/ Full archive

Research Ethics @ BU

Research Ethics

Research EthicsAll research undertaken by BU staff and students is subject to appropriate ethical reflection, leading to a formal ethics review as appropriate.

When is a formal ethics review appropriate?  It is not possible to produce a definitive list, but key examples include all research involving human participants, tissue or personal data, experimentation on animals, animal tissue, genetically modified organisms, research on sensitive issues, research that might have an impact on the environment or our cultural heritage.

An ethics opinion from an appropriate Reviewer must be obtained before you can commence any data collection activity.

  • For staff and PGRs (high risk) this will be provided by a Central Research Ethics Panel
  • For PGRs (low risk) this will be provided by an Ethics Champion (Department)
  • For UG/PGT students (high risk) this will be provided by an appropriate Ethics Programme Team
  • For UG/PGT students (low risk) this will be provided by the Named Supervisor.

Data collection activities should not start until you have received a Favourable Opinion and your checklist has been approved online.

What type of activity may not require a formal ethics review?  Examples include patient and public involvement (PPI) to inform future research, audit, course or service evaluation.  Please refer to the research ethics code of practice (specifically 5.1 and 5.5).

How to seek a formal ethics review

  • Complete the online ethics checklist and don’t forget if recruiting human participants to attach relevant supporting documents such as Participant Information Sheet (PI Sheet), Participant Agreement Form (PAF), a copy of the questionnaire, interview/focus group schedule including questions, recruitment materials such as a poster, social media posts etc – any material that a participant will read needs to be reviewed.

Key Resources

To conclude this week’s spotlight on research ethics, ‘Research cannot be rendered ethical by completing a one-off administrative task… researchers and evaluators need to work in an ethical way throughout the research process[1].’

As we discussed earlier this week, it is important to think of the ethics process as a ‘live’ issue.  Some key examples are given below:

  • The data. What have you collected; does it contain personal information/special category data?  Are your data management plans still relevant?
    • If collecting personal or special category data, you need to consider data minimisation. This means minimising the scope of the data (i.e. data fields) which are necessary for the research.  Steps include limiting the scope of the data collected, deleting data fields when no longer required, masking some data fields to reduce identification risk or fully anonymising data, setting access restrictions in respect of data in an identifiable form.
  • Wellbeing both physical and emotional. This is important when in the field, for you and your participants but also extends to the data analysis phase, particularly if reliving the discussion, which can be traumatic depending on the topic.
  • Planned aftercare: If recruiting participants what relationship might develop between you and your participants? How will the activities conclude and what would be appropriate participant aftercare?
  • Planned dissemination/outputs: could the results be misused by people with different agendas?
  • Ethics submission. It is your responsibility to ensure that where the scope of the research project changes, such changes are evaluated to ensure that the Favourable Opinion you have been issued remains appropriate.    If your agreed research protocol has changed, you should complete an Amendment Request Form before changes are implemented.

Help is always on hand

If you have a question related to research ethics, there are a few avenues where you can seek advice:

  • Students should contact their supervisor in the first instance
  • Staff can contact a member of the Research Ethics Panels for an informal chat.
  • You can also contact a member of the RDS Governance Team by emailing Research Ethics

[1] Helen Kara, 2018. Research Ethics in the real world, Policy Press

UKCGE Recognised Research Supervisors: Congratulations

PG research

 

 

 

 

 

 

Congratulations to the following doctoral supervisors who have successfully gained UKCGE (UK Council for Graduate Education) Recognised Research Supervisor status:

  • Dr Lyle Skains (FMC)
  • Dr Fiona Cownie (FMC)
  • Dr Kaouther Kooli (BUBS)
  • Dr Mark Readman (FMC)
  • Dr  Xiaosong Yang (FMC)
  • Dr Geli Roushan (FLIE)

These individuals join 9 other colleagues from across BU (BUBS (1); FHSS (7); FST (1)) who have already gained this national recognition for their doctoral supervision. To submit the portfolio, you must have at least one doctoral completion.

There are opportunities for anyone who has experience of doctoral supervision to find out more at forthcoming Doctoral College Supervisory Lunch Bites on Wednesday 2 March and Monday 16 May. These sessions provide an introduction to the UKCGE’s Good Supervisory Practice Framework and the Research Supervision Recognition Programme which allows established supervisors to gain recognition for this challenging, but rewarding, role. Staff attending the sessions will be able to:

  • use the Framework to navigate the wide-ranging, highly complex and demanding set of roles that modern research supervisors must undertake to perform the role effectively
  • reflect on their own practice, compared to a benchmark of good practice
  • identify strengths and weaknesses and build upon the former and address the latter with targeted professional development
  • work towards recognition of their expertise by a national body.

These sessions will be led by Dr Martyn Polkinghorne, UKCGE Recognised Research Supervisor; BUBS: Principal Academic; FLIE: Education Excellence Theme Leader; TeachBU: Academic Lead. Dr Polkinghorne is a national reviewer for the scheme on behalf of UKCGE.

The Faculty of Health & Social Sciences is also running 3 sessions to support staff in reflecting upon their practice, and build in underpinning evidence. This open to staff from all faculties to find about the scheme and start to think about the different components. Further details can be found here.

Research Ethics – Central Research Ethics Panels

Research Ethics

By Prof Jonathan Parker, Chair of the Social Sciences & Humanities Research Ethics Panel

Research EthicsIt can be very easy to become a little confused about research ethics processes within universities. The spread of research ethics review has grown inexorably in the UK since 2005 when the, then, Department of Health introduced research ethics scrutiny into social care following developments since Nuremberg and the Declaration of Helsinki which established biomedical ethical review processes to safeguard against potentially serious harms to research participants. The introduction of research ethics into arts, humanities, and social sciences, alongside biomedical and natural science research, has not always been easy, and confusions with homogenous processes have been critiqued. However, over the last 16 years, UK universities have seen the establishment of research ethics review processes through the formation of research ethics panels. These differ across universities in their operational minutiae and focus, although there are similar forms and underlying criteria in each to ensure that funding bodies, publishing houses and universities can assure themselves of due process and consideration in safeguarding both those participating in research studies and themselves.

At BU, research ethics is governed by an overarching university research ethics committee, which is chaired by an independent lay member. This committee deliberates the processes of research ethics in two operational panels and develops strategies and policy that are presented to Senate for consideration and ratification. It is the two research ethics panels with which most academics are likely to have dealings. We have one panel specifically dedicated to science, technology and health research chaired by Prof Sam Porter and a second concerned with the social sciences and humanities (including practice-based arts) chaired by Prof Jonathan Parker. Both panel chairs are supported by a deputy – Associate Prof. Dr Jayne Caudwell in science, technology and health and Prof Richard Berger in social sciences and humanities. The panels comprise members from across the university’s faculties and departments aiming for broad expertise, disciplinary scope and balance. Roles on the panels are undertaken for a period of three years, with the opportunity of renewal (maximum five years), to ensure there is continual refreshing of the membership, thinking and practice and also continuity.

Each panel meets on a monthly basis to scrutinise research ethics checklists and accompanying documentation, such as Participant Information Sheet and Participant Agreement Forms, from academic staff and PGRs (high risk) to ensure that ethical, moral and governance issues are met and to offer advice and support to researchers. The researchers, themselves, are invited to attend discussion at a panel meeting, which currently takes place online, and to present their studies and engage in debate about the ethical implications of their work and how potential harms can be prevented and mitigated. The process is designed to be collegiate and supportive and to ensure that research can be undertaken. Of course, attending the panel can raise anxieties but members try hard to put people at their ease and to keep the focus on developing the best possible research project in ethical terms. The panels are there to consider first and foremost any ethical issues that may arise within the proposed research and how this is addressed. However, it may be the case that questions are raised about the way the research is presented in outward facing documents or how the research is designed. The reasons for this are not to take issue with the academic thrust or to champion a particular methodology or research philosophy but to consider the effects on people and the confidence they can have in the research – so, they become an ethical concern.

What we look for in a good, ethically sound research proposal is:

  • A clear, coherent approach to the research
  • Explicit consideration of issues affecting potential participants, researchers, general public, discipline and university
  • A concern for moving beyond from simply ‘doing no harm’ to actively benefitting people and society wherever possible
  • A focus on maintaining dignity, privacy and confidentiality
  • Ensuring people are not identified and that participants can be assured of their anonymity, or able to waive that where appropriate and wanted, when research is disseminated
  • Finding ways for people often excluded or hidden from having a voice to participate and be included within research studies
  • Emphasising the voluntary nature of participation and consent for involvement except in the most exceptional circumstances
  • Sound data management plans and safe, GDPR compliant storage of data

The panels only scrutinise PGR (high risk) and staff research and do not get involved in PGR (low risk), undergraduate or PGT projects as these remain within the purview of supervisors, ethics champions (pgr) and the respective programme ethics teams (ug/pgt) within departments. However, where members of staff have developed specific projects as part of the taught curriculum these may be viewed by panel as they become staff research.

The panels are constantly refreshing as mentioned above and if you are interested in developing your expertise in research ethics you may wish to put yourself forward as a potential member. Our RDS Research Governance Team, Sarah Bell and Suzy Wignall, without whom the panels could not operate, circulate calls at appropriate times and should you be interested you should contact your Deputy Dean for Research and Professional Practice.

Research Collaboration with Bournemouth University,  Zimmer Biomet, and Bournemouth Hospital

A team of academics from the BU’s Design and Engineering Department in collaboration with Royal Bournemouth Hospital and Zimmer Biomet, an international medical device company, have just started a new research project. The aim is to investigate the difference between various joint fore sensor developed by different manufacturers. It is speculated that the knowledge of exact initial load intensity in joint during surgery and tracking its position is important and has a direct impact on the outcome of orthopaedic surgeries.

The aim is to use available knee joint force and tracking transducers to evaluate their performance when measuring both structural and dynamics integrity of knee joint during and after TKRA. Ideal load balance in the knee increases the life of the knee, reduces pain and discomfort, improved gait symmetry, improve range of motion hence promoting close to normal activities such as running or jugging.  Our team is led by Prof A. Harvey, a consultant knee specialist at RBCH supported by Professor Siamak Noroozi. Other members of the team are Dr. Roya Haratian, Ms Samira Al-Nasser plus external supervisors/advisors.

This project’s aim is to investigate the effectiveness of the use of the new generation of smart joint transducers within the clinical setting, using Cadaver. The objective of this   investigation is to inform orthopaedic operations/surgery in real time needed to achieve optimum load and load balance.

Accurate measurement, tracking and balancing of the joint contact force is directly linked to the in-service performance of the joint and its durability. Current practices in setting the ideal joint tension or assessing optimum joint kinematics during joint operation,  are subjective and artisan at best. The aim of this investigation is to evaluate if exact and repeatable joint forces that can be measured or set during operation. The new generation of smart sensors can track and measure the contact forces and contact location and kinematic performance of the joint in real time.

Optimum kinematics and optimum load balancing can potentially extend the life of the implant, minimising the risk of premature joint failure that requires expensive revision surgery. The transducer validation procedure will include assessments of reliability, ease of application, relative accuracy against benchmarks, if available,  as well as and structural and dynamics integrity of the joint, to show their effectiveness as compared to an overall load measurement using hand or Robotics manipulators. Other issues such as compliance with relevant BSI (British Standard Institution) and MHRA (Medicine and Health Regulatory Agency) will also be investigated.

It is speculated that joint force tracking and balancing artefacts/transducer technologies can improve the outcomes of all orthopaedic surgeries. This is done by improving the accuracy and repeatability of the joint replacement surgery. A useful transducer should be able to accurately measure the joint contact forces and track its location over the surface of the insert in real time. This, in time, can lead to identifying the ideal joint load intensity and its relationship to age, gender, size etc..

The NJS (National Joint Registry) reports that on average every year 11% of hip, 6% of knee, 1% of ankle, 11% of shoulder, and 33% of elbow joints require surgical revision. This costs the NHS (National Health Services) around £2,000,000,000 every year. Our technology will reduce the subjectivity of primary joint replacement surgery, minimise risks, and improve outcomes. In turn this will reduce the need for revision joint replacement surgery and result in a much more cost-effective service.


Number of joint surgeries and the need for revision in 2016 [NJS Report 2016]

An ideal system should use a combination  AI (Artificial Intelligence) as well as , IMU (Inertial Measurement Unit), Image processing, and in-depth knowledge of Mechanical and Electrical/Electronics engineering, GUI (Graphical User Interface designs), Signal Processing, Material science and control strategies.

Through a a number of cadaveric studies, the project will evaluate the validate the and effectivness of such transducer’s operation.  We will also increase our understanding of the need for optimum joint tension intra-operatively, so that we can use the transducer safely and effectively during knee joint replacement surgery.

This outcome of this research will help to improve our understanding of the forces involved and the outcome of all joint replacement surgeries.  Such tools help  surgeons to make real time fine adjustments during the procedure to ensure optimal component implantation.  This innovative approach will allow accurate and instantaneous intraoperative assessment of joint contact forces and tracking its location. We also anticipate that these studies will further our understanding of the optimal load intensity in joints and the surrounding tissues. During the operation, the smart/intelligent transducer element of the system will enable surgeons to accurately track and measure the joint contact forces and location and the resulting muscle tensions at various positions and orientations.

This project will bring together some large institutions such as the NHS, Zimmer Biomet –UK and several very skilled surgeons, and engineers, allowing implementation of these medical devices. This is in keeping with the industrial strategy document relating to early diagnosis and precision medicine, healthy ageing, cutting-edge healthcare which the government identifies as a strategic area of investment.

These new technologies also support the need for the development of new mechatronics degree or specialist unit for those studying medical, biomedical, and biomechanical related degrees. This research can also be attractive as short courses to train/up-skill experienced doctors and orthopaedic surgeons. This will enable Bournemouth University to become a centre of excellence for all UK joint force measurement and kinematic assessment research.

The social impact of this project would be in terms of improving living standards and economic growth by increasing productivity and driving growth across the whole country (Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, 2017). The NJR (National Joint Registry) data as evidenced in Figure 1 also shows the need for the growth in industries that inform joint surgeries. This is due to the cost of unscheduled revision surgeries due to mechanical failure of the joint from excess loading or poor alignment etc. This indirect cost saving comes from reduction of revision surgeries as the result of using our technologies. Hence reducing cost while improving quality of care using advanced technologies. The report also highlights, it is essential that all options that could improve the nation’s health related businesses for the long term are explored for possible investment. This will provides a long-term solutions that both directly and indirectly improve the quality of life of those who need or depend of surgical intervention or need assistive technologies, or GPs who need to monitor performance without the need for referring to large specialist centres, or consultants who wish to predict plan their surgeries in advance and need to determine the required mechanical advantages of their interventions.

Such tools will reduce the pressure on GPs & orthopaedic surgeons. It also over time creates the database of good practices towards the gold standard of “Getting it right first time”, which reduces NHS cost and the pressure they work under. For patients, it means improved quality of life by minimising the needs for future revision surgeries and faster recovery to more normal or symmetric gait hence reducing pain and/or fatigue etc.

Building scams intelligence within student in the South West. Can you help Trading Standards?

student research

I am reaching out in the hope that some of you will be able to help Trading Standards, who are currently hoping to reach students (primarily 1st years) with their short survey around financial scamming.
This issue is so relevant right now and Trading Standards are looking to carry out an Educational Campaign to help protect students from scamming and it would be amazing if you were able to help kickstart this.
Their project aims to expand on a piece of work carried out by student volunteers at Plymouth Uni with Plymouth TS and Devon & Cornwall police. Trading Standards South West has been given the go ahead to roll the project out regionally to see if the results are reflective of wider scale issues about scam reporting, etc. The project is looking:
  • To coordinate with universities and further education to benchmark where scams and fraudulent activity is currently reported and explore barriers to reporting
  • To gather intelligence directly from the universities and further education centres of the scams and fraudulent activity currently being targeted at their students
  • To run an education campaign in Q4 2020/21 based on the emerging threats and intelligence gathered
  • To evaluate the project and determine which routes of intelligence work best within these establishments and determine whether a dedicated student reporting mechanism is required, which may be hosted within Trading Standards

Colleagues across the South West are therefore exploring opportunities with their local higher education providers to obtain feedback on the scams experience prevalent within the student population, emerging threats, etc.

Here is the link to the initial survey: https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/N86NS8H

Thank you in advance to anyone who may be able to share this with their students.

Research Ethics – Pitching the Participant Information Sheet at the Right Level

Research Ethics

by Prof Sam Porter, Chair of the Science, Technology & Health Research Ethics Panel

Research EthicsOne of the core principles of ethical research is that people should have a free choice as to whether or not they wish to participate in a research project, and that they should know what that will involve and how it might affect them before they make that choice. In short, they should give their informed consent. What we wish to concentrate on in this blog is the ‘informed’ bit of this phrase. In our work on ethics panels, we have sometimes observed applications in which almost all the concentration is on the ‘consent’ part, making sure that the paperwork giving permission to proceed is correct and watertight. This is unfortunate, because if someone is not properly aware of what they are letting themselves in for, then their consent is meaningless; it is ‘uninformed‘. This isn’t a matter of researchers deliberately setting out to hoodwink and deceive potential participants; it’s more a matter of them pitching the information at a level that compromises clarity and ease of understanding.

What we wish do here is to provide a few pointers that will help ensure that your Participant Information Sheet is written in a style that facilitates effective dissemination to potential participants of the information they require to make an informed decision.

  1. Avoid blinding by science: researchers can be so immersed in their research that the language of their subject area becomes so natural to them they assume that everyone shares that language. Rest assured that they do not. It is really important to avoid technical research terms in a Participant Information sheet and to describe what you are doing in language that will be understood by those not involved in your research speciality.
  2. Indeed, we would go farther than that. The language used in a Participant Information Sheet should be accessible to all those who are being asked to participate. Perhaps because they spend their working lives in tertiary educational environments, researchers tend to greatly overestimate people’s linguistic capacities. The US National Center for Biotechnical Information recommends that a patient information sheet should be pitched at a reading age of 11-12 years old. Indeed, this may not be young enough. There is evidence to indicate that the average adult reading age in the UK is 9 years old. Remember, this is an average which means lots of people have a younger reading age.
  3. Whatever you may think of its editorial line, you could do worse than model your language level on that of The Sun, which has a young reading age and adopts a clear, no nonsense, if sometimes overly aggressive style. While use of the active voice and a conversational tone is much more effective than passive formality, a Participant Information Sheet should always be polite, respectful and invitational in its approach.
  4. Pitching a Participant Information Sheet at a young reading age is not about being patronising but being clear. Indeed, the clarity that it demands is a very good exercise for researchers to make sure that, without the camouflage of technical jargon and convoluted language, their research project has a transparent logic and is practically cogent.
  5. Of course, one size does not fit all. For example, if you were conducting research into a health service organisation, it could be appropriate to include more professionally-oriented information in a Participant Information Sheet seeking to recruit senior health service managers than if members of the general public were being asked to be involved. Still, we would recommend always erring on the side of simplicity and clarity, rather than assuming knowledge that people may not have. If groups with different sorts of knowledge and perspectives are being asked to be involved, we would advise that separate, specifically targeted Information sheet should be used to inform the members of each group.
  6. You can check the reading level of your Participant Information Sheet on Word. We’ve done just that for this blog, and, despite its linguistic informalities, it has come out with a score of 43.8 on the Flesch-Kincaid reading-ease test, which puts it in the category of ‘Difficult to read’! Looks like it’s a matter of doing as we say, not as we do! Though, in our defence, that’s not easy.
  7. We tried harder and came up with: ‘People need to know what’s involved in being in a research project. They need to know before they agree to take part. Researchers need to be clear and simple when they tell them. They shouldn’t use jargon. They should use easy words and short sentences. They should think about using different ways to tell different types of people’. That got us a score of 85.2 – ‘Easy to read. Conversational English for consumers,’ which isn’t too bad in that it’s got us over the NCBI’s threshold of a reading age of 11-12 years, but that’s still two years older than the average UK adult’s reading age.

 

Research Ethics – Why Ethics is Important to Consider When Developing a research proposal

Research Ethics

by Professor Richard Berger.  Deputy Chair and member of the Social Sciences & Humanities Research Ethics Panel

Research EthicsThis blog-post is about why thinking about ethics right at the start of your project – rather than at the end as almost an after-though (and yes, we have all done that) – is crucial to having a successful outcome. First of all, it is good research practice, and an important aspect of your identity as an active researcher. If that doesn’t persuade you, then the requirement from most funding bodies (all the good ones, anyway) is that all projects must be overseen by a robust ethics process. The ESRC’s Research Ethics Framework regards ethics procedures as an indicator of the project’s quality. So, thinking through the ethical implications of what you want to do, right at the very beginning of your research, should ensure that there are no hiccups along-the-way. For Gary Thomas, “[ethics] is about the conduct of your work: it is about how you think about inquiry, how you think about this research project; it is about your respect for others” (2013, p.38).

BU has not just a responsibility towards you, but to your participants, and so it is vital that you plan well-ahead for their welfare and well-being. All research should be ethical, for as Martyn Denscombe writes: “[Research] should strive to produce something for the public good, and should never be frivolous, selfish or malicious in its aims” (2021, p.221). Alan Bryman’s book on social research methods – see References below – demonstrates very effectively that research which has been designed with ethics as an after-thought often leads to dubious practices, and unreliable and unverifiable data (2008, pp.114-115). As a researcher, you have a duty of care to your participants, and so the core of your ethics planning then, should be ‘consent’, and how you are going to gain it.

If you are going to anonymise your participants, then you need to plan in advance how you are going to remove any identifying markers; you will then need to explain this in your Participant Information Sheet (PI Sheet) – which is part of your ethics preparation, along with the checklist: “During the planning phase you must clarify and resolve issues of confidentiality and anonymity” (Davies, 2007, p.45). Similarly, you are going to need to plan for how you are going to handle and store your data/findings – and communicate this to your participants in the same way. So, spending some time at the start of your activity, thinking about this, should help in shaping your approach. If you are called to an ethics panel (and we are a friendly and supportive bunch!), then they will be interested in this relationship between the researcher and the researched.

Inevitably, further ethics issues often arise during the research project, so it is also important to think of the ethics process as a ‘live’ issue, and not something that just needs to be got-out-of-the-way. To help with this, Cheryl N. Poth has a series of questions, under three headings which you should be continually thinking about (2012, pp.26-27):

Respect for persons:

  • How will you ensure free and informed participation in your research?
  • How will you avoid interference or coercions?

Concern for Welfare:

  • How will you minimize hard and maximise the benefits of your research?
  • How will you protect the privacy and confidentiality of those involved in the research?

Concern for Justice:

  • How will you treat people fairly and equitably in your research?
  • How will you select participants, collect data, and report findings and avoid bias?

Finally, with the academic freedom we all enjoy, comes great responsibilities. Thinking about your ethical conduct throughout, and asking yourselves these questions continuously, should ensure that your project is as successful as it can be, and will have the most value, as a ‘complete’ piece of scholarship.

References & Further Reading.

Arthur, J, Waring, M, Coe, R & Hedges L, V., 2012. Research Methods and Methodologies in Education. London: Sage.

Bryman, A., 2008. Social Research Methods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cohen, L, Manion, L & Morrison, K., 2011. Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge.

Crotty, M., 1998. The Foundations of Social Research: meaning & perspective in the research process. London: Sage.

Davies, M, B., 2007. Doing a Successful Research Project: using qualitative or quantitative methods. Basingstoke. Palgrave Macmillan.

Denscombe, M., 2021.The Good Research Guide. London: McGraw Hill.

Poth, C, N., 2021. Little Quick Fix: Research Ethics. London: Sage.

Thomas, G., 2013. How To Do Your Research Project. London: Sage.

Reminder: The Leverhulme are visiting the funding development briefing Wednesday at 12 noon

Funding opportunities

Reminder: The Funding Development Briefing will be on Wednesday at 12 noon. The Leverhulme are visiting the session.

They will cover:

  • Overview of all their schemes, process, explain acronyms, highlight resources available etc.
  • Q & A

For those unable to attend the session, slides will be shared on Brightspace here. But the session will not be recorded.

Invites for these sessions have been disseminated via your Heads of Department. If you do not have these in your diary and wish to attend please contact Alexandra  Pekalski apekalski@bournemouth.ac.uk

Being a course validation expert for the Portuguese Higher Education Accreditation Agency

During 2021 I was actively involved in a number of programme accreditations for the Portuguese Higher Education Accreditation Agency (A3ES). Unlike the UK, in Portugal all course validations and revalidations are centralised in this agency. To help the Agency do the work, nearly 1500 experts have been recruited (in all areas of knowledge), both national and international.

Each assessment is performed by a Commission (CAE or External Assessment Commission) which is made up 3 members: the President and two supporting experts. Each CAE must have an international expert, which may or may not be the President of the CAE.

I was invited to become an international expert back in 2018 and since then I participated in all sorts of validation exercises for degrees in two assessment areas: 811 – hospitality and catering and 812 – tourism and leisure.

There are three types of validation exercises:

  1. New course validations: The Higher Education Institution (HEI) submits a proposal and the CAE meets remotely to assess it and produce its recommendation report
  2. Regular schedule course revalidations: The HEI produces a progress report which is assessed by the CAE. This type of assessment includes a visit to the University premises by the CAE, where progress and future developments are discussed with all main stakeholders (students, staff, course and university management and the community). The committee for this type of revalidation also includes a student from outside the institution being assessed.
  3. Special schedule course revalidations: When a new course is validated, it won’t enter the regular schedule until it completes at least six years. The regular schedule for courses in the 811 and 812 areas is every 6 years (2017, 2023, 2029 etc). At the same time, new courses have to be revalidated six years after they receive their first validation. This special schedule revalidation exercise is an interim exercise until the programme catches up with the regular revalidation schedule. For example, if a new course was validated in 2015, it is up to its first revalidation six years later (2021). Since the next regular schedule is in 2023, it requires an interim revalidation in 2021, before being subjected to the regular validation in 2023 and joining this schedule thereafter. This exercise is a lighter version of the regular revalidation exercise.

In 2021 I was involved in exercises 1 and 3, either as the President of the CAE or the international expert.  The CAE I was involved in were mostly for undergraduate and masters programmes, however for the first time I was involved in a PhD programme validation, as the international expert.

Since 2019 there are special validation rules for distance learning (courses with more than 75% of the content delivered virtually), and in 2021 I was also involved in the validation of one of these courses. As opposed to the ‘in person’ courses, where the CAE is led by an expert in the area of the course, the CAE for the distance learning courses is led by an expert in distance learning, supported by two experts in the field of the course.

The validation process is quite different from the UK. To start with, there is a quantitative performance analysis that needs to be carried out. For example, the ‘staff qualification’ ratios require that for an UG degree, 50% of all the staff need to hold PhDs, and that 60% need to be working at the institution for more than 3 years (Stability index). For a PhD all staff must have doctorates and the stability index is set at 75%.  The CAE checks that the course meets these criteria and not meeting them usually leads to the non-validation (new course) or a conditional revalidation (the HEI is given time to correct the insufficiency).

In addition to the more objective assessment, there’s a lot of areas that need to be looked at that are perhaps more subjective. This includes non-academic staff, internationalisation, student performance and retention, research performance, community links and quality assurance mechanisms.

I thoroughly enjoy being a member of CAE for several reasons. First, it’s an opportunity to (re) connect with many different Portuguese academics and exchange ideas about higher education. Second, it’s also an opportunity to help HEI improve because the CAE have a lot of scope in terms of making recommendations. Third and finally, it helps to keep up with the latest developments in the Portuguese higher education sector as far as my areas of interest is concerned (tourism, hospitality and events).

I’m already scheduled to do some more assessments in 2022, and I’m looking forward to continue contributing to the exercise.

Dr. Miguel Moital, BUBS (Department of Sport & Events Management)

Funds now available to support Global Staff Mobility: Erasmus+

Global staff mobility, including training and teaching, leads to professional development and networking and brings great value to BU and our students, whilst offering invaluable international experience.

We are pleased to announce that staff, both academic and professional support, can now apply for funds to support these activities through Erasmus+.

Erasmus+ funds are a great way to build networks and gain experience

 

 

 

Erasmus+ staff mobility funds can be used to support travel, accommodation and subsistence of academic and professional support staff attending training at an organisation or institution in Europe. It can also be used for academic staff wishing to teach at a European university.
Erasmus+ funds are a great way to build networks and gain experience.

To be eligible for teaching (not training) mobilities, BU needs to have an agreement with the proposed University – you can check which organisations we have inter-institutional agreements with in the globalBU database.

The call for applications is now open – with a closing deadline of 23:59 GMT on Sunday 13 February 2022.

There are 2 different sets of application documents: one for activities between January 2022 and May 2022 and one for activities between June 2022 and May 2023, and so please contact globalstaffmobility@bournemouth.ac.uk for the necessary application forms, FAQs and guidance.

This year we are running two online Information Sessions on MS Teams for interested staff members on:

Thursday 3rd February 2022 1pm – 2pm  Click here for MS Teams link to session 1
Friday 4th February 2022 3pm – 4pm Click here for MS Teams link to session 2

 Please don’t hesitate to contact globalstaffmobility@bournemouth.ac.uk if you have any queries.

Research Ethics in a Clinical setting

Research Ethics

Author: Suzy Wignall, Clinical Governance Adviser

Clinical Research

Clinical Research

This week, we start our focus by looking at research ethics within Health and Clinical Research.

Research conducted within a healthcare setting in most cases will require additional approval to BU ethics. Ensuring that you have the correct approvals and oversight for your study is vital in assuring your participants that you are conducting the study in line with regulations and standards.

Under the UK Policy Framework for Health and Social Care Research, when a student or a member of staff is undertaking their own research within the NHS, then the organisation at which they study or work, should ideally take on the role of the research Sponsor. The Sponsor is defined as an individual, company, institution, organisation or group of organisations that takes on responsibility for initiation, management and financing (or arranging the financing) of the research.

Under new guidance, undergraduate students are no longer permitted to make an application to conduct research in the NHS. In certain cases, Master’s students are also not permitted, but should check their eligibility via the Health Research Authority’s student research toolkit.

Approvals

Research involving the NHS or social care, including patients, carers, human tissue, or data may require ethics approval from an NHS Research Ethics Committee (REC) or Social Care REC.  Application for NHS REC is via the Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) and is coordinated by the Health Research Authority (HRA), so you only need to submit one application.

If you are unsure as to whether your research requires NHS REC approval, the HRA have provided a useful decision tool which determines whether NHS REC approval is required.

If NHS REC is not required, you may need other approvals such as HRA and HCRW Approval (Health and Care Research Wales) – for example if you are using NHS facilities, accessing anonymous patient data, or have NHS staff as participants. You may also in some cases need CAG Approval (access to identifiable data without patient consent).

What the University cannot approve

The storage of human tissue or other relevant materials for research, may require a licence from the Human Tissue Authority, which BU does not currently hold.  If you obtain NHS REC approval, this will allow you to collect and store relevant materials for the duration of the project, and for up to one year after the declaration of the end of the research, for the purposes of analysis and verification of research data.

Research where the research participants are adults (aged 16 and over) and are unable to make decisions for themselves i.e. they lack capacity[1].  An ‘Appropriate Body’ to review this type of Research are limited to flagged RECs (in England and Wales) and the Social Care REC.

The University’s research ethics panels are not recognised as Appropriate Bodies under the Act.

Who to contact for help and further information?

Your first point of contact with any queries should be –

Much of the health research at Bournemouth University involves collaborating with the NHS and therefore requires Trust approval.

The following documents have been compiled by Bournemouth University Clinical Research Unit (BUCRU) and Research Development & Support (RDS):

In contacting potential NHS sites, a full list of appropriate contacts can be found on the Research & Development Forum website. It is always worth contacting the Trust early in the process.

Useful documents and links

The clinical governance section on the Research Governance & Integrity website has a wealth of information and links to websites and templates that can be used to make the process easier and less tasking,

A good place to start is deciding whether your study is research. Sometimes what is deemed research at BU, is not classed as such within the NHS. The above tool can help decide for you, as well as the Defining Research table. If your study is not deemed research, then you can proceed with the university ethics route.

If you do need to apply through IRAS, then the Clinical Researcher Checklist (PDF and word formats) can be used to keep track of the tasks required throughout the process.

Further training

External
Good Clinical Practice (GCP) is the international ethical, scientific and practical standard to which all clinical research is conducted. By undertaking GCP, you’re able to demonstrate the rights, safety and well-being of your research participants are protected, and that the data collected are reliable.

GCP training should be refreshed every 2 years in line with our training policy, which you can read here.

Please note that due to current advice as a result of COVID-19, courses are being provided online via Zoom. If you are interested in booking onto one of these courses, then please email Suzy Wignall who can put you in touch with the relevant contact.

You can undertake the training online by registering for an account here. On this website you can find full GCP e-learning, GCP refresher e-learning and also training surrounding areas such as informed consent in adults lacking capacity.

Internal
As part of the RKEDF Academics and Researchers can book onto the following sessions, either as a one-to-one meeting or a bespoke team session:

If you are a Postgraduate Research Student, there is also a Clinical Governance workshop as part of the Researcher Development Programme.

[1] The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA)

New Intention to Bid (ITB) process

We are pleased to announce the introduction of a new Intention to Bid (ITB) form which will replace the existing Word document and email process with immediate effect. The new ITB form will provide a better user experience and create a more efficient administrative control process for Research Development and Support (RDS). This solution can be used now and doesn’t rely on any immediate IT investment.

The new form uses Microsoft Forms and SharePoint Lists to track the ITB application progress. By removing the need to email forms to individuals RDS will have oversight of the whole process.

The new Intention to Bid (ITB) form and the ITB research costings spreadsheet template are both available now in the Policies & Procedures/Research/Pre-award section of the intranet. Draft costings for bids can be completed in the costings template. PDF copies of all submissions can be printed or saved but there are limitations to editing a form once it has been submitted.

As a service, RDS is committed to delivering service excellence to enable BU’s academic community to deliver and grow world-leading research for societal benefit. The program of work continues to look at processes to enhance the user experience.

Changes include improvements to the pre- and post-award support being offered. Building on the delivery of a new Principal Investigator report which is currently in the final stages of being rolled out, and continuing our collaboration with the Transformation Team.

For any queries about the transformation of pre-award services at BU, please contact Jo Garrad or Brian Kaliczynskyj to discuss further.

For any technical issues in relation to the form, please contact Roy Harvey directly.

FMC Research process seminar on 25 Jan at 2pm on Zoom. Creative-Empirical Mixed Methods. All welcome

We are delighted to welcome you to this week’s research process seminar. Run from FMC but open to all staff and PGR students:

Creative-Empirical Mixed Methods – by Dr Lyle Skains (BU)

 

This session focuses on interdisciplinary mixed methods for evaluating the efficacy of creative artefacts for specific effects in the audience. The methodological approaches discussed will include practice-based creative research, ethnography, surveys, audience response, and qualitative analysis.

 

Tuesday 25th January, 2022. 2pm

https://bournemouth-ac-uk.zoom.us/j/9292103478?pwd=UzJnNTNQWDdTNldXdjNWUnlTR1cxUT09

 

Meeting ID: 929 210 3478

Passcode: rps!4fmc

Hope to see you there

 

 

HE policy update for the w/e 21st January 2022

Student Engagement

There so much regulatory stuff to talk about, so we are focussing on that this week.  There will be a more normal update next week.

Moving the goalposts  – the OfS proposals for regulating absolute baselines

This is the biggy – the one with the absolute student outcomes metrics.  The 60% metric that was all over the news is for FT first degree undergraduates using the “progression” metric – further study or professional or managerial employment.  But there are continuation and completion baselines too, and they vary dramatically for PG students and a whole bunch of other categories.

These become binding licence conditions, and breaches of them lead to serious regulatory consequences.  Serious breaches could lead to losing degree awarding powers, or not being allowed a TEF rating (and having fees capped at £7500 as a result).  There are lots of lesser actions, including specific licence conditions requiring action to address things, as well.

And the data will be published.  All of it.  Including a lot of split data.  Potentially 48 indicators, all with spits by age, disability, sex, ethnicity, IMD, etc etc…and SUBJECT.  You will recall that there is no subject level TEF.  While that is true, the regulatory baseline data, and the TEF data, will be presented by subject because the OfS want to be able to identify “pockets of poor provision”.  Having these pockets could cause a regulatory problem, and drag a provider down in the TEF.  The data will include taught students, registered students, and “taught and registered”.  So any partner students would count towards our data as well as the partner’s data. It will be based on 4 years of data.

And how will this all work?  There will be an initial review of the first lot of data  – this autumn – and then an annual cycle.  There will be intervention letters for those with problems in October 2022.  The data already exists, so no need to wait.  They are consulting on how to prioritise the challenges – not everyone with a breach in a small pocket will get one.  They will look at context – a bit, but note:

  • We do not consider that a provider’s mission or strategy is relevant to our consideration of whether it is delivering positive outcomes for students 
  • We do not consider that the level of funding a provider receives is relevant to whether it should meet the minimum requirements set by the OfS 
  • We do not agree that lower entry tariffs should be a reason for performance below our minimum requirements 
  • We do not consider that a provider with New DAPs should be exempt from satisfying minimum regulatory requirements 
  • We do not consider that a provider’s resources are relevant to whether it should be expected to meet the OfS’s minimum requirements 
  • We do not consider that a provider’s reputation is relevant to our consideration of whether it is achieving positive outcomes for students 

Worried about regulatory burden – too bad.  They think it is proportionate.  And they aren’t telling us to change our internal monitoring to look at all this.  But we might want to – and it has the potential to be very onerous indeed.

Supporting documents:

Wonkhe have coverage in an article by Jim Dickinson which is worth reading.

Teaching Excellence Framework – it’s ALIVE

The TEF had become a zombie – the walking dead scheme where awards were still in force (because apart from anything else they are required as a licence condition) but shhh, providers aren’t allowed to talk about them because they are so out of date as to be potentially seriously misleading.  And the OfS has been talking about a new TEF for a very, very long time.  And finally, linked very closely to the new absolute baselines but with some exciting new bits as well, here it is.  Hold on to your hats, it is going to be a busy summer and autumn, especially as we won’t get the guidance until June!  They were already given feedback about timing in their consultation events and this is therefore probably the best we are going to get.  Submissions by mid-November 2022.

So it’s back, bigger and better.  Still called the TEF (not the TESOF).  Still gold, silver and bronze.  There is a new category of “requires improvement” for those who don’t get one-  they are asking for input on how to communicate that one.  As noted above, institutional level only, although we get (and have to address) all the subject level data.  There is an institutional submission that will be 20 pages, and a separate student one of 10 pages.  It will happen every 4 years, dropping the annual cycle we had before, when you could try again for a higher grade.  The data will be published annually though.

It will still use NSS, as well as the three outcomes measures referred to above (professional employment or further study, completion and continuation).

The “aspects” of measurement are new: student experience (academic experience and assessment, and resources, support and student engagement) and student outcomes (positive outcomes, as above, plus a whole new one – educational gains).  So far so familiar, but the educational gains is fascinating.  No data for this one – “these features should relate to a provider’s articulation of the gains it intends its students to achieve; its approach to supporting these educational gains; and evidence of the gains achieved”.

And the much challenged benchmarking is different (can’t say yet if it is better) and there are no “flags”.  Just a very complex graphical representation. One thing that veterans of the last process will be pleased to hear is that providers will receive the initial conclusion and evidence and have 28 days to make representations.

Supporting documents:

  • Materiality and high benchmark values to use in interpretation – not yet published

Wonkhe cover this one too, in an article by David Kernohan: Frankly, it’s better than it has been in the past, but still probably not as good as it could have been. It’s certainly better than the B3 proposals.

Research Professional also have an article and it featured in the 8am Playbook too.

And last, but definitely by no means least

All of these things need data.  There is a separate 195 page consultation on how the data for the B3 conditions and the TEF will be calculated.  Along with all of you, we look forward to working out the detailed implications of all of that.  Consultation on constructing student outcome and experience indicators for use in OfS regulation (with a video)

  • Comparison of completion methods
  • Technical documents
    • Description and methodology
    • Core algorithms
    • Subject code mappings
    • Instructions for rebuilding the datasets
    • Description of statistical methods
  • Data dashboards (illustrative and using fictional data)

If nothing else, please have a look at the dashboards.  They show the new world in glorious technicolour.

Other changes – the proposed licence conditions you might have missed

There was a previous consultation over the summer (closed at the end of September) that set out the other new proposed B conditions.  This one had an ambitious implementation timeline which has not stuck.  What it said was “we intend to make a decision on whether to impose the conditions in Annexes A, B and C and revise the regulatory framework, as set out in these proposals, in autumn 2021. The new ongoing conditions would come into effect for registered providers on the date of publication of that decision“.  Assuming that they don’t make any changes to what was proposed (and they don’t make many, usually), this lot could be imposed imminently.  Or, the delay may be because they are revising it substantially.  Either way, a  bit of notice would be helpful.  Not because we aren’t doing this stuff, but because we need to make sure we have the monitoring and audit trails in place to prove it if we are asked.  Which we could be, either as part of a review linked to the outcomes data, or because other OfS monitoring suggests that there may be an issue with some of these.

Yesterday’s announcements referred to the fact that this previous consultation had happened, but said nothing about next steps on that.  So maybe it will all come together in June.  Or we might get the first lot earlier.  So what are they?  You need to know, because if implemented as proposed, they are very wide ranging.

B1 …. the provider must ensure that the students registered on each higher education course receive a high quality academic experience.   

B1.3 For the purposes of this condition, a high quality academic experience includes but is not limited to ensuring all of the following: – that each higher education course:

  1. a. is up-to-date;  
  2. provides educational challenge;  
  3. is coherent;  
  4. is effectively delivered; and
  5. as appropriate to the subject matter of the course, requires students to develop relevant skills.  

Those highlighted definitions are worth looking at.  There is a lot more about these in the guidance which is summarised in the attachment. One question is how the OfS will assess all these things – see below.  And of course there are lots of other questions – if the rumoured next steps on Augar are true, which is a push to modular learning to support the lifetime learning objective, how does that fit with “coherence”.  And just note – students and courses include PGR programmes of study.

“up-to-date” means representative of current thinking and practices in the subject matter to which the HE course relates…

“educational challenge” means a challenge that is no less than the minimum level of rigour and difficulty reasonably expected of the HE course, in the context of the subject matter of the course [this seems circular to me!]

“coherent” means a HE course which ensures:

  1. there is an appropriate balance between breadth and depth of content;
  2. subjects and skills are taught in an appropriate order and, where necessary, build on each other throughout the course; and

iii. key concepts are introduced at the appropriate point in the course content.

“effectively delivered”, ….means the manner in which it is taught, supervised and assessed (both in person and remotely) including, but not limited to, ensuring:

  1. an appropriate balance between lectures, seminars, group work and practical study, as relevant to the content of the course; and
  2. an appropriate balance between directed and independent study or research, as relevant to the level of the course.

“relevant skills” means:

  1. knowledge and understanding relevant to the subject matter and level …; and
  2. other skills relevant to the subject matter and level …including, but not limited to, cognitive skills, practical skills, transferable skills and professional competences.

B2.  ….the provider must ensure:  ..each cohort of students registered on each HE course receives resources and support and effective engagement with each cohort of students, in both cases to ensure:  

  1. a high quality academic experience for those students; and
  2. those students succeeding in and beyond higher education; and

“resources” includes but is not limited to:

  1. the staff team … being collectively sufficient in number, appropriately qualified and deployed effectively to deliver in practice; and
  2. physical and digital learning resources that are adequate and deployed effectively to meet the needs of the cohort of students.

“support” means the effective deployment of assistance, as appropriate to the content of the HE course and the cohort of students, including but not limited to:

  1. academic support relating to the content of the HE course;
  2. support needed to underpin successful physical and digital learning and teaching;
  3. support relating to avoiding academic misconduct; and
  4. careers support, but for the avoidance of doubt, does not include other categories of non-academic support.

“engagement” means routinely building into the course delivery opportunities for students to contribute to the future development of the HE course in a way that maintains the academic rigour of that course…. 

Other new conditions: As the summary document sets out, there are conditions on assessment, the credibility of awards, and lots more, including the requirement to keep copies of assessed work so that the credibility and reliability of awards can be assessed by the OfS if it needs to be.

Subscribe!

To subscribe to the weekly policy update simply email policy@bournemouth.ac.uk. A BU email address is required to subscribe.

External readers: Thank you to our external readers who enjoy our policy updates. Not all our content is accessible to external readers, but you can continue to read our updates which omit the restricted content on the policy pages of the BU Research Blog – here’s the link.

Did you know? You can catch up on previous versions of the policy update on BU’s intranet pages here. Some links require access to a BU account- BU staff not able to click through to an external link should contact eresourceshelp@bournemouth.ac.uk for further assistance.

JANE FORSTER                                            |                       SARAH CARTER

VC’s Policy Advisor                                                              Policy & Public Affairs Officer

Follow: @PolicyBU on Twitter                    |                       policy@bournemouth.ac.uk

 

 

HEIF February 2022 Open Call  

Funding opportunities, HEIF

Free photo from https://jooinn.com/

HEIF February 2022 Open Call 

HEIF funding now available for innovative Knowledge Exchange (KE) projects  

 Research England provide universities with funding for knowledge exchange (Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF)) to enable them to support and develop a broad range of knowledge-based interactions between themselves and the wider world, which result in economic and social benefit to the UK. 

A proportion of BU’s HEIF grant is allocated through an open call for projects lasting up to 24 months in duration. Progress is reviewed on a quality basis and assessed in terms of future viability on an annual basis.  

Bournemouth University currently has a modest amount of funding available to spend by 31 July 2022. The primary purpose of the funding is to support a small number of projects: these can be, for example, significant projects that are underway and require a further injection of funds, or for projects with ambition that require a good kick-start or launchpad. 

Please be aware that a significant proportion of the funds awarded must be spent by 31 July 2022. 

Key details 

Amount: We anticipate making funding awards of max. £40k per project.  

Time frame: Projects should span a maximum of 24 months.  

Closing date: Friday, 11 February 2022. 

Guidance  

Proposals are sought which make a substantive contribution to further Bournemouth University’s Knowledge Exchange strategy and as such, it is anticipated that only a small number of projects will be awarded. In completing this project form, please be mindful of the specific nature of this call in meeting the following criteria:  

  • Projects should be linked to the BU HEIF strategy  
  • Projects must demonstrate how research impact will be accelerated and maximised. 
  • Enhance external collaborative engagements with industry partners to further the development of innovative projects  
  • Encourage future funding bids (such as from Innovate UK) with external partners 

 Eligibility 

The HEIF FEBRUARY 2022 Open Call particularly encourages Early to Mid-career researchers (ECRs/MCRs) across Bournemouth University, including those who are already working with industry partners and those who would like to build up new networks. 

Further, due to the nature of this fund, we particularly welcome applications: 

  • from ECRs/MCRs 
  • aligned to at least one BU SIA 
  • that demonstrate research interdisciplinarity 
  • that have industry relevance and or application  

Process 

Applications will be reviewed by the HEIF Funding Panel with recommendations submitted to the Research Performance and Management Committee (RPMC) monthly. Once a decision has been made, this will be communicated to applicants. We aim to confirm the outcomes within two to three weeks of the closing date for that month. 

Drop-in/Information session 

There will be a Drop-in/Information session on Thursday 3rd, February from 11:00 to 12:00 via the following MS Team meeting link 

THESE SESSIONS ARE INFORMATIVE AND ARE MAINLY Q&A BASED. THESE ARE NOT MANDATORY.

How to apply

To apply, please read the guidance and download and complete the application form. Please read the IP checklist and provide a completed Workplan & Budget from with your application form.

The completed Application form and Workplan & Budget from must be submitted to heif@bournemouth.ac.uk at the latest by 5 pm on Friday, 11 February 2022.

 BU’s Funding Panels and Research Principles

The following funding panels operate to prioritise applications for funding and make recommendations to the Research Performance and Management Committee (RPMC).

There are eight funding panels:

  1. HEIF Funding Panel
  2. GCRF Funding Panel
  3. Research Impact Funding Panel
  4. Doctoral Studentship Funding Panel
  5. ACORN Funding Panel
  6. Research Fellowships Funding Panel
  7. Charity Impact Funding Panel
  8. SIA Funding panel

These panels align with the BU2025 focus on research, including BU’s Research Principles

The following BU2025 Principles are most relevant to the HEIF Panel:

  • Principle 1 – which recognises the need to develop teams
  • Principle 5 – which sets of the context for such funding panels

If you have any questions please email heif@bournemouth.ac.uk