Tagged / BU research

Join us for an NIHR Information Session – 27 April 2022

NHS

 

 

 

Bournemouth University and the NIHR Research Design Service South West are jointly hosting an online NIHR Information Session, on Weds 27 April at 10am.

This NIHR Information Session will provide an overview of the NIHR as a funder, the NIHR funding programmes with specific focus on Research for Patient Benefit (RfPB), Health and Social Care Delivery Research (HSDR), Invention for Innovation (i4i), and NIHR Fellowship opportunities.

This session will online, via Zoom. Please register via Eventbrite here: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/300827682697

A link to join the meeting will be sent to you after registration.

This session is part of the Bournemouth University Research and Knowledge Exchange Development Framework.

 

BU’s new Read and Publish deal with Cambridge University Press

Guidance, open access, writing

We have a new Read and Publish deal with Cambridge. By entering the location and institution you will see the publishing agreement as below and also have links to eligible journals.

To be eligible, articles must:

Institutional Learning from Funder Feedback: Research Methods

An insight from Associate Professor – Dr. Ian Jones.

One of the great benefits of acting as a reviewer – whether of funding applications or research papers – is being able to learn what is happening at the ‘cutting edge’ of a field, not only in terms of subject knowledge, but also in terms of methodology. Here, we can learn from both good, and not so good practice. Having recently reviewed a number of applications for the funding scheme associated with my own professional body, It was clear that such a task has clearly had a significant impact upon my own understanding of what makes ‘good’ research, and what makes a ‘good’ application for funding.

Perhaps the key term from the latest round of reviews – to me at least – was that of ‘coherence’, and coherence between various different elements of a proposed methodology. Often within applications there is an understandable focus upon ‘methods’ rather than ‘methodology’. To me, this means a missed opportunity to generate such coherence – and subsequently a missed opportunity to justify the key methodological decisions. As one example we can look at the importance of the ontological and epistemological basis of the work (perhaps more relevant within the social, rather than the natural sciences) which is often overlooked, or only briefly addressed. Often, even a relatively brief acknowledgement of these ideas can help to justify choices in terms of methods, sampling and data analysis. This can be taken further with reference to another – often overlooked – detail, that of the research design. Often, whilst research designs are outlined, their role as a ‘link’ between the epistemology of the study and the data collection and analysis methods is often omitted, where again, it can lead to a real sense of coherence within the methodology. The best bids had not only detail about the broader methodology, but also a real coherence between each element, with a consistent story being told, from the philosophical assumptions of the study, which guided the research design, where each method had a clear link both to the broader epistemological issues, and also the subsequent analysis and interpretation of the data.

Finally, and crucially from a reviewer’s perspective, the idea of coherence between researcher, subject and methodology is essential, often being the first question, a reviewer will be required to address. The research itself is not independent of the researcher, and does the study show coherence in terms of not only researcher-subject coherence (does the researcher have an established record in the area) but also researcher-methodology coherence (what evidence is there that the researcher could undertake this methodology successfully), again focusing not just on methods, but the broader methodology as a whole (for example is there coherence between the choice of research design, and the researcher’s own experiences and attributes (often key, for example, in ethnographic designs).

None of these points are ground breakingly original, but it is interesting to see that there is still great variation in how methodologies are constructed. And assessing such methodologies has proved to be of immense value when think about my own work.

Speaking to a journalist

international, Publishing, Research Ethics, Research Integritiy, writing

In late 2021 I was contacted by an Indonesian science journalist, Dyna Rochmyaningsih, who was investigating the ethics around international studies on human population genetics to build expand genomic libraries of people in the Global South.  She highlights that “these international studies, often led by Western scientists, have contributed to a more global understanding of ancient patterns of human migration and evolution. But on some occasions, they’ve also sidestepped local regulatory agencies in the developing world, and ventured into murky research ethics terrain as a result”.   The reason for contacting me was because we had published several papers here at Bournemouth University about the need for applying for ethical approval for research in developing countries [1-3].  I had a long Skype conversation with her about the various perspectives on the matter she was investigating.

Today she emailed me that her piece ‘Opinion: Genomics’ Ethical Gray Areas Are Harming the Developing World. A recent controversy in the Philippines illustrates the pitfalls and pressure points of international genomics research‘ has been published online.  In the email she made a really nice comment: “It was nice talking to you even though you might see that I disagree at some of your points. However, the discussion gave me insights that there is a wide disagreement on what considers ethical research.”  I think that is what science should be all about, disagreements, discussions, disputes, etc. and, at the same time, learning from these disputes and gaining greater insight.

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH

 

References:

  1. van Teijlingen E.R., Simkhada P.P. (2012)    Ethical approval in developing countries is not optional. Journal of Medical Ethics 38(7):428-30. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2011-100123. Epub 2012 Feb 16.PMID: 22345548 
  2. van Teijlingen, E., Simkhada, P. (2015). Failure to Apply for Ethical Approval for Health Studies in Low-Income Countries. Nepal Journal of Epidemiology, 5(3), 511–515. https://doi.org/10.3126/nje.v5i3.13609

  3. Regmi, P. R., Aryal, N., Kurmi, O., Pant, P. R., van Teijlingen, E., & Wasti, S. P. (2017). Informed Consent in Health Research: Challenges and Barriers in Low-and Middle-Income Countries with Specific Reference to Nepal. Developing World Bioethics, 17(2), 84–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.12123

Managing Rejection: RDS Support available to ….

…repurpose unsuccessful applications amazing ideas not yet funded.

Huff, so your grant application was unsuccessful! Don’t get too comfortable in the pit of despair and generally feeling demoralised. The imposter syndrome monster eats these thoughts for breakfast!

But in all seriousness, do not to be too hard on yourself. The UK research funding systems is extremely competitive, and the reality is, even great research won’t be funded. So, see this as an opportunity to tweak the research design, get that all important key stakeholders onboard and rethink that postdoc’s training plan… so take 2 (or more).

Rocky meme - YouTube

There is so much to think about when you want to repurpose a previously unsuccessful funding application:

  • What can you do to make the second iteration successful?
  • Where will you apply, to which funder?
  • What sort of scheme will you apply for?
  • How can you increase your chances of being funded?
  • Have things moved on in your field since you applied previously?
  • Has any new research come out that changes the research landscape in your field?
  • Do you need to update the research?
  • Will you apply to the same funder, for example, if the research is a really good fit for the funder and the project is a good fit for the scheme?
  • Will you apply to a different funder?
  • Do you want to take a different approach to applying for funding?
  • Do you want to take some time to develop your funding profile before you apply for a large-scale grant?

The list is endless, but the Research Facilitators are here to help. We offer and organise one to one support to help you get to grips with the process of reshaping an application. Prompting you to answer/think about the above questions. But if you’d prefer a group effort and peer to peer advice and guidance. The Research Facilitators are running quarterly workshop open to all who wish to repurpose an unfunded application or would like to contribute to the support of others. Scheduled dates below:

Date Time Location
Monday 7th March 2022 09:30 – 11:30 Online
Friday 20th May 2022 09:30 – 11:30 Online
Thursday 7th July 2022 09:30 – 11:30 Online

The workshop covers:

  • Where to start – the things you will need to consider;
  • How to approach the unsuccessful application in order to improve it;
  • The fit to funder in terms of eligibility, subject remits and criteria for funding;
  • The types of schemes available;
  • How to pitch your research and structure the main proposal.

To book on please click HERE.

Rejection is the norm

In academic life rejection is the norm, for both journal articles and grant applications, the average academic is more likely to fail than to succeed at any time.  This can also be true, although to a lesser extent, for applications to present at academic conferences.  At the time of writing this blog (12 February 2022), I have 299 published papers listed on the databases SCOPUS.  Of these nearly 300 papers only two papers ever were accepted on first submission as submitted.  Most papers went through one or two rounds revision in the light of comments and critique offered by reviewers, and sometimes also additional feedback from the journal’s editor.

After rejection by the first journal, your paper needs to be rewritten before submitting it to another journal.  Obviously, this process of rewriting and resubmitting takes time as different journals have different styles, lay-outs, sub-headings, audiences, and often peculiar ways of referencing.  I would guess more than half of my papers have been through the review process of at least two journals.  Quite a few of my published papers were accepted by the third or even fourth journal to which we had submitted them.  Persistence is the name of the game.   Some paper fell by the wayside often after second submission, if especially if review process had been time-consuming and the reviewers very critical and demanding too many changes.

Peer review can be very good and constructive but also brutal and destructive.  Blind peer-review is a fair process as it means the quality of the paper is all that counts in getting accepted.  I have had the pleasure of being co-author on papers rejected by journals for which I was: the book review editor at the time (Sociological Research Online), on the journal’s editorial board at the time of submission (e.g. Midwifery, Nepal Journal of Epidemiology), one of journal’s Associate Editors (BMC Pregnancy & Childbirth) and, to top it all, on which I was one of the two editors (Asian Journal of Midwives).   

Grant applications in the UK have a one in eight to one in ten chance of success.  Most of our successful grant applications have been resubmissions, with attempts to improve the application each time in the light of reviewers’ comments.  For example, our successful application to THET (Tropical Health & Education Trust) resulted in the funded project ‘Mental Health Training for Rural Community-based Maternity Care Workers in Nepal‘ [1], led by Bournemouth University (see picture).  This THET project was organised by Tribhuvan University in collaboration with Bournemouth University and Liverpool John Moores University (LJMU).  However, I was only successful during our second submission.  Our first submission was rejected the year before with feedback that our partner organisation in Nepal was deemed to be too small.  In the resubmission we changed to work with colleagues at Tribhuvan University, the oldest and largest university in Nepal. Apart from some further, but minor changes, this was really the main change between the rejected and the successful application.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The situation for conferences is slightly better, the success rate for an application to present a paper or poster are higher. This is partly because conference organisers realise that most academics are unlikely to get funding from their institution unless they present something.  Conferences are often themed and submitted abstracts are peer-reviewed.  This makes in important to write a clear abstract, focusing in on the conference theme.[1]  In the past I have had the honour of being rejected to present a paper at a BSA Medical Sociology Conference, whist I was on the organising committee.

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH

References

  1. Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen E., Hundley, V., Simkhada, BD. (2013) Writing an Abstract for a Scientific Conference, Kathmandu University Medical Journal 11(3): 262-65. http://www.kumj.com.np/issue/43/262-265.pdf

 

 

 

Up and coming Research & Knowledge Exchange Development Framework events


Every year, the Research & Knowledge Exchange Office, along with internal and external delivery partners, runs over 150 events to support researcher development through the Research & Knowledge Exchange Development Framework (RKEDF).

Responding to your feedback and by popular request, below are the main events coming up over the next six months – please click on the ‘details and booking information’ link to find out more and reserve your place as soon as possible:

Date Start and End Time Event Title Details and booking information link
28/02/2022 09:30-12:30 Fellowships: Being Strategic Fellowships: Being Strategic – Bournemouth University Intranet.
07/03/2022 9:30-11:30 Unsuccessful Applications Repurposing workshops Repurposing Your Unsuccessful Grant Applications – Bournemouth University Intranet.
24/03/2022 09:30-12:30 Refining your research idea Fellowships: Refining your Research Ideas – Bournemouth University Intranet.
13/04/2022 11:00-13:00 British Academy Mid-career Fellowship and British Academy/Leverhulme Senior Fellowship – (Mid-career Fellowships outline stage will likely open in July 2022; Senior Fellowships in October 2022) British Academy Mid-career Fellowship – Bournemouth University Intranet.
27/04/2022 11:00-13:00 British Academy Postdoctoral Fellowship (BAPDF) and Leverhulme Trust Early Career Fellowship (LECF) (BAPDF will likely open for outline stage in July 2022; LECF in January 2023) British Academy Postdoctoral Fellowship – Bournemouth University Intranet.
05/05/2022 09:30-12:30 Fellowship Interviews Techniques Fellowships: Interviews – Bournemouth University Intranet.
11/05/2022 11:00-13:00 Leverhulme Research Project – Outline – Leverhulme Research Project Outline Stage – Bournemouth University Intranet.
20/05/2022 09:30-11:30 Unsuccessful Applications Repurposing workshops Repurposing Your Unsuccessful Grant Applications – Bournemouth University Intranet.
25/05/2022 11:00-13:00 AHRC Research Development and Engagement fellowships workshop (ECR and Standard) – AHRC Leadership Fellowship – Bournemouth University Intranet.
08/06/2022 11:00-13:00 ESRC New investigator ESRC New investigator – Bournemouth University Intranet.
04/07/2022 09:30-11:30 Unsuccessful Applications Repurposing workshops Repurposing Your Unsuccessful Grant Applications – Bournemouth University Intranet.

Upcoming Research Impact Workshops – book now!

Training

We have five RKEDF Impact-related workshops coming up over the next month; please use the links below to book onto them via OD:

Impact and Funding Applications: 16th February at 15:00 

Influencing Policy – with Professor Mark Reed: 1st March at 13:00

Getting started with research Impact: what is it?: 8th March at 14:00

Inspirational Impact – a lunchtime seminar with Professor Zulfiqar Khan: 24th March at 13:00

Evidencing Impact – with Saskia Gent: 29th March at 9:30

We’d be delighted to see you there!

If you have any questions, please contact the Impact Advisors – Amanda Lazar or Beth Steiner

 

Hard to reach or hard to engage?

international, PG research, Publishing, student research, writing

Congratulations to FHSS PhD students Aniebiet Ekong and Nurudeen Adesina on the acceptance of their paper by MIDIRS Midwifery Digest [1]. This methodological paper reflects on their data collection approaches as part of their PhD involving African pregnant women in the UK.

This paper provides a snapshot of some of the challenges encountered during the recruitment of pregnant Black African women living in the UK for their research. Though there are several strategies documented to access/invite/recruit these ‘hard-to-reach population’ these recruitment strategies however were found to be unsuitable to properly engage members of this community. Furthermore, ethical guidelines around informed consent and gatekeeping seem to impede the successful engagement of the members of this community. It is believed that an insight into the experience and perceptions of ethnic minorities researchers will enhance pragmatic strategies that will increase future participation and retention of Black African women across different areas of health and social care research. This paper is co-authored with their BU PhD supervisors: Dr Jaqui-Hewitt Taylor, Dr Juliet Wood, Dr Pramod Regmi and Dr Fotini Tsofliou.

Well done !

Pramod Regmi

  1. Ekong, A., Adesina, N., Regmi, P., Tsofliou, F., Wood, J. and Taylor, J., 2022. Barriers and Facilitators to the recruitment of Black African women for research in the UK: Hard to engage and not hard to reach. MIDIRS Midwifery Digest (accepted).

Talks on Science, Health, and Data Communications Winter/Spring 2022

logo - science, health, and data communications research groupThe Science, Health, and Data Communications Research Centre invites you to our Winter-Spring 2022 research series. These talks are open to the public, and encompass topics on representations of bodies in the media, managing your health data, immersive media, and community responses to suicide.

Register for events on EventBrite.

SHDC-RC is an emerging interdisciplinary, cross-faculty centre seeking to explore the ways in which specialised knowledge and information is communicated to the public, including policy-makers and front-line workers, and how mass communication (such as journalism and entertainment media) conveys and represents these areas to audiences.

 

Carina Westling: Audience Experience in Immersive Media Contexts

Date: Thursday, 17 February 2022 at 14:00 GMT
Further details and registration.

Juhan Sonin – Own Your Healthcare Experience: an Open Source Path

Date: Thursday, 3 March 2022 at 14:00 GMT
Further details and registration.

Alex Ketchum – Toolkits for Engaging in Public Scholarship

Date: Thursday, 10 March 2022 at 14:00 GMT
Further details and registration.

Ann Luce – Supporting communities to respond to suspected suicide clusters

Date: Thursday, 17 March 2022 at 14:00 GMT
Further details and registration.

Susan Oman – ‘Following the Data’ to understand well-being data

Date: Thursday, 31 March 2022 at 14:00 BST
Further details and registration.

Catalin Brylla – Destigmatising ‘non-normative’ Bodies through Media Rep

Date: Thursday, 5 May 2022 at 14:00 BST
Further details and registration.

Jennifer Rudd – From Climate Change Ignorant to Climate Change Educator

Date: Thursday, 19 May 2022 at 14:00 BST
Further details and registration.

OPEN: Internal Expressions of interest for the Leverhulme Research Leadership Award

Funding opportunities

Bournemouth University invites expressions of interest from early and mid-career researchers at Bournemouth University, looking to build a research team to tackle a distinctive research problem.

The purpose of this scheme is to support talented scholars who have successfully launched a university career and are now looking to build a research team of sufficient scale to tackle a distinctive research problem. This opportunity will allow for the development and demonstration of research leadership of a modest team, whose research has potential to significantly change the established landscape in a particular field of inquiry.

Institutions are permitted to submit only one application. Applicants should have held a university post for at least two years, but not have developed their research such that the trajectory of their contribution has not been firmly established.

More information about the scheme is available from the Leverhulme Trust. Candidates are advised to check the eligibility criteria very carefully.

Candidates who are interested in making an application to the Leverhulme Research Leadership Award are asked to first submit the expression of interest application by 12pm 1st March 2022 to apekalski@bournemouth.ac.uk . The application form and assessment criteria can be found here: I:\RDS\Public\1. Leverhulme Research Leadership Awards Competition 2022.

Timeline:

08-02-2022 RDS advertise Expression of Interest (EoI)competition for call
12pm on 01-03-2022 EoI deadline (EoIs to be sent to RDS)
By 02-03-2022 Papers (applications) sent to DDRPPs
By 18-03-2022 DDRPPs panel meeting decision and feedback disseminated to applicants
18-03-2022 RDS to contact Leverhulme to provide the Trust with the applicant’s name, departmental affiliation, and email address. Access will then be granted to the Leverhulme Trust Grants Management System
March – June Applicants develop proposals with the support of RDS
w/c 30-05-2022 e-Submission checks performed by RDS
10-06-2022 Leverhulme Research Leadership Award Deadline

If you have further questions or queries, please contact Alexandra Pekalski (apekalski@bournemouth.ac.uk) to discuss your suitability for this opportunity.