Tagged / COVID-19

How the C-19 lockdown has affected the work-life balance of BU academics (Part 2)

Women's Academic Network

Our blog Part 1 (posted on Friday May 15th) provided a very crude overview of the preliminary results from the survey we have launched to collate data on the impact of C-19 lockdown on the work-life balance of academics. This Part 2 focuses on differences between groups of respondents and identifying whether particular groups have been more negatively affected. We are yet to do any statistical tests on these data, so please consider differences between groups with care.

We have received 170 responses to date, 70 we could identify as being from BU staff (63 from female colleagues). If you have not yet contributed to this survey, you can still to do so here: https://bournemouth.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/impact-of-lockdown-on-academics, and please do share with your networks, as the survey is open to all academics. If you want us to be able to identify that you are BU staff, you will need to mention BU in one of the open questions. This research is a cross-faculty collaboration conducted by Sara Ashencaen Crabtree (FHSS), Ann Hemingway (FHSS) and myself (FST).

Work-life balance during lockdown got worse for the majority of respondents (59%) and improved for 37%. The most common reason for worsening or improving work-life balance were ‘workload increased’ (31%) and ‘I could do what was needed and be at home/with family’ (24%), respectively (Figure 1a). Although there are differences across gender (Figure 1b), any differences between male and female respondents should not be considered representative of the wider community due to the small number of male respondents.

Figure 1. Changes in work-life balance of respondents during Covid-19 lockdown and the selected reasons for identifying positive or negative change (a) and reported changes per gender of respondents (b). Blue shades indicate work-life balance improved and red shades indicate it worsened.

A higher proportion of academics under the age of 40 (82%) indicated that their work-life balance has worsened during lockdown when compared with other age groups (Figure 2a). Most of these academics reported that work-life balance worsened because they couldn’t work much. For academics in their 50s or older, the key reason for worsening of work-life balance was the increase in workload.

Figure 2. Changes in work-life balance of respondents during Covid-19 lockdown per age group (a); presence of children in the household (b) – the group ‘with children’ includes children ages 0-12 and teenagers; and household size (c).

Balancing work and childcare and/or homeschooling  was mentioned as a negative effect on work-life balance during lockdown by 18% and 7% respectively. However, this does not seem to be the main cause affecting respondents under the age of 40, when responses between groups with and without children are compared. In fact, 87% of respondents in their 40s live in a household with children 12 years old or younger and yet the proportion of this age group reporting worsened work-life balance was lower (55%) than the proportion of respondents with no children (60%). However, respondents who live in a household with younger children seem to be more negatively affected.

All respondents (N=8) who live with children under the age of 5 years have reported that their work-life balance have worsened (Figure 2b), the majority indicated an increase in workload as the main reason. However, no major differences were found when comparing groups of respondents who live with children (all ages under 19 included) and households without children. Interestingly, a lower proportion of respondents who live with children aged 5-12 years report worse work-life balance (50%) than respondents who do not have children in their household (60%) (Figure 2b). Further, work-life balance has improved for a higher proportion of respondents who live in a household of three people (45%) than in other household sizes (<40%) (Figure 2c).

In all faculties, a higher number of respondents reported work-life balance getting worse than improving, except FST (Figure 3a), where work-life balance has improved for 50% of respondents and worsened for 36%. Professors were the only group with more respondents indicating work-life balance improved (50%) than worsened (25%); in contrast, all associate professors reported worsened work-life balance (Figure 3b), but the small sample in both groups may not be representative.

Figure 3. Changes in work-life balance of respondents during Covid-19 lockdown per faculty (a) and position (b).

Switching to online teaching and not being able to meet with colleagues in person, socialise and engage with preferred leisure activity were the factors affecting negatively more than 50% of respondents (Figure 4).When lockdown restrictions are lifted, two of these factors (socialise and engage with preferred leisure activity) will have less effect on academics work-life balance, but more could be done to support colleagues negatively affected by the switch to online teaching and missing the contact with colleagues while working remotely.

More respondents have indicated a positive than negative impact from changes in the number of meetings and switching to online meetings emails (Figure 4). Fewer and more effective meetings were reported as the positive impacts. However, for some respondents, there are too many online meetings and they are getting tired of (avoidable) prolonged screen time (an effect that has been called Zoom fatigue). Therefore, guidance on how best to use, organise and participate in online meetings and how to manage and reduce screen time/tiredness may be useful.

Figure 4. The impact of selected factors on the work-life balance of respondents during lockdown.

A considerably higher proportion of respondents under 40 years of age report negative effect from switching to online teaching (75%), change in the number of emails (58%) and changes in the number of meetings (50%) in relation to other age groups (Figure 5). This age group also shows lower proportion of staff indicating positive effect from these three factors.

Figure 5. Reported impact per age group from (a) switching to online teaching; (b) changes in number of emails; and (c) changes in number of meetings.

FMC is the only faculty with more than 50% of respondents reporting negative effect from switching to online teaching (58%), change in the number of emails (58%) and changes in the number of meetings (67%). FST and FM are the faculties with 50% of respondents reporting positive impact from changes in the number of meetings.  FHSS has the largest proportion of respondents indicating negative effect from switching to online teaching (62%) and strong negative effect due to changes in the number of emails (54%). Increased number of emails from students has been reported, particularly by FHSS staff who support students who were asked to work for the NHS.

Figure 6. Reported impact per faculty from (a) switching to online teaching; (b) changes in number of emails; and (c) changes in number of meetings.

Figure 7 shows word clouds based on responses to the open questions asking for the two most important factors leading to negative and positive impacts on their work-life balance during lockdown. Increased demand for student support was the most cited negative factor (by 27% of respondents), followed by missing contact with colleagues and inadequate equipment (e.g. IT, desk, chair) and balancing childcare (19%). Less commuting or travel for work was the most cited factor affecting work-life balance positively (46% of respondents), followed by time with family (25%) and enjoying working from home (15%).

Figure 7. Word cloud showing how respondents expressed the negative (a) and positive (b) factors affecting their work-life balance during C-19 lockdown.

In responses to open questions, it is apparent that many negative aspects of the lockdown relate to aspects that are likely to subside when restrictions are lifted (e.g. reopening of schools, meeting with family and friends, enjoying leisure activities). Other negative aspects relate to the fast pace in which academic staff had to switch to online activities, sometimes without adequate workspace, equipment and/or training, leading to overwork. On the other hand, respondents report many substantial advantages of working from home, many wishing that this can continue (at least for part of the time) in the longer term. This is a summary of the advantages respondents have identified:

  • No travelling = more control over time + less exhaustion + less expense + better for the environment + spending more time with family
  • Healthier – nutritionally better, more physical rest, more exercise
  • Staying safe – better protected at home, avoiding traffic hazards
  • Gaining extra hours to work
  • Slower pace = more time to concentrate; a breathing space
  • Greater autonomy to manage time and priorities
  • Greater flexibility = ingenuity and novelty, new ways of teaching and supporting students remotely
  • Less stress and physical/mental wear-&-tear
  • Stripping back work dross – basic priorities reveals a lot of bureaucracy that can be avoided

 Who are the respondents?


Exposure to Covid-19

  • 7% of respondents (5 out of 68) had severe symptoms of Covid-19 or tested positive or live with someone who did. All are female respondents in their 20s, 30s and 50s. Two of these households had someone at higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19.
  • 22% of respondents (15 out of 68) had close family members, friends or colleagues who had severe symptoms of Covid-19 or tested positive. All are female respondents in their 30s, 40s and 50s (the majority, 9 respondents).
  • 41% of respondents (28 out of 68) live in a household where there is at least one person at higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19.

How the C-19 lockdown has affected the work-life balance of BU academics (Part 1)

Awarded & submitted bids, Women's Academic Network

Last month we (Ashencaen Crabtree, Ann Hemingway and I) started a survey to collate data from the Women’s Academic Network on the impact of C-19 lockdown, initially targeting BU women academics, and then opening the survey to the wider academic community. We aim to identify lessons learned that can inform what staff and universities can do to reduce the impact of these abrupt changes on our work-life balance, particularly focusing on people who have been most affected. We have received 157 responses to date, 70 we could identify as being from BU staff (63 from female colleagues). The answers are providing a wealth of quantitative and qualitative data and we have just starting the analysis. However, we know how important and timely the findings are and so we have decided to disseminate our initial results in a series of blogs.

If you have not yet contributed to this survey, you are kindly invited to do so here: https://bournemouth.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/impact-of-lockdown-on-academics, and please do share with your networks. If you want us to be able to identify that you are BU staff, you will need to provide this information in one of the open questions.

This Part 1 presents (crude) initial analysis (graphs mainly) focusing solely on the 70 responses from BU staff. We hope this will give you a timely glimpse of how recent changes have affected BU academics.  Every day next week we will post a blog with further insights on each aspect covered in the graphs below and others we are yet to analyse, including the key coping mechanisms staff have used during lockdown and the changes respondents think could help improve work-life balance if they remain an option in the longer-term.

Work-life balance during lockdown got worse for 59% of respondents and improved for 37% (Figure 1). Blog Part 2 will discuss differences across age groups, faculties and career levels.

Figure 1. Changes in work-life balance of respondents during Covid-19 lockdown (a) and the selected reasons for identifying positive or negative change (b). ‘Other’ refers to other reasons for improved or worsened work-life balance.

Some factors have impacted the work-life balance of more than 70% of respondents (switching to online teaching, changes in the number of emails, changes in the number of meetings and not being able to socialise in person), while others were considered to have minor/no impact by most respondents (not being able to access campus facilities, switching to online meetings, lack of suitable work space at home and not having access to suitable IT equipment at home) (Figure 2). Some of these factors had a positive effect on the work-life balance of most respondents, while others affected a higher number of staff negatively than positively (see next week’s blogs for more details).

Figure 2. The level of impact of selected factors on the work-life balance of respondents during lockdown.

In an open question, less time commuting or travelling for work (46% of respondents) and student support requests (27%) were the most cited factors affecting respondents’ work-life balance positively and negative, respectively (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Most cited top two aspects that have affected respondents’ work-life balance (a) positively and (b) negatively (showing categorised responses cited at least five times).

Respondents’ main concerns have changed through time: longer-term impacts in the country or the world in general and  work-life balance have become more of a concern at present, while the health of a family member or close friend have always remained within the top three (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Respondents’ main concerns at the start of the outbreak, at the start of the lockdown and at present.

Figure 5 highlights the type of support that was considered to be helpful and the ones that need to be improved to help a larger number of staff (e.g. provision of IT equipment, which BU is currently addressing and support from line managers).  Look for the next blogs for further insights on these aspects and suggestions from staff of other support they would welcome from the university.

Figure 5. Respondents indication of how helpful were these particular types of support available to them.

Finding or maintaining work-life balance when lockdown ends was identified as a major challenge by 51% of respondents (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Major challenges identified regarding work at the end of lockdown.

80% or more of respondents think the C-19 outbreak has brought long-lasting changes in their attitude to ‘priorities and needs’ and work, considerably for 27% and 19% of respondents, respectively (Figure 7).

Figure 7. Perception of long-lasting changes brought by the C-19 outbreak.

Who are the respondents?

 

Exposure to Covid-19

  • 7% of respondents (5 out of 68) had severe symptoms of Covid-19 or tested positive or live with someone who did. All are female respondents in their 20s, 30s and 50s.
  • 22% of respondents (15 out of 68) had close family members, friends or colleagues who had severe symptoms of Covid-19 or tested positive. All are female respondents in their 30s, 40s and 50s (the majority, 10 respondents).
  • 41% of respondents (28 out of 68) live in a household where there is at least one person at higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19.

COVID-19 and Parliament: opportunities and resources for researchers

The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) board has approved four new POSTnotes on:

  • AI and healthcare
  • Developments in vaccine technologies
  • Distance learning
  • Regulating product sustainability

Work on these will be starting in the following months. They are looking for experts to contribute their insights, literature or as external reviewers. For more information on what contributing to a POSTnote entails, click here. And if you’d like to receive updates about POST’s work directly to your inbox, you can subscribe to the monthly newsletter here.

Please ensure you notify the policy team and impact officers if you intend to contribute to any of the POSTnotes.

POST also has two new resources to give you all the information you need on engaging effectively with Parliament:

Webpage on researcher engagement with Parliament around COVID-19 and its impacts

If you want to know where the opportunities to engage with policymakers lie, go to: Engaging with Parliament as a researcher around COVID-19 and its impacts. It contains details of the Expert Database, which some of you have signed up to, and up-to-date details of all select committee inquiries relating to COVID-19. If any new opportunities come up, this page is where to find them.

A short guide to producing research to support the work of UK Parliament

Some of you may already be drafting project proposals for research relating to COVID-19 and its impacts. If you want help and guidance on how this can translate to policy impact, POST has also produced this guide. It gives an overview on what Parliament is and does, how it uses research, KE mechanisms, and a page of tips on shaping proposals and what to do when conducting research and disseminating findings.

 

 

RDS advice to academics during Covid-19

Just over a month ago, RDS created a static blog page to give advice to academics during Covid-19. This has rapidly grown and so to help you navigate through the information, there is now a main page and then links to the following sections for further information:

  • UK Funder news
  • International Funder (mainly European) news
  • Funding Development Team Guidance to applicants to external funding
  • Project Delivery Team Guidance for Principal Investigators (PIs) of Research and Knowledge Exchange Projects + Ethics Approval
  • Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2021
  • Guidance for clinical researchers – amendments to existing projects

Please visit the main Covid-19 page for all your advice needs.

Major Study on 3D Printing and IP Law Led by Prof. Dinusha Mendis Published by the European Commission

Awarded & submitted bids, Business Engagement, Fusion themes, Industry collaboration, innovation, Knowledge Exchange, PG research, Post-award, REF Subjects

A large scale empirical and legal study on the Intellectual Property Implications of the Development of Industrial 3D Printing, funded by the European Commission and led by Professor Dinusha Mendis (FMC, Law and Co-Director CIPPM) has been published.

The report can be accessed here: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/e193a586-7f8c-11ea-aea8-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-124493516

The project was awarded to Professor Mendis in 2018 and together with academic and industry partners from UK (Dr. Julie Robson, Bournemouth University; Prof. Phill Dickens, Added Scientific Ltd), Germany (Prof. Dr. Jan Nordemann, Nordemann LLP; Hans Brorsen) Austria (Dr. Maria del Carmen Calatrava Moreno, Technopolis Group) and Finland (Dr. Rosa Ballardini, University of Lapland) the project was completed in February 2020, with the report being published in April 2020.

Ahead of the completion of the project and publication of the report, a final workshop was hosted in Brussels on 14 October 2019. The presentations from the workshop as well as the panel discussion, can be accessed here.

The project provides an overview of the past and current industrial applications of Additive Manufacturing (AM) and 3D printing in seven  selected sectors (health, aerospace, automotive, consumer, energy, construction and tooling) whilst identifying potential challenges and opportunities in need of clarification. With the aim of enhancing the competitiveness of the AM sector in Europe, the Study makes policy recommendations in the field of intellectual property for businesses engaged in the AM and 3D printing field, and in the present context, is highly relevant for businesses and consumers working with 3D printers, in the fight against Covid-19.

European Covid-19 Data Platform launched

The EC and EU member states have launched a new data-sharing platform ‘European Covid-19 Data Platform‘ to enhance coordination of the COVID-19 research. The aim of the COVID-19 Data Portal is to facilitate data sharing and analysis, and to accelerate coronavirus research. The Platform will consist of two connected components:

  • SARS-CoV-2 Data Hubs, which will organise the flow of SARS-CoV-2 outbreak sequence data and provide comprehensive open data sharing for the European and global research communities;
  • COVID-19 Data Portal, which will bring together and continuously update relevant COVID-19 datasets and tools, will host sequence data sharing and will facilitate access to other SARS-CoV-2 resources.

External guides for managing remote research

Guidance, Research Ethics

Given current Government guidance on the pandemic response, a number of research projects will need to be conducted remotely. Below are a number of external help guides/guidance articles that aim to assist researchers with this new way of working.

The UK Data Service’s guidance on online data collection

Warwick University’s article on using Skype to collect data

Guidance on conducting telephone interviews –
Article one
Article two

The resource ‘Fieldwork during the pandemic’

The UK Research Integrity Office’s ‘Internet-mediated research’ guide

Research should remain within the ethics approval that has been granted – if you need to make any changes as a result of COVID 19 (for example moving from face-to-face to remote interviewing) please email researchethics@bournemouth.ac.uk if a member of staff or your supervisor if a student.

COVID-19 funding and research

Funding opportunities, innovation, NHS

To support the response to COVID-19 the Research Design Service South West (RDS SW) has put together a useful resource page to help researchers. This includes relevant funding calls as well as more general information about the pandemic.

Don’t forget, your local branch of the NIHR RDS is based within the BU Clinical Research Unit (BUCRU)

The BUCRU/RDS office is currently closed due to Coronavirus.  Staff are still working and able to offer research advice remotely, call us on 01202 961939 or send us an email.

COVID-19 competition: BU call for Expressions of Interest

BU Challenges, NHS

On 6 April, BU launched a COVID-19 internal competition, with a call for EoIs. This opportunity is open to all staff. The EoI deadline is at 23.59 on Tuesday, 14 April, and the winners will be announced on Tuesday, 20 April.

There are three modest cash prizes available, sponsored by the National Research Centre for Computer Animation in the Faculty of Media and Communication. Successful ideas will be selected to go forward to a second competition in conjunction with the universities of Southampton and Portsmouth. Building on our close regional relationships with an aligned response to the COVID-19 crisis and attendant calls for relevant research is a priority for all institutions right now. We at BU are committed to joining forces with our neighbours at this time.

BU staff can find more details about the call on the expression of interest form.

RDS advice to academics during COVID-19

RDS have created a blog page to give up-to-date advice on research activity affected during COVID-19.

Each working day the advice will be updated, which will include official notifications from funders, RDS operations during the quarantine, delays to the REF, ethics, and any other useful information. The date of the latest updates from the funders will be shown against each funder name. This will only show the major funders that BU applies to.

Today’s (6/4) update includes:

  • The deadlines on all UKRI open funding opportunities will be extended to give applicants more time to submit their applications. These extensions will be managed on a case by case basis by the appropriate Council or fund. Follow this link for a list of all open and coming calls with their current deadlines and their extensions: Calls April – May (PDF, 103KB).
  • Research England has published some FAQs about their contingency planning for REF 2021, in light of the impact of the pandemic –https://www.ref.ac.uk/faqs/.
  • The link to UKRO’s slides from their webinar held on 3/4/20 on the topic of ‘COVID-19 and EU Funding update‘.

Please click here for further information.

COVID-19 Outbreak Expert Database – update

Knowledge Exchange, NHS

According to Parliament’s Knowledge Exchange Unit (KEU), more than 3,500 researchers from across the UK have signed up to its  COVID-19 Outbreak Expert Database, which includes a number of BU academics across all faculties.  

The KEU reports that it is already making use of the database and, later this week, will be directly contacting experts to ask them to share their insights into the COVID-19 pandemic and its short, medium and long-term impacts. Where possible, the KEU aims to acknowledge researchers’ contributions publicly.

If you haven’t already signed up, it’s not too late, as it is a live database. Follow the link and please email your faculty impact officer to let them know, so we can track BU involvement.

Signing up does not commit you to contributing in any way, it’s simply so that Parliament has your details to hand and can contact you very rapidly; if they contact you and you aren’t able to respond, they will fully understand.

The topic areas where Parliament may need to be able to access research expertise are listed below, and found on the sign up page. If you identify an area that has not been listed, please do feel free to give details on the sign-up form in ‘other’:

Agriculture and farming, Airlines/airports, Arts, Behavioural science, Burial and cremation, Brexit, Business, Charities, Children and families, Civil contingency planning and management, Climate change, Communicating uncertainty, , Consumer protection, Coronavirus, Coroners, Countryside, Courts, Criminal justice, Criminal law, Crisis communications, Critical national infrastructure, Data protection, Death, Defence, Economics, Education – higher and further, Education – schools, Elections, Emergency planning, Emergency services, Employment, Employment law, Energy, Environment, European Union, Financial services, Financial systems and institutions, Foreign policy, Government, Health economics, Health services, Housing, Human rights, Immigration, Immunology / vaccinology, Industry, Infection control, Inflation, Insolvency, International law, IT, Law, Legal aid, Leisure and tourism, Local government, Medicine, National security, Package holidays, Pandemics, Pensions, Police powers, Ports and maritime, Prisons, Public expenditure, Public finance, Public health, Public order, Railways, Registration of deaths, Religion, Social security and tax credits, Social services, Sports, Surveillance , Taxation, Trade, Transport, Unemployment, Virology, Waste, Water, Welfare, Welfare benefits.

RDS advice to academics during COVID-19

RDS have created a blog page to give up-to-date advice on research activity affected during COVID-19.

Each working day the advice will be updated, which will include official notifications from funders, RDS operations during the quarantine, delays to the REF, ethics, and any other useful information. The date of the latest updates from the funders will be shown against each funder name. This will only show the major funders that BU applies to.

Today’s (1/4) update includes:

  • a dedicated Corona Platform from the European Commission on its Funding & Tenders Portal to make information related to the COVID-19 outbreak and its impact on Horizon 2020 grants available in a single place;
  • registration details for a one hour UKRO webinar to be held on 3/4 to give you the latest information in relation to funding;
  •  an update in the clinical guidance to researchers section with regard to Undergraduate and Master’s student research;
  • and an update from the Royal Society, who have also created a dedicated page for applicants and award holders. They have also drawn together a list of their resources, activities and videos that could be used to support home learning in science, technology, engineering and maths whilst schools are closed.

Please click here for further information.

 

Research in the NHS during the COVID-19 pandemic – HRA update

Guidance, NHS, Research Ethics

You may have seen an earlier blog post with regard to a halt on the review and approval of undergraduate and master’s clinical research projects. The HRA have released another update with regard to all other research and the state of play due to COVID-19.

To recognise the significant pressures on the NHS at this time, the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) announced that all new and existing studies supported through its Clinical Research Network would be paused to focus instead on COVID-19 research. You can read the full statement on the NIHR website.

The full HRA statement can be viewed here. If you have any queries mai in Research Development & Support.

Research Development & Support are also updating the following help page regularly for academics and researchers.

COVID-19 Pandemic: Public Health Implications in Nepal

international, open access, Publishing, writing

Our editorial today in the Nepal Journal of Epidemiology highlights some of the key issues related to COVID-19 related to a low-income country such as Nepal [1].  There are various Public Health challenges to preventing the spread of COVID-19 in South Asia including Nepal. Learning from the  COVID-19 outbreak in China, there will be slowdown of economic activity with damaged supply chains which impact upon the public health systems in Nepal. Moreover, there is limited coordination among different stakeholders in healthcare management with few policies in place for infection prevention and control, shortage of testing kits and medical supplies (shortages of masks, gloves), and poor reporting are major challenges to be tackled in case of the COVID-19.

All South Asian countries are vulnerable to a mass outbreak with high population density in cities which is challenging to create social distancing, made worse by generally poor hygiene and often low (health) literacy. Additionally, some COVID-19 cases remain asymptomatic; so it is difficult to predict the epidemic outbreak that may introduces further difficulty in diagnosis of newer cases. Finally, healthcare workers across the globe were infected at high rates during the MERS and SARS outbreaks, so Nepal has to initiate health workers’ training including simulation exercises to provide health staff with a clearer picture of the complexities and challenges associated with COVID-19 and containing potential outbreaks.

This editorial has a very different time span between submission and publication than the one highlighted last week on the BU Research Blog (see details here!).  This  COVID-19 editorial took exactly one month between submission and publication, the one mentioned last week took  three-and-a-half years between submission and publication.

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH

Reference:

  1. Asim, M., Sathian, B., van Teijlingen, E.R., Mekkodathil, A., Subramanya, S.H., Simkhada, P. (2020) COVID-19 Pandemic: Public Health Implications in Nepal, Nepal Journal of Epidemiology 10 (1): 817-820. https://www.nepjol.info/index.php/NJE/article/view/28269