Tagged / CMWH

Sociology journal seeks second book review editor

Featured academics, open access, Publishing, Uncategorized, writing

The British Sociological Society’s (BSA) journal Sociological Research Online is seeking a new second book review editor.  All Editors, including the book review editor, have to be BSA members throughout their term of office and previous engagement with the BSA is desirable.  The term of office is three years with the possibility of an extension, starting mid-November 2023.  The deadline for applications is 11th October 2013.

Sociological Research Online is published by the international social science publishing house SAGE.  The editorial team has just been informed this week that the Impact Factor of the journal has increased to 1.6.

Interested candidates should submit a pro forma application of no more than 2 pages and a short CV. To receive a pro forma application, please contact Selina Hisir, BSA
Publications Coordinator, at email:  sro.journal@britsoc.org.uk

As current book review editor I am very happy to talk to interested sociologists informally.

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

Centre for Midwifery & Women’s Health

Email:   evteijlingen@bournemouth.ac.uk

Global Consortium in Public Health meets in Huddersfield

BU research, Events, international, Uncategorized

On Monday and Tuesday 18-19 June the University of Huddersfield will organize its Global Consortium in Public Health meeting. This meeting is the brain child of Prof. Padam Simkhada, he is Visiting Professor at Bournemouth University and based at the University of Huddersfield.  The event brings together public health researchers and experts from the UK, the USA, Ghana, Nepal, India, Qatar and Brazil to discuss the latest developments and challenges in the field. The Global Consortium in Public Health is an international network of public health researchers, practitioners, and policymakers who are committed to advancing the field of public health through collaborative research, education, and advocacy. The consortium provides a platform for sharing best practices and building future collaborations.

On Monday 19th June Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen will be talking about the REF 2028 and the importance of strong international partnerships in the fields of research and education.  BU’s Dr. Pramod Regmi was also invited to this event in Huddersfield, but he is on his way to Nepal as part of Bournemouth University’s Erasmus+ staff and student exchange with Manmohan Memorial Institute of Health Sciences (MMIHS).

Using participatory asset mapping and PhotoVoice in Nepalese alcohol study

BU research, Featured academics, international, open access, Publishing, Research news, Uncategorized, writing

This week we received an email from the editorial office of  Perspectives in Public Health with congratulations on the acceptance of your paper ‘Participatory asset mapping and photovoice interviews to scope cultural and community resources to reduce alcohol harm in Chitwan, Nepal’ [1].  The lead researcher on this public health alcohol research project in Nepal is Dr. Ranjita Dhital, Lecturer in Interdisciplinary Health Studies in the Arts and Sciences Department at UCL (University College London).

The World Health Organization (WHO) suggests that in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) like Nepal, morbidity and mortality risks are greater per litre of pure alcohol consumed than in higher-income countries. This is largely due to poverty, poor nutrition, adverse living conditions, and poor access to care. These inequities are made worse by the dearth of understanding of the most appropriate and cost-effective approaches to reduce alcohol-related harm in LMICs.  Our study aims to stimulate new thinking on how cultural and community assets could be integrated to co-designed alcohol interventions for future evaluation in LMICs, through scoping the breadth of cultural and community assets in relation to alcohol use and to exploring attitudes towards alcohol and people experiences with it.

The journal Perspectives in Public Health is published by SAGE and the paper will be Open Access when it appears online.  My previous alcohol studies have focused on students [2], Nepalese migrants living in the UK [3], and Public Health measures to reduced alcohol misuse in Scotland [4].

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

Centre for Midwifery & Women’s Health

 

Reference:

 

  1. Dhital, R., Yoeli, H., Adhikari, A., Luitel, N.P., Nadkarni, A., van Teijlingen, E., Sin, J. (2023) Participatory asset mapping and photovoice interviews to scope cultural and community resources to reduce alcohol harm in Chitwan, Nepal, Perspectives in Public Health (accepted).  DOI: 10.1177/17579139231180744).
  2. Engs, R.C, van Teijlingen E (1997) Correlates of alcohol, tobacco & marijuana use among Scottish post-secondary helping profession students, Journal of Alcohol Studies, 58:435-44.
  3. van Teijlingen E, Simkhada, P., Adhikary, P. (2009) Alcohol use among the Nepalese in the UK BMJ Rapid Response: bmj.com/cgi/eletters/339/oct20_1/b4028#223451
  4. Ludbrook A, Godfrey C, Wyness L, Parrott S, Haw S, Napper M, van Teijlingen E. (2002) Effective & Cost-Effective Measures to Reduce Alcohol Misuse in Scotland: Lit Review, ISBN: 0755932803 www.alcoholinformation.isdscotland.org/alcohol_misuse/files/MeasureReduce_Full.pdf

 

BU Workshop on Health Systems in Nepal

BU research, COVID-19, Featured academics, open access, policy, Research news, Uncategorized, writing

You are invited to a two-hour ‘Workshop on Health Systems in Nepal’ at Bournemouth University (BU) on Thursday 25th May in the Bournemouth Gateway Building (BGB room 315) starting at 14.00, aiming to finish at 16.00.  We have the pleasure of welcoming three academic visitors from Manmohan Memorial Institute of Health Sciences (MMIHS) in Kathmandu who are at BU on an Erasmus+ exchange.

‘Prof. Sujan Marahatta, Dr. Sujata Sapkota and Dr. Sujan Gautam from MMIHS are part of an international project examining the consequences for the health system of Nepal’s move to a federal government structure.  This project, launched in 2020 at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, is led by the University of Sheffield, in collaboration with BU, the University of Huddersfield, PHASE Nepal and MMIHS.  This nearly four-year project is UK-funded by the MRC (Medical Research Council), the Wellcome Trust and DFID (now called Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office [FCDO]) under the Health Systems Research Initiative.

The project has resulted in several publications, all in Open Access journals.  The first of three papers introduced the research project ‘The impact of federalisation on Nepal’s health system: a longitudinal analysis’ [1], the second focused on COVID-19 when examining the effects of changing Nepal’s constitution towards a federal republic on its health system [2], and the third one highlighted  Public Health approaches around the ongoing federalisation of the state of Nepal and the associated decentralisation processes in its health system [3].

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

Centre for Midwifery & Women’s Health (formerly CMMPH)

 

References:

  1. Sapkota, S., Panday, S., Wasti, S.P., Lee, A., Balen, J., van Teijlingen, E., Rushton, S., Subedi, M., Gautam, S., Karki, J., Adhikary, P., Marahatta, S., Simkhada, P. for the Nepal Federal Health System Team (2022) Health System Strengthening: The Role of Public Health in Federal Nepal, Journal of Nepal Public Health Association 7 (1): 36-42.
  2. Rushton, S., Pandey, S., van Teijlingen, E., Subedi, M., Balen, J., Karki, J., Simkhada, P. on behalf of the Nepal Federal Health System Team (2021) An Investigation into the Impact of Decentralization on the Health System of Nepal. Journal of Manmohan Memorial Institute of Health Sciences, 7(1): 3–14. https://doi.org/10.3126/jmmihs.v7i1.43146
  3. Adhikary, P., Balen, J., Gautam, S., Ghimire S., Karki J.K., Lee A.C., Marahatta S.B., Pandey S., Pohl G., Ruston S., Sapkota S., Simkhada P.P., Subedi M., van Teijlingen E.R., on behalf of the NFHS Team (2020) The COVID-19 pandemic in Nepal: Emerging evidence on the effectiveness of action by, and cooperation between, different levels of government in a federal system. Journal of Karnali Academy of Health Sciences 3(3)

Reflections on examining a PhD by Publications or hybrid PhD

Centre for Excellence in Learning, Doctoral College, Featured academics, Publishing, Research Integritiy, Research Supervision, Uncategorized, writing

Writing for publication in peer-reviewed journals is increasingly recognised as important for postgraduate students’ career development.   To encourage PhD students to write and submit during their thesis research, more and more UK universities has formally started to accept PhD theses by publication, or a hybrid model of both academic papers and purposely written chapters in a PhD thesis.  For example, both the University of Bath and Bournemouth University offer a hybrid thesis [1-2], whilst Bournemouth University offers separately the opportunity to submit a PhD by Publication.   The paper included in such theses can be: (1) published; (2) accepted/published online first; (3) submitted; or (4) in final draft form for submission.  Published papers, due to the nature of journal word limits are usually much shorter and less detailed than traditional PhD chapter.  The specifically written chapters, of the Introduction, Discussion, Conclusion and Recommendations chapter, and occasionally a Methods chapter will provide the reader (read ‘the examiner’) with further insights into the background of the research and offer details the student had to omit from published papers due to word limit restrictions.  Students may also opt to offer a short explanatory text before or after individual paper.  The overall Discussion chapter should aim to fully contextualise and integrate all papers into the thesis.

It is easy to see that these new format theses may require some adjustment from UK academics examining them.  Below I have listed some of the key issue a PhD examiner may want to consider in a PhD by Publication, such as the notion of integration and repetition, how the critique published papers, especially in quality peer-reviewed journals, and the nature and content of purposely written chapters.

Integration/duplication

Individual papers are free-standing, i.e. they must give enough information about the research question and methods to make sense to the reader.  This means that four papers from the same study in a thesis may appear as both disjointed and repetitive at the same time.  Moreover, details on background and methods are often minimal in papers presenting results.  This offers the examiner an opportunity to ask questions such as:

  • How do the included papers relate to each other in terms of subject matter or theoretical underpinning?
  • Do the included papers together result in a cohesive narrative?

It is worth looking at difference between the included papers.  One of my former students included two qualitative papers, both originating from the same dataset (i.e. the same interviewees) but each paper presented the data analysed in a different way.  The reviewers of the second paper had suggested a different approach to the analysis and the candidate had decided that it was worth the considerable amount of extra work.  This was obviously a topic for debate in the viva.

Peer-reviewed journal articles

It can be daunting for a less experienced examiner to critique an included paper that has been peer-reviewed and published in a prestigious journal in one’s discipline.  Perhaps a starting point could be to ask the candidate what the peer reviewers said when the manuscript was first submitted.  Did you receive and conflicting comments from reviewers or the editor?  The examiner may want to ask for further details of published paper, e.g.  “I know you probably had word-length issues for paper X, but why didn’t you expand on the detailed analysis in the Discussion chapter you included in the thesis?”  Interestingly, the University of Bath states that “Examiners are entitled to specify corrections to any part of the thesis… including parts submitted for publication, or already published” [1].  The latter does not mean changing the published paper, but perhaps adding a comment or explanation to the Discussion chapter or to the text introducing that particular paper.

In many discipline academic papers as co-authored, hence you would expect co-authored papers in a PhD by Publication.  This offers to examiner the opportunity to ask about the candidate’s unique contribution to that paper.  Occasionally, one of the included papers may not list the candidate as first author.  If this is the case in one of the four or five included papers this is not problem per se, but worth asking the same question to the candidate: “What is your unique contribution to the paper?”

Another potential issue to look out for in a PhD by Publication is so-called salami-slicing [3], especially if the candidate has published several small parts of the thesis study in different small papers where a single paper would have been more appropriate.

Written chapters

The examiner may want to start by focusing on the candidate’s Introduction, Discussion, or Conclusion chapters.  Or the overall Methods chapter if there is one.  Typically, a PhD by Publication has an Introduction, four or more papers, an overarching Discussion perhaps a short Conclusion.  What is often missing is a Methodology and Methods chapter.  Since individual papers have only basic methods section of a few hundred words, there is little detail in each paper, let alone nuance in the methods. Often methodological issues and reflections are missed, as are more subtle aspects of research ethics.  These are key topics to raise in the viva.

 

Professor Edwin van Teijlingen

CMWH (Centre for Midwifery & Women’s Health)

 

Acknowledgements: I would like to thank my colleague Dr. Ann Luce, Associate Professor in Journalism and Communication at Bournemouth University for her encouraging me to write this blog post.

 

References:

  1. University of Bath: https://www.bath.ac.uk/publications/guidelines-for-research-examiners/attachments/Guidelines_for_Examiners_of_Doctoral_Degrees_Nov19.pdf
  2. Bournemouth University (2021-22) 8A Code of Practice for Research Degrees (Policy, Procedure and Guidelines). https://intranetsp.bournemouth.ac.uk/pandptest/8a-code-of-practice-for-research-degrees.pdf
  3. Tolsgaard, M.G., Ellaway, R., Woods, N., Norman, G. (2019) Salami-slicing and plagiarism: How should we respond?. Advance in Health Sciences Education 24: 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-019-09876-7