Captain Bloctopus

Captain Bloctopus, with 'the Robotrons' and 'Laptopics'

It's been a busy month for the National Institute of Health Research. As if running the research budget of the NHS wasn't enough, they've spent January holding a fabulous CBeebies-style 'name the cartoon character' competition.

The cartoon character in question is the somewhat prosaic NIHR Collaboration Platform. Looking at the website, it appears to be a blue octopus pinned down by laptops and robots. Nothing much happens. To be honest, it makes the Teletubbies look like Scorsese. Even the opening episode ('Oops! We have recently learnt that there has been some confusion around the new collaboration platform') is a bit - um - uninvolving.

I don't think it will catch on.

Things aren't helped by the winning name: 'Hub'. You're never going to get bums on seats with a name like that. A blue octopus should have a name like - I don't know - Bloctopus, or something. Maybe Captain Bloctopus.

They're promising a series of roadshows for the new character. I do hope Captain Bloctopus himself will make an appearance, along with his arch enemy the Robotrons and Laptopics. It's the only way they're going to win over the kidz. And do, please, drop that 'Hub' nonsense.

Grants Factory: Involving End Users in your Research

12 Feb, 2-4pm

Keynes Seminar Room 4

Annette King

Prof Dominic Abrams

Involving the end users or beneficiaries of research in its design and management has become increasingly important recently. It is no longer acceptable, in projects that involve human participants, to run projects in which those participants don’t have a voice. Health funders in particular, such as the NIHR, specify that the public and patients be fully involved in the projects. In other areas, too, ‘participatory design’ should be seen as best practice.

But how does this work? How do you identify potential participants? What are the potential pitfalls or problems, and what benefits can you expect? This session will hear from two people with a strong track record in working productively with the public: Prof Dominic Abrams (Psychology) is the Director of the Centre for the Study of Group Processes, and has led a number of externally funded projects looking at issues of ageing and inclusiveness, and Annette King works for the NIHR’s Research Design Service, working on public health and health service studies, and advising academics on the design of projects. 

The session is free, open to all staff, and tea/coffee will be available. Do let me know if you intend to come so that I can get a sense of numbers.

ECR Network: Social Media and Academia

19 Feb, 2:30pm-4:30pm

Darwin LT3

Dr Nadine Muller

Technology is changing the way we access information, and how we communicate. Nowhere is this more apparent than in academia. Social media sites, such as Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter, and blogging platforms such as Blogger and Wordpress, are increasingly being used to raise profiles, to disseminate research, and to make links with potential collaborators.

Is it possible to embrace the new technology without compromising your integrity or short-selling your research? Dr Nadine Muller is a Lecturer in English Literature and Cultural History at Liverpool John Moores University, and has demonstrated how to use social media and blogs effectively. She has written on life as a New Academic, as well as highlighting her own research, and is followed widely on Twitter.

The event is free and open to all staff, and there'll be tea/coffee. Whilst this session is intended primarily for early career researchers (ECRs), more senior staff who are new to social media are also welcome. Do let me know if you plan to come along.

There will also be an opportunity to chat to Nadine informally at the ECR Social at the Dolphin in the evening, from 7pm. 

Building an Internal Peer Review System

ARMA training: The Royal York Hotel

I took part in an ARMA event today. The focus was on how we, as research administrators and managers, could help to improve the quality of applications. I talked about the Grants Factory programme and Kent's internal peer review system. I shared the platform with Linsey Dickson from Heriot-Watt and Sue Coleman from Edinburgh, and it was interesting to hear what they did at their institutions, and how they compared and contrasted.

However, for me the most interesting part of the day was when the delegates talked amogst themselves about what an ideal peer review system would look like, and what challenges they would face in introducing one.  Common themes emerged:

• Timeliness is key. Applicants need feedback as early as possible. Of course, this isn't always possible: funder deadlines might be too tight, or applicants' collaborators may not give access to proposals early enough. Or (whisper it) the applicants themselves might just do things last minute.
• Feedback has to be useful. Well, durr. Perhaps I need to rephrase: reviewers have to be forced to give feedback which can be used. It's not enough to say, 'fine', or 'needs more work.' What applicants need is detailed feedback: what needs changing, and how?
• There needs to be more than one reviewer. This is something that Kent's system includes (our proposals have to be seen by a disciplinary reviewer and a funder reviewer), but some of the suggestions around the room included a user reviewer, or applicants having the opportunity to nominate their own, but having no guarantee that they'd be used. Additionally, reviewers should be compensated for their time, either through some form of (annual) fee, or perhaps factoring in their review work to the workload allocation model.
• There needs to be buy in. This is crucial: any new system has to have the backing of the PVC, the Heads of School and the Directors if Research. If it comes just from the centre, or is seen to be nothing more than a bureaucratic burden, then it's doomed. Moreover, or needs to be seen by the applicants as relevant and 'on their side'. Which brings me on to the final point:
• It should be Faculty/School based. This surprised me, and I don't think I agree with it. However, I understand the point being made: it needs to have ownership by the academics. If it's university wide there's a danger that this will be lost. This may be true at bigger universities, but I feel that at Kent the academic base is small enough for this not to be a problem. In addition, I tried to incorporate some of the school systems that already existed before our peer review system was launched. Nevertheless, we need to be alert to this as a potential issue.

And it's that kind of thing which makes involvement in these kinds of events worthwhile. Although I'm at the front pontificating and pretending I have all the answers, I've got as much to learn as anyone.

Don't Call Me Drum n' Bass

Welcome back to a new term. As we dust off our tinsel-tousled hair from the break, it's time to turn our faces once again to the wonderland of research funding. And what better way to ease us into the new term than a quick lookalike?

You will have mourned the recent death of Naked Gun and Airplane actor Leslie Nielsen. Well, mourn no more: his spirit lives on in the candidate for the AHRC's Chairmanship, Drummond 'D&B' Bone.

Yes, I am serious. And don't call me Shirley.

Nielsen

Bone