BU Research Blog

Research is fun; fun is research!  Appraisal targets, REF, RKE income targets, online journal submission systems, conferences – just to name a few of my personal bête noirs – all squeeze the fun out of research for me.  They all matter, no doubt about it, but they are all terribly serious!  Give me a pair of boots, a spade and a note book in some distant field and the stress of the world disappears to be replaced by the intellectual puzzle before me, the banter of my colleagues and a story to tell of past events!  Now that is fun and that is what research means to me.  That is when research is at its most fun, an experience immortalised and crowned by a published paper with illustrations crafted by my own hand.  I would love to know when research is most fun for you?  In fact I am committing myself this autumn to the leading the research is fun campaign!  So why not join me and share your experiences?

Thursday 26^th September saw the launch at BU of the Women’s Academic Network (WAN). It seems rather timely that as I am sitting writing this, there is a discussion on the Today programme about the re-rise of feminism and feminist activism.    WAN’s aims and raison d’être have been spelled out previously on this blog, and on Thursday after some wine/light refreshments we Retreated (sorry) to the inauspicious surroundings of the newly revamped Mary Shelley lecture theatre for our inaugural address.

Head of ApSci and HSC, Gail Thomas eloquently introduced the aims of the network, the committee and gave details of our Fusion funded speaker programme (first event November 22nd Laura Bates from everyday sexism, lunchtime seminar, room tbc) and read out a message of support from a sister network at UEA (see below). The Vice Chancellor, John Vinney then welcomed the packed room to the Women’s Academic Network, and to the event. He also highlighted how WAN is just one of a number of initiatives here at BU, including the excellent work being led by Tiantian Zhang around Athena Swan. Gail then introduced our speaker, Dr Fiona Beddoes-Jones from the Cognitive Fitness Consultancy. There was a collective intake of breath when the keynote mentioned things that can cause tension in organisations…such as car parks, but that is real life I guess. Her talk was derived in part from work in neuroscience and in a good natured manner she humorously took us through the differing characteristics of authentic leadership. She was careful to not revert to the biological determinism which can characterise this work, and she generated some very thought provoking questions after. She asked the audience to write down their 3’top tips’ for women academics. These have been collected, will be collated and posted here at a later date.

Sue Sutherland (OBE, Chair of the Board) then gave a vote of thanks where she talked about her own experiences and background.  She talked of the relative absence of women at senior level, and stressed there was recognition and a will to tackle this. She also emphasised the importance of having and of being role models, to each other and to our students, closing the address on an important note.

Networking opportunities followed and which provided a great opportunity to meet women across the University who we may not normally have had recourse to come across.

Thanks are finally due to the massive audience, it was great to see the place full. Thanks too for those messages of support and interest from those who could not be there.

So what happens next?

Well there are Fusion funded speaker events planned which will be advertised in the usual way. If you wish to be added to the mailing list please contact Jo Downey and we will keep you posted as we move forward.

This is just the start and we hope you are able to stay in touch and join in.

Letter of support from Resnet (women’s research network at UEA)

The Network for Women In Research

and Supporting Research

www.uea.ac.uk/resnet

25^th September 2013

Via hsavigny@bournemouth.ac.uk

Dear Heather  

On behalf of your friends on the ResNet Committee I am writing to send you and your colleagues all our best wishes for the launch of the Bournemouth University Women’s Academic Network – WAN.

As you know, ResNet has been running continuously here since 2000. There have been many improvements for women in research and academia since then, but there is still some distance to go. Consequently there is a very strong need for networks with a fairness and gender equality focus. Importantly, women remain under-represented in the more senior, decision making, senior academic posts. The issues retarding women’s advancement are complex and more open discussion is needed to improve awareness and lobby for change. WAN will give Bournemouth University a forum for these issues and the all-important networking space that academic women need and enjoy.

We wish WAN and yourselves every success and look forward to exchanging ideas between our two networks in the future.

Best wishes

Gill Malin

Chair of ResNet

Does Nigel Farage need a crash-course in EU law?

One of the things that struck me about the recent coverage of the UKIP conference (which, as I will explain, is not entirely unrelated to the pamphlet that struck Michael Crick) was that many UKIP members complained that the controversy surrounding Godfrey Bloom’s comments overshadowed their emergence as a real political force.  It seems certain that at the next European and local elections, and possibly even at the general election, UKIP will be a major player.  My research background in EU law means I am interested in how the political world frames and explains EU issues, and particularly the extent to which political positions reflect the laws underpinning them.  UKIP’s manifesto is a rich source here, and this is the perhaps tenuous connection to the document that played such a starring role in the Bloom-Crick kerfuffle.

Reading through Nigel Farage’s keynote speech – with the intention of writing a post about the EU laws underpinning his comments on immigration – I stumbled across this statement: ‘our laws have come from Brussels – and what laws. What directives. What a list of instructions. How this shall be done. How that shall be regulated’.

This struck me for several reasons.  Much of my research is concerned with the relationship between EU law and EU democracy (I’m sure many readers would argue that it is now my phrase that is striking, even an oxymoron – without wishing to go into too much detail, the EU does have democratic processes, even if their effectiveness and suitability is questionable).  Because of this background, whenever a politician talks about ‘Brussels’ or ‘EU laws’, I am put slightly on edge.  They are broad terms that risk oversimplifying a complicated area.  Debates about EU democracy need to be based on clear understandings of the underpinning laws; otherwise one risks, in Mr Farage’s words, ‘playing the man and not the ball’.

With that in mind, I’d like to look at two aspects of the quotation I highlighted above – the references to ‘Brussels’ and ‘laws’ – and explain that the situation is not quite as simple as the speech makes out.  My analysis is going to be a brief one focused on the relevant legal procedures – Channel 4’s FactCheck blog has some interesting posts on the statistical side of the speech.

Brussels

It is very common to hear politicians talking about Brussels as an umbrella term for the EU, either positively or negatively.  But what does it mean? When ‘Brussels’ makes law, who is actually making them?

The answer is lawyerly: it depends.  The EU acts on the principle of conferred powers.  This means it can only legislate in areas mandated by the Treaties – if it enjoys a so-called ‘legal basis’.  For example, the EU has some environmental law competences because of Articles 191-192 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.  Each legal base found in the Treaties requires a particular legislative procedure, and each process calls for different involvement from the Council (made up of elected national ministers), the European Parliament (directly elected MEPs) and the Commission (an appointed body but one which typically proposes laws rather than passes them).

Broadly speaking, since the Lisbon Treaty most EU laws have been made using the ‘ordinary legislative procedure’.  This was previously known as ‘co-decision’.  Under this procedure, the Commission proposes legislation (sometimes prompted by the Parliament or national ministers), but it is not a legislative body.  A majority of votes in the Council and the European Parliament must agree on the final draft of a particular proposal before it becomes law.  Less frequently there will be a ‘special legislative procedure’, which normally means the Parliament is just consulted by the Council; on rarer occasions it sees no role for the Parliament or gives the Parliament a veto.

So, does a monolithic ‘Brussels’ pass these laws? Not exactly.  EU laws are passed through a process of negotiation and bargaining amongst elected national ministers and elected MEPs.  Even if the MEPs are sidelined, promulgation remains the responsibility of elected national ministers.  This may be imperfect, but it perhaps differs to the common perception.

Laws

It is interesting that the speech uses the words ‘directive’ and ‘regulated’.  This is because Directives and Regulations are two different kinds of EU law, and each works in a different way.  This doesn’t mean that the EU is not passing laws which affect the UK, but it does mean that EU laws are not diktats.

A Regulation is binding on Member States from the moment it is passed: it has ‘direct effect’.  Those laws do indeed tell Member States ‘how this shall be done’ – for example, a common customs code – although one might point out that laws tend to tell people what to do.  As noted above however, it is the Member States themselves, and usually elected MEPs, that have agreed to whatever course of action is proposed.

A Directive on the other hand gives far more discretion to Member States.  Directives set out a certain goal – for example, make sure EU citizens can move and reside freely across the EU (with certain caveats) – but it is only the goal that is binding.  Member States can pursue that aim however they wish, and it is not unheard of for a given state’s domestic law to already comply with the Directive.  In that regard Directives certainly do not tell states ‘how this shall be done’.

Once again then, the situation seems more complex that it has been made out.  The image of ‘Brussels’ telling states ‘what to do’ is not necessarily accurate.

Final thoughts

There is an understandable and important debate occurring about whether the UK should remain in the EU, but it should be based on a clear picture of how the EU operates.  Phrases such as ‘Brussels’ and ‘EU laws’ are commonplace, but they risk oversimplifying the issues.  Decisions and policy ought to follow from a more solid basis.  A clearer understanding of the law leads to a more informed debate.

For the past four years we have run Research Assistantship Schemes in the Psychology Research Centre. These schemes, both voluntary and paid (fusion-funded), have lead to both expected and unexpected benefits. Read on to find out more.

The 2nd year Psychology undergraduate voluntary Research Assistantship Scheme received 45 applications this year which represented 25% of the eligible year group. This represents an almost 50% increase on the year before. Prior to formalising the scheme numbers were much lower than that. Formalising the scheme has helped reveal an amazing appetite for research in the undergraduate population, but our schemes have had further reaching benefits. One benefit has been that our accrediting body, The British Psychological Society, has commended the RA scheme. We have also learned that some students applied to our undergraduate course because of the RA scheme.

The related Fusion-funded Research Assistantship Summer Scheme received 37 applications for the 7 paid positions. Two of the positions were advertised to completed 3rd year students. Advertised as prestigious positions and a potential platform to MSc level study, all of the 3rd year applicants went on to apply for our research MSc in Lifespan Neuropsychology. This year the number of BU students recruited to the MSc has doubled (acting as somewhat of a buffer against the sector-typical drop in external applications). Furthermore, 66% of the unsuccessful applicants volunteered as RAs with us over the summer instead of missing out. Some of these applicants joined our RA schemes in their second years as volunteers meaning that we have provided them with a pathway for research training from early in their degree through to MSc; for some this has lead to their names’ inclusion on submitted papers.

For the first time this year the summer scheme positions sought sponsorship. Non-financial sponsorship came from three local charities alongside which the RAs worked giving them further invaluable experience. At least one of these is now considering providing financial sponsorship for summer 2014; we hope to introduce matched- or fully-funded sponsorship options in the near future. In sum, the RA positions are a useful route route to engagement with local, external bodies and could entice first-time funders, representing first-step funding, and potentially leading to funding for matched- or perhaps fully-funded PhD positions and beyond.

The RA schemes have been running in the Psychology Research Centre for four years. Increasing formalisation has led some important benefits for students and staff and revealed an appetite for for research in the undergraduate population that previously could only have been guessed at. For sure, some of this represents the desire for more general experience for CVs but most are genuinely interested in the outcome of the research. Students learn the difficulties involved in research and begin to better understand and appreciate what academics spend their time doing when they are not teaching. Staff are learning more about the utility of involving fresh, eager minds in their research. If wielded properly, RA schemes have the potential to meet student demands, increase MSc level study here at BU and as a consequence prevent the loss of our best students, and help build future researchers. We are happy to report all of these outcomes in the four years the schemes have been running. We aim to continue the formalisation and offer Certificates for newly defined stages of Research Assistantship, which involves combining our up until now separate voluntary and paid schemes. We have spoken to at least one head of group who is interested in porting this formalised scheme to their discipline and to allowing our RAs to interact in the hope of fermenting interdisciplinary discussion and research and the undergraduate level. We hope that this blog entry will spark more interest.

I am delighted to announce that we will shortly be launching a new interdisciplinary seminar series on Cyber Security.  Our invited speakers will give interesting, thought-provoking talks on a variety of topics related to security and privacy.  Although some of these speakers will be academic, their talks will be approachable and require nothing more than a general interest in security, and an enquiring mind.

The seminars will take place at the Executive Business Centre on Tuesdays from around 5pm and will last for approximately an hour.  The seminar series will also be an opportunity for like-minded folk to come together and build connections to start tackling the issues discussed.  Therefore, after each seminar, we will convene at a nearby pub for more networking and discussion.

We will announce details of our first seminars soon.  In the meantime, please get in touch if you have suggestions for possible seminar speakers and topics.

Some would say, me included, that BU has until recently been rather insular and not very well embedded within its region.  We have often viewed with suspicion requests to collaborate and seen our region simply as a source of enterprise income rather than a source of fruitful collaboration.  During the last year we have spent a huge amount of time and effort in changing this and embracing the true concept of knowledge exchange as a real, meaningful and two-way exchange of information.  As a result our influence within the region is growing and we are seen by many key stakeholders as crucial to generating regional economic growth, something which is a mirror of current government policy.  As a Member of the Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP), where I represent both our region’s Universities, I have used my position to promote a more open and accessible HE sector willing to engage and invest in our region’s growth.  The LEP is currently working on its Local Growth Strategy, along with a regional Skills Plan and a strategy to underpin its future management of EU Structural Investment Funds (EUSIF).  Graduate retention and the creation of high skills jobs are keys to continued economic growth within Dorset.  BU believes that the Creative and Digital, along with the Health and Social Care sectors are crucial to achieving this and we are actively promoting these areas along with more traditional ones like advanced manufacturing and big data. 

By way of illustration, in June this year we helped to orchestrate the signing of a regional Manifesto for the Creative and Digital Economy which brought together private and public bodies, as well as the regions’ politicians, in a commitment to support and grow the creative and digital sector.  The long-term vision is to establish Dorset as an international hub for creative and digital businesses.

 A key outcome from the manifesto was the creation of a working group tasked with turning the manifesto’s vision into a reality.   The working group, chaired by David Ford, Chief Executive of Bright Blue Day, is made up of senior representatives from business, the public sector and education.   BU is wholly committed to driving delivery of the manifesto’s vision and we have made a number of commitments (both financial and in-kind) to support the work.  One of these was a commitment of staff time from BU and Samantha Leahy-Harland from OVC is spending half her working week supporting David Ford on taking forward the manifesto.  Currently the team are finalising the brand for the initiative which I hopefully will be able to share very soon.  Another commitment made by BU and Bournemouth Borough Council was to support Matt Desmier, a creative consultant, in the creation of Think Create Do, an online portal to support the creative and digital media economy locally.  Think Create Do will include a jobs board with opportunities for students, a news feed, events diary and a directory of local businesses.  The site goes live in the autumn and I’ll post with more details in due course.  Matt Desmier is of course also behind the annual Silicon Beach Conference [http://www.siliconbeach.eu/index.html], now in its third year, and of which BU is proud to again be a sponsor.  Longer term we hope to support the creation of Dorset’s own creative and digital village.  I will keep you posted and would be happy to discuss our regional agenda with groups of interested staff over the next few months.

Do you have an ever growing list of things that you need to do?  Do you keep it written down or like me swirling in your head?  In truth, I have in recent years had to resort to using a list of actions that sits alongside my email and have various jotted notes as well.  Anyway my point is?

 My point is that sitting at the top of my ‘to do’ list this week is to complete the mandatory ethics module for all researchers at BU [Research Ethics].  The clock is ticking and this needs to be completed by the end of September by all academic staff.  This includes all BU employees who supervise students on dissertations/thesis, part-time hourly lecturers who supervise students, academic staff who are not research active and demonstrators/technical staff who assist with dissertation supervision; everyone in fact!  It is also mandatory for all new starters and PGR students.  So why, I hear you ask?

 We all face ethical questions within our research, even those like me that like to work on inanimate rocks!  Should one collect a rock sample, pocket that fossil and what are the implications of doing so?  Ethics impacts on all research and understanding the basic issues and when formal approval is needed and when it is not, is vital for all researchers.  Our Ethics Policy and procedures are still relatively new which reflects our institutional history and the fact that we don’t have a large medical faculty.  However, most of our research does involve people and ethics can’t be ignored.  A year ago we tightened up our procedures around ethics, introducing the online ethics checklist, and are currently revising our ethics codes with the intention of making further changes to procedures this autumn.  This reflects a growing institutional maturity and also, disturbingly for me, a growing body of case law. 

Raising institutional awareness of ethics is therefore both timely and, in my experience over this last year, much needed.  Completing the course ‘Ethics 1: Good Research Practice’ and passing the online test is mandatory for all staff including myself!  There is also a second module ‘Ethics 2: Working with Human Subjects’ that is recommended for those working with human participants (directly or indirectly) in research projects.  You gain access to the modules by logging in to myBU and clicking on ‘Research Ethics’ under the ‘My Communities’ tab. 

I would encourage you all to complete the module, since the draconian bit – yes sorry – is that staff who don’t complete the training will be excluded from applying for BU funding (e.g., Fusion Investment Funding and BU Studentships) and participating on BU development schemes.  So I had better stop writing and get on with doing the module!

Media School scholar, Dr An Nguyen, has been featured among the most-cited authors in both of the world’s top journals in journalism studies, according to the latest data from Google Scholar Metrics. 

 Dr Nguyen has two sole-authored articles — both on the diffusion and impact of of online news — that are among the most cited papers of Journalism Studies and  Journalism, the only two journalism journals in Google Scholar’s top 20 communication journals.

 Google Scholar Metrics, which aims to help scholars to assess the visibility of journals and to consider where to publish, ranks journals according to their recent citations. The 2013 data were based on citations during the five full years between 2008 and 2012. 

 They cover eight broad areas of research: Business, Economics & Management; Chemical & Material Sciences, Engineering & Computing Science; Health & Medical Sciences; Humanities, Literature and Arts; Life Sciences and Earth Sciences; Physics & Mathematics; and Social Sciences. Each broad area is divided into a good number of sub-categories, each featured with its top 20 journals. 

 Journalism Studies and Journalism ranks 6th and 16th in the sub-category of Communication Studies. The former also stands at 12th in the broad field of Humanities, Literature & Arts. 

 An Nguyen joined BU in 2011 from the University of Sussex, where he headed its journalism programmes. His main research interests include online journalism, news audiences and citizenship,  science journalism, and the globalisation of news. 

 For further information on Google Scholar Metrics, visit http://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/metrics.html.