The Highs of the Hybrid: Bridging the Researcher-Administrator Divide

Last week I emailed all staff about a change to the names of the teams in Research Services. The Funding Team was being rebadged the Research Development Team. Their role didn’t change, but it better reflected what they did, and fitted with what most other universities called those who worked at a very early stage with academics in developing proposals.

To be honest I felt a little guilty about the email. It was one of those messages that, if I was the recipient, I would have deleted immediately or perhaps rolled my eyes and wondered if they didn’t have anything better to do in the Registry.

I think that’s probably what happened with 99.9% of the staff. However, it was the 0.1% who wrote back. ‘How many of the Research Development Team are active researchers?’ asked the academic.

It was an odd question, but I could read between the lines and recognise the disgust with which it was delivered. The point was this: what right did those who don’t do research have to talk to those who do about ‘developing research’?

Goldilocks Grants

The first, second and third reviewers disagree about the merits
of Goldilock's research methodology

Earlier this year Michael Lauer, the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) Deputy Director for Extramural Research, wrote an interesting blog post examining the productivity of its funding. He looked for a correlation between the amount of funding a project had received and the number of citations it got. This he described as “citations per dollar”.

Such a stark metric had many rolling their eyes, and the comments that followed questioned the underlying supposition. “Numbers of citations rarely correlate with greatest discoveries”, wrote one commentator. “Citation numbers are strongly biased towards fast-moving areas of inquiry”, said another. A third noted that “the number of citations a paper receives is an extremely error-prone measure of scientific merit.”

Nevertheless, I think it’s worth exploring Lauer’s work further for two reasons. First, because it is entirely appropriate for funders to try to assess the most effective use of their limited resources. Second, because the conclusion he hints at runs counter to the current drive by the majority of funders to back larger and longer projects.

Giving Voice to Researchers

Vitae Conference Pack: bewildering

I last went to a Vitae Conference in 2014. In the three short years that have followed the research landscape has shifted completely. Of course, we have had the EU Referendum with the jittery uncertainty that's resulted, but there's also been the REF2014 results, the first outcomes of H2020, the Higher Education White Paper, the Nurse Review, the Stern Review, and the first announcements about REF2021. In those 36 months the research ship of state has tilted and we're waiting to see where all deckchairs have ended up.

Although the plenary was somewhat muted - I got the feeling that there was a nervousness hanging over the panel, and no one wanting to show their full hand to anyone - #vitae17 has been a chance for all those who support researchers to take stock, to assess what's worked, and to think about how best to go forward.

Research Funding and the Premiership

It is a truth universally acknowledged that a university in possession of a good research income must be in want of more. At the Association of Research Managers and Administrators conference in Birmingham earlier this year, Randolph Haggerty of the University of Leeds and Ann Charlett-Day of the University of Sheffield explored this perplexing maxim. Can we really all grow bigger? And, if so, how?

Like Oliver Twist, all universities want more, and many are met with disbelief. Haggerty came clean and said that his own institution aimed to increase its research income by 50 per cent. Others are even more ambitious: Kent aims to double its income and the University of Huddersfield aims to triple it. This, Haggerty suggested drily, was “challenging”.

Nevertheless, the present climate gives universities little choice. The Research Excellence Framework uses research income as a metric to measure a healthy research environment. The results of that feed through into league tables, which, in turn, inform the recruitment of students and staff.

'The Productive Researcher' by Prof Mark Reed: a Review

Prof Mark Reed

One of the most common reasons that academics give for not applying for grants is a lack of time. Buffeted and battered between the thousand competing demands of modern academia, grant writing always seems to come a poor 562nd.

And yet some manage it. It’s this mystery that Prof Mark Reed sought to resolve in his new book, The Productive Researcher. To do so, he ‘reached out to the world’s most productive researchers...and asked them how they did what they do. Their answers and the answers that emerged from my reading, both confirmed and extended my thinking.’

At this point I can picture many of you arching an eyebrow and imagining that the answer lies with teams of postdocs and some very understanding spouses. But for Reed it’s both far simpler and far harder. For him it is, as it was for TS Eliot in ‘Little Gidding’, ‘a condition of complete simplicity (costing not less than everything).’

Because the productive researcher needs to strip everything back to their prime motivating force. Why did they started in academia in the first place? It is only ‘by understanding why - really why - you are a researcher [that] you can become increasingly aware of the motives that lie behind your motives.’  And only when you understand these can you start to properly prioritise your workload.

Opening up the Black Box of Peer Review

Liz Allen

Last month I attended a session at KBS on the Future of Research Assessment. I wrote up some notes from this, and particularly the talk by Prof John Mingers, here. 

Also speaking at the event was Liz Allen, Director of Strategic Initiatives at F1000. She published some thoughts on it on the F1000 blog, and has kindly allowed me to republish them here. 

______________________

I recently participated in a workshop hosted by the University of Kent Business School – the subject was whether metrics or peer review are the best tools to support research assessment. Thankfully, we didn’t get embroiled in the sport of ‘metric bashing’, but instead agreed that one size does not fit all and that whatever research assessment we do, while taking account of context, needs to be proportionate.

'Citations Are Peer Review by the World'

Prof John Mingers

The research excellence framework - or REF - has become such an established part of the higher education landscape that it’s hard to imagine a world without it. Since 1985 it has provided the navigation points in a turbulent and changing landscape, marking progress and, like a modern day Lachesis, measuring the threads of individual research in readiness for Atropos’ shears.

As we gear up for REF2021 and wait to hear from HEFCE about what form it will take, it seems an appropriate time to take stock and question whether the game is worth the candle, and if the measurement of research should be undertaken differently.

Beyond Its Natural End

Jes. No, not that one. 

When I was working at the Arts and Humanities Research Council a colleague was given the task of preparing procedures to revolutionise the application system.

“What, we’re going to share a common application form with all the other councils? With the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council? With the Medical Research Council?” I asked.

“Yes”, she answered simply. And while I scoffed, and was sceptical about the potential for the artists and lone scholars of the arts and humanities to find common ground with engineers and scientists, she was vindicated by history.

In 2002 the Joint Electronic Submission (Je-S) system was born. At first people were horrified. It was just so...complicated. It seemed to ask for the same information multiple times. And all those attachments. But over the years people have become, if not exactly fond, then at least accepting of it.

But it has begun to show its age. Last autumn the research councils announced that they were going to replace the creaking system. “Je-S is no longer a viable product,” they admitted. “It has come to a natural end and this is a fantastic opportunity to design a smarter, simpler, more user-friendly service in line with the latest digital standards.” Say what you like about the research councils, but they are wonderfully optimistic.

Social Media, Networks and Impact

A couple of years ago Nadine Muller, a cultural historian and English literature researcher at Liverpool John Moores University, visited the University of Kent to talk about how she used social media in her work. One thing that stood out was how much of her efforts were based around creating a virtual community.

Muller studies the cultural understanding of widowhood. By engaging with widows’ groups on Twitter, she has gained access to a more personal well of experience. She has also connected with people beyond academia who might benefit from or be interested in her research, including policymakers, teachers and informed lay people.

Research, especially in the humanities and some areas of the social sciences, can be solitary work. Social media, Muller said, allowed her to discuss her work and interact with people without leaving her desk. It also gave her a chance to think aloud, and to run a rough draft of a paper or a research project past people before taking it further.

The same goes for those of us who support academics. At the European Association of Research Managers and Administrators (Earma) Conference this year, I am linking up with colleagues from the universities of Ghent and Coventry, and University College Dublin, to deliver a session on using social media. 

Bonfire of the Sanities

Since the EU Referendum last year, there has been a lot of uncertainty about what it will mean for UK academics. In the last edition of the Research Services' newsletter, Research Active, we looked at known unknowns, and why European funding is crucial to the University—and the UK as a whole.

Current Situation

The EU has made it clear that, until the UK actually leaves the Union, it is still a full Member State, with all ‘rights and obligations’: ‘UK legal entities [are eligible] to participate and receive funding in Horizon 2020 actions,’ it confirmed.

Notes from Wellcome Trust Visit

The self-styled 'largest owner of marinas in the UK' came to the University last month to talk about what was on the Wellcome horizon, but also offered help and advice for potential applicants.

Roger Blake, the External Liaison Manager, and Paul Woodgate, the Portfolio Developer for Humanities and Social Science, started by outlining some recent and imminent changes at the Trust.

Generating Priorities

Deep in the heart of Death Star House, RCUK
workers tirelessly adjust the settings for the Priority Generator

Sometimes, calls for thematic programmes make complete sense. Sometimes they sort of make sense, once you dig a little deeper. Sometimes they make no sense at all.

It was the last category that prompted me to develop the Research Council Priority Generator for my blog. It was a tongue-in-cheek look at how the funders seem to jam together apparently random and often conflicting ideas to create new themes. The generator would give you Nanotechnology and Remembrance, for instance, or Progress towards Language, Radicalisation beyond Space and Expressionism in Transport.

None of these seemed a million miles from the real thing, such as Science in Culture, Lifelong Health and Wellbeing, Nanoscience through Engineering, Care for the Future and Living with Environmental Change. Indeed, the random generation of priorities gave us themes that were all too plausible, such as Progress and Islam, Technology of Wellbeing and Curating the Future.

'Nothing You Do Is Ultimately Wasted'

Each term I feature a different Kent award winner in the Research Services newsletter, looking at their research and discussing their career path and funding track record. In September I featured Dr Heather Ferguson. This time the spotlight falls on Prof John Batchelor in the School of Engineering and Digital Arts.

Prof John Batchelor

John Batchelor looked bashful when I pointed out that he had won more EPSRC grants - and received more EPSRC funding - than anyone else at the University. ‘I’ve just developed a thick skin,’ he joked. ‘Everyone gets knocked back. The trick is not to give up. But that’s easier said than done, especially when the rejections come all at once. That was the case for me in December. Christmas was quite dark last year.’

Reviewing Peer Review

Internal peer review has become increasingly prevalent in universities across the UK. The trend is the result of a push by the research councils for institutions to manage the quality of their applications better, but also to an implicit need to give academics as much advantage as possible in the increasingly competitive world of grant-winning.

In some ways, an internal peer-review system is a no-brainer. Showing your application to others for comment prior to submission is an obvious step, right? Well, yes and no.

Fundermentals Top 10 2016

2016. What a year. At the beginning of the year the largest issue we had was what NERC would call their new research ship; by the end all the heroes were dead, climate scientists in the USA are desperately backing up data for fear that the new President will scrub it all, the UK is committing economic suicide and withdrawing into itself, and the one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities in the world is being bombed into oblivion. 

In higher education, it's been a busy year too. The Stern Review was published, the HE White Paper was reshaping the sector, and the Global Challenges Research Fund was launched.

Fundermentals has been on hand to comment, highlight and, occasionally, laugh. Here are the most popular posts from the last twelve months.

How to Write a 4* Article

Prof Mark Reed

Last week Prof Mark Reed, Professor of Socio-Technical Innovation at Newcastle University and the man behind Fast Track Impact, tweeted some thoughts on how to write a 4* paper for the REF. Here he explains his thinking in more detail.

_____________

How do you write a 4* paper for the Research Excellence Framework (REF)? It is a question I’ve asked myself with some urgency since the Stern Review shredded my REF submission by not allowing me to bring my papers with me this year to my new position at Newcastle University.

Obviously the answer is going to differ depending on your discipline, but I think there are a few simple things that everyone can do to maximize their chances of getting a top graded research output.

How to Get a Job in Research Management

A surprisingly large part of my work involves recruitment. I recruit for my own team, of course, but I often sit on other people’s interview panels, and I quite enjoy the experience.

I enjoy the snapshot you get of other lives and the choices people have made. I like that element of detective work that goes on when you look at someone’s CV and covering letter. Why have they decided to go for this job? Why did they change direction there, or only stay in that job for a few months? Would they be able to turn their hand to what we want them to do?

And I also like seeing my organisation from outside. Like a foreign press news story about the UK, it’s quite interesting to see how we are perceived by the rest of the world. Recruitment gives you an insight into how jobseekers see you.

What I find amazing, however, is how many people get the basics wrong. Now remember: we’re recruiting people for a service that is, essentially, about helping people prepare applications. We therefore set quite a lot of store by your ability to, well, prepare an application. If you are thinking about applying for a job in this increasingly professionalised world, take the time to get the basics right. For me, these basics have a lot in common with those necessary for external funding applications.

Thoughts on BA Small Grants & Fellowships

Jack Carswell in action last week

Last week we hosted a visit by Jack Caswell the Assistant Head of Research Awards at the British Academy. The BA plays an important part in the research funding ecosystem: with the demise of smaller grants from the ESRC and AHRC, the BA is one of the few places where those working in the humanities and social sciences can turn if they want to undertake riskier, explorative research.

This may come as a surprise to many. The BA has something of a reputation as a fusty, traditional funder, a kind of Piccadilly gentlemen's club with an academic veneer. An unfair reputation, perhaps, but one that I've duly exploited for humourous ends in the past.

Figures behind the Figures: Dr Heather Ferguson

Each term I feature a different Kent award winner in the Research Services newsletter, looking at their research and discussing their career path and funding track record. I thought it would be worth adding these to the Blog. In April I featured Dr Natalia Sobrevilla Perea. This time the spotlight falls on Dr Heather Ferguson in the School of Psychology.

Dr Heather Ferguson

Mapping Regional Strengths

A lot has happened since July 2015 when the then Chancellor, George Osborne talked about working with universities and other partners to map regional strengths. The article below, published in March this year, looked at their plans, and the report from the Council for Science and Technology that had just done such a mapping exercise. What with Brexit, the HE White Paper, the Stern and Nurse Reviews, well: attention has been elsewhere. Still, an interesting reminder of how far we've travelled in six months - for better or worse.