/ Full archive

BU research matters: Tectonic shifts within and beyond BU

Bio | Roman's labDr Roman Gerodimos is an Associate Professor of Global Current Affairs in the Faculty of Media & Communication. In today’s blog post he reflects on the seismic shifts the pandemic has accelerated in research practice and the serendipitous benefits of this change: 

“The pandemic forced us to adapt and transform the way we do research, teaching and professional practice across the board. The restrictions to domestic and international travel have eliminated physical conferences and workshops, and have severely limited the amount and types of fieldwork we can carry out.

Yet, at the same time, we have observed the emergence of two very important trends: new modes of dynamic, collaborative research work and mutual support within BU; and an exponential increase in opportunities for participation in external events, which can greatly boost our global engagement.

Within BU: last summer, along with a few colleagues at the department of Communication & Journalism, we started to organise Virtual Research Days. We “borrowed” the format of our Writing Retreats – which in the good old days used to take place at the Miramar and the Green House Hotel: we picked a day of the week, then blocked our calendar for 5 hours (10am-3pm), joined a Teams call and had two focused sessions (10.00-12.15, 12.45-3.00) on a piece of research that we had chosen (this could involve any research-related task, from a bit of data analysis to writing a few paragraphs, and from sending emails to co-authors to reviewing a journal article). We used the first 15 minutes of each session to share our goal for the session with our colleagues, and the last 15 minutes to debrief and reflect on how the session went. The rest of the time we worked individually, with email and phones being switched off.

This simple format worked wonders: our productivity immediately shot up, while our short reflection session proved invaluable. I think I now understand more about my colleagues’ individual research interests and projects than at any other time over the last 20 years at BU, while seeing how everyone struggles with and overcomes creative, intellectual and practical barriers has been really interesting and made this work feel less solitary. Our summer ‘retreats’ became so successful that we decided to pilot and then formally roll them out throughout the academic year, so we now have at least one designated day each week for C&J colleagues and PGRs to come together and work on their research.

We have seen similar patterns across all our research sessions: attendance in our research seminars, research practice seminars, lunchtime sessions, and even our various conferences and workshops has been higher than ever, as the online format makes them much more accessible to people who may not be on campus, while it also allows participants to multitask and join conversations as needed, none of this would have been possible in the conventional physical format.

Beyond BU: the shift to online events has removed physical access barriers making both them and us available to a global audience. During the last few days, I have given a talk at Oxford University, delivered a keynote at a TechCamp conference organised by the US State Department, met with stakeholders from the European Parliament and Transparency International, participated in seminars with leading journalists from all over Europe, and next week will be giving an endowed lecture and doing a separate film screening and Q&A at Simon Fraser University in Canada. Last summer and autumn, I spoke or participated at countless conferences, seminars, book launches and media interviews organised by a very diverse range of external stakeholders, while I now get an average of one invite a day. Obviously, giving Zoom talks is not quite the same as being in Vancouver or Washington DC or even Oxford, and the convenience of doing this from home does change the cost/benefit calculation, putting a lot of pressure on us as academics to accept invites. But, while nothing can replace the experience of physical co-presence and the importance of random encounters that come with travelling, the opportunities for global engagement and networking are very significant.

All these tectonic shifts in our research practice happened within an extremely compressed period of time: academia’s equivalent to ‘overnight’. Seeing the way our teams have come together and embraced this new mode of working, as well as the opportunities for outreach and engagement that this has created, has been quite affirming and, despite all the challenges that we have been facing, makes me feel very optimistic about our future as a research community.”

Two new COVID-19 papers in FHSS

international, Publishing, writing

Today FHSS Prof. Jonathan Parker published an article (online first) on structural discrimination and abuse associated with COVID-19 in care homes in The Journal of Adult Protection [1].  Whilst Dr. Preeti Mahato, Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen and FHSS Visiting Professor Padam Simkhada had a COVID-19 paper published in the Journal of Midwifery Association of Nepal (JMAN) in late-January 2021 [2], although an electronic copy only reached their email inbox today.

 

  1. Parker, J. (2021) Structural discrimination and abuse: COVID-19 and people in care homes in England and Wales, The Journal of Adult Protection, Online ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/JAP-12-2020-0050
  2. Tamang, P., Mahato, P., Simkhada P., Bissell, P., van Teijlingen, E. (2021) Pregnancy, Childbirth, Breastfeeding and Coronavirus Disease: What is known so far? Journal of Midwifery Association of Nepal (JMAN) 2(1): 96-101.

Funding Development Briefing – Spotlight on: NIHR

Funding opportunities

The RDS Funding Development Briefings now occur weekly, on a Wednesday at 12 noon.

Each session covers the latest major funding opportunities, followed by a brief Q&A session. Some sessions also include a spotlight on a particular funding opportunity of strategic importance to BU.

Next Wednesday 10th March, there will be a spotlight on NIHR. 

We will cover:

  • Aims and scope of NIHR
  • Overview of NIHR funding programmes
  • Q & A

Please note this will be a brief overview of NIHR, with more detailed NIHR sessions planned for later in the year.  Support for NIHR applications is available to Bournemouth University staff and people working locally in the NHS through BUCRU, and depending on the support you require, is mostly free of charge. There are no general restrictions on topic area or professional background of the researcher. To discuss your NIHR research please get in touch through bucru@bournemouth.ac.uk.

For those unable to attend, the session will be recorded and shared on the Teams site under the ‘Files’ section, and also saved on the I Drive at I:\RDS\Public\Funding Pipeline\Funding Development Briefings.

Please email RKEDF@bournemouth.ac.uk to receive the Teams invite for these sessions.

Meet members of the Research Ethics Panels

Research Ethics

On Monday we focussed on the work of the Research Ethics Panel and yesterday we heard from Dr Orlanda Harvey who visited the Social Sciences & Humanities Research Panel as part of her PhD journey.

Today you get to meet some of its members with the focus on the Science, Technology & Health Research Ethics Panel (STH REP).

 

Dr Liam Wignall (Psychology Department)

My research explores different aspects of sex and sexuality, looking at sexual identities and the experiences of non-heterosexuals; changing sexual practices, including during COVID-19; kink activities and the changing role of the internet. Given my research interests on the often personal topic of sexuality, I am keenly aware of the need to consider the ethical implications of any research conducted. I have sat on numerous ethics panels and had fascinating discussions about my research and the ethical considerations. This has ranged from thinking about the wording of the questions and how participants may perceive them, to making sure I think of my own safety when collecting data in the field. These discussions forced me to think about how I conduct research and providing justifications for each step, ultimately improving my studies.

I became a member of the panel so that I could offer the same advice to others when they were conducting research, asking other researchers the same questions that I was once asked: “What precautions have you taken should things go wrong?”; “How are you protecting yourself when conducting research on a sensitive topic?”; “Do participants know what will happen to their data?” Often when conducting research, we can become so focused on one aspect of the project that it’s helpful for others to ask these questions – I see this as one of the jobs of the ethics panel.

The principal role of the STH REP is to ensure that all research is conducted in an ethical way, following principles and procedures set out by BU and associated bodies (e.g., British Psychological Society). I see my role on the panel as encouraging researchers to consider how they can follow these guidelines to conduct great research. Ethics is not about preventing research from being done, it’s thinking about how good research can be done in an ethical way.

On a personal note, it’s also amazing to see the range of research projects being conducted at Bournemouth University. Being on the panel allows me to chat with colleagues across the faculty and ask them about their research. As a panel, we have had ethical discussions relating to how technology can improve the lives of people with physical disabilities; the intricacies of how dating profiles are used; and how to explain research to children to ascertain consent. Three-hour meetings can just fly by…

Dr. Sofia Meacham (Senior Lecturer in Computing Department of Computing and Informatics)

“Why did I become a member?”

I became a member of the STH REP three years ago through my strong interest on the subject as part of my own research. Specifically, ethical considerations for Artificial Intelligence decision making and their acceptance from scientific and wider community was the matter that I came across first in my research. This raised an interest in how the two worlds: technical achievement and ethical considerations can be combined and the challenges arising from this combination can be overcome. Finding a community of like-minded academics from several fields was obviously the next step to progress this interest, get accustomed with BU’s processes on the matter and contribute through my previous knowledge on technical and ethical matters. Last but not least, ethics has been an integral part of my education from an early stage such as primary school through ancient Greek philosophy and family traditions.

“What do you like about being a member?”

After becoming a member and although the participation is voluntarily, I enjoyed every aspect of it. Without exaggeration, I have been given the option to reduce my workload by stepping down which I have rejected! Being a member, the panel discussions once a month provide a multi-disciplinary approach opening my personal horizons and patterns of thought. There is a democratic handling of all opinions and there is not a single meeting that was not beneficial and enjoyable. Although the panel meetings are taking place with a pleasant environment, the responsibility that the committee has to academia and the society is being taken very seriously.

Last but not least, I would like to emphasize that ethical considerations are of increasing importance in todays rapid technological and other developments. Academia should play integral role to ensure that research developments are performed in alignment with ethical considerations and STH REP is an excellent place within our BU academic community.

Thank you Liam and Sofia!

Tomorrow you get to meet members from the Social Sciences & Humanities Research Ethics Panel

Postgraduate Researchers and Supervisors | Monthly Update for Researcher Development

PG research, Training

Postgraduate researchers and supervisors, hopefully you have seen your monthly update for researcher development e-newsletter sent yesterday. If you have missed it, please check your junk email.

The start of the month is a great time to reflect on your upcoming postgraduate researcher development needs and explore what is being delivered this month as part of the Doctoral College Researcher Development Programme and what is available via your Faculty or Department. Remember some sessions only run once per year, so don’t miss out.

I am also in the planning phase for the RDP 2021-22 and need your input to help shape your development support for the next academic year. PGRs, please take some time to complete this researcher development needs survey.

Please also subscribe to your Brightspace announcement notifications for updates when they are posted.

If you have any questions about the Researcher Development Programme, please do not hesitate to get in touch.

Natalie (Research Skills & Development Officer)
pgrskillsdevelopment@bournemouth.ac.uk 

BU Research Matters: ADRC adapt their approach in the time of COVID-19

In today’s blog post, Dr Michelle Heward, explores how the fantastic work of the Ageing & Dementia Research Centre has adapted to enable community engagement during the pandemic. Our older population, especially those who are extremely clinically vulnerable, have risked not being able to participate in shaping our future research owing to the restrictions in place over the last year. This engagement aspect is so important for ensuring research benefits society, and offers the bonus of social interaction for those who are having to isolate! Here Michelle explains how it is done: 

Michelle Heward

“The COVID-19 pandemic has had a detrimental impact on face-to-face interaction. To meet UK Government guidance and stop the spread of the virus, we have been unable to meet up with family, friends, and colleagues in the ways that we are used to. For older people, people with dementia and family carers, this has exacerbated many existing difficulties and problems they face, whilst also further intrenching feelings of loneliness and isolation. Technology has been a saviour for many and has proved invaluable in connecting people with their loved ones. The team from the Ageing and Dementia Research Centre (ADRC) have overcome the barriers by using digital approaches to continue our engagement and expand our networks with members of the public, service users and carers.  We have achieved this by developing a new series of monthly virtual ‘coffee mornings’ hosted on ZOOM.

We have designed each coffee morning to have a different theme/topic that may be pitching new ideas for research or sharing new findings. The group are invited to share their ideas, thoughts and ask questions. Ensuring that older people, people with dementia and family carers remain at the heart of our research activities has been central to the coffee mornings. The sessions have been well attended and the group have really engaged with the research topics and attendees are starting to get to know one another socially – many are returning each month which is fantastic!

So far, the group have contributed to discussions about nutrition with Prof Jane Murphy and wayfinding with Prof Jan Wiener. In the next session they will discuss nursing training in response to COVID-19 with Dr Michele Board. The discussion and questions raised have offered ‘food for thought’ for the presenters and will no doubt help us to shape future study ideas and generate new ideas for research.  In fact, one of the key challenges has been keeping within the allocated time for the session as there has been so much discussion!

The sessions are facilitated by Dr Michelle Heward (Post-Doctoral Research Fellow and ADRC Service User and Carer Involvement Lead) and Caroline Jones (ADRC Administrator). On reflection it has been beneficial to have two facilitators; one to lead the session and the other to be on hand to help with IT issues and check the chat messages. We also offer support for people who have had little or no experience of using ZOOM beforehand to make sure they are comfortable using the technology and its functions prior to attending a session.

We acknowledge that the idea for the virtual coffee morning was drawn through our collaborative working with the Wessex Public Involvement Network (PIN), who shared their successes and experiences of developing a similar engagement model with us. This work has also been undertaken in consultation with BU Public Involvement in Education and Research partnership to ensure we are following current policy/procedures.

Although we recognise that not everyone is able to access the internet from home, we will continue to offer these sessions for the foreseeable future as they provide an alternative to those who may find it more difficult to travel or take part in our existing face- to-face approaches. Anyone interested in presenting their ideas or research in ageing or dementia that might be of interest to the group please contact Michelle to discuss.”

What it’s like to attend a Research Ethics Panel …. A PGR’s account

Research Ethics

Undertaking Research – Facing the BU Ethics Panel

By Orlanda Harvey

When you start your PhD journey, one of the first hurdles that you face is gaining Ethical Approval for your study. This can be a very daunting concept at the beginning, as it is often a complete unknown, or it was for me, as this was the first time I had to go through the process. Looking back now; from the very comfortable vantage point of having achieved my doctorate, it is easy to forget the anxiety and mystique surrounding this process. Questions such as: What happens if I do not get approval? dominated my thoughts. I was one of the lucky ones, for although I was seeking approval to investigate people’s experiences of using substances (In this case Anabolic Androgenic Steroids) which would mean I would have to face the BU panel, I did not need NHS ethical approval. Sitting in an office (the joy of life pre-Covid) alongside peers who were facing that experience made me very thankful, for small mercies, as although the BU process feels as if it takes a long time comparatively, with hindsight it is efficient. This, however, does not mean to say that I did not experience a few bumps in the road.

The key to success for me was advice from my Supervisory Team to ensure that I took time to get all my ducks in a row prior to submission and to take the time to prepare all my information sheets and paperwork. This was valuable as there were no changes required to my initial submission, and it went straight through to the panel. I had also looked at the panel meeting deadlines so that I could plan for my submission date and sought advice from the Research Development and Support (Governance) Team to clarify a few points. Going through the online documentation felt a little bureaucratic and at times repetitive but it was very straightforward and easy to use. It certainly made the write up of the ethics and methodology element chapters of the Thesis easier; as one of my supervisors is prone to say, no writing, when it relates to your study, is ever wasted (thank you Edwin).

The panel meeting itself was an interesting experience, for although my supervisor was there to support me (thank you Margarete) it was very clear that the focus was on me and my plans for the research, so all the questions were directed my way. At first, I was apprehensive but actually the experience turned out to be quite enjoyable. After all, at that point I was incredibly enthusiastic about my project and these people wanted me to talk about it! I later learnt to treasure such moments. The questions they asked came from a place of curiosity, and it was not long into the meeting before I realised that they were interested in supporting the research and were ensuring that I had considered key ethical points. If I am totally honest there was only one question that I found a little left field, but you are never going to agree with everything.

It was not all plain sailing, I did pass the panel but still had the email with, a few minor amendments needed. However, these were easily resolved, added clarity to the participant information sheets and could be covered by just replying with the amendments to the panel chair. Overall, the whole experience was beneficial to both my development as a researcher, and my understanding of the ethics challenges.  The positive comments from the panel also proved to be a bolster to my confidence at that early stage in my PhD Journey.

A final unexpected outcome was that, as a result of going through the checklist I had to consider if my population was vulnerable, as people who use illicit drugs are quite often are given this label as a de-facto result of their drug use. This was interesting as although they were using drugs that although not illegal, they do fall into a grey area of the law and was something that we discussed at Panel. This made me think more deeply about the population as a whole, and as a result ended up in me writing a short paper, which was published on the ethics of using AAS and the perceived vulnerability of this group: ‘Shades of Grey’: The Ethics of Social Work Practice in Relation to Un-prescribed Anabolic Androgenic Steroid Use,  which, brings me back to Edwin’s sage advice: nothing you write should ever be wasted 🙂

Dr Oliver’s webinar to US Major League sports executives

Business Engagement

Dr John Oliver recently delivered a webinar entitled After the shock: business innovation in a post pandemic world to major league executives from the NBA and MLS. The session was based on Dr Oliver’s British Academy funded research and the webinar was hosted by sports management consultants ‘Sportsology’. Barry McNeill, CEO at Sportsology, commented that the webinar provided a “thought provoking view” on how crisis events affected organisational culture and attitudes to business innovation and performance.

Dr Oliver’s research can be accessed at: Oliver, J.J. (2020). Corporate turnaround failure: is the proper diagnosis transgenerational response? Strategy & Leadership. Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 37-43.

BU Research Matters: the evolution of research during a global pandemic – joining our research community

Dr Marc Vander Linden - Bournemouth University Staff Profile PagesThis week on the Research Blog, we are exploring how our amazing community of researchers have evolved and adapted their research activities in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Dr Marc Vander Linden, who joined BU in March 2020 as part of the creation of the Institute for the Modelling of Socio-Environmental Transitions starts the mini-series off. Below, Marc shares his reflections, details how he has adapted and explains why we still need face-to-face interaction: 

“A year ago, I joined Bournemouth University as a senior lecturer within the newly created Institute for the Modelling of Socio-Environmental Transitions (IMSET). Obviously, the prospect of a national lockdown was then looming closer and closer but I never thought that, several months later, I would still be a “virtual colleague”, delivering my – new-ish by now – duties from home and through the 13inch window of my laptop screen. We all have experienced first hand the challenges of the current situation. Being married to an academic and parent of two (very resilient, I must proudly add!) children, it goes without saying that home-schooling has taken its toll on working conditions. These have not been ideal to discover and manage the many administrative and teaching tasks incurred by a new job. In this sense, doing research has been indeed a challenge, but overall less a luxury than a necessary intellectual lifeline.

I am an archaeologist working on past population history, and long-term human-environment interactions, especially the mechanisms and consequences of the introduction and development of early farming techniques across Europe. My research covers multiple facets, each having been affected in different ways by COVID-19. The most-well-known, “romantic” thing about being an archaeologist is the field, in my case digging in caves in Montenegro. Obviously, with travel bans and the local hardships of the pandemic, any form of fieldwork has been impossible to undertake. As I was about to start surveying a new region, the lack of fieldwork not only has an immediate effect upon my research, but will also have negative repercussions felt over several years to come as I cannot dig new sites, identify new research problems and apply for corresponding funding. Yet, this unexpected pause also offered opportunities to revisit and complete older work, and prepare it for final publication thanks to a collective effort involving former post-docs, PhD students, and local Serbian and Montenegrin collaborators.

Another part of my research draws on legacy data, which is assembling, compiling and analysing datasets from published and unpublished literature. This includes, among others, collating information scattered in a multitude of individual reports related to changes in past farming regimes (e.g. presence of certain crops and weeds, or the preference for particular animal domesticates, or the contribution of hunting to the economy). The resulting “big data” not only constitute the empirical baseline for a range of analyses, but these results can also be used by collaborators from disciplines that consider estimates of anthropogenic activity (e.g. anthropogenic land cover models). Such multi-layered work is only possible by being part of an extensive international network of researchers, meeting regularly in a virtual world of Zoom meetings, shared folders, google documents, sometimes spiced up by the pleasure of doodle polls to identify the right meeting slot across multiple time zones. In many respects, the COVID-19 induced familiarity of online platforms and tools has bolstered this dimension of my research and made me more open to new collaborations.

This being said, the picture is not entirely rosy and, in so many ways, I’d say the most difficult part has actually been to become a BU colleague. After all, it is difficult to lose sight, when constantly stuck at home in front of a laptop, that you’re part of a new institution, with rules to follow and timelines to respect. As part of IMSET, “older hands” have provided outstanding support to us newbies, and lots of energy has gone into creating and maintaining contact through weekly – virtual obviously – lab meetings. Though we’ve made huge strides to come together as a group, the biggest drawback still remains to not being able to pop in someone’s office for advice or a simple chat. Online collaboration presents numerous advantages when relying upon and interacting with a huge body of collaborators and, arguably, my research has developed well despite, if not thanks, to the “new normal” imposed by COVID-19.

Yet, I’m desperately craving for the inherent simplicity and spontaneity of unplanned interactions with talented colleagues for diverse scientific horizons, those simple moments which, in my experience, are so essential in generating successful, innovative and fun research”.

 

High Resolution 3D Digital Assets of Whole body Human Anatomy available for BU Research and Education

Delicious links, HEIF, open access

As one of the products from the HEIF6 Project, our team has developed a wide collection of digital assets to represent human anatomy. The understanding of human anatomy is vital to the delivery of healthcare. For medical students, this necessary awareness of anatomy and 3D spatial orientation is traditionally learned through cadaveric dissection. This is expensive and has practical as well as ethical constraints to available teaching time. The digital models can be used as assets for interdisciplinary research between the fields of Arts, Science and Healthcare. We welcome ideas from the BU community for proposals of novel use cases, research, grant applications and availability as teaching tools or base models for complex animation techniques.

Contact:

Learn more about the available assets and how to collaborate with the Neuravatar team by contacting Dr Xiaosong Yang (xyang@bournemouth.ac.uk) or Dr. Rupert Page (Rupert.Page@poole.nhs.uk).

👀 A glance at the 3D models available so far 👀

 

The role of the Research Ethics Panels at BU

Research Ethics

Since 2014, the Social Sciences & Humanities (SSH) and Science, Technology & Health (STH) Research Ethics Panels have reviewed and continue to review ethics checklists submitted by staff and postgraduate research students (above minimal risk only). Their role is to review the ethical aspects of the study to facilitate high quality, safe research practice.  This may be involve a light-touch process if the research is deemed low risk, or it may include an interview with the Panel if it is assessed as above minimal risk.

When first established, the Panels were chaired by Dr Sean Beer (SSH REP) and the late Prof Holger Schutkowski (STH REP) who worked hard to establish the process we have today.  The current Panel Chairs are Profs Jonathan Parker (SSH REP) and Sam Porter (STH REP) who picked up the reins in February 2019 to continue and champion the work of the Panels and who work tirelessly to support our research community.

The Chairs are assisted by Deputy Chairs, Prof Richard Berger (SSH REP) and Dr Jayne Caudwell (STH REP) and academics colleagues from across BU and representatives from Professional Services and independent lay members.  Together, members have a wide range of experience and expertise.  This allows the Panel to provide well structured, consistent and balanced opinions when considering the ethical viability of projects submitted for review.

Support for the panels is provided Sarah Bell (SSH REP), who is the University’s Research Governance Advisor, and Suzy Wignall (STH REP), who is the Clinical Governance Advisor. They are happy to answer any queries that you may have.

Going through the process of an ethics review shouldn’t be a tick box exercise that is forgotten about once a favourable opinion is secured.  This isn’t what the process is about.  Ethical issues can occur at any time throughout the life cycle of a research project – when recruiting participants, in process of analysing data, in the reporting of research results.  Your ethics review is a living document that should be referred to and updated as and when appropriate.

Members are approachable should you have questions before you submit an ethics checklist and there is plenty of guidance available via the research governance & integrity website.  Never think you are alone in the process.  We are here to help and be a source of support throughout the life cycle of your research project.

Horizon Europe: Early Information on the Proposal Template

UKRO have recently provided some insights into expected Horizon Europe proposal templates.

The Horizon Europe (HEU) proposal templates are currently under development and have not been published yet. However, UKRO has obtained some information regarding the first version of the proposal template, which indicates that there will be several differences when compared with the Horizon 2020 proposal.

The first version of the draft application form for Innovation Action (IA) and Research and Innovation Actions (RIA) demonstrates strong continuity with the Horizon 2020 proposals. It maintains the online Part A for general, administrative and financial information, and Part B for the technical description of the research project – divided into three sections that reflect the Horizon Europe evaluation criteria: Excellence, Impact and Implementation.

According to UKRO, the modifications presented below are under consideration, however are not final and thus subject to further changes.

Part A

  • A new self-declaration on Gender Equality Plans (GEP) has been added; if the proposal is selected, having a GEP will be mandatory for public bodies, HEI and research organisations before signature of the grant agreement;
  • ‘Description of the individual members of the consortium’ has been moved from Part B (former Section 4);
  • For statistical reasons, more information on researchers involved in the proposal can be provided (e.g. gender, career stage, etc);
  • Minor changes to the ethics questions have been introduced (split into two parts: ‘Ethics and Security’); furthermore, a longer ‘Declarations’ list has been included;
  • The ‘Ethics self-assessment’ (narrative part) has been moved from Part B (former Section 5);
  • The ‘Open Data Management Pilot’ opt-out/in section has been removed; a Data Management Plan (DMP) will be a mandatory deliverable by month six of the project and must be covered in Part B together with Open Access practices;
  • The headings in the budget table have been renamed in line with the new financial provisions of Horizon Europe.

Part B

  • New 45-page limit for the title, list of participants and sections 1, 2 and 3 introduced (70 pages in Horizon 2020); former Section 4 (Members of consortium) and Section 5 (Ethics and security) have been moved to Part A;
  • Key elements of the award criteria used in evaluation process and indicative number of pages for each sub-heading have been added;
  • Section 1 “Excellence”: sub-headings have been rearranged and renamed; ‘Open Science practices’ must be described as an integral part of the methodology (with an obligatory Data Management Plan) and not only covered under the ‘Impact/dissemination’ part, as was the case in Horizon 2020;
  • Section 2 “Impact”: major changes to the content and layout are being proposed.
    • This section will now be composed of two sub-headings: ‘Project’s pathways towards impact’ and ‘Measures to maximise impact – Dissemination, exploitation and communication’, complemented by a ‘Summary canvas’ visualising links between the key Impact elements (needs/results/measures and target groups/outputs/impacts).
    • Moreover, new questions/guidance has been added on how to approach the Impact section (e.g. with relation to the Work Programme’s destinations and the topic’s expected outcomes, in terms of scientific, economic/technological and societal impacts) and on how to determine ‘the scale and significance of the project’s contribution to the expected outcomes and impacts’. The requirement to present a draft ‘Plan for dissemination and exploitation including communication activities’ remains and becomes a mandatory project deliverable by month six of the project (not at the periodic/final report stage).
    • If exploitation is expected primarily in non-associated third countries, applicants will need to justify the EU’s interest in the proposal. The draft template does not require a ‘business plan’ explicitly anymore (required for Innovation Actions in Horizon 2020), but where relevant, applicants must still outline the commercialisation path for their innovations in the Plan.
  • Section 3 “Quality and efficiency of the implementation”: the key change is a removal of a dedicated section on the ‘organisational structure and the decision-making mechanisms’; other sub-headings have been slightly rearranged and renamed into: ‘Work plan and resources’ and ‘Capacity of participants and consortium as a whole’; minor changes have been made to the ‘Implementation tables’ (e.g. more classification options for deliverables, dissemination activities and risks) and ‘Costs justification tables’, in line with budget headings (e.g. ‘purchase costs’).

The first HEU calls are expected to open in April after the EU Parliament formally adopts the Regulation establishing the programme.

Research Professional – all you need to know

Funding opportunities

Every BU academic has a Research Professional account which delivers weekly emails detailing funding opportunities in their broad subject area. To really make the most of your Research Professional account, you should tailor it further by establishing additional alerts based on your specific area of expertise. The Funding Development Team Officers can assist you with this, if required.

Research Professional have created several guides to help introduce users to Research Professional. These can be downloaded here.

Quick Start Guide: Explains to users their first steps with the website, from creating an account to searching for content and setting up email alerts, all in the space of a single page.

User Guide: More detailed information covering all the key aspects of using Research Professional.

Administrator Guide: A detailed description of the administrator functionality.

In addition to the above, there are a set of 2-3 minute videos online, designed to take a user through all the key features of Research Professional. To access the videos, please use the following link: http://www.youtube.com/researchprofessional

Research Professional are running a series of online training broadcasts aimed at introducing users to the basics of creating and configuring their accounts on Research Professional. They are holding monthly sessions, covering everything you need to get started with Research Professional. The broadcast sessions will run for no more than 60 minutes, with the opportunity to ask questions via text chat. Each session will cover:

  • Self registration and logging in
  • Building searches
  • Setting personalised alerts
  • Saving and bookmarking items
  • Subscribing to news alerts
  • Configuring your personal profile

Each session will run between 10.00am and 11.00am (UK) on the second Tuesday of each month. You can register here for your preferred date:

9th March 2021

11th May 2021

13th July 2021

14th September 2021

9th November 2021

These are free and comprehensive training sessions and so this is a good opportunity to get to grips with how Research Professional can work for you.

Have you noticed the pink box on the BU Research Blog homepage?

By clicking on this box, on the left of the Research Blog home page just under the text ‘Funding Opportunities‘, you access a Research Professional real-time search of the calls announced by the Major UK Funders. Use this feature to stay up to date with funding calls. Please note that you will have to be on campus or connecting to your desktop via our VPN to fully access this service.

HEIF – the final instalment

Business Engagement, Funding opportunities, Fusion, HEIF, Industry collaboration, innovation, Knowledge Exchange, Knowledge Transfer

HEIF – the final instalment

(This is literally just the title to highlight the end of this blog series, not the end of HEIF)

When writing these blog posts, I wasn’t expecting them to turn into a trilogy from the planned double feature, but here we are.

 

In this third instalment of knowledge exchange and HEIF related stories, I’m going to share with you some potential project ideas and examples of HEIF projects from other institutions.

 

The small fund is for getting a KE project started or concluding a KE project.

  • Do you have an idea but need a business to collaborate with and are unsure how to do this?
  • Do you think you have a great project idea but don’t know what market opportunities there are (if any!)?
  • Do you have a business contact who is keen to work with you, but they do not have the available funding for consultancy?
  • Are you working with a charity and need a big of funding to get your project to the next stage?
  • Are you seeking public engagement ideas or projects?

If ANY of these apply to you directly or are similar situations that you have been in, get in touch.

 

To give some examples as to how different institutions use their HEIF funding, here are some ideas and links to searchable projects:

At the University of Southampton, their HEIF allocation as funded projects such as; Video Game Photography: An Examination of Reflective Gameplay, Participation and Responsible Innovation for Co-Design for Exchange and Digital Police Officer: Linguistic Analysis to Identify Cybercriminals.

 

The University of Winchester have funded projects such as; Stormbreak: inspiring movement for positive mental health in primary school and HELP (Health Enhancing Lifestyle Programme) Hampshire Stroke Clinic. Further information on these projects can be found here.

 

The University of Surrey have invested some of their HEIF funds into a Living Lab. This approach to user-centred research and open innovation already has a string of achievements since it’s conception in November 2019 and has funded a series of small collaborative projects in areas such as environmental behaviour and community regeneration.

 

The University of Sussex refocused some of their HEIF funding on Covid-19 relief to their local area where possible, as did the University of Liverpool.

 

Do get in touch to discuss your KE project and how HEIF might be able to help you.

 

As a further note, a specific Proof of Concept strand will be available shortly, please do look out for information on this.

 

Policy opportunities

Please see a range of policy opportunities coming up soon.

If you intend to respond to a select committee inquiry, a consultation, or an APPG (all party parliamentary group) call for evidence please engage with BU’s policy team in good time before submitting your response. Contact us on: policy@bournemouth.ac.uk

  • BEIS Consultation survey – Get your voice heard on energy policy – BEIS are keen to understand how to more effectively engage experts and stakeholders in policy making process.

  • 4 March – Defra Science Advisory Council – recruiting both for Chair and members. They are really keen to encourage interest from a diverse range of people, and are happy to answer any informal inquiries directed at Amanna Giles, science.advisory.council@defra.gov.uk. Please find supporting note attached.

  • 5 March – The International Trade Committee are looking for a number of specialist advisers to support on the scrutiny of trade negotiations. Advisers would be required to attend committee meetings (likely virtually). Details on how to apply can be found here.

 

  • 9 March 2-4pm: Data First Academic Seminar – MoJ ARI
    The seminar will focus on the Ministry of Justice Areas of Research Interest and Data First combined (more detail in the attached). It could appeal to both academics with an interest in justice data and knowledge brokers working on their behalf. If anyone is interested, please ask email datafirst@justice.gov.uk to be added them to the calendar invite.

 

  • 17-21 May – Save the date – COP26 Climate Exp0 – A fusion of Science and Policy virtual conference – will showcase the latest thinking and most relevant international research in the run up to COP26 around five themes. Deadline to register 10 March.

 

Policy Writing Workshop

If you are interested in having an impact on policy, responding to select committee inquiries or Government consultations you may be interested to attend a free (external) policy writing workshop on 4 March at 17:00. Moving from an academic style of writing to policy writing is an aspect that colleagues can regularly struggle with. The workshop will be led by colleagues from Cambridge University Science and Policy Exchange (CUSPE), alongside Dr Andrew Kaye, Head of International Resilience, at the Government office for Science – All welcome!

Book your place on the workshop through Eventbrite.

Here is the workshop blurb:

Do you want to learn how to influence policy makers and better explain the significance of your research?

This workshop is perfect for anyone seeking to improve their writing skills. We will learn more about writing to support policy development, covering both what civil servants and ministers expect and how to provide the information they really need. This will be an interactive session, including time for Q&A.

Speaker: Dr Andrew Kaye, Head of International Resilience, Government Office for Science

Dr Kaye is currently responsible for coordinating science advice during emergencies. Previously he has been a ministerial speechwriter and worked in government communications. Having completed a PhD in History at the University of Cambridge, Dr Kaye lectured in US history at the Universities of Newcastle and Durham before joining the Civil Service.

–