/ Full archive

Guidance Paper for European Innovation Partnerships on Active and Healthy Ageing Steering Group released

The European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing working paper gives an overview on the EIP AHA’s targets and objectives and its role (headline target to add two healthy life years to the average life span of European citizens) and detailed guidance on the role and functioning of the high-level steering group, including a list of already nominated members in the Annex to the document. The group is composed of 33 members, including representatives from the European institutions, Joint Programming Initiatives, industry and European interest organisations, as well as a selected number of representatives from some EU member states. The paper also outlines a proposed timetable for the work of the steering group; the first meeting took place in May 2011, the strategic innovation plan should be finalised in autumn 2011, and the EC aims to analyse the plan by the end of 2011. It will then be presented in a Communication to the Council and European Parliament, and should then start with the implementation phase

EU University Association responds to initiatives on education & research

The EUA has published responses to two European Commission consultation documents – Green Paper on a Common Strategic Framework for future EU Research funding and Consultation on the Modernisation of Higher Education in Europe.

The Green Paper aims to define a new framework for EU research and innovation funding for FP8 and the Consultation relates to the ECs plans to adopt a new communication on the modernisation of higher education in the third quarter of 2011.

EUA sees the development of the European Research Area and European Higher Education Area as being crucially linked if Europe’s universities are to play their full part in contributing to the achievement of the Europe 2020 objectives.

Update!!! Latest position on future of EU funds 2014-2020

The EU budget proposals for 2014-2020 are expected to be published on June 29th and funding proposals in autumn 2011; the budget is not expected to be significantly more than for 2007-13. Debate on role of Europe 2020 agenda in determining funding priorities continues, but it is likely that there will be 15 to 20 thematic priorities. The EU is likely to propose a specific urban focus within the funds with city place based programmes developed.

Controversial! Seismologists face trial for manslaughter of Italian earthquake victims

6 seismologists and a government official face trial for the manslaughter of 309 people who died in an earthquake in L’Aquila, Italy, Nature reports. The scientists were part of a committee in charge of assessing seismic risk in the area who one week before the earthquake told the public that there was no danger. If found guilty the scientists could face jail sentences of up to 12 years.

Policies recommended to boost green growth and innovation in the EU

The OECD report Towards Green Growth provides advice for governments to boost growth and protect the environment at the same time. It recommends tax and competition measures aimed at conserving natural capital and states governments should add innovation policies that encourage an efficient and sparing use of natural resources. Suggested policies include “temporary support measures” to promote the uptake of efficient technologies against the dominance of existing ones. The report also suggests policy measures to make pollution more expensive, such as taxes or permit systems.

More, more, more! MEPs back rise in EU research money

MEPs in charge of defining EU budget priorities after 2013 have called for a 5% increase in the overall 2014-2020 budget, which will include an increase in research funding in a statement this week. National governments had asked for a budget freeze, but MEPs say this would affect the agreed boost for research and innovation funding. They suggest spending more money on research and energy infrastructure, but freezing the budget for regional policy and agriculture. Parliament will vote on this proposal on 9 June.

Phytoplankton research aboard R.V. Cefas Endeavour

Dr. Dan Franklin and Deborah Steele, School of Applied Sciences, have joined forces with scientists from across Europe on a research cruise in the North Sea exploring the abundance and growth of plant cells (phytoplankton).

The research team conducted their study aboard the R.V. Cefas Endeavour, using specialised optical instruments called flow cytometers, which analyse thousands of cells per second.

Using this technology the scientists have built up a comprehensive picture of what grows where and how productive the different cells are.

This data will improve the way plant growth is seen by satellites and will help to map out fish production, which is ultimately dependent on phytoplankton growth.

Dan Franklin said: “We were exceptionally lucky with the weather and enjoyed calm seas throughout the cruise. Our track took us North from Lowestoft, across to the Dogger Bank, east into Dutch coastal waters before returning to Lowestoft via the Greater Gabbard wind farm in the Thames estuary. The fact that we had calm seas made the lab work much easier. I found the habitat complexity and biodiversity of the North Sea a revelation – everywhere was different. When not working long hours in the laboratory, we were fortunate to see plenty of wildlife such as whitebeak dolphins, various seabirds such as gannets and guillemots, and possibly minke whales and orcas.”

The research trip was made possible by the generosity of CEFAS, the government laboratory responsible for monitoring fish stocks, promoting the sustainable use of marine resources and improving the marine environment. BU extends thanks to CEFAS for this opportunity.

You can view an excellent video of dolphins from the trip below:
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DhzSaq_KS4

EC Strategy Launched to Improve Biodiversity

The European Commission has launched a new strategy to protect and improve the state of Europe’s biodiversity over the next decade. Six priority targets have been set which address the main drivers of biodiversity loss. They are:

  • Full implementation of existing nature protection legislation and network of natural reserves, to ensure major improvements to the conservation status of habitats and species
  • Improving and restoring ecosystems and ecosystem services wherever possible, notably by the increased use of green infrastructure
  • Ensuring the sustainability of agriculture and forestry activities
  • Safeguarding and protecting EU fish stocks
  • Controlling invasive species, a growing cause of biodiversity loss in the EU
  • Stepping up the EU’s contribution to concerted global action to avert biodiversity loss.

The strategy is in line with two major commitments made by EU leaders in March 2010 – halting the loss of biodiversity in the EU by 2020, and protecting, valuing and restoring EU biodiversity and ecosystem services by 2050. It is also in line with global commitments made in Nagoya in October 2010, in the context of the Convention on Biological Diversity, where world leaders adopted a package of measures to address biodiversity loss world wide over the coming decade.

As an integral part of the Europe 2020 Strategy, the biodiversity strategy will contribute to the EU’s resource efficiency objectives by ensuring that Europe’s natural capital is managed sustainably, as well as to climate change mitigation and adaptation goals by improving the resilience of ecosystems and the services they provide.

Full details of the strategy and its launch can be found here.

Sneaky and dishonest?: Covert research a much maligned, forgotten jewel in the crown

Guidance

Prof Jonathan Parker, School of Health and Social Care, reflects on covert reseach methods and their use in the social sciences…

There have been a wide range of important studies that have used covert methods, that have collected data from people who do not know they are being studied at the time, who would not give permission or, had permission been sought, where the data may have been dubious or biased. Researchers justify their actions by stating the need to gain access to inaccessible groups, to illuminate important social issues, and to uncover the unpalatable. Famous examples include, of course, Rosenhan’s[1] study of the ways in which mental illness may be attributed by location and situation (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/179/4070/250.short), Holdaway’s[2] insider research into the police, and Hunter S. Thompson’s[3] research into Hell’s Angel communities.

Covert methods have fallen out of vogue and are often difficult to get through postgraduate committees or, indeed, university and other research ethics committees, which increasingly promote a risk averse and pedestrian approach to scrutiny. The reasons for this include the important focus, within disciplinary ethical codes, academic and professional ethics committees, on informed consent, and promote a seemingly natural desire for excising duplicity and dishonesty from data collection in research. However, there are arguments that suggest covert methods may not always be dishonest or duplicitous and, indeed, not to use them in certain circumstances, may be, unwittingly, unethical (see Parker et al., forthcoming[4]).

The use of undercover reporting in investigative journalism, for example relating to NHS hospitals and patient treatment, and more recently non-NHS hospitals; whilst not research, illuminates many hidden and dubious practices in current society, representing some of the social good that can be drawn from such methods, and indeed ‘impact’ (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/226545.php).

Where do our research ideas come from in the social sciences? Often from lectures and dialogue within these with students, from supervision, and observations we make in everyday life. That we have collected initial soundings and thoughts from these settings and situations, which has not been scrutinised or completed without informed consent is not questioned: it would be ridiculous to assume we needed informed consent to undertake our daily practices!

There are inherent dangers in covert research which cannot be nor should not be ignored. We have a responsibility as a university to our research students and academic staff and their safety and there are, in some cases, dangers of physical violence or personal abuse in researching undercover. There are also potential reputational and relational issues for universities to consider. These risks must be assessed but we must also ask who shoulders the responsibility for the risk and whether it is important to support cover research because of its illuminative, social importance. We must acknowledge too that some unpalatable areas or risky areas can be negotiated, such as in Fielding’s[5] study of the National Front. However, permissions themselves may detract from the study quality, raise the potential for social desirability responses and selecting data collection methods requires careful thought for the best research and best practices.

As we strive for research excellence and relevance here at BU, we should grapple enthusiastically with the issues and challenges involved in covert research and back it wholeheartedly where its importance is clear. A flaccid response can lose the excitement and challenge involved in the production of new knowledge from in depth engagement with individuals, groups and societies. URECs need to highlight legal challenges, of course. Current mental capacity legislation (which my own research for the Social Care Institute for Excellence and Department of Health suggests transposes ethical scrutiny drawn from moves to protect the public from dangerous medical experimentation Parker et al. 2010[6]) demands ethical scrutiny by appropriate committees, but used well can promote and support ethically-driven knowledge creation and exploration of hidden issues that require methods that cannot and should not involve informed consent. To avoid or proscribe such research methods in all cases leads us down a safe but uninteresting and, potentially, unethical, track.

[1] Rosenhan, D.L. (1973) On being sane in insane places, Science, 179, 4070, 250-258.

[2] Holdaway, S. (1983) Inside the British Police: A force at work, Oxford: Blackwell.

[3] Thompson, H.S. (2003/1965) Hell’s Angels, London: Penguin.

[4] Parker, J., Penhale, B. and Stanley, D. (forthcoming) Research ethics review: social care and social science research and the Mental Capacity Act 2005, Ethics and Social Welfare

[5] Fielding, N. (1982) Observational research on the National Front, in M. Bulmer (ed.) Social Research Ethics: An examination of the merits of covert participant observation, London: Macmillan.

[6] Parker, J., Penhale, B. and Stanley, D. (2010) Problem or safeguard? Research ethics review in social care research and the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Social Care and Neurodisability 1, 2, 22-32.

Get your own business cards!

Last month I attended the GrantCraft: Research Workshop Day that Corrina arranged and which many of you attended. The session, facilitated by Dr Martin Pickard, was a huge success and we will definitely be inviting Martin back to run a similar workshop at BU again.

During the ‘Impact and Benefits’ session the importance of business cards in establishing academic networks was discussed, and I was surprised to note that less than 10% of the audience already have cards.

The Vitae website notes that business cards are essential in establishing academic networks, and that networks enable researchers to:

  • create a professional image
  • exchange information and keep up-to-date with new developments
  • identify potential areas for collaboration
  • establish disciplinary, cross-disciplinary, cross-institutional and cross-sector groups
  • get published

With this is mind the Research Development Unit has funding available to purchase some business cards for academics who need them. If you’d like some business cards then let us know and we’ll see what we can do! Email us at researchunit@bournemouth.ac.uk

Keywords for Research

Guidance

Matthew’s previous blog post (Research Ontology of Find an Expert!) introduced the concept of using the Science-Metrix ontology as the starting point for how BU will classify research in the future.

To date we have not received any responses from BU staff as to whether you think these keywords are suitable, or any suggestions for alternative keywords.

These keywords will be extremely important going forwards as they will be the words used to classify your research expertise in the future, both internally and externally.

The ontology is based on 176 discipline sub-fields which can be viewed here. We are aware these might not be a finished product for BU’s needs but we need your input to further refine them for our use.

Your comments and ideas are very welcome and should be added as comments to the blog post.

BU Research Themes – have your say!

The future BU Research Themes are starting to take shape but your input is still needed!

Several champions have already stepped forward to start defining the themes, and these can be read on a special part of the blog – BU Research Themes. Everyone is encouraged to read and comment on these emerging ideas. Once fleshed out these themes will shape the future BU research strategy and will inform how research is presented on the BU website.

No one has yet stepped forward to define the following potential Research Themes:

  • Recreation and Leisure
  • Creative and Digital Economies

If you have an interest in either of these themes then please do help us to flesh these themes out. See our previous Research Themes blog post for details of how to get involved. The completed templates were due back last week but the deadline has been extended until Friday 10 June.

Speak now or forever hold your peace!

Partner Search: Crowberry Consulting

Crowberry Consulting is a female run company based in the North West of England with over 11 years industry experience of delivering sustainability projects. We have previously bid for IEE projects, and have extensive contacts in UK based universities and Turkish Research Institutes. Our academic qualifications include: MBA Environmental Management, MSC Environmental Impact Assessment, BSC Ecology, MA Environmental Consulting, and BSC Biology.

Crowberry Energy is a not for profit social enterprise working with SMEs and large listed companies, to implement carbon management and carbon foot-printing, sustainable development policies, and specific standards such as ISO14001, BS EN 16001, BS8901, and the Carbon Action Standard for UK CRC compliance. We also provide specialist training in the areas of:

  • Carbon Foot printing and Carbon Management
  • How Green is Your Office
  • CSR – Corporate Social Responsibility

For more details about this SME, please click here.

Basic Research needs EU Funding Boost says Microsoft

The UK arm of Microsoft has backed UK universities in urging the EC to increase its support for basic research. As part of its submission to the Commission’s consultation Microsoft says that the private sector already funds its fair share of basic research and that the EU now need to take a lead. The submission states: “Universities and public research institutions are uniquely positioned to take on basic or pure research with no immediate commercial product in research that most companies would be unlikely to tackle but that has the potential to be transformative…Without greater investment in basic research, there is a danger that these fundamental game changing and important advances will happen outside Europe.” The consultation closed on 20 May and the Commission will announce its next move in November, based on its findings.