/ Full archive

A Request for Help or Coming of Age?

News from the PVC

In the distant past I helped to give birth to several textbooks.  I wrote a lot of stuff in the easy days of the 90’s, when life was simpler and sleep was for wimps!  One of these textbooks has endured, the one closest to my heart.  It was written with my PhD twin – he was erosion and I was deposition – a friendship forged in the Cairngorms attempting to paint frozen pebbles on avalanche slopes that has endured for over 25 years.  Glacial Geology was first published in 1996 and a second edition was squeezed out between other projects in 2009.  The book still sells and still manages to delight its authors when found on a dusty shelf in academic bookshops; finding the book shop is the greater challenge these days however.  As a 17 year old the book is not in bad shape and I am intrigued by the idea of keeping it alive so that we can celebrate its twenty first birthday.  Having a tradition view on these things I am taking this landmark as 21 not 18 by the way.  In its life it has seen a lot of change in me, in higher education and in the field to which it provides a general introduction.  This change is the point of the post, in case you had begun to wonder?  My co-author and I have been approached by the publisher about a third edition, which is a daunting prospect given my lack of time, a problem shared by my co-author who holds a similarly challenging role in Wales.  The challenge is worse however since the publisher not only wants a new book, but also a fully interactive e-version with a website and learning resource.  Sadly it is to be a book for the modern digital age when paper and few good pictures are no longer enough.  So sitting in my in-box is a draft proposal from my co-author – curse his efficiency – with some suggestions about how we might approach the e-version; video clips of classic landforms, pod casts of key concepts, interactive diagrams which you can explore with your finger or mouse, and a hyper linked bibliography.  Neither Neil, nor I profess to be experts in this field and that is the purpose of this post, to seek your help.  What would you do?  What would you include? Where are there good examples that we can look at and follow?

Vitae briefing documents for REF 2014

REF Subjects

Vitae has produced “REF 2014: Briefing for Researcher Developers‘” in order to support those who are preparing submission and to enhance the quality of their environmental narrative. This can be found here

There is a also a “REF 2014: Summary for Submitting Units” which provides a useful at a glance guide, can be found here

These are HEFCE approved documents which highlight the importance of development activities.

Face Blindness Public Awareness Campaign Gets Underway!

Research from BU’s Centre for Face Processing Disorders was featured in a CBBC documentary today.  The film was entitled ‘My life: Who are you?’ and followed the journey of Hannah, a teenager with face blindness, as she participated in one of our training programmes and discusses the difficulties of everyday life.  The documentary also featured Hannah meeting another girl with face blindness for the first time, and her encounter with Duncan Bannatyne who also has the condition.

We are so pleased with the documentary, and felt the producers did an excellent job in portraying the condition with scientific accuracy, and in demonstrating the difficulties associated with face blindness.  Despite Hannah’s struggles she still maintains a positive attitude to life and the film does an excellent job of presenting her as the remarkable young lady that she is, who was so keen to make the film in order to raise public awareness of the condition.  Hannah’s story illustrates how life can be affected by brain injury, but her remarkable positivity shines through as the programme follows her journey.

If you missed the programme you can watch it here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/cbbc/episode/b01rlyc9/My_Life_Who_Are_You/

We recently launched an e-petition that aims to promote public and professional awareness of prosopagnosia by campaigning for its discussion in the House of Commons.  We need to gain 100,000 signatures to make this happen, so if you were moved by the documentary, please do add your signature:

http://www.prosopagnosiaresearch.org/awareness/e-petition

Our public awareness campaign has only just taken off so watch this space for more activities!

Research Discussion Forum – Thursday 28th March

PG research

The next Research Discussion Forum* will take place as usual in EB205 on Thursday, March 28th, 4 pm.

This week’s talk will be given by Dr. Allan Webster (BU) and is titled: “Wages in US Tourism“.

As usual everyone is invited, no need to book in.  Just come around on Thursday.

 

*organised by Dr Fabian Homberg from the Business School

 

Realities of fieldwork: Sheetal Sharma, HSC PhD student on fieldwork in rural Nepal.

PG research

(c) Sheetal Sharma

Open air focus group in rural Nepal, (c) Sheetal Sharma 2013.


Roosters crowing, cows mooing, bleating goats, birds chirping, mobile phones ringing, children screaming, laughing and running around while women, breastfeeding, talk over one another excitedly in the sun as they need to leave us soon to drop the children off to school and/or head to the field to cultivate the season’s crop this spring it is wheat, last summer, rice. Women do this work as most of their husbands are away in the capital, Kathmandu or in the Arab Gulf. This is the reality of conducting focus groups in rural Nepal.

Although we, as researchers, spend considerable time to perfect the ideal ‘tool’ of the interview schedule and imagine the transcription clear and the background; a researcher must be prepared for every eventuality. Noise, din and interruptions: Today a dog nibbled on a nearby goat and a few men kept creeping to listen in why was this videshi (foreigner) recording conversations and making notes. The women shooed them away as today was a discussion on contraception; also that the discussion of the focus groups should be in ‘controlled environment’, safe, quiet; and in Nepal where women are not the main decision-maker for their reproductive health, it should mean a lieu women should be able to discuss freely these issues. In this Green Tara’s (www.greentaratrust.com) intervention area, which my PhD, supervised at HSC BU by Catherine Angell, Vanora Hundley, Edwin van Teijlingen and University of Sheffield’s Padam Simkhada, aims to evaluate both quantitatively and qualitatively, shows one the decision-making outcomes improved: increased the use of contraception in the Pharping area from 4.3% (2008) to 24.6% (2012) after 5 years of health promotion conducted by two auxiliary nurse-midwives.
40 minutes later recording (with 2 digital recorders) and once the demographic data and recording is double-checked and any last questions answered we set off walking 2 hours downhill visiting a tea-shop on the way for a cup of chai.

Edwin van Teijlingen and Emma Pitchforth, Qualitative Research: Focus group research in family planning and reproductive health care J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2006;32:1 30-32doi:10.1783/147118906775275299
http://jfprhc.bmj.com/content/32/1/30.citation

Open Access journals: Remember to check for changes!

PG research

BUI Research BlogThe BU Research blog has seen various pieces on Open Accessing Publishing, including http://blogs.bournemouth.ac.uk/research/bu-internal-funding-opportunities/open-access-publication-fund/  or http://blogs.bournemouth.ac.uk/research/files/2011/08/Open-Access-Fund-policy-180711.pdf).  Moreover, Bournemouth University professors are actively involved in Open Access journals.  For example  Prof. Vanora Hundley and I are both Associate Editors of a major Open Access journal (see:  http://blogs.bournemouth.ac.uk/research/2012/10/23/prof-hundley-associate-editor-bmc-pregnancy-childbirth/ .

This blog highlights that journals can change and that some become Open Access that were not before.  This happened to some of my methods papers in the scientific journal of the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG).  Their journal the Journal of Family Planning & Reproductive Health Care used to be published in house as one of the RCOG journals.  The journal had a fairly closely defined readership and a very traditional way of paper-based publishing.  This meant very few academics, practitioners or students had access to my papers published over the years in the Journal of Family Planning & Reproductive Health Care. Then, a year or two ago, the journal became part of the BMJ Group (http://group.bmj.com/), which publishes over 40 journals in the health and health care field.

 

The deal between the Journal of Family Planning & Reproductive Health Care and the BMJ Group must include some arrangement to make previous issues available through Open Access.  All of a sudden seven of my research methods papers are freely available on the web through Open Access [1-7].   One of the key messages here is that it is worthwhile to see which journals offer Open Access, and to check regularly for changes in journals’ policies and publishers.

 

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen, School of Health & Social Care, Bournemouth University

 

References:

  1. van Teijlingen, E.R., Forrest, K. (2004) The range of qualitative research methods in family planning and reproductive health care, Journal of Family Planning & Reproductive Health Care 30(3): 171-73.
  2. Forrest Keenan, K., van Teijlingen, E.R. (2004) The quality of qualitative research in family planning and reproductive health care, Journal of Family Planning & Reproductive Health Care 30 (4): 257-59.
  3. Forrest Keenan, K., van Teijlingen, E.R., Pitchforth, E. (2005) The analysis of qualitative research data in family planning and reproductive health care, Journal of Family Planning & Reproductive Health Care 31(1): 40-43.
  4. Pitchforth, E., Porter, M., van Teijlingen, E.R., Forrest Keenan, K. (2005) Writing up and presenting qualitative research in family planning and reproductive health care, Journal of Family Planning & Reproductive Health Care 31 (2): 132-135.
  5. van Teijlingen, E., Hundley, V. (2005) Pilot studies in family planning and reproductive health care, Journal of Family Planning & Reproductive Health Care 31 (3): 219-221.
  6. van Teijlingen, E.R., Pitchforth, E. (2006) Focus Group Research in Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care, Journal of Family Planning & Reproductive Health Care 32 (1): 30-32.
  7. van Teijlingen, E.R., Pitchforth, E., Bishop, C., Russell, E.M. (2006) Delphi method and nominal group techniques in family planning and reproductive health research, Journal of Family Planning & Reproductive Health Care 32 (4): 249-252.

School of Health and Social Care – PhD/Open Research Seminar on Wednesday 27th March @ 1 pm

PG research

You are cordially invited to the lunch time seminar below which is one of a regular series of HSC PhD seminars which are open to all. Please feel free to bring your lunch.

‘A Method to My Madness’ – Michele Board

Michele is coming towards the end of her PhD studies. She has been researching the meaning of home for the Baby Boomers (i.e. those born between 1945-1965), using an innovative approach. She has used a combination of methods to help unpack the significance of home for six participants. The participants have taken photographs of their home and then once these have been printed they have discussed their meaning in a recorded interview. The photographs were then shown to a review panel to see if the meaning of home could be interpreted by the photographs alone. The final interpretation was made by looking at the transcript of the interview, the photographs and the review panel comments together, to form a story of the meaning of home for each participant. At this presentation one of the participants stories will be shared as well as the challenges posed when writing this qualitative approach up for the thesis.

Date: Wednesday 27 March 2013; Time: 1-1.50 pm, R207, Royal London House

Travelling with a purpose: the altruistic, personal motivations and experiences of conservation volunteers on an expedition to Bardia National Park, Nepal

Awarded & submitted bids

The further development of partnerships between conservation research and ecotourism is highly desirable.  However it is reliant on attracting willing participants to go on conservation expeditions.  Understanding the motivational and experiential aspects of such travel is therefore fundamental to devising research volunteering opportunities and marketing that provoke necessary tourist applications. There is much cynicism in the tourism literature about the desire to ‘travel with a purpose’ mostly on the assumption that volunteering merely eases developed-world middle class guilt. A counter view, however, is that this type of travel not only supports worthy causes but also leads to learning and personal development where tourism is based on being, doing, touching and seeing rather than just seeing.

Due to my continued interest and publications in wildlife tourism and conservation, I was selected to join a scientific expedition to Bardia National Park in Nepal to participate in a study of the regions’ unique population of wild elephants. The expedition was led by the well-known explorer and author Colonel Blashford-Snell, the founder of Operation Raleigh and the Scientific Exploration Society, whilst the research is under the supervision of Professor Adrian Lister of the Natural History Museum.

I travelled with twenty individuals who brought various skills to the team. My fieldwork consisted of semi-structured, in-depth interviews with fellow participants during the expedition.  The interviews explored their motivations for joining the team, what the expedition meant to them, their experiences of travel and transformation, and their notions of adventure and altruism.  A travel diary was also kept which logged observations of the day’s activities, logistics, the teams’ thoughts on what they had encountered and achieved, the sharing of significant stories, and the hopes and personal challenges of living and ‘working’ in the jungle.

I had a number of duties which have been assigned to me beyond the logging, measurement and photography of elephants. These included providing an advisory role to the local naturalists / guides wishing to expand and develop ecotourism in Bardia National Park, and keeping a species list of birds and butterflies.  Part of the expedition also included visiting and helping the villages near base camp as well as involving them in elephant conservation.  I am currently writing up the study and findings will eventually be disseminated at a special interest / nature based tourism conferences and published in a peer reviewed journal. The raw data presents a number of recurring themes namely that:

  • The place itself is less important than the volunteer activity
  • There is a search for like-minded people and meaningful friendships
  • This type of travel is a quest to ‘join a community’, i.e. that the co-volunteers become a family or a community with shared memories and experiences
  • Traditional travel is perceived as ‘islands in time’ whilst expeditions are different as friendships, contacts, reunions and fund-raising activities stretch into the future.
  • It is not the places that are visited, it is more the thoughts and feelings that are brought back to everyday lives following an expedition

Dr Susanna Curtin, School of Tourism

New AHRC strategy: The Human World

Funding opportunities, Grants Academy

It has been announced that over the next five years, the AHRC will strengthen knowledge and understanding of the human world by focussing on excellence of achievement, extending opportunity and building capacity through partnerships. Published friday, The Human World: The Arts and Humanities in our Time (2013-2018), the AHRCs new Strategy, sets out the AHRCs distinctive role in the UKs system of support for research and how it intends to meet the challenges of a rapidly changing research environment.

Over the next five years the new strategy commits the AHRC to: supporting collaborative and inter-disciplinary research, whilst maintaining its strong commitment to responsive mode and ambitious researcher-led projects; enhancing postgraduate provision; extending and increasing the opportunities for researchers to work collaboratively with a wide range of partners; maintaining the UKs international leadership in arts and humanities research; and further explaining and evidencing the value and importance of research in the arts and humanities.

The Strategy was developed through extensive discussions with the AHRCs Council and Advisory Board as well as comments received from the research community gathered from the publication of a draft strategy, institutional visits, subject associations and learned society meetings, the Peer Review College and focus groups and town meetings. I took part in a number of meetings held here at Bournemouth, along with other panel members and recipients of AHRC funding.

Some of the key points relate to reflecting the value and importance of the arts and humanities research, so linking their funding more directly to the impact agenda of the REF.  The aim is therefore to ensure the people, skills and research AHRC supports have a clear strategy for interacting with and impacting upon public life to bring cultural, intellectual and economic benefits to the UK and beyond.

The strategy is available here (http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/News-and-Events/News/Documents/AHRC-Strategy-2013-18.pdf) while the website also contains further information in a variety of formats (http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/News-and-Events/News/Pages/AHRC-Strategy-2013-2018.aspx). The message is clear however, if there is no clear pathway to impact the project will not be funded and it will no longer be acceptable to rely on academic publications as the only means for dissemination for research findings.

Change BU through 15 mins invested in CROS & PIRLS

Despite sounding like a cheesy folk musical duo, CROS and PIRLS are actually two key tools for you to tell BU your thoughts on being an academic member of staff here….

What are CROS & PIRLS?

The Careers in Research Online Survey (CROS) and the Principal Investigators and Research Leaders Survey (PIRLS) are two short questionnaires (about 15 mins) prepared by Vitae to capture the experiences of research active staff. As part of our EC HR Excellence in Research Award Badge, it is critical we know your views.

The surveys are run biennially and gather anonymous data about working conditions, career aspirations and career development opportunities for research staff and research leaders in UK Higher Education.

Why should I complete a survey?

PIRLS and CROS will have a significant impact on those conducting and leading research in the UK.

For instance feedback CROS has provided to the government has led to additional funding to institutions for research staff development, as well as significantly raising the profile of research staff both within institutions and nationally.

On a local level, we will use the feedback from these surveys to improve support we offer at BU. This is your time to have your say so make sure your voice is heard. Don’t rely on others to complete this and give your views; the more responses we have the greater the knowledge we will have about what life is like for you at BU. Once we have this, we can respond more effectively to your needs and ensure any policy developments are evidence based.

 

Do I have to complete both surveys?

No – PIRLS is aimed at those who are a research grant holder, personally responsible for the management of research staff and/or the formal supervision of postgraduate researchers and those principally responsible for setting the intellectual direction of research. If you match this description, please complete the PRILS questionnaire.

CROS is aimed at those who have the primary responsibility of conducting research and are employed for this purpose. If you are employed primarily to conduct research and have no formal staff management/supervision responsibilities please complete the CROS questionnaire.

How do I complete the survey?

The surveys will remain open  until 25 March 2013 and the hyperlinks are here: CROS & PIRLS

CEMP Research & Innovation Bulletin

Funding opportunities

Here is the updated CEMP Research & Innovation bulletin and agenda for the next cluster meeting – CEMP Cluster bulletin and agenda 28.3.13_KE

The cluster meeting is on Thursday March 28th, 9.30-11.30 in the CEMP office.

Thanks to Kris Erickson for these updates.

The ‘thinktank’ reading for discussion at the meeting is SURRENDERING THE SPACE Convergence culture, Cultural Studies and the curriculum

Thanks to Ashley Woodfall for this.

Expressions of interest in the funding opportunities in the bulletin and / or to confirm meeting attendance, please email julian@cemp.ac.uk.

 

 

 

CIPD Research Showcase Event

The Department of Human Resources and Organisational Behaviour in The Business School held a successful Research Showcase for members of the CIPD (the professional body for HR practitioners) on Wednesday 13th March.  The event focused on highlighting to the wider business community the research and knowledge exchange work of the HR/OB team. 

The event included a networking buffet, poster presentations showcasing the areas of identity at work (Dr Anne Benmore), leadership practice (Dr Lois Farquharson), false performance (Dr Gbola Gbadamosi), HR and ethics (Dr Louise Preget), health and wellbeing management (Dr Davide Secchi), cross-cultural HRM and diversity (Dr Huiping Xian) and two interactive presentation/discussion sessions covering ‘docility’ in hiring practices (Davide Secchi) and High involvement HR practices and work attitudes (Hong Bui). 

The event was ably chaired by Dr Fabian Homberg.  In addition, the opportunity was taken to launch the CIPD Approved MSc Professional Development (HRM) course which begins at the EBC in September 2013 (link: BU Link to MSc PD (HRM) Course details).  Thanks is extended to all those who contributed to the event and attended the event.  We look forward to delivering more research events in the future.

5th Annual PGR Conference @ BU – REMINDER

PG research

A Celebration of BU PGR Research

Our annual conference is designed to showcase the best of BU’s postgraduate research and to provide a unique opportunity for you as PGRs to present your work within a safe learning environment. Our multi-disciplinary conference will allow for cross-school interaction as well as opportunities for collaboration, where appropriate.

The 2013 conference will build on the great success of the previous PGR Conferences held in 2008, 2009, 2011 and 2012.

Call for Abstracts

We are inviting abstracts for oral, poster presentations AND new for 2013, a photography presentation – no matter at what stage you are in your Research Project. Presentations may focus on:

  • Research area
  • Specific methodological approach
  • Initial findings
  • Experience of your research journey e.g. transfer

There will be prizes for the best poster, oral and photography presentations. Please be aware that there are limited number of oral presentation slots.

We are also looking for volunteers to help chair sessions, so if you are interested please email the Graduate School.

Guidelines

Please see

How to Register

You will all need to register, whether you are contributing or just attending.  Please complete the booking form (conference booking form) and send via email to: graduateschool@bournemouth.ac.uk

Deadlines

For submitting abstracts: Monday 25 March 2013
For attending the conference: Friday 12th April 2013

Revision to the Activity Proposal Form Process

Guidance

Currently all research and knowledge exchange bids require an Activity Proposal Form (APF) to be signed off by the applicant, Dean and depending on the value members of UET and the Board.  To date the APF has focused on financial issues, primarily the financial recovery of a proposed bid or grant.  Currently the APF process has been a paper based system rather than one which allows for electronic approval.  This is about to change with one important addition!

The APF has to date not required any sign-off with respect to bid quality, yet submissions of poor quality endangers both personal and institutional reputations. In future all bids will require a dual sign-off one focused on financial issues and one focused on quality.  The quality will be determined by a senior academic within a particular school, typically the Deputy Dean for Research/Knowledge Exchange and other nominated assessors.  This will all be wrapped up in a new paper-free system. 

The redesigned APF process will introduce a formal three stage approval process which will work as follows:

Stage One: An Intention to bid form will be completed by the Principal Investigator (PI) in conjunction with RKE Operations and approved before the PI can progress with the bid.  As part of this process, the PI will nominate a quality approver from a School’s approved list.  Out of curtsy the PI is expected to inform the nominated Quality Approver that they will receive the bid in due course.   Once the form is completed and RKE Ops have entered the details on RED, the Authorised School signatory will be sent the bid electronically, which they will receive in the form of an email containing a link.  Clicking on the link will direct them to the APF Approval Screen to make their decision.  If UET/Board Member approval is required then it will follow the same process and they will receive the link also.

Stage Two: Each School’s Deputy Dean Research/Knowledge Exchange has provided a list of Quality Approvers.  Training is being provided to the Quality Approvers during February and March.  When the bid is ready the Quality Approver will be sent the bid electronically to confirm that it is of sufficient quality to be submitted for external funding and they will approve the bid via link as per Stage One.  Sufficient quality is defined as ‘without causing reputational damage to the individual or BU’.  The Quality Approver will be required to justify their decision and may also provide feedback to help the applicant fine tune the final bid.  If a bid has been through the Internal Peer Review Process this step will be largely automatic.  Quality approval is only required for: (A) competitive research bids (e.g., RCUK, Charities etc.) regardless of value; and (B) competitive knowledge exchange bids such as tenders and contract research bids where the value is in excess of £50k.  If a bid is declined by a Quality Approver RKE Ops will inform the Dean and RKEDO Internal Peer Review Team to trigger support and guidance to the PI to improve the quality of the bid if there is sufficient time.  The Dean will be responsible for informing the PI that their bid has been declined on the grounds of ‘Quality’ and will provide them with feedback.  Appeal can be made directly to the PVC who will adjudicate differences of opinion on the basis of their own review of the bid. 

Stage Three: Final approval is only required if finances within a bid have changed  significantly changed from those set out in Stage One.  RKE Ops will decide whether this is the case and whether re-approval is required. 

For all stages of approval, all approvers will be sent an email containing a link to the bid; relevant documentation will be provided in the link; comments can be added to say why a decision was made (these will appear on the APF); and no log-in to RED is required.

The APF Process is being piloted in HSC throughout March and the official go-live date for all Schools will be 2 April.  The RKE Operations team will provide the PI with the Intention to Bid form.  Jo Garrad, RKE Operations Manager, will provide a user guide explaining the new process once the pilot has been completed.