Latest research and knowledge exchange news at Bournemouth University
On Wednesday 24th May, the Writing Academy will be hosting a Lunchbyte session with Tim Rees. During the session Tim will talk about his personal publishing experience, his approaches to research and writing, his tips on developing a publication strategy and working with co-authors, reviewers and editors. He will talk about all types of publishing drawing on personal experience.
Aims:
As part of the Writing Academy, a series of writing days have been organised to help support BU authors work on their publications by providing some dedicated time and space, away from everyday distractions.
The days will have a collaborative focus on productive writing with other BU authors, the RKEO team will also be on hand to provide authors with help and guidance on all areas of the publication process.
Writing Days have been scheduled on the below dates:
Spaces are limited so please only book on if you are able to commit to attending for the whole day.
On Wednesday 29th March, the Writing Academy will be hosting a Lunchbyte session with Matthew Bennett. During the session Matthew will talk about his personal publishing experience, his approaches to research and writing, his tips on developing a publication strategy and working with co-authors, reviewers and editors. He will talk about all types of publishing from journal articles, to books via edited compilations. Drawing on personal experience, he will also focus on how you target high impact journals.
Aims:
Click here to book on!
Imagine… dedicated time and space to write away from every day distractions.
Sounds great? Then you’ll be glad to hear that as part of the Writing Academy we are busy scheduling a number of Writing Days for BU authors to book on to.
Watch. This. Space.
Congratulations on the Faculty of Health & Social Sciences team which had its paper ‘Vital signs and other observations used to detect deterioration in pregnant women: an analysis of vital sign charts in consultant-led UK maternity units’ accepted by the International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia (published by Elsevier).
The paper compares: (i) vital sign values used to define physiological normality; (ii) symptoms and signs used to escalate care; (iii) 24 type of chart used; and (iv) presence of explicit instructions for escalating care. The authors conclude that the wide range of ‘normal’ vital sign values in different systems used in the UK and the Channel Islands suggests a lack of equity in the processes for detecting deterioration and escalating care in hospitalised pregnant and postnatal women. Agreement regarding ‘normal’ vital sign ranges is urgently required and would assist the development of a standardised obstetric early warning system and chart. The lead author of this new paper is FHSS Visiting Professor Gary Smith, his co-authors include FHSS staff Vanora Hundley, Lisa Gale_Andrews and Edwin van Teijlingen as well as three BU Visiting Faculty: Debra Bick (King’s College London), Mike Wee (Poole Hospital NHS Foundation Trust) and Richard Isaacs (University Hospital Southampton).
Congratulations to Dr. Mastoureh (Masi) Fathi, FHSS Lecturer in Sociology, who has been appointed to the editorial board of Sociological Research Online. Sociological Research Online is a peer-reviewed online sociology journal looking at current social issues, and it is in its twenty-second year.
Well done!
Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen
In December, Prof Mark Reed, Professor of Socio-Technical Innovation at Newcastle University and the man behind Fast Track Impact, tweeted some thoughts on how to write a 4* paper for the REF. He went on to explain his thinking in more detail in a guest post on the Research Fundementals blog, the post is published here with the authors permission.
_____________
How do you write a 4* paper for the Research Excellence Framework (REF)? It is a question I’ve asked myself with some urgency since the Stern Review shredded my REF submission by not allowing me to bring my papers with me this year to my new position at Newcastle University.
Obviously the answer is going to differ depending on your discipline, but I think there are a few simple things that everyone can do to maximize their chances of getting a top graded research output.
I’m going to start with the assumption that you’ve actually done original, significant and rigorous work – if you haven’t then there is no point in reading any further. However, as I am increasingly asked to pre-review papers for colleagues across a range of disciplines, I am seeing examples of people who write up work as a 2* or 3* paper that has the potential to get a better score. I should point out that I believe that there is an important role for 1* and 2* papers, and that I regularly write these on purpose to address a problem of national significance and frame it for the specific, narrow audience that is likely to be able to benefit most from my work. However, whether I like it or not, as a Professor in a research-intensive University, there is an expectation that I will be submitted as a 4* researcher, which means I need a few 4* papers as well.
You can see some more detailed thoughts on what I think makes 4* for different types of paper in this Tweet:
How to write a 4* paper for #REF pic.twitter.com/7P8fKw1pfU
— Mark Reed (@profmarkreed) November 23, 2016
As you’ll see from the discussion under that tweet though, my more detailed thoughts probably only apply to Units of Assessment across panels A-C, and probably isn’t relevant to the arts and humanities.
Having said this, I think there are a number of things we can all do to maximize the chances of our work being viewed favourably by REF panelists.
How to organize a discussion to work out what makes a 4* paper in your area:
It would be great if I could tell you that these are my “three easy ways to get a 4* paper” but doing work that is genuinely original, significant and rigorous is far from easy. If you have done work that is of the highest quality though, I hope that the ideas I’ve suggested here will help you get the credit you deserve for the great research you’ve done.
On Wednesday 29th March, the Writing Academy will be hosting a Lunchbyte session with Matthew Bennett. During the session Matthew will talk about his personal publishing experience, his approaches to research and writing, his tips on developing a publication strategy and working with co-authors, reviewers and editors. He will talk about all types of publishing from journal articles, to books via edited compilations. Drawing on personal experience, he will also focus on how you target high impact journals.
Aims:
Click here to book on!
For information on this event please follow this link to my blog post on the HSS Blog.
Last week was a good week for FHSS from a publishing perspective. On the last day of February Sociological Research Online published a book review with Dr. Pramod Regmi as first author, which we highlighted in an earlier BU Research Blog (see more here!) [1]. On the same the same day we received news from the Journal of Travel Medicine (published by Oxford University press) that our latest article on research in Nepal was accepted for publication. Our paper ‘Identifying the gaps in Nepalese migrant workers’ health and well-being: A review of the literature’ addresses the health and well-being of migrant health workers and ‘brings’ this to travel medicine specialists [2].
On Thursday our article ‘Vital signs and other observations used to detect deterioration in pregnant women: an analysis of vital sign charts in consultant-led maternity units’ was accepted by the International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia published by Elsevier [3]. On Friday The Lancet published correspondence from FHSS Post-Doc. Researcher Dr. Pramod Regmi and FHSS Ph.D. student Folashade Alloh, and BU Visiting Faculty Prof. Padam Simkhada under the title: ‘Mental health in BME groups with diabetes: an overlooked issue?’ [4]. To round off the week on Friday afternoon the editorial office of Kontakt (published by Elsevier) emailed that the editorial ‘The medical and social model of childbirth’ had been accepted for publication [5].
Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen
CMMPH
References:
This week saw the publication of the latest issue of the internet-based journal Sociological Research Online. In this issue Dr. Pramod Regmi and Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen published a book review of Balanced Ethics Review: A Guide for Institutional Review Board Members written by the American academic Simon Whitney. [1] In doing so they continue the tradition of FHSS scholars contributing to the research ethics debate. For example, Regmi and colleagues recently had a paper accepted on their insights into research in low-income countries in the journal Developing World Bioethics.[2] Whilst a 2012 FHSS-led paper stressed that researchers conducting research in low-income countries need to apply for research ethics approval to the relevant local authority, if national legislation requires one to do so.[3]
Looking better a little further back, Professor Emerita Immy Holloway wrote about the researcher who may have (potentially) conflicting roles namely those of researcher and health care professional.[4] Whilst a combination of midwifery researchers in the Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health (CMMPH) highlighted the problems faced by practitioners doing research in their field of practice with perhaps the risk of blurring professional and research ethics, as balancing competing ethical concerns between protecting research participants and over-managing the ethical process can be problematic.[5-6] The latter issue of management and regulation of research ethics has recognised as getting more and more cumbersome and bureaucratic.[7-8]
Two further publications by Prof. Ashencaen Crabtree have added to the pool of FHSS publication on research ethics.[9-10] The first one, a book, addressed the problematic issue of gate-keepers in research together with the ethics of critical observation of abuse (potential or actual), as well as the ethics of advocating on behalf of research participants.[9] The second paper covered issues around working with research participants who are regarded as ‘vulnerable’ in a study into the context of care and patient/service user experiences.[10]
Whilst Prof. Parker has highlighted the benefits and dangers of using email and the Internet for social and health research.[11] An even newer research approach is the use of discussion boards as sources of data, which brings its own ethical dilemmas.[12]
In 2010-11 Prof. Parker and colleagues explored in two separate papers the contested meanings and difficulties associated with informed consent, highlighting challenges raised by an almost unquestioned acceptance of biomedical research ethics in social research and questioning whether potential ‘harm’ is different in this context.[13-14]
Prof. Hundley and colleagues discussed the ethical challenges involved in conducting a cluster randomised controlled trial, where getting informed consent can be complication.[15] Whilst it is worth reminding researchers that in issues of informed consent during pregnancy and childbirth one has to consider the potential for harm to two participants.[16]
References
The Association of Graduate Careers Advisory Services (AGCAS) is the professional body for careers and employability professionals working with higher education students and graduates and prospective entrants to higher education.
As the focal point for sector-wide research and expert opinion, this issue of Phoenix focused on current best practice surrounding placements. With membership of over 2,800 careers and employability practitioners in over 160 HE institutions, as well as in other sectors and overseas, it is a leading source of current practice and information.
‘Bournemouth University has an established history of PAL leaders, and has successfully trialled Placement PAL pilot projects, with the 2016-17 year being the first year that Placement PAL was implemented across the campus. Contributing to this dedicated issue was a wonderful opportunity to share our success with the greater UK HE university community, potentially creating Best Practice amidst the sector.’
‘Given the growing numbers of BU students choosing a sandwich placement experience, this issue contains a wide range of related current and topical issues. As both a practitioner and researcher in the field, I would highly recommend staff to read this issue.’
http://communications.agcas.org.uk/newsletters/7/issues/747
The deadline has been extended to the 14th of April , 2017.
This is a call for papers for the Special Session on Machine Learning in Medical Diagnosis and Prognosis at IEEE CIBCB 2017.
The IEEE International Conference on Computational Intelligence in Bioinformatics and Computational Biology (IEEE CIBCB 2017) will be held at the INNSIDE Hotel, Manchester from August 23rd to 25th, 2017.
This annual conference has become a major technical event in the field of Computational Intelligence and its application to problems in biology, bioinformatics, computational biology, chemical informatics, bioengineering and related fields. The conference provides a global forum for academic and industrial scientists from a range of fields including computer science, biology, chemistry, medicine, mathematics, statistics, and engineering, to discuss and present their latest research findings from theory to applications.
The topics of interest for the special session include (but are not limited to):
Up-to-date information and submission details can be found on the IEEE CIBCB 2017. The submission deadline is the 14th of April, 2017.
Please e-mail srostami@bournemouth.ac.uk with any questions.
This week saw the pre-publication of ‘Core principles to reduce current variations that exist in grading of midwifery practice in the United Kingdom’ in Nurse Education in Practice. This paper is co-authored by Dr. Susan Way in the Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health (CMMPH). The authors argue that these core principles could contribute to curriculum development in midwifery and other professions internationally.
Congratulations!
Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen
Reference:
(2017) Core principles to reduce current variations that exist in grading of midwifery practice in the United Kingdom, Nurse Education in Practice (forthcoming) see: http://www.nurseeducationinpractice.com/article/S1471-5953(17)30092-6/abstract
Call For Papers: RGS-IBG Annual Conference, London, 29th August -1st September 2017.
Que(e)rying Gender and Tourism Research
Eveleigh Buck-Matthews, Coventry University
Dr Jaeyeon Choe, Bournemouth University
Dr Claudia Eger, University of Warwick
Heather Jeffrey, University of Bedfordshire
Dr Caroline Scarles, University of Surrey
Sponsored by the Geographies of Leisure and Tourism Research Group (GLTRG) and the Gender and Feminist Geographies Research Group (GFGRG)
There is a growing body of knowledge concerned with gender and tourism, but still many voices remain unheard. Feminists are as varied as the subjectivities they so often research, but are joined together within a common emancipatory project. Queer theory can aid in an emancipatory project by destabilising foundational assumptions of normality (de Souza, Brewis & Rumens, 2016; Rumens & Tyler, 2016), and yet it has received little attention from tourism scholars. This session is designed to engage participants in a critical conversation on gender and feminism within tourism, hospitality and events research, to explore contentious issues among feminists and pave the way for collaboration. Papers concerning any aspect of gender within tourism, hospitality and events research are invited, as well as papers investigating multiple voices and perspectives within gender and tourism, which may relate to but not be confined by the following areas:
• Female hosts as guests and the reification of roles
• Masculinities in tourism, hospitality, and events
• LGBTQ voices in tourism, hospitality, and events
• Casual/precarious gendered workers
• Postcolonial feminism and subaltern studies in tourism
• Insights from queer theory for gender and tourism
• Feminist theory and practice
We are currently seeking contributions for a paper presentation session involving presentations each lasting around 15 minutes with time for questions. The presentation may be executed in a traditional or innovative style, and we actively encourage a wide range of styles; including snapshots and pechakucha.
Please send abstracts (approx. 250 words) with author contact details to Heather Jeffrey (heather.jeffrey@beds.ac.uk) by the 14th February 2017.
A new book series seeks to generate new insights into the connections between espionage and culture. During the second half of the twentieth century the public became aware of the importance of the role of espionage and security services. Television, radio and print news reported shocking events including the defection of Soviet moles like Kim Philby, Guy Burgess and Donald McLean; the Profumo affair of 1963 that exploded when the British Secretary of State for War, John Profumo, had an affair with a woman who was in contact with the Soviet security services; and the state censorship of Peter Wright’s memoir Spycatcher (1987). Whilst the news sparked the public interest popular culture soon followed and the 1950s and 60s saw the resurgence of spy books, films and television series. The James Bond franchise of books and films began in 1953 with the publication of the book Casino Royal. Bond achieved mass popularity in 1962 with the cinematic release of Dr No. Over the coming decades twelve authors have written James Bond novels or shorts stories and he has been played by seven actors with the books and films enjoyed by millions. Other authors such as John le Carré and Len Deighton released bestsellers which were adapted for film and television and brought an often more realistic version of spying to an international public.
The twenty-first century has seen no reduction in espionage intrigues and spy culture. The Edward Snowden release of American intelligence secrets , the murder of Alexander Litvinenko in London in 2006 and most recently the accusations that American President Donald Trump had been compromised by the Russian security services, who had also undertaken the mass hacking of American government computers during his election campaign, have ensured that espionage remains in the public eye. These news stories have seen the emergence of new espionage culture. The James Bond series remains as popular as ever. Le Carré’s Tinker Tailor, Soldier, Spy was remade in 2011. And in BBC’s The Game (2014) and FX’s The Americans (2013), the link to the Cold War remains close to the public association with espionage culture. This link has generated nostalgia for the Cold War with many people perceiving the era as relatively safe with the intelligence game making the world more secure than it is today with the asymmetric terrorist threat. The spy genre has also evolved and series like Homeland from 2011, the BBC’s Spooks and Channel 4’s recent reality-television series Spies (2017) have given viewers an inside view on the nature of modern espionage. Spy scandals and spy culture continue to play a key part in news and entertainment and capture the public imagination
Jointly edited by Dr Nicholas Barnett, Lecturer in Twentieth Century History at Plymouth University and Dr Laura Crossley, Lecturer in Film at Bournemouth University, ‘Routledge Studies in Espionage and Culture’ is a major new books series which seeks to investigate representations of the intelligence world and how we interact with it. The scope of the series is international and it seeks to blend several disciplines including cultural studies, history, literature and film studies. Books published in the series will investigate topics including: the spy novel, films, television shows, documentaries, games, music, fashion and materiality. Whilst books on the representation of intelligence agencies in popular culture are welcome the editors also welcome contributions which investigate political cultures and the everyday lives within the organisations themselves as well as wider considerations of surveillance culture. Scholars have long been interested in the representation of spies and spying and this series seeks to establish itself as one of the key outlets for continuing that scholarly conversation. Where possible the monographs and collections of essays will be include comparative international studies but submissions will also be welcomed which examine significant national cultures. The series does not seek to limit itself to any particular time period and will publish accounts of both historic and contemporary espionage and culture. Each book will feature a unique introduction written by the series editors.
Editors: Dr Laura Crossley (Bournemouth University) lcrossley@bournemouth.ac.uk
Dr Nicholas Barnett (Plymouth University) nicholas.barnett@plymouth.ac.uk
Focus groups in open air in rural Nepal, (c) Sheetal Sharma
Congratulations to Sheetal Sharma, postgraduate student in the Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health (CMMPH) whose latest paper on the process of the research in her PhD fieldwork was accepted today by the Journal of Asian Midwives [1]. Sheetal used an innovative mixed-methods evaluation which was applied to a long-running maternity intervention in rural Nepal. The intervention has been supported for nearly seven years by Green Tara Trust, a Buddhist charity based in London. Sheetal’s supervisors are supervisors are Prof. Vanora Hundley, Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen, Dr. Catherine Angell (all in CMMPH) and Prof. Padam Simkhada, who is Visiting Faculty in the Faculty of Health & Social Sciences and based at Liverpool John Moores University.
This paper is part of a larger body of health research work conducted by CMMPH in Nepal.
Reference:
Sharma, S., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E., Stephens J, Hundley, V., Angell, C. (2017) Evaluation of Maternity Care Intervention in Rural Nepal: Lessons learnt, Journal of Asian Midwives (accepted Jan. 2017).
The next Researchfish submission period will run in February/March 2017. The key dates and policies for the 2017 exercise are detailed below…
Next Submission Period dates
PIs will need to log on to researchfish® and submit a return between the 6 February and 4pm on 16 March 2017 to confirm that their outcomes information is accurate and complete at that time. Students will once again be asked to submit their outcomes then too. It is important to note that this time there will not be a blanket extension given to those who don’t submit by the deadline.
Studentships outcomes collection
The last Submission Period was the first time that all RCUK-funded Students were asked provide research outcomes from their Studentship awards. After considering the information gathered and the feedback received, RCUK has decided in future only students who are in the third or later year of their studies need to submit their outcomes. For the 2017 submission period this means students whose awards started on or before the 5 February 2015.
Sanctions
As was the case after the 2016 Submission Period, non-compliant PIs will lose eligibility to be either a PI or Co-I on further awards from any Research Council and any current awards will have their payments withheld until such time as the PI becomes compliant. Sanctions will not apply to students who do not comply with the request to submit their outcomes.
BU staff can login below:
MSCA Postdoctoral Fellowships 2024
Research Information Network
Upcoming opportunities for PGRs – collaborate externally
BU involved in new MRF dissemination grant
New COVID-19 publication
Horizon Europe News – December 2023