Category / Research Integritiy

HE Policy update w/e 31st March 2017

Research Integritiy, Training

This week has of course been all about Brexit with the Article 50 notice formally served on Wednesday.   Bu published information for staff and students on Wednesday.

Then the White Paper setting out the plans for the Great Repeal Bill which will deal with arrangements to make UK law work once the UK has left the EU – a challenge given how much EU law has been incorporated into UK laws and regulations. The Bill itself has not been published, but the approach it will take is set out in the White Paper:

  • “In order to achieve a stable and smooth transition, the Government’s overall approach is to convert the body of existing EU law into domestic law, after which Parliament (and, where appropriate, the devolved legislatures) will be able to decide which elements of that law to keep, amend or repeal once we have left the EU. This ensures that, as a general rule, the same rules and laws will apply after we leave the EU as they did before….
  • The approach outlined in this White Paper is designed to give businesses, workers, investors and consumers the maximum possible certainty as we leave the EU: but it also needs to provide the flexibility necessary to respond to all eventualities of the negotiation process.
  • This is a separate process from that by which the Government will bring forward a motion on the final agreement to be voted on by both Houses of Parliament before it is concluded.
  • The Great Repeal Bill will not aim to make major changes to policy or establish new legal frameworks in the UK beyond those which are necessary to ensure the law continues to function properly from day one. Therefore, the Government will also introduce a number of further bills during the course of the next two years to ensure we are prepared for our withdrawal – and that Parliament has the fullest possible opportunity to scrutinise this legislation”.
  • The most controversial part of the proposal relates to powers to make secondary legislation. The White Paper says “This will enable corrections to be made to the laws that would otherwise no longer operate appropriately once we have left the EU, so that our legal system continues to function correctly outside the EU, and will also enable domestic law once we have left the EU to reflect the content of any withdrawal agreement under Article 50.”

So will there be any changes to UK law linked to Article 50 – there are some clues in the White Paper:

  • Customs bill
  • Immigration bill
  • And on consumer protection, the Government intends to bring forward a Green Paper this spring which will closely examine markets which are not working fairly for consumers

What the White Paper says won’t change:

  • Environmental protection
  • Worker’s rights and equalities
  • Participation in European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), but not the EU Charter on Human Rights

Read more about the process for Brexit here.

Universities are not mentioned in the paper (except in the introduction where it is noted that the government acted fast to reassure applicants about fees) – there are on-going calls for the question of EU citizens in the UK to be settled fast, along with fee guarantees for students starting in 2018/19. UUK’s priorities for Brexit are set out in their short paper here and there are some interesting views written for the Universities All Party Parliamentary Group here.

Fake Research – UUK has a new blog on fake research following comments in the news about it. The blog helpfully brings together the latest reports and information in this area including the Research Councils UK guidance issued recently.

Higher Education and Research Bill – this will have its third reading in the House of Lords on Tuesday No more amendments have been added since the debate was postponed following the Westminster attacks. However, we know a little bit more about the government’s approach to the opposition and cross bench amendments made by the Lords. The bill will go back to House of Commons (to start its “ping-pong”) after Easter.

For example, of the 5 non-government amendments, one related to the requirement that universities should share information with local authorities to ensure that students are registered to vote. Jo Johnson has written a letter to HEFCE requesting that they do more to encourage institutions to support students to register to vote. They ask HEFCE to develop a best practice model and then encourage universities to use it. This amendment this therefore likely to be removed in the House of Commons

Another provided that the OfS could not approve a provider unless it has been validated for at least 4 years (as now) or has been approved by a Quality Assurance Committee as being full able to maintain the required standard for the duration of its authorisation and that it operates in the public interest and the interest of students. It seems unlikely that this will survive in the House of Commons:

  • A letter dated 22nd March from Jo Johnson sets out the government’s position that the student protection arrangements should cover this and that there will be a consultation on this as part of a Regulatory Framework consultation in the autumn of 2017.
  • A letter dated 8th March from Jo Johnson sets out why the government believes that the current validation arrangements do not work and explains why it should be easier for new providers to be authorised.

The other 4 amendments were:

  • Requiring UKRI to encourage international collaboration, not allowing students to be treated as long term migrants and not allowing more visa restriction on student or staff immigration more stringent than the day the act is passed – this is likely to be removed in the Commons pending the wider consultation on immigration policy which has been delayed since November
  • Removing the TEF clause and requiring the OfS to introduce instead a scheme to provide information about quality, which is approved by Parliament and which cannot be used to create a single composite ranking – This is likely to be removed in the Commons but it will be interesting to see if any concessions are made about the TEF. So far subject level TEF has been postponed for a year to allow for 2 years of pilot, but other changes may be forthcoming
  • A statement that the TEF (or its replacement) cannot be used to rank institutions as to the fees that they charge or the number of students they recruit, in the UK or overseas – this seems unlikely to survive – the student number/immigration issue will be dealt with as above, and the fee issue is so key to the government’s position on fees that it seems very unlikely to be dropped. There has been surprisingly little pick up on this issue – see the VC’s blog on this. There is a blog by Professor Mark Smith here.
  • The grounds in which institutions can appeal the revocation of their authorisation, so that instead of being on the grounds of an error of fact, a decision being wrong in law or unreasonable, it now just says that institutions can appeal on the grounds that “the decision was wrong” – this seems unlikely to survive – see the letter from Viscount Younger and Lord Young dated 20th

Apprenticeships – The Commons Select Committee on Education, Skills and the Economy have published a report on apprenticeships which raises a number of concerns about the focus on quantity over quality.

Social Mobility – Justine Greening gave a speech on 30th March on social mobility. She set out three priorities:

  • tackling geographic disadvantage
  • investing in long-term capacity in our system
  • making sure our education system as a whole really prepares young people and adults for career success

This speech refers to the plans for schools to work with universities but doesn’t give any more information (we are still waiting for the response to the consultation), technical education and widening access to universities.

Bringing FUSION to Nepal

Fusion, innovation, international, Knowledge Transfer, Publishing, Research Integritiy, student research, Training

FUSION abroad 2016We have written in many previous BU blogs about progress of our THET-funded project in southern Nepal (e.g. here AND here ). Today’s blog reflects on the use on BU’s unique FUSION approach in our project ‘Mental Health Training for Maternity Care Providers in Nepal‘.

DSC_0151Our BU-led project brings highly experienced health professionals, such as midwives, health visitors or mental health nurses, to Nepal to work as volunteer trainers. The training is aimed at community-based maternity care practitioners and addresses key mental health issues relevant to pregnancy and for new mothers and offers the required communication skills. These health professionals will bring their experience as health care providers as well as trainers in the field of mental health and maternity care/midwifery, mental ill-health prevention and health promotion. They volunteer for two to three weeks at a time to design and deliver training in southern Nepal.

logo THETThe Centre for Midwifery & Maternal Health (CMMPH) collaborates in this project with Liverpool John Moores University (LJMU), the Department of Health, and Physical & Population Education at Nepal’s oldest university Tribhuvan University’s (TU). The project is supported in the field by a local charity called Green Tara Nepal. Our project is part of the Health Partnership such as Nepal. HPS itself is funded by the UK Department for International Development and managed by THET (Tropical and Health Education Trust).

Fusion Diagram Our maternal mental health project is a good example of BU’s FUSION approach as it combines EDUCATION (through the training of Auxiliary Nurse-Midwives in Nepal) by UK volunteers (representing PRACTICE) through an intervention which is properly evaluated (representing RESEARCH) is a perfect example of BU’s FUSION in action. Moreover, the project will be partly evaluated by FHSS’s Preeti Mahato as part of her PhD thesis research. This PhD project is supervised by Dr. Catherine Angell (CEL & CMMPH), BU Visiting Professor Padam Simkhada (based at LJMU) and CMMPH’s Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen.BU’s focus on the FUSION of research, education and professional practice is a unique variant of the way UK universities (and many abroad) blend academic teaching, research and scholarship. FUSION is a key concept derived from BU’s strategic Vision & Values).

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH

Why editorials?

international, Knowledge Transfer, open access, Publishing, Research Integritiy, writing

Zika editorial 2016BU academics are editors on a wide range of scientific journals.  As editors we often write editorials for academic journals which have a number of specific functions.  It is a key means of communication between the editor(s) and the journal’s readership.  It is also vehicle to highlight topical academic and political issues related to the journal and the discipline(s) it represents. JAM June 2016 editorial

Earlier this week the latest issue of the Journal of Asian Midwives came out with an editorial which is an illustration of the first point giving information to the readers [1].  The topics addressed in this editorial included the announcement that this new journal was now indexed in the CINAHL Database, a recent major international conference in the field and a call for the forthcoming 2017 ICM (Internation Confederation of Midwives) tri-annual conference.  Today saw the publication of an editorial on the Zika virus and its potential impact in Nepal in the journal Medical Science [2].   This guest editorial co-written by BU’s Visiting Faculties Dr. Brijesh Sathian and Prof. Padam Simkhada with Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen (Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health) calls for action in Nepal.  A country where malaria is endemic. The Zika virus uses mosquitoes like the ones spreading Dengue fever and malaria.  Zika is a virus we do not wish to see spreading in countries where malaria is already rife.  The editorial warns that precautionary measures are needed to prevent a Zika outbreak as the spread of the virus to the country seems inevitable, the only uncertainty is when it will be arriving.

Both journals are Open Access which means these editorials can be read by anybody with internet access free of charge.

References:

  1. Jan, R., van Teijlingen, E. (2016) Editorial JAM June 2016, Journal of Asian Midwives 3(1):1. http://ecommons.aku.edu/jam/vol3/iss1/1/
  2. van Teijlingen, E., Sathian, B., & Simkhada, P. (2016). Zika & Nepal: a far greater risk for its population than to individuals. Medical Science 4(2): 312-313. http://www.pubmedhouse.com/journals/ms/articles/1064/PMHID1064.pdf

 

Announcement BU Humanisation Conference 2016

Research Integritiy

BU Humanisation Conference     21st June 2016

Venue: Room EB708, Executive Business Centre, 89 Holdenhurst Road, BH8 8EB

 

Please find the Programme for the Humanisation conference on the 21st June 2016 attached.

Please feel free to pass the information on to others internal and external to the university (academic and practice) who you feel may be interested

The conference is being run at no cost and so you need to make your own arrangements for lunch.  Let Dr. Caroline Ellis-Hill  ( cehill@bournemouth.ac.uk ) know by the 15th June if you wish to attend .

If you only want to attend for part of the day, please state which part of the day you’d like to attend.

 

9.30 Registration  
10.00 Dr Caroline Ellis-Hill Welcome
10.10 Anne Quinney Humanisation of the BU Generic Student Assessment Criteria.
10.30 Dr Sean Beer Perceptions of the authenticity of food: a study of residents in Dorset (UK)
10.50 Prof Ann Hemingway Innovative routes to Wellbeing: Equine Assisted interventions
11.10 Coffee  
11.30 Jane Fry Sharing human concerns: utilising an embodied interpretative approach to convey findings from a descriptive phenomenological study
11.50 Dr Carole Pound Humanising care: translating theory into practice in stroke care
12.10 Rutherford and Dr. Emer Forde The Rutherford Introspective Photography: Promoting self-reflection and wellbeing of GP trainees through photography.
12.30 Free time   Please see information about local venues for lunch
2.00 Dr Vanessa Heaslip How phenomenology enables insight into the Human lives of Gypsy Roma Travellers’
2.20 Mevalyn Cross Experiencing the Humanisation Framework together
2.40 Dr Jan Mosja Chaplaincy at the bedside. Learning from Buddhist chaplains and their contributions to the humanisation of health care.
3.00 Sally Lee Humanising and the Care Act well-being principle
3.20 Dr Mary Grant and Dr Catherine Lamont Robinson HeART of Stroke: feasibility study of an Art & Health intervention following a stroke
3.40 Thanks, Tea and Close  

 

The Concordat to Support Research Integrity

Research Integritiy

The Concordat to Support Research Integrity provides a comprehensive national framework for good research conduct and its governance. It outlines five commitments which the University must be compliant with as recipients of HEFCE funding.

HEFCE’s letter to all the heads of HEFCE-funded higher education institutions explains the requirement for institutions to comply with the Concordat to Support Research Integrity. It sets out HEFCE’s view of compliance with the Concordat, and provides advice for institutions on finding further information. The five commitments are:

  1. Maintain the highest standards of rigour and integrity in all aspects of research;
  2. Ensure that research is conducted according to appropriate ethical, legal and professional frameworks, obligations and standards;
  3. Support a research environment that is underpinned by a culture of integrity and based on good governance, best practice and support for the development of researchers;
  4. Use transparent, robust and fair processes to deal with allegations of research misconduct should they arise;
  5. Work together to strengthen the integrity of research and to review process regularly and openly.

Each commitment outlines the responsibilities of the researcher, the employers of researchers and the funders of research.

Bournemouth University is committed to ensuring that the research conducted at the Univeristy follows appropriate ethical, legal and professional frameworks and obligations.

A link to the Concordat can be found here:

http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/highereducation/Documents/2012/TheConcordatToSupportResearchIntegrity.pdf

Seminar, Prof Edwin van Teijlingen, ‘Maternal Mortality in Nepal’, Wed 20th April, Royal London House, R303, 13:00-13:50.

BU Challenges, Centre for Excellence in Learning, conferences, Fusion, Fusion Investment Fund, international, Knowledge Exchange, Knowledge Transfer, REF Subjects, Research assessment, Research Ethics, Research Integritiy, Research themes

Maternal Mortality in Nepal
Abstract: The session links various social and political factors that affect maternal mortality. Women dying in pregnancy and childbirth is very much a problem of and in low-income countries. This talk focuses on Nepal, one of the poorer countries of the world, to highlight a range of maternal health issues and wider influencing factors including globalisation and the influence of global organisations such as the World Health Organisation.

For further information regarding the Social Science seminar series, get in touch with Dr Mastoureh Fathi (mfathi@boutnemouth.ac.uk).

Pritchard & Harding paper cited in top journal, but there’s a ‘but…’

Publishing, Research Integritiy, writing

cloudAs an ECR I am delighted to see that a research paper that Prof. Pritchard and myself wrote in 2014 has been cited in one of the most well regarded journals in the field.

Our paper on the occupational backgrounds of Non-executive directors at NHS acute trusts, published in the Journal for the Royal Society of Medicine Open, was also the subject of an article in the now defunct Independent  newspaper and a post on this blog in May 2014.

Last year, in 2015, it was cited by a paper published in the Journal for Health Services Research and Policy. I won’t name which edition or paper because there is a ‘but…’, and it concerns the carelessness of the authors who cited our work.

There is a ‘but…’ because the authors got my name wrong – both in the in text citation and in the bibliography. The good news is that it still links on citation tracking systems (such as the function on Google Scholar) as a paper that I co-wrote. Yet as an ECR, who is trying to make his way in the ‘publish or perish’ world of academia, I can’t help but feel a bit frustrated. Here’s my name in a top journal, but it’s incorrect.

So I took action, I emailed the editors. To their credit I got a response within minutes, with an apology for the carelessness of the authors and that contact with the publisher had been initiated to see if it could be corrected. Yet, due to the inflexibility of doi, apparently this is unlikely.

This then got me thinking about my first publication. I have to admit I did not check the final galley proof thoroughly enough. Indeed, when it was published, it became apparent that I had not corrected some basic incorrect spelling of names in the bibliography. In other words, some very respected authors’ names were wrong! I can happily report that this was corrected, and no offence caused (I hope!).

But the lesson here – check final galley proofs. If you cite an article, I think the very least you can do, out of respect for colleagues, is to get the authors name right. I have made this mistake, and so have authors who have cited me, so it would scream hypocrisy if I was too mad! But it does show that it might be a relatively common problem, so again – check final galley proofs!

However, once the relative pain bypassed, one our papers has still been cited in a top journal – and that is very satisfying indeed.

 

‘Voices of the Secret State’: Seminar presentation by Dr Hyun Joo Lim, 16th March, Studeland House, Room S206, 13:00-13:50

Awarded & submitted bids, BRIAN, BU Challenges, Centre for Excellence in Learning, Coffee Morning, conferences, Funding opportunities, Fusion, Fusion Investment Fund, Grants Academy, Knowledge Transfer, Publishing, R & KE Operations, Research assessment, Research Ethics, Research Integritiy, Research themes, Women's Academic Network

All staff and students welcome. Please feel free to bring your lunch.

 

Voices of the Secret State: Human Rights Activism among North Korean

Defectors in the UK

 

Abstract: My paper aims to highlight the lived experiences and identity formation of North Korean defectors settled in the UK who are involved in human rights activism. Whilst violations of human rights in North Korea are well documented, human rights activism by its defectors is less well known. Since 2004, approximately 600 North Koreans have settled in the UK. Free NK, a human rights organisation born out of this settlement, has been active in illuminating the reality of North Korea whilst also working towards subverting the regime by informing its fellow remainders about the outside world through the distribution of newspapers. This paper is drawn from ongoing research on North Korean defectors living in the UK. The data is collected using life history interviews to capture their lived experiences and to identify a range of factors which have influenced their involvement in the activism whilst also seeking to find better ways of improving the wellbeing and quality of life for those activists. The presentation will focus on the in-depth story of a North Korean defector who has founded Free NK. Themes that will be addressed in this story include the reason why he has fled North Korea; the processes of getting to the UK; challenges he has faced in his human rights activism.
Dr Hyun-Joo Lim is a lecturer in Sociology and the programme leader for BA Sociology and Social Policy at BU. She is originally from South Korea and has been engaged in various research projects that explore issues around migration, ‘race’/ethnicity, gender and identity. Her previous research examined East Asian mothers in Britain.

For more information about Social Science seminar series please get in touch with Dr Mastoureh Fathi (mfathi@bournemouth.ac.uk).

 

Concordat on Open Research Data

Post-award, Publishing, Research Ethics, Research Integritiy

open dataAs mentioned by Emily in her August HE Policy post, a draft concordat has been published which seeks to make research data in the UK more openly accessible for use.

The concordat has been drafted under the auspices of the UK Open Research Data Forum [Note 1] by a multi-stakeholder working group, which includes HEFCE, Research Councils UK (RCUK), Jisc, the Wellcome Trust and Universities UK.  It aims to help ensure that the research data gathered and generated by members of the UK research community is made openly available for use by others wherever possible, in a manner consistent with relevant legal, ethical and regulatory frameworks and norms.

The concordat aims to establish a set of expectations of good practice, with the intention of making open research data the standard for publicly funded research over the long term.  It recognises the different responsibilities of researchers, their employers and the funders of research, although the intention is not to mandate, codify or require specific activities.

The full draft concordat can be found here – http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/research/opendata/

Key principals are outlined below:

Definition of Research Data used:

“Research Data are quantitative information or qualitative statements collected by researchers in the course of their work by experimentation, observation, interview or other methods. Data may be raw or primary (e.g. direct from measurement or collection) or derived from primary data for subsequent analysis or interpretation (e.g. cleaned up or as an extract from a larger data set). The purpose of open research data is to provide the information necessary to support or validate a research project’s observations, findings or outputs. Data may include, for example, statistics, collections of digital images, sound recordings, transcripts of interviews, survey data and fieldwork observations with appropriate annotations.”

Principle #1

Open access to research data is an enabler of high quality research, a facilitator of innovation and safeguards good research practice.

Principle #2

Good data management is fundamental to all stages of the research process and should be established at the outset.

Principle #3

Data must be curated so that they are accessible, discoverable and useable.

Principle #4

Open access to research data carries a significant cost, which should be respected by all parties.

Principle #5

There are sound reasons why the openness of research data may need to be restricted but any restrictions must be justified and justifiable.

Principle #6

The right of the creators of research data to reasonable first use is recognised.

Principle #7

Use of others’ data should always conform to legal, ethical and regulatory frameworks including appropriate acknowledgement.

Principle #8

Data supporting publications should be accessible by the publication date and should be in a citeable form.

Principle #9

Support for the development of appropriate data skills is recognised as a responsibility for all stakeholders.

Principle #10

Regular reviews of progress towards open access to research data should be undertaken.

Research ethics updated forms

PG research, Post-award, Research Ethics, Research Integritiy, student research

ethicsNew academic year, New forms!

New versions of the ethics forms available now, have a look at the research ethics page for the full details, under useful documents.

The new forms are the Participant Info Sheet and the previously titled Consent form, now titled Participant Agreement Form.

Please make sure you start using the new versions from now on, and please do let us know how you find them.

BU Ethics team