencing; which is where authors are briefly cited within the text (e.g. Bennett et al. 2009; Smith & Jones 1999), and then given in full at the end of the paper or chapter in a reference list.  A few years I published a short piece about referencing Dutch, Flemish and German names for Medical Sociology News (Van Teijlingen 2004).  This current version is an update and expansion of it. 

German names – Starting with the biggest group of authors, names in German can be preceded by the particle ‘von’ or ‘von der’ or occasionally ‘van’ (in a family of Dutch descent), for example the First World War general Paul von Beneckendorff und von Hindenburg (better known as Paul van Hindenburg), the nineteenth century explorer Karl Klaus von der Decken or the famous composer Ludwig van Beethoven.  The general advice to quoting these names in English is: “As a rule, when the surname is cited alone in English, the particle is dropped” (Trask 2002: 135).  Thus in the general media one would expect to read about Hindenburg’s victory or Beethoven’s Sixth symphony.   Under the Harvard System these particles or prefixes follow the author’s initials (Bett 1953: 17); something which is also advised by the widely used publication manual of the APA (American Psychological Association / http://www.apastyle.org/ ).  For an English-language audience it is often easier or more obvious to keep the family name and particle together (see Box 2).

Dutch and Belgium names – Dutch names can have a range of different particles, the most common one is ‘van’.  Also possible are, for example: ‘de’, ‘van der’, ‘van den’, ‘van het’, ‘op het’, or their  abbreviated forms such as: ‘van ’t’, ‘op ’t’ or ‘v/d’.  In the Netherlands, the particles take no capital letter, for example in de name of the former Manchester United goal keeper: Edwin van der Sar.  According to Trask (2002: 106) in Flemish-speaking Belgium (and South Africa) it is more usual to capitalize particles, for example: Paul Van Look.   

In contrast to German, Dutch particles are always included when the name is used in the text.  So, for example, Vincent van Gogh is referred to as Van Gogh.  Note that ‘van’ is without a capital when the first name is used and with a capital when the first name is not included, i.e. ‘Van’ is the start of the name.  Thus we would expect to read, for example, two Dutch football players: ‘Van Nistelrooij and Van der Vaart celebrated the second goal ..’ but if the first name is included we would use ‘Rafael van der Vaart and Edwin van der Sar celebrated ..’    In the reference list similar to German “particles are ignored when placing names in alphabetical order” (Trask 2002: 106).  However, the Dutch would not lose the particle, but place it after the initial.  For example, in a Dutch scientific article on the socio-linguistic study of city dialects, Roeland van Hout (1992) quotes two of his own articles as listed in Box 1.

Box 1   Example Dutch reference style of author with ‘van in the surname

 HOUT, R. VAN

1980 De studie van stadsdialect: van dialektologie, empirische linguistiek en sociolinguistiek.

Toegepaste Taalkunde in Artikelen 8, 143-162.

HOUT, R. VAN

1989 De structuur van taalvariatie. Een sociolinguïstisch onderzoek naar het stadsdialect

van Nijmegen. Dordrecht: Foris Publications.

If the Dutch football players mentioned above had each written something in a newspaper last week they would be found in the reference list of a paper by a sport psychologist or media studies researcher as:

Nistelrooij, R. van (2011)           

Sar, E. van der (2011)

Vaart, R. van der (2011)

Meijer (2009: 67) noted that in Belgium, where many people speak Flemish, a variant of Dutch, “it is customary to alphabetize under “V” anyway”.  Thus the action-film hero Jean-Claude Van Damme from Brussels (Belgium) whose real name is Jean-Claude Van Varenberg would always be listed in a reference list based on the Harvard under ‘V’.

Surnames of immigrants in English-speaking countries – Family names of Dutch emigrants often changed to suit the local style.  So in the United States we find medical sociologist Ray DeVries, the cyclist Christian Vande Velde, Gloria Vanderbilt and in France the French golfer Jean Van de Velde.  These ‘foreign’ names would be listed under the particle.  So alphabetically Vande Velde is listed after Vanderbuilt (Box 2).
Box 2  Examples of referencing Flemish, Dutch and German authors in English

German names Beethoven, L. van (1817) etc. etc.Beethoven van, L. (1817) etc.
Dutch / Belgium names Gogh, Vincent, van (1891) etc. etc.Van Damme, Jean-Claude (2002) etc.

Or keeping the family name and particle together:

van* Gogh, Vincent (1891) etc.

Van Damme, Jean-Claude (2002) etc.

North-American names Vanderbuilt, G. (1998) etc.Vande Velde, C. (2010) etc.

Legend: * note no capital for ‘v’.

Often academic journals will list all names in alphabetical order of the particle, in the same way the UK telephone directory does.  Thus van Teijlingen is listed under ‘V’. One final piece of advice for academic authors is the reminder to always check the author instructions of the journal you are targeting for its reference style. 

Edwin van Teijlingen

Bournemouth University

 

References:

Bett, W.R., 1953, The preparation and writing of medical papers for publication, London: Menley & James.

Hout, R. van, 1992, Het sociolinguïstisch onderzoek van taalvariatie in stadsdialecten (In Dutch: Socio-linguistic research into language variations in city dialects), Taal en Tongval Special Issue 5: 48-65 (available at: www.meertens.knaw.nl/taalentongval/artikelen/VanHout.pdf ). 

Meijer, E., 2009 The apacite package: Citation and reference list with LATEX and BibTEX according to the rules of the American Psychological Association, available at:   http://ctan.sqsol.co.uk/biblio/bibtex/contrib/apacite/apacite.pdf

Teijlingen, E. van, 2004, Referencing Dutch, German and Flemish names in English, Medical Sociology News 30(1): 42-44 (copy is available from BURO at: http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/11930/2/Referencing_Dutch_Flemish_names.pdf).

Trask, R.L., 2002, Mind the Gaffe: The Penguin Guide to Common Errors in English, London: Penguin.

Overview of the REF draft panel criteria – what are the subtleties between panels?

At the end of July the REF team released the draft panel working methods and criteria documentation (see our previous blog post for access to the documents).

We’ve spent the week wading through the four main panel documents and have produced a very brief overview of the subtleties between the panels on key criteria (such as the use of citation data, co-authored outputs, additional environment data, etc) in a tabular format.

You can access the overview table here: REF – draft panel criteria comparison table

Unfortunately this is no substitute for reading the actual documentation (sorry!) but does highlight the key points and differences between panels.

These documents are currently open to sector-wide consultation until 5 October 2011. BU will be submitting a single institutional response coordinated by the Research Development Unit. BU staff are invited to submit feedback for consideration as part of this response. Please email all comments to Anita Somner by 20 September 2011.

Launch of the BU Research Development Fund

It’s a beautiful summer’s day and to celebrate the new academic year the Research Development Unit has some exciting news – the launch of the BU Research Development Fund!

The Research Development Fund (RDF) is open to BU academics and will provide selective support to research initiatives considered to be of strategic importance to BU. There are two strands to the RDF: i) Small Grants Scheme (up to £2k per application); and ii) Large Collaborative Grants Scheme (up to £25k per annum, must include two or more Schools). It is envisaged that each year approximately 20 small grants will be awarded and one large collaborative grant.

Awards will only cover direct costs (i.e. overheads and established staff costs will not be reimbursed). Applications need to include a precise breakdown of costs calculated using full economic costing (fEC) methodology – this will be calculated for you by the CRE Operations team.

All decisions on funding will be made by the University R&E Forum (UREF).

An overview of the two schemes is provided below. For further information please read the Research Development Fund Policy.

RDF – Small Grants Scheme (up to £2k per award) – There will be three competitions per annum. Academic staff wishing to apply must submit an application form to the PVC (Research, Enterprise and Internationalisation) via the RDU by the scheme deadlines:

  • 31 October 2011
  • 28 February 2012
  • 31 May 2012

Priority will be given to applications that involve staff from two or more Schools and/or those from early career researchers.

Examples of research activities covered by the RDF include:

  • Pilot projects
  • Pump-priming
  • Interview transcription
  • Fieldwork
  • Visiting major libraries, museums, other research institutions, etc.
  • Organisation of an academic conference at BU with external participants
  • Attendance at external networking events leading to collaborative research proposals
  • Meetings with external organisations to establish collaborations
  • Preparation of specialist material or data
  • Short-term Research Assistant support or replacement teaching
  • Research consumables and equipment (providing it is clear these would not normally be purchased by the School)

To apply for a Small Grant, please complete the RDF-SGS application form.

RDF – Large Collaborative Grants Scheme (up to £25k per award) – There will be one competition per annum. Academic staff wishing to apply must submit an application form to the PVC (Research, Enterprise and Internationalisation) via the RDU by the scheme deadline:

  • 1 December 2011

The RDF – Large Collaborative Grants Scheme aims to provide funding for the development of large-scale, complex, inter/multi-disciplinary collaborative research activities leading to external funding. Applications must involve academic staff from at least two BU Schools. Priority will be given to applications that meet the following criteria:

  • In line with BU’s emerging Research Themes
  • Include external organizations (particularly SMEs and/or international organizations)
  • In line with the strategic priorities of major funding bodies (such as the UK research councils, European Commission, etc)
  • Clearly beneficial to BU’s submission to REF2014

Examples of research activities covered by the RDF include:

  • Pilot projects
  • Pump-priming
  • Meeting expenses
  • Travel to proposed collaborators
  • Attendance at external networking events with the aim of expanding the network
  • Preparation of specialist material or data
  • Short-term Research Assistant support or replacement teaching
  • Consumables and equipment (providing it is clear these would not normally be purchased by the School)
  • Fees for external proposal support and review

To apply for a Large Collaborative Research Grant, please complete the RDF-LCGS application form.

Launch of the BU Open Access Publication Fund

open access logo, Public Library of ScienceBack in April it was announced that BU would be launching an Open Access Publication Fund in August 2011 (see the previous blog post here: BU’s open access publication fund to go live!).

Therefore, as of today BU officially operates a dedicated central Open Access Publication Fund (OAPF), launched in response to, and in support of, developments in research communication and publication trends. The fund is also to support research in complying with some of the major funding bodies who have introduced open access publishing requirements as a condition of their grants.

The fund is available for use by any BU author ready to submit a completed article for publication who wishes to make their output freely and openly accessible.

If you are interested in applying to the fund then you need to email Julie Northam in the Research Development Unit with the following information:

  • Name of the open access publication
  • Confirmation this will be a peer reviewed paper
  • A short justification (1 paragraph) of why it is beneficial for your research to be published in this particular open access publication
  • The cost of the open access publication
  • Likely publication date
  • Likely REF Unit of Assessment (UOA)
  • A copy of the paper

If you have any questions about the new OAPF then please direct them to me via email.

Further information:

Excellent PI development resource available from Vitae

Earlier this year Vitae launched an excellent development resource for principal investigators (PIs). The Leadership Development for Principal Investigators training is available online, free of charge from here: http://www.vitae.ac.uk/policy-practice/263521/Leadership-Development-for-Principal-Investigators.html

The website provides information in the following sections:

  • What is expected of a principal investigator
  • Research environment
  • Impact
  • Managing people
  • Project management
  • Networks

Information is provided for both pre-award and post-award stages of the research lifecycle.

This is a fantastic resource suitable for PIs at all stages of the research career.

If you have used the resource to access information then let us know what you think by commenting on this blog post and share your tips with your colleagues!

REF Guidance on Submissions document released

The REF2014 Guidance on Submissions document was released on Thursday and can be accessed on the HEFCE website here: REF Guidance on Submissions

We have prepared a summary document of the key points that can be accessed on the I drive: I:\CRKT\Public\RDU\REF

At the end of July the REF team will publish the draft panel working methods and criteria documents which will be open to consultation until the autumn. The Research Development Unit will be coordinating the BU response to the consultation – further details will be available once the documentation is released.

The benefits of reviewing grant proposals for a research council: An insider’s perspective

Dr Richard Shipway, Senior Lecturer in Sports Studies in the School of Tourism, is a member of the ESRC Peer Review College and Regional Editor (Europe) for the International Journal of Event and Festival Management. Here he provides an insider’s perspective to the benefits of being a reviewer…

Since 2010, I have been a member of the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Peer Review College, reviewing grants in the social sciences.  This invitation was extended eighteen months ago when I was a PI (Principal Investigator) on an ESRC funded project linked to Sport Tourism and Sports Events (the STORMING Initiative).  At first I was overwhelmed and somewhat daunted by the thought of reviewing up to eight grant applications each year and slightly wary about the additional burden this would add to my existing academic workload at BU. However, upon reflection it has proved to be one of the most rewarding and important aspects of my current role as an academic at BU. It has also been an intense and somewhat steep learning curve.   

Importantly, being regularly involved with the review of grant proposals has provided opportunities to observe what constitutes both good and bad applications, and I now feel far more competent in my own ability to write a competent grant proposal along with some of the possible tactics and strategies that can be used to enhance the possibility of success. In the past eighteen months I have also been able to observe the diversity of innovative approaches that colleagues at other institutions are adopting, along with the range of multidisciplinary projects which are emerging, and how applicants creatively highlight where their research will have both economic and societal impact.

There are also additional benefits to being a member of the ESRC Peer Review College. I am fortunate enough to receive various invitations to attend briefing events and functions organised by the ESRC and other research councils.  These have proved to be good opportunities to firstly stay informed on current strategic developments, and secondly to network with academic colleagues across different disciplines and institutions from all around the UK.  I also take every opportunity to feedback any information to colleagues at BU, both centrally and at School level. Only last week I attended an event at The Royal Society in London, hosted by the ESRC where the challenges and opportunities of implementing the ESRC Delivery Plan 2011-2015 were outlined and discussed at great length.

In my opinion, an active involvement with reviewing (be it on behalf of either a research council or an academic journal) is important for several reasons: firstly, it enhances our own continued professional development; secondly it provides opportunities to be associated with particular research councils or academic journals; thirdly, an active involvement is an important addition to your CV; and fourthly, reviewing can provide opportunities to view new research before anybody else and enables us to remain up to date with emerging research trends and directions. As such, if asked to review work for a research council or an academic journal, my advice to colleagues would be to acknowledge and accept the significant time commitment involved with this process, but to grasp the opportunity for the benefits it can potentially provide.

All of the Research Councils recruit academic peer reviewers differently. If you are interested then familiarise yourself with the recruitment process and times, and keep an eye of the relevant research council website:

The European Commission is always recruiting academic reviewers. See our EU reviewer recruitment webpage for details on how to get involved.

Like our posts? Then share them on Twitter!

If you’d like to share any of the posts on the Blog with networks, colleagues, friends, the public, you can now do this quickly and easily on Twitter via our new TweetMeme plugin.

If you have a Twitter account then you can share a post by simply clicking on the TweetMeme logo (like the one on the left). The TweetMeme logo is found at the end of every blog post. This will retweet the story via your Twitter account.

Sharing posts via Twitter helps to promote the excellent work going on at BU and can also help you to establish networks with likeminded people.

This is in addition to the ‘Like’ functionality via Facebook that we have had available on the Blog for a couple of months now.

 

 

Writing a lay summary is easy, right?

Not necessarily! The lay summary is an extremely important part of most research bids. Most researchers think they write it well, and yet many bids fail because it is not ‘lay enough’. The topic was debated at this year’s ARMA conference (Association of Research Managers and Administrators) in bonnie Glasgow. The highlights of the session are detailed below.

A lay summary is used to explain complex ideas and technical and scientific terms to people who do not have a prior knowledge about the subject. A lay audience is heterogeneous (it includes the general public, patients and users of the science, politicians and other decision-makers, and researchers in different disciplines such as potential research collaborators). A lay summary is a requirement at application stage by most funding bodies, including the UK research councils.

When applying to UK research councils you are normally allowed up to 4,000 characters for your lay summary. There is no need to use all of these characters; often being concise is good for a lay audience! There are also some funding bodies that enforce a much stricter word limit, such as the British Heart Foundation who only allow up to 100 words for a lay summary.

What is the definition and purpose of a lay summary?

This very much depends on which funding body you are applying to as they all have their own definitions. For example, the Je-S Help Guide states the summary should be “written so that it will be understood by a non-specialist audience” but each of the different research councils have their own definition, such as:

EPSRC – “Using simple terms you are asked to describe your proposed research in a way that can be publicised to a general audience. It is very important that you make every effort to ensure that your summary is understandable to someone who is not an expert in your field. This is the section of your application that, if successful, EPSRC will use for publicity purposes. You should also note that the Outline panels who will review your proposal will be drawn from across EPSRC’s remit and will not necessarily have expertise in your research area.”

ESRC – “Write in plain English. Your proposal is likely to be seen by a great many people, some of whom will not be versed in your particular specialisation. Detail and specification may necessitate the use of disciplinary or technical terminology and this will be clear to peer reviewers, but the ideas you wish to convey and your reasons for doing so should be apparent to a wide audience. By the same token, do take the trouble to check spelling, grammar and punctuation. These are all part of the quality of presentation and presentation matters!

What is the story you are telling?
What is the audience?
Why does it matter?
Why now?
Why are they the best person to carry out this research?”

One of the most  concise and succinct definitions is provided by Buckland et al (2007): “a brief summary of a research project or a research proposal that has been written for members of the public rather than researchers or professionals. It should be written in plain English, avoid the use of jargon and explain any technical terms that have been included”. [1]

These different definitions are very confusing! But in essence a lay summary has three main requirements:

  • To paint the bigger picture
  • To answer who, what, where, when, why, how?
  • Be written in plain English

Painting the bigger picture: The lay summary is your first chance to impress the reviewer! Reviewers are very busy and in the majority of cases the lay summary is the first (and sometimes the only) part of a grant application that he/she will read. It is therefore vitally important that it is interesting, easy to read and conscise. It needs to give an overview of the whole project – the background, aims and expected impact.

Answer who, what, where, when, why, how?: It may sound harsh but many reviewers will read research proposals and be left asking themselves ‘so what?’. Your lay summary needs to answer this by explaining why the project is exciting, relevant and timely, and worth funding now above all of the other submitted proposals. Lay summaries are normally used by funding bodies to promote the research project so think about who is likely to read your lay summary, should your proposal be funded, and ensure you answer these ‘who, what, where, when, why and how’ questions with these various readers in mind. For example, your lay summary may be used in the following ways:

  • by politicians in raising and justifying research funds from government;
  • to justify public spending on research;
  • to attract new collaborators such as industrial partners and researchers from different disciplines
  • by press officers to promote your research to the public

Be written in plain English: A strong lay summary will always explain any technical terms used, spell out abbreviations, and avoid using jargon. It will also be written in ‘plain English’ but what exactly does this mean?

  1. Titles should be simple and clear. The European Commission’s FP7 guidance states that titles should be understandable to the non-specialist in the field. The best format for a title is to give a short statement followed by a colon and then a brief explanation.
  2. Simple analogies should be used to help the reader make sense of complex ideas. Arthritis Research UK suggest a good example of this is Bill Bryson’s book ‘A Short History of Nearly Everything’ [2] which uses analogies of everyday objects and activities to explain complex scientific concepts. Whilst simple analogies might mean that you lose detail and may not be perfect then strengthen your proposal if they make your ideas clearer to the reader.
  3. Clear layout – avoid using English phrases (such as ‘the lion’s share’) as these may not be understood by the reader. Avoid using double negatives as they cloud meaning. Order the paragraphs logically – start with the problem your research aims to solve so the reader can identify with this first. Break up blocks of text with bullet points, shorter paragraphs, etc. It is good practice to match the layout with the layout of your objectives. Do not use jargon (unless it is defined and explained in the summary) and ensure all abbreviations are spelt out.

Media / public engagement training courses: The UK research councils offer media/public communications training courses. These are highly recommended within the sector and offer good value for money. Most councils allow you to include the costs in your research proposal providing you justify it in your case for support, otherwise the training is free to funded students or grant holders. For example:

 

BU’s internal peer review scheme (RPRS): Support for writing and strengthening research proposals (including writing a good lay summary) is available via the internal Research Proposal Review Service (RPRS). Visit the RPRS webpage for further information!

References:

[1] Buckland, S. et al (2007) Public Information Pack. How to get actively involved in NHS, public health and social care research. INVOLVE Public Information Pack 4 available at: http://www.invo.org.uk/pdfs/pip44jargonbuster.pdf

[2] Bryson, B (2004) A Short History of Nearly Everything, Black Swan: London

Engaging Academic Social Scientists in Government Policy-Making and Delivery

Prof Martin Kretschmer, Professor of Information Jurisprudence and Research Centre Director for CIPPM in the Business School, recently attended a meeting organised by the British Academy and the ESRC on Engaging Academic Social Scientists in Government Policy-Making and Delivery. Here he provides an overview of the issues discussed at the event…

Making research relevant to policy is on the agenda of all Research Councils, as reflected in the Impact measure of REF 2014. The event was co-sponsored by the Government Heads of the Analytical Professions: Government Economic Service, Government Operational Research Service, Government Science & Engineering, Social Science in Government, and the Government Statistical Service. The programme and list of attendees is available here: British Academy event programme and delegate list

Some of the issues raised, and questions asked of the attendees included:

Q1: What do you think government should be doing more of to increase the influence of your research and expertise on government policy making and delivery?

Q2: What do you think the academic social science community should be doing more of to have a direct influence on government policy making and delivery?

Q3: What might encourage you to consider an advisory role to government, for example, as a social scientist on one of the government’s Scientific Advisory Committees?

I assume I was invited because I am just coming to the end of an ESRC Public Sector Fellowship in the UK Intellectual Property Office (within BIS). I also sit on the government’s Copyright Advisory Expert Group, and speak frequently on policy issues, for example last week (1 June) at a Hearing in the European Parliament on The Future of Copyright in the Digital Era

Below, I summarise a few points from the meeting that may be useful for the wider BU research community.

Prof Nick Pidgeon (Professor of Environmental Psychology, University of Cardiff, and Director of the Understanding Risk Research Group) offered 4 routes to influencing government:

  • Government contract research, including small review contracts.
  • RCUK (or similar) funding in policy relevant area.
  • Advisory Committees.
  • Indirectly, via dissemination through Royal Society, RSA, or similar.

Paul Johnson (Director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies): “Don’t expect to change government policy if your evidence points in a different direction.” There are two choices: EITHER Focus on points of detail within the policy direction given by government, OR Set agenda for 5 years hence.

Sir John Beddington (Government Chief Scientific Advisor) stressed the tightrope walk between advice that is a “challenge” and being labelled “unhelpful” (in Sir Humphries language). Academics should risk “challenge” even if it turns out to be “unhelpful”.

Prof Philip Lowe (Professor of Rural Economy, University of Newcastle, and Director of the Rural Economy and Land Use Programme): There is a paradox – How can a government department become a sophisticated consumer of research? Commissioning good research requires being able to know what you don’t know. Hard for civil servants and politicians. Important to build and sustains links over many years.

Prof Helen Roberts (Professor, General Adolescent and Paediatrics Unit, University College London, and non-executive director of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence NICE): Public sector placements are very useful, both for academic and government, but governance of these grants can be cumbersome. [I can confirm that from my own secondment experience. At some point, there were suggestions that detailed delivery contracts would have to be drawn up between ESRC and BU, ESRC and BIS/IPO, BIS/IPO and BU. In the end, I was simply shown the Official Secrets Act, and the Code of Conduct for Civil Servants, and that was it.]

Importance of human dimension: “Most implementation comes though good relationships, not good research.”

Sharon Witherspoon (Deputy Director of the Nuffield Foundation, and in charge of research in social science and social policy): Most policy advisors double in “empirically informed counterfactuals”, and are normally grateful if offered help with: “What would happen if…” But academics can often make the most telling contribution by more radical reflection: “I wouldn’t start from here”. Governments are less likely to be open to that kind of challenge. Select Committees are becoming more independent of government (now have elected chairs). They can be a route to influence.

Paul Doyle (CEO, ESRC): The ESRC is building a database of government policy leads/contacts. Often it is impossible from government websites to identify the civil servants and special advisors dealing with specific policy issues. Government scientists should be encouraged to become members of Learned Societies.

 Key points from the open discussion:

  • Importance to keep independence by constructing portfolio of funders.
  • Economists are a separate breed in government. They have little concept of wider social research.
  • Responding to consultations is often a good first step to engagement.
  • Academics should use less jargon, shorter sentences.
  • Visual representation of research findings matters greatly.
  • Often it is useful to invite policy makers to academic events. They enjoy coming out of the office, and are less partisan/circumspect in a neutral environment.
  • There is an important corrective function for social scientists in assessing the presentation of data.
  • Difficulty in presenting the audit trail required for REF Impact. Government does have no interest in revealing the sources of its ideas, or it may be politically inconvenient to do so.

Surely the Creative & Digital Economy is important to BU

As BU seeks to position itself as a university that engages in research centred on the ‘big questions’ facing our society, it was a surprise to see that of the 10 proposed key themes, the Creative and Digital Economy has yet to gain any traction amongst BU researchers in terms of shaping the future research agenda of the University. Surely, this can’t the case?

As a former Liverpool FC manager once said “lets look at the facts”:
• Creative Industries contributed 5.6% of the UK’s GDP in 2008
• Exports of services by the Creative Industries totalled £17.3 billion in 2008
• There are approximately 182,000 businesses in the UK Creative Industries Software and electronic publishing are a significant sector
• The RCUK Digital Economy programme provides support for research into how digital technologies can contribute to the economy and society.
• The Prime Minister argued that the Creative Industries is an important growth area in the UK economy.
• The European Commission reports that Creative Industries are among the fastest growing sectors in the EU and account for 3.3% of total EU GDP.

These figures suggest that BU needs to be engaged, and at the forefront of research in the Creative and Digital Economy…there are many big questions to be answered and many opportunities for us to get involved.

We know that this theme has run a series of successful networking events across BU over the past year or so. These have sought to encourage cross school collaboration and generate research and enterprise outputs. We also know that the Creative and Digital Economy theme has previously been defined by BU as “a multi-disciplinary approach to researching information communication technologies, computer games and animation, software development and smart technologies and the rise of intellectual property law in digital media”. Going forward we need to ensure that this focus is fit for purpose.

So I’d like to put a call out to all BU researchers interested in shaping the agenda of the Creative and Digital Economy Theme. Please come along on Thursday 16th June, 10am-12 noon in Room W242.

Dr John Oliver
Head of Research (Acting)
Media School