Discover Elsevier

Research management

Professional advice for academic research leaders, managers and administrators around the world to enhance the quality and impact of their institutions' research output. Find guidance on open research, knowledge exchange and policy work alongside insight on leading diverse research teams and international collaborations and creating a culture of innovation.&nbsp;

Collaboration between academia and industry is essential to promoting innovation and economic growth. As industry demands continue to change, research information management systems and centralised profiling tools can help institutions position themselves as valuable partners in innovation by maximising the visibility of their research. During a Times Higher Education webinar, held in partnership with Digital Science, a panel of experts explored how universities can use technology to showcase their research assets and build mutually beneficial partnerships with industry.“The importance of industry engagement with research is how it enriches and augments the research impact at the institution,” said Derek Newton, assistant vice-president of innovation, partnerships and entrepreneurship at the University of Toronto in Canada. “Often, it enriches the types of research projects our students can access and ensures that they’re employment-ready at the end of their project.”Christopher Rowe, executive director for industry collaborations at Vanderbilt University in the US, highlighted the significance of understanding industry partners’ needs and how universities can “shorten the distance between industry and the researchers by being a matchmaker”. He discussed leadership’s responsibility to create an institution-wide culture of innovation and build sustainable relationships with industry.&nbsp;Mike Kagioglou, deputy vice-chancellor of planning, research and innovation at De Montfort University in the UK, said that universities need to be flexible in the way they engage with industry as companies come with different perspectives, aspirations and maturity levels.&nbsp;The panellists discussed the role of research information management systems in enhancing the discoverability of research outputs and helping industry navigate university systems, which can be complex and decentralised. “Higher education institutions can be insular, but they need to do more outreach,” said Jeff Agnoli, senior liaison for strategic partnerships with the Ohio Innovation Exchange, Ohio State University in the US. “The platforms we use to promote and curate our resources are absolutely essential.”Kagioglou spoke about the challenges of managing the variety of research data produced at universities. “It’s difficult for all of that information to be in one place. That’s where I see the value of research management systems – in trying to pull together everything that exists in an organisation and present it in a way that can address very specific areas of strategy,” he said.“Research information management systems are specialist tools that are designed to collect and showcase the breadth and depth of a researcher’s expertise,” said Kate Byrne, senior vice-president of product, academic and publishing at Digital Science. “Collecting that data once will let you reuse it for so many things. But in this space, it’s about bringing a researcher’s CV to life and showing the relevance of the work that they’ve done,” she added.“Storytelling around successful partnerships is critical to growing the nature and number of partnerships we have,” said Agnoli. “Telling those stories is wonderful for encouraging faculty members at your institution to think about these types of partnerships and helping companies who haven’t yet engaged with the university hear and understand some of the positive impacts.”The panel:Jeff Agnoli, senior liaison for strategic partnerships with the Ohio Innovation Exchange, Ohio State UniversityKate Byrne, senior vice-president of product, academic and publishing, Digital ScienceMike Kagioglou, deputy vice-chancellor of planning, research and innovation, De Montfort UniversityDerek Newton, assistant vice-president of innovation, partnerships and entrepreneurship, University of TorontoChristopher Rowe, executive director for industry collaborations, Vanderbilt UniversityFind out more about Digital Science.Learn more about the Digital Science report&nbsp;Catalyzing Collaboration: How Research Information Management Systems Drive Academic-Industry Partnerships.

Building strong industry partnerships helps universities enhance research impact, drive technology transfer and support talent development

Enhancing research visibility to foster academic-industry partnerships

University press publishing has been in the UK for centuries, with the first presses founded in 1534 and 1586 at Cambridge and Oxford universities respectively. But the sector in the UK has had a chequered history. While the mid-sized five – Bristol, Liverpool, Manchester, Edinburgh and Wales – are exemplary, thriving examples, the idea of university-based publishing has gone in and out of fashion over the decades (despite much internal discussion, as&nbsp;this blog on the history of publishing at LSE shows). This is in marked contrast to the US, with more than 100 university presses, and where publishing is seen as part of the core activities of their home institutions – as essential as a library or a lecture theatre.But over the past 10 years, things have started to change. With the coming of digital publishing and new technologies, the rise of open research and increasing demand for open access, and with growing criticism of commercial publishing, institutionally based publishing is making a long-overdue comeback.Open research is a tough nut to crack. Here’s how we can get startedAnatomy of an academic book proposalWhy does open access make publishing more complicated?A new wave of institutional publishers focused on open access publishing – including&nbsp;LSE Press,&nbsp;Open Press at the University of Sussex and&nbsp;UCL Press,&nbsp;among many others – are leading the way in offering alternative publishing venues to authors and driving change in scholarly communications.In fact, this sector is growing at such a pace that, in 2023, a group of these presses came together to form the&nbsp;Open Institutional Publishing Association&nbsp;(OIPA) to help represent and promote these presses to a broader audience and create an important new publishing network.This group includes publishers who are “born” open access – ie, only publish in this way – as well as those transitioning to, or striving for, a fully open access model, and those with a hybrid model who publish non-open-access work, too. It also includes a range of types of publisher – from a traditional university press set-up to library publishers and open journals service providers – and different open access business models, or combination of models from&nbsp;diamond, to gold, to green.&nbsp;What unites this new breed of publishers? What can open institutional publishing offer, how is it making a difference and why does it matter? Here are six reasons why these presses are ones to watch:Non-profit, community-led and mission-driven:&nbsp;Open institutional publishers are non-profit enterprises and place the highest value on intellectual quality and the scholarly endeavour over commercial opportunity. Anthony Cond, the CEO of Liverpool University Press, identified the way a university-based press differs from a commercial publisher as&nbsp;“the fact that it takes nothing out of its community: there is but one shareholder, one which exists to serve knowledge and one which, by having a press, does just that”.Bibliodiversity:&nbsp;In recent years, the academic publishing landscape has narrowed as the largest publishing companies have acquired smaller presses in a process of consolidation.&nbsp;Worldwide revenue of academic publishers&nbsp;stands at over $19 billion per year and 50 per cent of that is attributed to just five companies. But we need bibliodiversity to ensure intellectual freedom, reader and author choice, and innovation, and to create a vibrant, diverse and inclusive publishing ecosystem. The growth of smaller-scale institutional publishing contributes to this.&nbsp;Prestige and recognition:&nbsp;Open institutional presses can help to shift institutional culture around publishing and redefine problematic views of prestige. Bringing publishing expertise back into the institutional fold provides authors with a trusted brand (ie, their university), alongside on-site guidance and advice. This, along with a thorough peer review process that aligns with&nbsp;best practice in the wider university press sector, editorial boards that provide oversight of publishing activities, and prestigious awards, prize shortlists and rave journal reviews (see, for example,&nbsp;here,&nbsp;here and&nbsp;here), provides assurance that this is not an institutional form of self-publishing.Author care:&nbsp;We want to restore notions of author care within academic publishing by providing a thorough, constructive peer review process, ensuring a high-quality production and design service, and seeing publishing as a collaboration and a partnership. We are better placed to be able to understand our authors’ needs and concerns and can help them demystify the publishing process – particularly for PhD students and early career researchers (see in particular the&nbsp;work of University of London Press&nbsp;here). Authors can often feel dissatisfied with promotion of their publications, yet presses like&nbsp;LSE Press&nbsp;are now reclaiming this and&nbsp;winning praise from authors for it.The benefits of open access:&nbsp;Our publications benefit from the many advantages that open access publishing brings. These are well rehearsed, but include greater usage, increased citations, more online sharing and better Altmetric scores. Open publications have a greater geographical diversity of usage, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. They also&nbsp;receive more diverse citations, suggesting improved cross-disciplinary reach. Research shows open content is being increasingly accessed and used by groups outside academia. Open access is viewed as crucial as a means of&nbsp;countering misinformation and fake news. Further, for open institutional publishers, open access isn’t just an add-on to our usual activities, it is core to our identity and part of our DNA, making us experts in the field.&nbsp;Part of a movement:&nbsp;Open institutional publishers stand alongside&nbsp;scholar-led publishers&nbsp;in seeking to bring about a change in academic publishing and offer alternatives to what some have described as a&nbsp;broken system. In championing principles and ethics in publishing over revenue generation and profits – in putting values above value – we look to build a fair, equitable, accessible, inclusive and diverse publishing ecosystem, one that is known for high-quality publications, author care and for playing our part in democratising knowledge.&nbsp;Philippa Grand is head of publishing at LSE Press. Suzanne Tatham is deputy director of library and learning services at the University of Southampton.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week,&nbsp;sign up for the Campus newsletter.

Six reasons why open institutional publishing matters

A new wave of institutional publishers is changing the way we think about academic publishing. Here’s why they’re worth watching 

Professional services staff&nbsp;help to drive&nbsp;university’s knowledge exchange activity by bridging the complex space between academic expertise, external partners, charities, business and non-commercial enterprises. This work requires a dynamic skill set, yet&nbsp;staff working in this space&nbsp;often lack structured professional development. If universities want to continue to drive real-world impact through knowledge exchange, then they need to nurture the careers of the professional services staff working in this field.&nbsp;Fostering a culture of continuous professional growthThe University of Arts London (UAL) employs more than 100 professional services staff who work across&nbsp;design and fashion, performance, fine art, media and communications, bio-design, sustainability and immersive technologies to deliver innovation through collaboration and knowledge-sharing activities.&nbsp;But without a framework, it was challenging to support staff with their career ambitions, to offer meaningful professional development, or to improve&nbsp;recruitment and retention.&nbsp;&nbsp;Spotlight guide: What innovation needs to thrive in higher educationUniversities need to move interdisciplinary professional associations to the next stepTHE podcast: knowledge exchange and data management as drivers of research and innovationWe needed a structured, user-friendly framework, tailored to our creative environment, that would help guide our approach to career development. Our approach needed to acknowledge that while a traditional vertical career trajectory works for some, we live and work in an environment where sidesteps, and fluidity between roles, industries and specialisms, are the new normal. We wanted a framework that would empower staff to realise their potential and drive their careers.&nbsp;What we didOur careers toolkit, the Knowledge Exchange Careers Planner for Professional Services, is a one-stop shop of information&nbsp;for people working in&nbsp;knowledge exchange roles, linking to useful resources, guidance and&nbsp;advice on careers planning. At the heart of the planner is a bespoke knowledge exchange career framework that identifies the skills and behaviours that our staff have told us are crucial to their daily work. The framework provides clear pathways for personal and professional development, demystifying roles and clarifying transferable skills to support opportunities for growth.&nbsp;The visual quality of the toolkit – including images of our students’ work, bold colours, an easy navigation system and accessible content – is as important as the framework. We didn’t want to create another tick-box exercise; instead, this toolkit is designed to inspire staff to take ownership of their own careers, engage in more meaningful career conversations with their line managers, and plan development activities more effectively.How we did itAs a first step, partnering with HR consultants Let’s Talk Talent, we reviewed frameworks across the sector, asking: what feels relevant to our culture of creative innovation? What is core to working in knowledge exchange?&nbsp;We then embarked on one-to-one meetings and focus groups with our staff to get their perspective. What skills and behaviours do front-line staff, managers and senior leadership consider important, both now and as our services evolve?&nbsp;Next, we took a deep dive into UAL’s institutional ambitions for knowledge exchange. We asked what capabilities our staff would need to achieve these goals successfully.Liaising with our HR department, we also need to find out how the framework might complement and support existing policies and resources around recruitment, retention, career progression and appraisal.&nbsp;This wealth of data led to six key headings and descriptors for three career stages: everyone, management and leadership:partner engagementdelivery focus&nbsp;service improvement&nbsp;relationship buildingcollaborationlearning mindset.At a surface level, our headers seem fairly generic. What sets them apart, however, is the associated descriptors, which locate these attributes within the context of knowledge exchange, and the specific type of work that our professional services staff do, aspire to do, should be doing or will be doing.Recognising the value of these descriptors, we iterated a more detailed set of development indicators and prepared a complementary set of role profiles to help staff identify their career stage, and where they might go next. Then we tested, sense-checked, simplified, cross-checked, tested and simplified some more.&nbsp;How we use itStaff and line managers now use the framework to inform formal careers conversations in probation reviews and tri-annual appraisals. The descriptors provide useful discussion starters, helping colleagues set clear development goals. We have also developed knowledge exchange careers workshops and mapped our staff development offer to align with the six core skills and behaviours.&nbsp;The framework is also helping us diversify recruitment within our sector. We know we don’t always succeed in attracting job applicants from different professional backgrounds, sectors and demographics, and that recruitment practices exacerbate this issue for candidates and hiring managers. We are working to align transferrable skills with our&nbsp;knowledge exchange professional services&nbsp;roles to attract more diverse candidates.Lessons learned&nbsp;Creating and implementing the framework left us with three key takeaways.&nbsp;Trust the process: The volume of different skills may initially feel overwhelming. This is a natural part of refining and structuring data. Similarities and overlaps will emerge, allowing you to simplify the final framework.Less is more: An overcomplicated framework is unwieldy and risks discouraging engagement. It should serve as a flexible career conversation tool rather than an exhaustive checklist.Aim for practicality, not perfection: Define what “good enough” looks like and recognise that career frameworks evolve over time. Resist endless tweaking.A pathway to career satisfactionBy fostering a supportive environment for knowledge exchange professionals, all institutions can enhance career satisfaction, improve retention rates and contribute to a more vibrant, innovative academic community.The development and implementation of the planner at UAL marks a significant step towards fostering a culture of continuous professional growth within our institution. By tailoring our approach to the context of arts and design-oriented knowledge exchange, we not only support our staff in their roles but also equip them to thrive in their future careers. The framework helps staff identify training needs and career possibilities and encourages a sense of professional fulfilment, whether that involves moving sideways, upward, between departments or even transitioning out of our university. We want our staff to have the freedom to take whatever career path they need to lead fulfilling careers; and our framework helps them achieve this.&nbsp;Jane Shepard is head of research and knowledge exchange staff development&nbsp;at the University of the Arts London and member of the KEUK professional standards committee.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week,&nbsp;sign up for the Campus newsletter.

Supporting knowledge exchange professional services staff

A career framework can provide pathways for personal and professional development. Here, Jane Shepard explains how one arts-based institution identified the skills required by professional services staff who help facilitate knowledge exchange

How a career framework for knowledge exchange can foster a culture of professional growth

A girl passes me a note during maths class. The memory is vivid and audible – our seats scraped together near the front desk, the hum of the classroom. But the teacher’s words, the lesson itself? A complete blur. White noise. I can recall that momentary connection but not the bystanders or onlookers, not the surrounding angles and contours, nor the trigonometry!This is the challenge of communication; what people hear matters but what they remember – and more importantly what they pass on – matters more.In policy, silence is arguably more damaging than saying the wrong thing. We don’t control how others interpret our words, only what we contribute to the conversation. Because communication is an inevitable part of policy engagement, we must be as clear as possible about our intentions. Perfect clarity is impossible but my role as a policy officer is to make sure that most people get most of the information, most of the time. (For the purposes of this discussion, “policy” refers broadly to any plan or recommendation that requires public understanding and buy-in.)Driving change through knowledge: how to increase policy impactHow to succeed at policy engagement, part one: define your purposeSpotlight guide: Marketing and branding that attract attentionAt&nbsp;Public Policy|Southampton, we use storytelling, reiteration and timely messaging to cut through the noise. If you take one thing from this article, let it be this: communication isn’t optional. So just do it. Do it well and your impact will be amplified far beyond your immediate audience.&nbsp;Think before you speakBefore you share an idea, step into the shoes of your harshest critic. How could your words be interpreted? What unintended conclusions might someone draw?&nbsp;Humans don’t retain facts in isolation but they do remember stories – especially ones that create an emotional connection. Instead of simply presenting data, embed it in a compelling narrative. Frame your evidence as a story that directly addresses a policy problem or priority.&nbsp;If your audience can’t recall your key message later, you’ve missed an opportunity to shape the conversation – so ensure your central message is both clear and compelling.Repetition equals retentionAdvertisers cracked the code long ago: repetition cements memory. If something matters, say it more than once – preferably in different ways, across multiple formats, and reinforced through strategic framing. A policymaker might introduce a critical data point during an initial briefing, later reinforce it visually through an infographic or case study and then embed it within a compelling anecdote during a public address. This layered approach – varied yet consistent – ensures that key messages are not only heard but internalised and retained.Great storytelling isn’t just about making information memorable, though; it’s also about making it easy to pass on. When your message is clear, concise and emotionally resonant, people are more likely not only to remember it but to share it. That’s why marketers use sound bites, slogans and hooks.&nbsp;You shouldn’t misrepresent your evidence but you should provide sufficient context and detail to ensure it remains credible. If your insights fade from memory the moment you stop speaking, they were never truly heard.Talk now, refine laterToo many people hold back from communication, waiting until they have the “perfect” message. But in policy, silence is worse than a narrative that adapts and evolves. People can handle updates and revisions; they can’t handle information black holes. However, this doesn’t mean communicating without care – be transparent about uncertainties, since once misinformation takes hold, it is hard to correct. The most effective communicators aren’t just data carriers; they’re guides who make sense of uncertainty in real time. The moment you start speaking, you become a leader to someone, whether you realise it or not. So, own it, and don’t let perfection be the enemy of the good.&nbsp;Silence is the death of policyHistory is filled with crises where policymakers had the right answers but failed to make them heard above the din of confusion, misinformation and competing interests. While being unheard is not the same as being silent, it often leads to the same outcome: the right ideas never reach those who need to hear them. Silence creates a void, and that void will be filled – often by those with simpler, louder, more dangerous narratives. For communicators, this underlines the importance of delivering your own narrative in clear, straightforward terms before others fill the gap. If you don’t tell your story, someone else will tell it for you, and they may not be kind. Communication is not an accessory to policymaking; it is policymaking.&nbsp;Say it well, say it often and make damned sure they remember it.Alistair Sackley is specialist policy officer in the Web Science Institute at the University of Southampton.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week,&nbsp;sign up for the Campus newsletter.

Effective communication is a core component of successful policymaking. Whether you’re a policy professional or working in communications, how you convey your message can determine whether your ideas thrive or fade 

The perils of unheard policy

“How can we drive innovation to lead to better patient outcomes for newborns around the world?”&nbsp;This was the core question that brought together the Hospital for Sick Children, Mount Sinai Hospital, St. Michael’s Hospital and Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre to form the Toronto Centre for Neonatal Health (TCNH). In working to address this question, the partners quickly identified the need for a global community of neonatologists to collaborate and share insights.Collaboration is a cornerstone of progress across industries and sectors – and in academia, it can be challenging. While there is no shortage of subject matter experts, even in highly specialised fields of study, who are ready to contribute, inform and review content, these experts are often found in different institutions and regions around the world. Resources to produce, promote and share new ideas are often disjointed. International collaborations can also be time-consuming and costly, and specialists may not have the resources required to disseminate the information at scale. These factors create a barrier, despite the need and desire to share research findings and insights.Spotlight guide: What you need to know about academic publishing todayCampus podcast: a brighter future for academic publishingHow to publish responsible reproducible researchAn interesting opportunity for communities of practice can be to partner with publishers, experts in knowledge-sharing with the infrastructure in place to facilitate the exchange of ideas and information. Journals provide a means of collaboration across disciplines, institutions and geographies. Developing new journals is, and should be, a thoughtful process, starting with a review of the landscape and careful assessment of the question of how a new publication will serve a community that is underserved by existing publications. When combined with a clear and compelling vision, market landscape analysis is a powerful tool that helps shape the aim and scope for new journals.As global platforms, journals enable scholars to build and expand on research, and improve the speed of discovery and quality of innovation. Scholars in specialised fields can quickly and efficiently search for information to support their work, saving time and resources that can be funnelled into producing new studies.Key reasons journals are an effective way to collaborate and share ideas include:Rigorous peer review, fact-checking and verification standards before content can be shared: This process is critical because it ensures the integrity and validity of content that will inform future research and innovation and builds trust among the content’s audience.High production values: How the content in a journal is organised and presented to its audience shapes how – and if – it is consumed. While specialists are knowledge-holders, the publisher is responsible for packaging and presenting content in ways that audiences will find easy to access and digest.The ability to disseminate content broadly: Journal publishers have infrastructure for global distribution.The University of Toronto Press (UTP) has been publishing academic journals since 1920, working closely with societies and researchers. More recently, UTP has been working to broaden audience and impact in the fields of health, medicine and the environment, working with researchers as well as policymakers. One example of this type of journal that crosses the boundaries of academia and practice is the Journal of City Climate Policy and Economy, which is the result of a partnership between UTP and C40 Cities, a network of nearly 100 cities around the world working to confront the climate crisis. The journal is one of the ways the group contributes to the urban climate agenda and supports governmental policy.In a similar mode, TCNH and UTP have developed a partnership to launch the Journal of Clinical Insights in Neonatology this spring, to address the need for a global community of neonatologists. In this collaboration, experts from TCNH form the editorial board and develop the aim and scope of the journal. The board is responsible for editorial review and direction, while the UTP produces, disseminates and promotes the journal globally. The journal will serve as a platform for neonatologists, clinicians and researchers to share and discuss complex and impactful case studies.The collaboration between TCHN and UTP is an example of the essential role publishers play in bringing together subject matter expertise with content and production skills, technical infrastructure and global dissemination capabilities. Together, these elements support knowledge-sharing and meet the needs of diverse communities of researchers to help answer critical questions such as: “How can we better elevate the care of newborns around the world?”Antonia Pop is vice-president of the publishing division of the University of Toronto Press.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus&nbsp;newsletter.

With the infrastructure in place to exchange ideas and information, journals can enable scholars to build on their research and accelerate discovery and quality of innovation, as Antonia Pop explains

Scholarly publishers’ role in fostering collaboration in academia

Involving patients and public in the design and delivery of healthcare research is a well-established practice in the UK and, increasingly, a prerequisite for funding. Funders are now turning their attention to the impact of the patient and public involvement that they fund.&nbsp;So, how do we evaluate the impact of patient and public involvement in research?Before addressing the “how”, it is useful to consider what we mean by impact and why we evaluate the impact of patient and public involvement.&nbsp;‘Doing human’: ways for researchers to make patients feel comfortable to express themselvesWhat underpins effective patient and public involvement in health and social care research?Resource collection: what is research excellence and how can universities achieve it?Impact as a measurable variable can include the influence of patients on decision-making (that is, changes made to the research as a result of patient involvement such as altering the wording on participant recruitment materials or on a questionnaire), the effect on the patients (such as increased confidence, new skills or expanded social networks) or the extent to which patient involvement plans and activities have met agreed standards or criteria (for example, the&nbsp;UK public involvement standards).In terms of why healthcare researchers measure the impact of their work, the focus is less on proving that involving patients and public is a “good thing” and more on improving how we do it, within a project and to inform other projects. What is working well? What can we do better?&nbsp;Here are tips to consider when measuring the impact of patient and public involvement in healthcare research projects.Build evaluation throughout the project. Evaluating only at the end of a project limits the extent to which you can make improvements within a project. Only by evaluating throughout the project will you be able to learn and drive improvement in your patient and public involvement plans and activities.Consider who should be included in the evaluation. Obviously, the patients who are involved in your research should be included. But a research project will also involve other stakeholders including researchers. Any potential changes that emerge as a part of your evaluation will affect other stakeholders and so you may want to seek out their views on your patient involvement activities.Ask stakeholders what you could do better. Don’t just ask about how well, or badly, your patient and public involvement activities are going. This is valuable information but a key purpose of evaluating impact is to drive improvements in your project.&nbsp;Be clear about what it is you are evaluating. Work with your research team and patients at the beginning of the project to determine what is important to evaluate. Is it impact on decision-making? Is it impact on the patients themselves? Is it on the extent to which you have adhered to pre-agreed standards? Is it all these things?&nbsp;Don’t be afraid to be flexible.&nbsp;It may be that a type of impact emerges that you had not anticipated.&nbsp;Make sure it is captured.Be proportionate. There is the potential for an evaluation project to become bigger than the research project itself. Consider the size of the project and the resources available when developing your evaluation plans.Seek feedback from patients on your evaluation. When writing up evaluation reports, share these with the patients involved in your research to ensure that your reports reflect their feedback.There isn’t one “right way” to evaluate patient involvement. Various valuable tools and approaches can be adopted. However, don’t be afraid of developing your own approach.&nbsp;You will know what resources you have, the group of people with whom you are working and what approach would best suit them.&nbsp;Disseminate your evaluation. This will help us develop the evidence base for what activities work and why and help drive up improvements in patient involvement in research.In my experience, a key challenge when evaluating patient and public involvement activities is in ensuring that evaluation is embedded into the project and makes a difference rather than being merely “bolted on”.&nbsp;Two things are key. First, make sure that evaluation plans are included in the research proposal and costed in, including reimbursement for those patient and public contributors for taking part in the evaluation. Second, ensure that the evaluation reports are fed into the governance of the project – for example, evaluation reports can be an item on steering or other research management committee agendas.&nbsp;Evaluating patient and public involvement activities is important to justify funding in these activities and driving up improvements in research. It will also play a role in developing patient and public involvement as a discipline, helping us build the evidence base and credibility for patient and public involvement.&nbsp;Gary Hickey is senior research inclusion manager&nbsp;in the&nbsp;National Institute for Health and Care Research at the University of Southampton.If you’d like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week,&nbsp;sign up for the Campus newsletter.

Measuring impact of public involvement in health research

Measuring the impact of involving patients and the public in healthcare research is less about proving that the practice is a ‘good thing’ and more about finding ways to do it better, writes Gary Hickey. Here, he shares eight key considerations

Evaluating the impact of patient and public involvement in health research

The 21st-century research landscape increasingly prioritises citizen science, community engagement and diverse perspectives. For universities aiming to foster this evolution, creating environments that actively engage early-career researchers and students is essential.&nbsp;Established in 2013 to address the challenges of an ageing population, the Centre for Ageing and Mental Health (Camh) has embraced a collaborative, multidisciplinary, intergenerational approach to research. To enhance their research impact, universities could adopt a similar ethos by bringing together professionals from diverse age groups and backgrounds to co-create solutions. Drawing expertise from fields such as mental health, nursing and even the fire service enriches research with unique perspectives and enhances problem-solving capabilities.&nbsp;When setting up such environments, institutions should ensure that early-career researchers are fully integrated into the research process. This might involve giving them meaningful roles in designing studies, conducting literature reviews and managing projects. These experiences empower individuals and free up senior researchers to focus on high-level strategic and analytic tasks.&nbsp;Novel methods and community engagement&nbsp;Consider integrating public contributions into research through lay patient participant involvement (PPI) groups and public diary collections, such as Mass Observation’s 12th May diaries. This approach provides candid qualitative insights while minimising social desirability bias. It not only enriches data but also amplifies the often-overlooked voices of the general population.After analysing the data, universities could create platforms to make research more accessible, such as Café Scientifique events held in public spaces outside traditional academic settings. These events allow anyone to engage with researchers from various fields and explore the latest scientific ideas in lay terms. Such initiatives foster knowledge exchange, build trust and create opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration.Spotlight: How to engage the public in researchHow to facilitate knowledge exchange and build trust with policymakersEmbracing disagreement in research co-productionDeveloping practical research skills&nbsp;Many universities face the challenge of bridging the gap between academic learning and practical research skills. One way forward is to embed active learning opportunities into students’ academic journeys. Involving students in real-world research projects under the guidance of experienced academics helps them develop skills such as applying for ethics approval, conducting literature reviews and designing surveys. It also gives them insight into whether they want to pursue research as a career. Furthermore, students can gain firsthand exposure to the realities of academic research by engaging in research-based discussions throughout the day, which provides valuable insights into policies, funding and ethics that cannot be fully understood through textbooks or lectures alone.By providing opportunities such as this, institutions can foster environments that build trust and autonomy, enabling students to take ownership of tasks while providing access to mentorship and support when needed. This balance encourages both skill development and independence, better&nbsp;preparing students for their future careers.&nbsp;These students will be better equipped to contribute to research offices, bringing their own valuable skills shaped by their familiarity with evolving technology. Having grown up in a digital age, they offer fresh perspectives that can help modernise outdated research practices, particularly with the rise of AI authorship in research.Creating spaces for innovation&nbsp;To foster creativity and innovation, universities should consider how informal interactions can be integrated into the research culture. At Camh, casual conversations during coffee breaks or over shared meals often spark fresh ideas and strengthen team dynamics. To facilitate this, intentionally designate communal spaces or schedule informal gatherings where researchers of all levels can connect and collaborate.&nbsp;Strengthen cross-departmental collaboration and trust by promoting interdisciplinary special interest groups where researchers from different fields regularly meet to share their unique perspectives on shared complex challenges, such as improving adult mental health. Additionally, collaborative writing retreats can be established to provide dedicated time and space for researchers to co-develop grant proposals, fostering interdisciplinary bids that benefit from diverse expertise, peer support and constructive feedback.Key takeaways:&nbsp;Build multidisciplinary and inter-generational teams with diverse expertiseEmpower early-career researchers with meaningful roles and responsibilitiesEngage the public through citizen science and accessible outreach initiatives&nbsp;Integrate&nbsp;practical, hands-on learning into student experiences&nbsp;Encourage collaboration and&nbsp;creativity through informal social spacesFoster trust and autonomy to support growth and independence.By moving beyond traditional approaches, institutions can enhance research outputs and contribute to a more collaborative and informed society.&nbsp;Aadhi Agilan and Sam O’Keefe are research assistants and Gareth Bilton is a PhD student, all at the University of Chester.If you’d like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week,&nbsp;sign up for the Campus newsletter.

How to build a citizen science research culture 

Practical advice for building inclusive and innovative research cultures that prepare students for real-world challenges

Hear from two academics who are developing publishing solutions that encourage and underpin quality research practices and improve access to scholarly work

THE podcast: a brighter future for academic publishing

“I feel like for Pres Party as a whole, we can talk about things for ages” (Tae, 21.59, Episode 4).The Preservative Party is a group of 14- to 24-year-olds, established 12 years ago by Leeds City Museum’s community outreach team.&nbsp;Together, we held an exhibition about whose power is overlooked in traditional histories of energy, based on my research area of late-19th-century women making everyday energy decisions in their homes. This led to the launch of Whose Power?, a five-part podcast series exploring our project. We are also launching a new version of the exhibition at Leeds Museum’s Discovery Centre.Spotlight guide: Take your research outside the academyHow to start a language-teaching podcastFive things to know before you launch a research podcastWe've covered how engaging young people in participatory research requires trust previously on Campus. But given the group’s diversity, traditional forms of articulating learning and transformation come with additional barriers. Because of these barriers and the evolution of the Whose Power? project from its original form, our research outputs had to be authentically us.&nbsp;The medium of podcasting raises crucial questions that have been central to Preservative Party work about who produces research, interacts with it and critiques it. Through producing&nbsp;Whose Power?, we found a medium by which we could prioritise our voices, hold on to our individual personalities, explore the impact of our very different social and educational contexts and overcome academic gatekeeping. As group member Tae said, we’re not “pretending to be something we're not by having the research paper done […] it was […] more genuine and like us” (22.19, Episode 4).Vulnerability and the power of the voice“Pres Party has given me my voice in a way, and showed me that it’s safe and OK for me to speak on things that I care about and things that I find important […] that other people should be aware of” (Tae, 17.59, Episode 4).Making the decision to use the podcast as a participatory method is steeped in current academic discourse about what is considered a valid research output. As we have learned throughout the process, the podcast is no less valuable because of the discursive nature of the media. Rather, the podcast invites researchers to demonstrate a level of respect,&nbsp;while reflecting on the very nature of our research experiences.&nbsp;For all our differences in educational experience and social context, one of the clear lessons that we have had through our conversations in the podcast studio is the importance of sharing our insecurities and the intimacy that came from recognising our vulnerabilities. From professor to producer to Preservative Party, being open, making safe spaces to share concerns, providing time and being patient were key to the success of the podcast as both method and output.&nbsp;Opening up to the vulnerabilities that come with doing and sharing research via a podcast has, as Tae says, “definitely empowered me more, I felt like I wouldn’t have been able to have this voice that I apparently do have now” (15.13, Episode 4). The power of the podcast as a participatory method lies in its ability to give Preservative Party members an active voice.&nbsp;Recording as reflection“That word, reflection, is really important […] And that’s definitely what the group of young volunteers force us to do all the time” (Esther, group facilitator, 21.25,&nbsp;Episode 2).As I highlight when I was interviewed by Preservative Party members in&nbsp;Episode 3, the entire Whose Power? project asks us to reflect without the strict boundaries that usually constrain thinking. The possibilities here are endless, driven by our circumstances and vulnerabilities.&nbsp;This ability to reflect has “a lot to do with trust”, according to podcast scholar Martin Spinelli. His words spoke specifically to the importance of our relationship with Chris and Krissie of&nbsp;Research Podcasts in the Whose Power? podcast process. Our relationship developed from introductions to commissioning, training, production and post-production. They were willing to listen to our needs – as Preservative Party member Bobby explains: “Our wonderful producers […] said this is how we do a podcast. And we’ve gone […] we’re going to approach it a little bit differently” (04.43,&nbsp;Episode 2). This trust is vital when podcasting as part of a participatory action research project with young people.&nbsp;Insurgent silence and laughter“Scholarly podcasting is an insurgency against academic structures that curb creativity, inhibit personal and collective transformations, and promote self-interest over generosity” (Ian M. Cook, Scholarly Podcasting, 2023).A number of friends who have listened to Whose Power? have commented on the laughter throughout the episodes. We love the sound of that laughter. It reflects the overall experience of learning to work with, trust and be trusted by the Preservative Party. In Scholarly Podcasting, Why, What, How? , Clare Wright and Yves Rees, producers of the podcast Archive Fever, speak about the importance of fun and laughing in the podcast space, highlighting that podcasting is “collaborative” where the humanities “tend to work in isolation”.However, “the brilliance of participatory research is that it’s different for everybody” (Bobby, 21.58,&nbsp;Episode 2).&nbsp;To be engaged in serious ideas while laughing and enjoying yourself feels like a deeply subversive action. Recording Whose Power? gave us direct examples of this – the laughter, fun, hilarity and creativity that were part of our process now seem like a deeply political act.A key part of what podcasting brings as a participatory method can be heard in the way the vulnerability, anxieties and doubt of the young people as they sat in front of a microphone is captured. In&nbsp;Episode 2, the contrast between group members Bobby and Rahesa’s approaches to speaking about their Whose Power experience are represented through their very different but equally valid pace, tone and sound.&nbsp;For the sake of listener experience, our producer Chris cut the length of the silences, but she still captured Rahesa’s hesitation, fear of speaking out about the life-altering experience of homelessness and lack of confidence, despite vital academic considerations about the power of and barriers to participation.&nbsp;Our top tips&nbsp;Trust is vital before entering the studio.Go with the flow – structured and unstructured.Embrace the silence and the fun.“Please don’t think that it’s going to look like the way you think it should look, or the way that you’ve seen it look for other people, because everybody’s style of participation, and everybody’s contribution is something completely different” (Bobby, 21.58,&nbsp;Episode 2).Abigail Harrison Moore is professor of art history and museum studies at the University of Leeds. Lauren Theweneti is senior mentor of the Preservative Party at Leeds City Museum and associate lecturer in history at Sheffield Hallam University.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week,&nbsp;sign up for the Campus&nbsp;newsletter.

The power of participatory podcasts as a research method

Instead of seeing podcasting as an alternative output, producing a series with a group of youth curators helped Abigail Harrison Moore and Lauren Theweneti understand how significant it can be for participatory research

No matter what stage you’ve reached with your book – be it just an idea, or a complete draft script – a publisher will want to see an outline proposal, to gauge if they’re the right publisher for it. The proposal will explain who you are, how the book came to be, what the rationale for it is, who it is aimed at, how it fits into the existing literature – and the length of the script and number of any diagrams, tables or illustrations, if necessary. It will demonstrate to a publisher how good you are at understanding the point of your work, and at organising and communicating your argument.Publishers will have a preferred format for a proposal, and many will have a guide available on their website.&nbsp; A captivating, informative and concise proposal can be an indicator of a well-written script. A typical proposal guide will ask for these key things:•&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; A rationale for the book, including a title, description of aims and its scope. What is the argument that the book makes? What is different or new about the book? What is the background to its genesis (for example, the research basis for it)? How does the book fit with the publisher’s list?•&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Information on the intended audience and how the work differs from other books currently available in the field.•&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; A 200-word description of the book – as if it were the blurb for the back cover.•&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The contents list for the book, ideally with a paragraph describing each chapter.•&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Sample chapters, if available, or other material by the author that would be representative of the subject matter, writing level and style.•&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Information on the length of the projected (or completed) work in terms of the number of words, as well as the number of any illustrations, tables, figures and maps.&nbsp;•&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; The author’s curriculum vitae.The rationale for the book is crucial, as an author is typically so close to their work that it is hard to step back and see the bigger picture. Can the author answer the “so what?” question?&nbsp;The market for academic books is tougher now than it has ever been. If the book is to succeed in both commercial and critical terms, the author needs to be as market-focused as their publisher.&nbsp;The blurbIn the checklist above, there is a request for a blurb of 200 words or less, written as if for the back cover of the book. This can be a good place to start when drafting a proposal, as writing an attractive summary of the book is going to be necessary eventually – not only for the back cover, but also for the publisher’s catalogue and for booksellers’ websites.&nbsp;How to pitch a book to an academic publisherSix tips for writing a successful book proposalHow to get a book published outside academiaWriting and refining a blurb for the book will help the author really think about why the book matters, and why potential readers should buy it. The mere fact that they have four years of research data, or that no one else has written about this before (unlikely), just isn’t enough. It needs to be packaged and sold. The proposal needs to sell itself to a busy commissioning editor and their colleagues in sales and marketing – none of whom will necessarily be subject specialists. Writing a blurb that can do all this is quite a challenge.&nbsp;Writing samplesSample material is also important. Ideally, it would be actual draft chapters from the book, but it can also be published articles or a PhD thesis. The snag here, though, is that a thesis or articles (for a journal or a magazine) will have been written for different markets and in a different style to the book. For an experienced book author, the sample could of course be a previously published book. This would indicate that the author has made it through another publisher’s approval process – and if their book has garnered reviews and sales success.Sample writing that isn’t from the actual book will need to be qualified with some explanation as to how the book script will differ. For example, a journal article will be written in a certain style, perhaps more heavily referenced and narrowly focused. A magazine article or blog post would be at the other end of the accessibility scale. Published journal articles demonstrate academic credibility, but a published magazine article, print or online, will demonstrate an ability to reach a broader audience. A PhD thesis, after all, is written for a market of about six people: the thesis supervisors and examiners. They’re not looking for saleability as a metric – far from it, as they are paid to read it.Physical parametersThe length of the script is important. A book’s length will affect the cost of producing it and will have a bearing on its selling price. An overly long book is generally going to be less accessible and more challenging for readers. Authors want to see their book reach the widest possible market, and a high price will make that much less likely.&nbsp;However, there is no hard and fast rule here. A really long book might still justify a relatively low price by virtue of its market appeal (and that can include the profile of the author, or the sheer brilliance and originality of the work). But scripts above 100,000 words will, in my view, put the book in doorstopper territory. A publisher will prefer a maximum of 60,000 to 80,000 words.&nbsp;What is the minimum length? Here, again, there are no strict parameters, and we get into the realms of format, design, packaging and marketing. If the book is being pitched for a series that encourages short scripts (such as the Oxford University Press Very Short Introduction series, or Palgrave Pivots), then the decision will have been made already.&nbsp;The only issue with a really short book – 35,000 words or fewer – is that a publisher might not be able to justify a cover price high enough to make the book worth publishing – unless the likely market for the book is very large. Famously, On Bullshit by Harry Frankfurt, published by Princeton University Press in 2005, is fewer than 10,000 words long, but it sold many tens of thousands of copies and made it to the top of The New York Times bestseller list.Richard Baggaley is interim press manager for University of Westminster Press.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week,&nbsp;sign up for the Campus newsletter.

Anatomy of an academic book proposal

Pitch your book to publishers with an irresistible proposal. Here are all the elements you’ll need

Two leading academics explain why everyone benefits when researchers look beyond academia to seek greater understanding and new knowledge alongside the broader public or affected communities

THE podcast: the benefits of citizen science and community-engaged research

As researchers, like Mary Shelley’s feverish anti-hero Dr Frankenstein, we are programmed to break new ground. Many academics will relate to the doctor’s description of his “voyage of discovery to the land of knowledge”: “I have lately been so deeply engaged in one occupation that I have not allowed myself sufficient rest,” he laments. What’s that? You have a pre-funding deadline with noticeable flanges under your eyes? Check!And, when he feels his endeavours are not advancing: “My heart palpitated in the sickness of fear.” Do field conditions mean that your results are slow to come in and you won’t meet your funding deadline? Check!&nbsp;We work in an academic world in which the impact and sustainability of our labour, whether economic, social or cultural, are increasingly held up as a critical measure of our endeavour as social and natural scientists. Of course, the push for academics to make a concrete change in the world is no bad thing. Each year, taxpayers plough millions into higher education research. It’s reasonable they get something back. But given recent data about high levels of burnout and depression among higher education professionals, as reported byTimes Higher Education – and as clocked by the Birmingham University College Union’s health and safety executive in its rationale for launching an investigation into my own institution – it seems that many of us, in pursuing the end, have lost track of the means.&nbsp;Resource collection: what is research excellence and how can universities achieve it?Swift or Shakespeare? How to reframe internet ephemera as a text in the literature classroomFive practical ways the literature classroom can help student careersAs we bounce from one short-term research grant to the next (for those of us lucky enough to secure one in the first place, that is), our work is critically evaluated against an idea of impact that fails to capture the human researcher embarked upon their endeavour. In a world where workplace mindfulness is ubiquitous in emails from staff welfare and well-being offices, we seem to have forgotten that our way of conducting research impacts us, the researcher, and that this has a very real toll on its impact as a whole.I recently became very aware of this as, with colleagues, I reflected on the long-term impact on us of our experience some 10 years ago of observing hundreds of appeals of individuals refused asylum across the UK. This was for a three-year grant. The research was nominated for an Economic and Social Research Council impact award, but I also came across the concept of “moral injury” to describe the guilt and complicity we felt in watching the process. None of this we had reported at the time. I’d not created a monster, but I’d been there to observe the stitching of its parts and it took a toll on me. This is a toll of which novelist Shelley was astutely aware and yet is rarely considered in research ethics or impact.&nbsp;Impact is imposed by the major research funding councils and by the unrelenting spectre of the UK’s Research Excellence Framework. The REF defines impact as&nbsp;“an effect on, change or benefit to the economy, society, culture, public policy or services, health, the environment or quality of life, beyond academia”. By this definition, the way our research impacts us as researchers should count as central to this mission. But it simply, well, does not.&nbsp;So why Frankenstein? Because more than any academic text I’ve read, it is above all a lesson in designing research with an eye to ethical research impact. More than that, it is a warning as to what might happen if we stray from the path of reason and let our intellectual passion lead us in a harmful pursuit of grandeur.&nbsp;In this context, those who set the parameters of impact would do well to heed Shelley’s prescient warning to avoid promoting the kind of dishevelled doctor embodied by Dr Frankenstein and his work.Shelley meant business in her warnings. “If the study to which you apply yourself has a tendency to weaken your affections, and to destroy your taste for those simple pleasures in which no alloy can possibly mix, then that study is certainly unlawful, that is to say, not befitting the human mind,” she wrote.&nbsp;But beyond the impact of impassioned research pursuits on an individual state of mind, Shelley relates this to the wider world. For her, the ends and the means coincide. In this context, to not care for yourself or the impact of your research on yourself is to risk creating something monstrous: “If this rule were always observed; if no man allowed any pursuit whatsoever to interfere with the tranquillity of his domestic affections, Greece had not been enslaved; Caesar would have spared his country; America could have been discovered more gradually; and the empires of Mexico and Peru had not been destroyed.”Shelley’s allusion to colonialism is poignant still in an academic climate in which calls to decolonise academia ring out strong. Key to the feminist research ethics that align with efforts to decolonise academia is self-reflectivity, putting yourself into your research, and that includes taking care of your needs and how the research is impacting you. Some in recent years have spoken of “slow scholarship” as an alternative to the fast-paced pressure of churn-it-out REF-able outputs. Others have left academia altogether, fearing that they, like Dr Frankenstein, are so thinly stretched that they cannot care for the creations their hard-fought labour brings to life.&nbsp;Shelley wrote Frankenstein more than 200 years ago, surrounded by men who were chomping at the bit with romantic zeal to create something original. As academics, many of us can relate to this desire but also the pressure that comes to alienate ourselves from the process.&nbsp;And this is why I have in my office an image of Frankenstein’s creature, not the gory, green, bolt-in-the-neck version we have come to know on our screens but a lonely, abandoned creature that has all the hallmarks of research projects swiftly dropped as the next grant comes in. We have an ethics of care to our research subjects but also to ourselves. Dr Frankenstein succeeded in creating life, but at what cost to himself, to his creation and to society as a whole?&nbsp;So, when writing your next research bid, recall Shelley’s words and think about the sustainability of your impact on yourself as well as on others: “A human being in perfection ought always to preserve a calm and peaceful mind and never to allow his passion or a transitory desire to disturb his tranquillity. I do not think that the pursuit of knowledge is an exception to this rule.”&nbsp;One tick for workplace mindfulness and slow scholarship indeed.&nbsp;Jennifer Allsopp&nbsp;is a Birmingham fellow in the&nbsp;department of social policy, sociology and criminology, founder of Birmingham University of Sanctuary and&nbsp;co-chair of the&nbsp;Penn-Birmingham Transatlantic Fellows programme.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week,&nbsp;sign up for the Campus newsletter.

What can a 19th-century novelist tell academics about research ethics? Taking time to see the impact of research on ourselves is a good place to start measuring the social good of scholarly endeavours, writes Jennifer Allsopp

What Frankenstein’s monster can teach researchers about the dark side of ‘impact’ 

Health research that focuses on improving health services can seem like a&nbsp;Möbius loop. While these services have often been designed and delivered by healthcare professionals, patients should be involved in their redesign to ensure that they are meeting the needs of those they are supposed to benefit. Yet even when researchers consult and work with patients, they often do so within the parameters of existing processes, procedures and systems, usually developed by healthcare professionals.&nbsp;Sometimes what is needed is an approach that will disrupt the system, to move away from “We’ve always done it like this” to reimagining a service.&nbsp;Co-production involves patients working with researchers and healthcare professionals in equal partnership in research and service development. The approach is underpinned by a belief that those for whom the research and services are relevant are best placed to advise on what will work. In a previous Campus article, I suggested that co-production required us to find ways of allowing for dissenting voices and to air and resolve disagreements. Here, I suggest that co-production also requires researchers and healthcare professionals tasked with designing a service to embrace uncertainty.Researchers, healthcare professionals and patients may have different perspectives on “the problem” and often it is not clear from the beginning of the project what the outcomes or outputs will be. Rather, they are a result of negotiation and compromise as new knowledge is generated and solutions emerge. Being flexible and open is a key element of co-production.&nbsp;Lessons for co-producing research with affected communitiesLeveraging international collaborations to tackle global health challengesKnowledge exchange as a driver of better health outcomesHowever, dealing with uncertainty can be difficult for many of us. We plan our commute to work, our daily tasks, what we will eat. We also operate in work environments that place a great emphasis on being clear about what it is we are seeking to do and achieve. The need to align with mission statements, work plans and organisational processes, for example, encourages us to have clarity at the outset about what we want to achieve and how we will do it. The idea of purposefully adding a degree of uncertainty can feel counterintuitive.The flexibility and uncertainty that come with a co-production approach, however, ensure that your solutions, outputs and outcomes will be more relevant to the people who will be using the service or product. These are often things we cannot “know” until we engage in the creative process of co-producing. For example, when co-producing a training course with patients, it became clear from one of the patients with ADHD that it would not be appropriate to have any sections of a course lasting more than half an hour. The course was redesigned into shorter chunks (sometimes as quick as 10 minutes) so learners could maintain concentration. This has become a design principle.&nbsp;So, what can researchers do to help stakeholders deal with this uncertainty in research?Encourage your project’s stakeholders to acknowledge and accept from the outset of a project that we do not know everything. Researchers shouldn’t stifle innovation but rather encourage stakeholders to be creative in developing solutions. New knowledge and solutions will emerge. And if your co-producers can’t embrace uncertainty fully, then encourage them to allow for a degree of flexibility.Be clear about the areas of uncertainty. Explaining where you or your team are uncertain: a) can help people manage their anxiety about uncertainty; and b) is the first step towards identifying solutions.&nbsp;Push towards certainty. Once you are clear about the areas of uncertainty, ask stakeholders to voice their opinions and generate solutions. Summarise and reflect this information back to your stakeholders and iterate towards a solution or outcome.&nbsp;Be creative in moving forward. Sometimes dialogue is the best way of finding a way through, be it clarity about approach, outputs or outcomes. However, people sometimes prefer to express themselves in other ways, for example, writing, responding to polls or questions or the use of the arts. Software is available that can be used to pose questions to and poll stakeholders. And if, for example, you are co-producing with children, it might be easier to ask them to draw or use other crafts to express their views.Overcome resistance. Change is often difficult, particularly if people have been working with processes, procedures or systems for a long time. Don’t dismiss these people. Give them the space to express their concerns. Recognise and build on the efforts they may have made to improve a service.&nbsp;Co-producing often requires us to accept that we do not always have a clear approach, outputs or outcomes before the start of a project. It requires a degree of flexibility as researchers work in partnership with stakeholders, generating new knowledge and solutions to a given problem.&nbsp;Gary Hickey is senior research inclusion manager in the National Institute for Health and Care Research at the University of Southampton.If you’d like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.

Flexibility and an open mindset can help health researchers work with healthcare professionals and patients to create better adapted services. Here, Gary Hickey shares ways to navigate through the process

‘Uncertainty is part of co-production’

Knowledge transfer partnerships (KTPs) offer a unique way for UK universities and businesses to collaborate and address real-world challenges. An innovative KTP between the University of the West of Scotland (UWS) and artificial intelligence (AI) firm FIDO Tech resulted in an improved system for locating water pipe leaks. This, in turn, has the potential to reduce water loss around the globe.FIDO Tech specialises in developing AI solutions for water utilities with an AI tool that can identify underground pipeline leaks. The tool is unique in its ability to assess the size of leaks from their acoustic signature alone. The technology aims to combat global water loss by providing faster, more accurate leak detection.&nbsp;As part of their mission to create a world without water scarcity, FIDO’s founders were seeking further academic rigour in the computation around the correlation process.&nbsp;&nbsp;Correlation is the ability to locate a noise between two points. The location is calculated using the time taken for the sound to travel to those points. In FIDO’s case, the challenge was to accurately synchronise acoustic data capture of a leak noise using sensors placed on pipelines.At UWS, the Digital Connectivity and Innovations for Sustainable Futures research group is led by Muhammad Zeeshan Shakir, a professor of wireless communications with technical expertise in machine learning algorithms. This background makes the research group an ideal partner to collaborate with FIDO Tech on the Innovate UK-funded project.Spotlight guide: Why knowledge exchange is important for universities &nbsp;It’s time to turn the tide on our clean energy ambitionsTHE podcast: knowledge exchange and data management as drivers of research and innovationBegin with a shared vision and clear objectives. In FIDO’s case, the goal was straightforward but ambitious: to reduce the world’s water loss by accurately detecting underground leaks. About 30 per cent of the world’s drinking water is lost from pipelines before it reaches a tap – a huge issue with implications for climate change and water scarcity around the world.The team, made up of UWS researchers, FIDO Tech staff and an Innovate UK knowledge transfer adviser, set clear targets that aligned with broader global challenges linked to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). For instance, reducing water waste plays a critical role in achieving SDG 6, which focuses on clean water and sanitation. FIDO’s goal of developing a more efficient leak detection system also supports SDG 9, which promotes industry, innovation and infrastructure, and SDG 11, which aims to create sustainable cities and communities. Anchoring the project around these global goals helped maintain a unified sense of direction and purpose.Establish a strong multidisciplinary team. This will bring benefits to your KTP by broadening the expertise available. In this partnership, Professor Shakir contributed expertise in cloud computing, while the FIDO team brought their own AI expertise as well as deep industry knowledge of its operational application in water network systems.&nbsp;There were a lot of technical challenges including working with a variety of water pipe materials, with variable conditions, environments, and pressures. Our diverse team meant we could solve problems from multiple angles, overcoming challenges to deliver a solution.Adaptability is crucial for overcoming inevitable challenges in any project. By working flexibly, the team was able to develop a Cloud Correlation solution, which works in a range of environments. The project began during Covid-19, making it necessary for the early development stages to be conducted remotely, with the company headquartered in England and the UWS team based at the Paisley campus.&nbsp;The team needed to develop a water leak detection and sizing framework that was scalable and compatible with existing industry protocols to ensure smooth adoption of the technique. Success relied on staying open to adjustments and focusing on practical, real-world solutions.Keep the end user in mind when developing a product, tool or process.&nbsp;While developing cutting-edge technology is often essential, ensuring it can be used effectively by those who need it is just as important. In this KTP, the combined project team focused on making Cloud Correlation easy to deploy in the field. This user-friendly approach allows engineers to carry out leak location much more efficiently than before.The project’s success was magnified through media coverage, including featuring on the BBC’s Click. This visibility not only demonstrated the impact of the technology but positioned both UWS and FIDO Tech as leaders in this field.Engaging stakeholders early and often is critical. We partnered closely with Microsoft on its water positive initiative and other UK and US based water supply companies to ensure the project aligned to their needs by reducing clean water loss in underground water pipe networks.&nbsp;So, to summarise, running a successful KTP requires clear objectives, a multidisciplinary team, adaptability, and a focus on practical, scalable solutions. By measuring and communicating impact effectively you can ensure that your KTP delivers both innovation and real-world benefits. Whether addressing global challenges like water scarcity or more localised issues, these principles will help steer your partnership towards long-term success and impact.Muhammad Shakir is a professor of wireless communications in the School of Computing, Engineering and Physical Sciences and director of the Digital Connectivity for Sustainable Futures Research Group at the University of the West of Scotland (UWS).&nbsp;Jawwad Latif is an honorary research fellow within the School of Computing, Engineering and Physical Sciences and formerly a KTP associate and data scientist at UWS and FIDO Tech Ltd.&nbsp;UWS was shortlisted for Knowledge Exchange/Transfer Initiative of the Year at the Times Higher Education Awards 2024 #THEAwards. A full list of shortlisted candidates can be found here.&nbsp;If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.

By collaborating with businesses, researchers can apply their expertise to real-world problems with tangible outcomes. Here, academics outline how they established an effective knowledge transfer partnership to reduce water waste

The foundations of a successful knowledge transfer partnership

Do you have dark circles under your eyes? Yawning during class or in the lab? Mood swings straining relationships with family or friends? These – and other well-known signs such as reduced productivity and poor decision-making – could mean you need better sleep habits.While writing grant applications and peer reviews, thesis supervision and other creative works (on top of teaching and research) enrich academic life, they shouldn’t come at the cost of our health and well-being. Yet, the demanding nature of academic life often leads to educators, postdocs, administrators and researchers alike sacrificing rest for work.&nbsp;These evidence-based strategies offer a guide to improving your sleep quality while maintaining productivity in your university duties. Start with one change this week, perhaps establishing consistent sleep schedules, and build from there.The hidden costs of sleep debtWhen we consistently get less than the recommended seven to nine hours of sleep, we accumulate “sleep debt” – a deficit that affects not only our health but also professional performance. Sleep loss of a single night disrupts hunger hormones, increasing ghrelin, which stimulates appetite, according to one robust study. Chronic sleep loss, averaged over six nights, decreases leptin –&nbsp;a hormone that suppresses hunger and signals long-term nutritional status. This hormonal imbalance may potentially contribute to weight gain and obesity.&nbsp;Read more: using movement and outdoor spaces to enhance learningResource collection: well-being in higher educationWays to seamlessly build breaks into your working dayIndeed, sleep restriction, irregular sleep patterns and “social jet lag” can add up to insufficient sleep. These conditions are significant risk factors for impaired glucose metabolism, insulin resistance and a heightened susceptibility to a range of chronic health issues, including diabetes and cardiovascular disease.&nbsp;More critically for academics, sleep deprivation impairs cognitive processes essential for our work: learning, memory consolidation and emotional regulation. Consistent and restorative sleep is crucial for maintaining metabolic, physical and cognitive health.The 4E framework for better sleep1. &nbsp;Establish consistent schedulesSleep is characterised by duration, quality, timing and day-to-day variability, as stated in a study by Australian and Finnish researchers. Sleep timing and regularity are stronger predictors of mortality than sleep duration, according to research. So, set regular bedtimes and wake times, even on weekends. This consistency promotes ease of falling asleep and sleep continuity, a suggested proxy measure for sleep quality.2. &nbsp;Get exposure to natural lightLight is the body’s most powerful zeitgeber&nbsp;(timekeeper). Morning light exposure suppresses melatonin and increases alertness, preparing the body for the day ahead. Cortisol naturally rises with light, along with heart rate and blood glucose, readying us for daily activities. With dark onset, melatonin release begins about two hours before natural bedtime, promoting sleep. Melatonin helps with the timing and continuity of sleep by synchronising release with the environmental light-dark cycle. Timing is everything; morning light exposure helps anchor the body’s internal clock to the light-dark cycle, advancing bedtime, while evening light exposure can have the opposite effect, delaying sleep. 3. &nbsp;Exercise dailyPhysical activity is known for its multi-dimensional construct that follows the principle of FITT (frequency, intensity, time and type). Regular exercise promotes sleep. Aim for 30 minutes of moderate physical activity each day. The literature overwhelmingly suggests that moderate and high-intensity exercise within two hours of bedtime, remarkably, does not impair night-time sleep in young and middle-aged adults.&nbsp;4. &nbsp;Eliminate sleep disruptorsRemove factors that interfere with quality sleep:Cut off caffeine and nicotine six hours and one hour respectively before bed.Avoid electronic screens two hours before bedtime.Keep the bedroom cool (18-20°C), dark and quiet.Reserve the bedroom for sleep and sex only.Adapting to your chronotypeUnderstanding our chronotype – whether a “night owl” or “early bird” – helps optimise sleep strategy. This natural genetic trait influences the preferred sleep-wake timing. Night owls, whose biology favours later sleep times, often experience “social jet lag” when their sleep-wake rhythms misalign with the 24-hour light-dark cycles. One potential solution for night owls is to incorporate exercises into the daily routine. Both morning and evening exercise can help shift their sleep timing earlier. On the other hand, early birds may benefit from evening exercise or evening light exposure to prevent too-early bedtimes.&nbsp;Strategic napping for better attentionA well-timed nap can boost productivity without disrupting night-time sleep. Aim for a brief 10-30-minute power nap in the early afternoon, when there’s a natural dip in alertness. A power nap can restore attention and enhance learning capacity. Avoid longer naps, which can lead to sleep inertia and interfere with night-time sleep patterns.Making it work in academic lifeThese strategies can be adapted to different academic scenarios:During intense grant-writing periods, maintain regular sleep-wake times even if deadlines loom.When travelling for conferences, use light exposure strategically to minimise jet lag.During marking periods, take short breaks for light exposure and movement rather than relying on caffeine.If teaching evening classes, minimise screen exposure afterward to help wind down.Good sleep isn’t a luxury – it’s a cornerstone of academic performance and health. By implementing the 4E framework, we’re investing in both current productivity and long-term career sustainability.&nbsp;Chin Moi Chow is an&nbsp;associate professor of sleep and well-being in the Faculty of Medicine and Health at the University of Sydney.&nbsp;If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.

Struggling to balance academic life with healthy sleep habits? Whether it’s a well-placed nap or giving grant writing a rest, this science-backed guide will help scholars, teachers and administrators get their full eight hours

Why academics are losing sleep

“Behind every piece of research – every data point, every graph – and every need for research is a person. Being able to tell the story of that person or hear directly from them brings your research to life. It humanises it, it makes it accessible, and it enables you, as researchers, to reach audiences you otherwise wouldn’t.”This is documentary-maker Catherine McDonald explaining why film has such an immediate impact on its viewers. In my experience, too, it has proved to be an excellent way to reach out, convey social research and engage people.Our 20-minute documentary, The Sociologist’s Wife, has been viewed thousands of times in the eight months since it was first posted on YouTube. The film tells the story of three women who were married to eminent British sociologists at a time when the discipline was providing insight into post-war society. It uncovers the hidden ways each wife contributed to her husband’s work. Alongside comment from myself and co-researcher Val Gillies (a professor of social policy at the University of Westminster), the film features interviews with the adult children of each of the wives.Campus webinar: how to present research to a wider audience for greater impactRead more: 7 strategies for high-impact science communicationWhy is no one listening?If you haven’t thought of film as a route to research impact, or you aren’t sure whether a film is for you and your research or how to go about commissioning one, here are key takeaways from our experience.1. Build in funding to produce a documentary film from the startWe stumbled into documentary as a vehicle for telling the world about our research project. Our original idea, costed into our successful research funding application, was for a three-minute video of still images and a voice-over. However, a communications contact convinced us that a documentary film would be a better, more exciting option. It&nbsp;was!Our budget did not cover this more ambitious venture, so we had stitch together a patchwork quilt of additional funding from various sources. We also had no&nbsp;notion of what making a film would involve before we started.Don’t do what we did.In costing a documentary into your funding bid, you need to grasp the production work and time involved. Costs will include preparation work (see point&nbsp;3), a lighting and camera operator, the film director and/or producer, travel costs and editing suite, as well as likely VAT. Our 20-minute documentary – which is at the longer end of a research-based film – amounted to just under £10,000, including VAT – with a director/producer (the aforementioned McDonald of production company Popping Orange) who was so committed to the project that she began preparatory work before we had put our additional funding into place.Which brings me to our second takeaway…2. Find a production company with a vision you trustWe worked with Popping Orange to bring the documentary to fruition. Co-researcher Val and&nbsp;I had little clear sense of what a film about our research might look like. It was the director’s vision to focus on the lives of the sociologists’ wives and reflections from their children. If you’re not a film-maker, what you think might work won’t necessarily. Any nascent ideas Val and&nbsp;I had weren’t half as good as what we ended up with. So it’s important to find a film-maker who you feel understands your research – and to be open to their suggestions.Feeling in tune with your director and trusting their vision is just as important as the budget. If you’re starting from scratch, use your research skills and look at a range of production companies’ websites and past outputs. Find out if they’ve worked with academics previously.3. Communicate with the film director as your research progressesOnce we were on this pathway, we made efforts to keep our director in the loop. This allowed her to evolve her vision for the story as our work progressed. We sent through briefing papers and images, and discussed possible scenarios with her. In turn, we were provided with an overview of the film narrative and for each filming day a&nbsp;call sheet, content document and risk assessment (see point&nbsp;4).

  
      
  
    Image
                



          

  

Nigel Bradley (left), Catherine McDonald, Rosalind Edwards and Val Gillies during filming. Photo: Catherine McDonald

&nbsp;We also visited an archive together so she could see the research materials we were working with and gauge the venue’s possibilities as a film location. You might build team meetings with your director into your regular research timetable.4. Be brave! Appear on screen yourselfConsider being in the film. An important point of connection for viewers is to see the people who carried out the underlying research, and as researchers we were able to furnish a broader contextual background for the stories about the wives and their children’s viewpoints. We were not keen at first – the film’s director had to persuade us to appear in the documentary. And it’s an understatement to say we were nervous about being filmed and it felt quite stressful. But skilful editing meant that it worked.We were provided in advance with a series of questions in the film content document that the (off-screen) director would ask us, so we could think through our replies. On the day of filming, we arrived in good time to chat, get a sense of what would happen and feel relaxed. This helped us to convey our fascination and excitement about our topic on camera.5. Think through distribution and publicityClearly, to reach and engage people, a documentary film needs to be seen. We thought about this carefully in preparation for our film, and we chose to post it on YouTube because this is a stable and well-known sharing website for general access. We collaborated with key stakeholders in our field who either hosted screenings of the film or included us in their events, both online and in person. For example, we negotiated for the film to be shown online during the British Sociological Association’s annual conference and a members’ event, as well as being included in an in-person screening at the British Academy’s Summer Showcase.Consider every way to find and connect with an audience. We have written blog posts to promote the documentary, we post about it on social media, and we give online and in-person talks about our research that highlight the film. We have a website with a page featuring the film. Our online promotions have a link through to this page, and we have postcards with information about the project and a QR&nbsp;code to hand out.It can also be worth asking your university communications team about support for getting your documentary film out to different audiences.We’re enormously proud of the documentary, and the stories of the wives still move us whenever we look at them.Rosalind Edwards is a professor of sociology at the University of Southampton.If you’d like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.

Film can humanise your research and make it accessible to an audience beyond your field. Here are five key takeaways from our experience of bringing sociology to life

Using documentary film to communicate your social research

At the 2024 THE World Academic Summit, senior leaders from the higher education sector gathered to discuss the impact of universities and the role of data in a rapidly changing world. M’hamed el Aisati, vice-president of analytical and data services at Elsevier, spoke about research excellence and what we can learn from bibliometric data.&nbsp;As a scientific publisher and data analytics company, Elsevier delivers insights to help universities, research institutions and governments. Its platform, Scopus, is an abstract and citation database.&nbsp;Speaking about the Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings, Duncan Ross, chief data officer at THE, said: “We have minimum criteria for participation based on the volume of academic research published and indexed in Scopus. That is a threshold of 1,000 papers with a minimum number of papers per year. We require universities to teach at an undergraduate level and conduct research in more than one subject area.”&nbsp;When the first World University Rankings were launched in 2004, 200 universities participated. The first rankings largely focused on US and UK universities, with some European universities, according to Ross. In 2024, 1,094 universities were ranked. That increase represents the expansion of higher education across the world, said Ross.Elsevier is THE’s bibliometric partner, providing the statistical analysis of books, articles, journals and other publications. THE uses data from three sources – reputation surveys, direct data from universities and bibliometric data from Elsevier – to calculate 17 metrics across five areas, including research strength, research excellence and research influence.However, as El Aisati explained, Elsevier wanted to look beyond traditional outputs such as publications, citations and patents to measure the real-world impact of data. It created an academic evaluation framework to provide a qualitative assessment of research, enabling researchers to form a narrative about the research they conduct, said El Aisati.One interesting revelation from the data THE gathered was the growing impact of universities in South-east Asia and India. “It is a genuine change across every single metric. We’re seeing their research influence and research excellence improve and their citation impact driving research quality upwards,” said Ross. It represents a new era in terms of research, where we’re seeing new institutions growing rapidly. This is going to be an interesting trend to follow over the next few years and see what impact that has on the performance of universities elsewhere in the world,” he said.Speakers:Duncan Ross, chief data officer, Times Higher Education&nbsp;M’hamed el Aisati, vice-president of analytical and data services, ElsevierFind out more about Elsevier.

Data plays a vital role in measuring and enhancing the impact of higher education institutions across the world

Measuring the real-world impact of universities

Collaborating with non-expert participants gives researchers a wealth of data and insights that are often unattainable through traditional wet lab or bench research methods. For academic biomedical engineers specialising in musculoskeletal and neuromuscular disorders, citizen science offers an opportunity to engage patients and the community directly in the research process.&nbsp;In my role as professor in biomedical engineering and mechanics, professor of orthopaedic surgery in the School of Medicine, director of the Kevin P. Granata Biomechanics Laboratories, and co-director of the Science of Art and Motion Lab, I’ve used citizen science in most of my research projects. My work aims to develop interventions that address patients’ mobility challenges, particularly for those with leg injuries including anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears, osteoarthritis (OA) and joint replacements. I’ve used both community and student volunteers for my research in evaluating injury risk factors and therapies.Findings of our research have shaped the understanding of how interventions – implants, for example – alter the way patients completed everyday activities such as walking and climbing stairs and&nbsp;have changed our understanding of the benefits and limitations of orthopaedic surgical interventions. These translational approaches have revealed truths about human joint biomechanics, injury patterns and race and gender effects, particularly in lower-limb biomechanics in sports injury and osteoarthritis.THE podcast: unlocking people power through citizen scienceKnowledge exchange as a driver of better health outcomesLessons for co-producing research with affected communitiesCitizen science through the engagement of citizens as research participants is promising, but challenges crop up that we must address to ensure meaningful outcomes. I describe some of the advantages and challenges here.Rewards of citizen science for biomedical engineersCentring the patientCitizen science empowers patients to become active participants in the research process, centring the patient in healthcare innovations from the start. In my work, we gather insights from individuals who live with ankle, knee, hip or lower-back injuries daily, giving us a better understanding of their specific challenges and treatment responses. We gather both quantitative and qualitative input – biomechanical measurements for the former, anecdotal feedback and discussion for the latter. This ensures that research outcomes align with the needs and experiences of patients.&nbsp;Improving quality of lifeOur findings lead to real-life improvements for not just our citizen scientists but for people around the world. It not only allows the community members, students and the recreational athletes we work with to return to the sports they love, but their participation sometimes ignites a passion for the work we do. This can in turn lead them on a career path where they give back to their community and the world by becoming biomedical engineers or physical therapists or follow similar career paths of service to society.Accessing diverse real-world informationOne of the greatest advantages of using citizen science in musculoskeletal research is the ability to collect real-world data from diverse populations. Individuals with OA and other injuries can use mobile apps, wearable sensors or online platforms to track their symptoms, activity levels and pain in real time. This data gives us a comprehensive understanding of how interventions such as braces, physical therapy, surgical procedures or medication work in various environments. Moreover, citizen science allows for the inclusion of under-represented groups in research, broadening the scope of findings.Facilitating longitudinal studiesTracking the progression of conditions such as OA and recovery from an ACL reconstruction over time is essential for evaluating the long-term efficacy of treatments. Citizen science means we can collect continuous data over months or even years, allowing biomedical engineers and our clinical partner to conduct extensive longitudinal studies. To illustrate, my research on older adults with ankle OA captured data before joint replacement surgery and continued to follow these patients for more than two years following surgery. We observed how treatments performed over time to allow us to better design post-surgical treatments with the goal of improving long-term health and physical activity.&nbsp;Challenges of citizen science in academic researchRecruiting, engaging and retaining citizen scientistsWe recruit citizen science participants through multiple channels, which is what I recommend to other academic institutions, as this promotes diversity among volunteers. We find volunteers through physician referrals, social media, daily university emails, student outreach, word of mouth, clinical partners and other collaborators. Depending on the research parameters, recruitment can be challenging. And the more parameters there are – weekly blood draws, for example, or prescribed diets or multiple in-person lab visits – the harder the recruitment and retention (people attending every visit) process.Sustaining participant engagement in long-term studies can be challenging. Citizen scientists may lose interest or encounter difficulties adhering to protocols, leading to dropouts or incomplete datasets. Biomedical engineers and others in the field must develop strategies to keep participants motivated and engaged; in our case, we offer varying incentives – including monthly phone calls, sending personalised messages and monetary compensation for their time and assistance. It is essential that we make sure they know that they are contributing to important research that cannot be completed without their help, and that this work can change lives for the better. Of course, we develop relationships within the community and especially with these citizen scientists, which helps keep them interested and engaged in the project.Data quality and reliabilityA significant challenge in citizen science is ensuring the accuracy and reliability of data collected from non-experts. In our case, if we’re asking project participants to measure data, such as participation in physical activity or the number of minutes of vigorous physical activity from home and report back to us, we know that inaccuracies can occur. I recommend a thoughtful self-measuring device – for example, pedometers – with clear guidance on how to use the device to minimise errors and not relying on a participant report from an activity diary.&nbsp;Ethical considerations and privacyCitizen scientists are often asked to share sensitive information, making it critical that researchers implement robust data protection measures. As academic biomedical engineers, we also navigate the ethical complexities of informed consent, data collection, data storage and management to ensure that participants fully understand how their data will be used during and after study completion.While citizen science offers exciting rewards for academic biomedical engineers, it also comes with challenges that need to be carefully managed. By addressing potential issues from the start, we can harness the full potential of citizen science to advance personalised and effective treatments for musculoskeletal conditions. This approach not only enriches research but also deepens the relationship between scientists and the public, ultimately leading to better patient outcomes.Robin Queen is the L. Preston Wade professor of engineering&nbsp;in the department of biomedical engineering and mechanics, co-director of the Science and Art of Motion Lab, and the director of the Kevin P.&nbsp;Granata Biomechanics Lab&nbsp;at Virginia Tech.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.

How to practise citizen science in biomedical engineering

Harnessing citizen science to progress research enriches our findings and leads to innovative solutions to real-world problems. Addressing the potential challenges of working with non-expert volunteers from the start makes for more effective research

Citizen science in biomedical engineering: rewards and challenges 

As researchers and practitioners, we aim for our research to have a positive impact on society. However, research does not always have an immediate or direct impact, especially when stakeholders have competing interests. The priorities of government, public, private and third-sector organisations, members of the public and minority groups can all be in conflict.&nbsp;Our report into Police Scotland’s carriage and administration of naloxone as an emergency first aid measure to potential opioid overdose cases is a good illustration of the importance of involving and building relationships with a range of stakeholders to produce impactful research, while maintaining academic integrity. Below we outline four key features that helped our research in the face of considerable barriers.&nbsp;Capitalising on existing relationshipsIn our research, we built on established relationships with officers in Police Scotland. Research is more likely to be impactful if we can build on collaborations we have already established with stakeholders. These may be relationships that we have nurtured through conferences, working in the field, previous research projects or consultations.&nbsp;The Verbatim Formula: using creative arts for collaborative researchHow to achieve interdisciplinary research? Focus on the peopleWhen engaging young people in participatory research, trust is keyHaving these pre-established relationships gives us an insight into the cultures and organisations we want to explore through our contacts’ “insider” perspective. When exploring sensitive or controversial topics within an organisation, having trusting relationships with insiders is invaluable. We often rely on gatekeepers to disseminate recruitment information, make practical arrangements for data collection, or to advocate for our research within their organisation.Interdisciplinary working Our research team involved staff from a range of practice and academic disciplines: criminology and policing, public health, psychology, mental-health nursing and social work. Bringing together academics from a range of disciplines offers diverse expertise and insights.&nbsp;Interdisciplinary research can bring challenges, such as robust discussion on interpretation of findings and research priorities. However, it allows for the phenomena to be viewed through multiple lenses, bringing a range of rich and holistic perspectives on research approaches and findings. This is particularly valuable when the phenomena we are exploring is socially complex and multi-faceted, like our evaluation into police carriage of naloxone.&nbsp;Involving people and communities While the focus of our research was police officers’ experiences, we saw the importance of including the views of people with experience of drug use and family members affected by drug related deaths.&nbsp;Seeking the views of people with lived experience gives us alternative insight into a specific phenomenon. Involving people with lived or living experience is essential if we want our research to be democratic, inclusive and respectful of the rights of all stakeholders.&nbsp;This is particularly important when stakeholders are socially underrepresented, minoritised or stigmatised groups, whose voices are often missing or not sought in research. Including the views of people with substance use experience adds an authenticity and authority to research that is difficult to disregard.&nbsp;Set up an expert steering committeeOur research steering committee included a range of experts and influential people, representing key organisations who had an invested interest in the research. These included members from governmental bodies, people with experience of using drugs or family members, international academic experts, police leadership and people working for specialist drug services.&nbsp;Having an inter-professional steering committee is invaluable for guidance and accountability. It can provide insight into the real-time changes and priorities happening within organisations. It also provides an additional layer of authority to the research outputs.&nbsp;Lessons learnedThe initiative that we evaluated in our research: police carriage of naloxone, was met with opposition from some sectors of the police force. Consequently, some officers were resistant about participating in our research.&nbsp;Despite the challenges that we faced, our research had the support of key people in the police force who made our research possible. This was only possible through established trusting professional relationships, balanced carefully to ensure academic rigour and independence. Once our research report had been published, stakeholders took an active role in promoting our research to advance the initiative.&nbsp;Our report was difficult to ignore, given the expertise of the interdisciplinary team, the authenticity provided by the voices of lived experience and the authority of the expert steering committee. The findings of our research were used to change policing practice in Scotland and inform similar practice internationally. To date, naloxone has been used by police officers in Scotland over 570 times to reverse the effects of a drug overdose. We believe that the four features that we have highlighted can be applied to a range of research studies to facilitate real-world impact.Peter Hillen is a lecturer in health and social care and Inga Heyman is an associate professor at Edinburgh Napier University. The university was shortlisted in the Research Project of the Year: Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences category in the 2024 THE&nbsp;Awards. A full list of nominees can be found here.&nbsp;If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week,&nbsp;sign up for the Campus&nbsp;newsletter.

Build relationships and influence social change in research

Researchers from Edinburgh Napier University needed to form relationships with a range of people when evaluating Police Scotland’s use of the drug naloxone. Here’s how they did it

Influence social change with your research by building relationships

When high-end equipment often costs hundreds of thousands of pounds, in a time of growing financial pressure on universities, more than ever we must ensure value for money in research investments.&nbsp;Access to these funds, which typically come from internal university resources or external grants, such as the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) ALERT and Medical Research Council equipment fund, is becoming more competitive. And, since these funds are ultimately derived from public sources allocated to research and innovation across the UK, it is our ethical responsibility to make sure that funds are used wisely and effectively. Such equipment must also be not only well maintained and supported by technical expertise but also accessible to a wide range of researchers to maximise its impact and enable pilot research opportunities. Indeed, funders often require spare capacity on equipment to be made broadly available to others and look favourably on equipment hosted in a manner that enables this, such as in a core facility. Proposals often include match funding and in-kind contributions from the university, which showcase commitment to sustaining the equipment.Career development for technicians in higher educationTHE Awards 2024 spotlight: learn from the best in UK and Irish higher educationCentralise laboratory management for better teaching and researchThe complication is that, historically, high-end equipment has been owned by individual academics, with access to others often dependent on the availability of a project-specific technician or researcher to provide training, rather than equipment capacity. Increased use of the equipment by external researchers leads to greater wear and tear, higher maintenance needs and more frequent troubleshooting. These burdens on staff time and finances mean that sharing equipment in an academic lab has understandably not always been desirable. However, this is not financially or environmentally sustainable and leads to unnecessary asset duplication.&nbsp;To counter this, universities can foster a culture of equipment sharing by developing dedicated research technical professionals (RTPs) alongside equipment investments. RTPs not only maintain and repair instruments but also train researchers and students in their proper use. They also play a key role in resource management, ensuring fair access to equipment and overseeing financial recovery for maintenance contracts and repairs.&nbsp;RTPs are often experts in their field and their technical expertise is vital to ensuring research integrity. They uphold rigour in both methodology and data interpretation, while promoting transparency through the sharing of methods and data. This expertise is essential for maintaining high standards in research practices, training the next generation of scientists for academia or industry and optimising the use of shared resources.Changing the culture from academic-owned equipment to shared ownership led by RTPs, however, is not easy. At the University of Warwick, my journey to change that culture started in 2022. At the time, I was working with my department to ensure long-term sustainability of a 2015 UKRI investment in a research technology facility that supported synthetic biology, the Warwick Integrative Synthetic Biology Centre (WISB). Funding had come to an end, and I proposed consolidating high-value departmental technologies under a single umbrella to create a facility that would support all biological sciences.&nbsp;Through a Research England-funded research culture initiative, I secured funds to demonstrate the benefit of specialist technical skills to support shared technologies. We opened up a call to the department, welcoming instrument donations into a shared resource laboratory (SRL) environment, offering in return specialist technical support, maintenance and long-term financial sustainability. Once the instruments were established, we also offered pilot project funding.The project delivered the message that the department would now be encouraging and supporting technically supported shared equipment, embedding a change in culture and allowing me to pilot a new SRL for flow cytometry. At the same time, UKRI’s strategy to fund high-end equipment was enabling RTPs to lead equipment grants and encouraging applications that promote collaboration and enable equipment sharing. As a result of this culture shift, I led a successful BBSRC ALERT 22 for a high-spec imaging flow cytometer to sit within the new flow cytometry SRL.&nbsp;With newfound respect and recognition in my department, I established the Bio-Analytical Shared Resource Laboratories – a collective of six core technology facilities, each supported by a technical specialist. Each core has its own steering committee with academic and technical representation, ensuring our technical skills and technologies meet research demands and cutting-edge innovation.&nbsp;It’s important to recognise that I wasn’t pioneering something new.&nbsp;Exceptional core technology facilities are in place across the country, and through knowledge exchange with key technical leaders, I ensured best practice.&nbsp;None of this would have been possible without the pioneering initiatives of the Technician Commitment, which have enhanced the visibility, recognition, career development and sustainability of the technical workforce. In the past four years, I have had the opportunity to develop both my technical and soft skills, network with technicians and have a voice within university and UKRI committees. As a leader in technical innovation and research excellence, the University of Warwick has shown the benefit of empowering technicians, enabling mutual respect from academic colleagues and a positive change in research culture.Sarah Bennett is head of Bio-Analytical Shared Resource Laboratories in the&nbsp;School of Life Sciences at the University of Warwick. She was shortlisted in the Outstanding Technician of the Year category in the 2024&nbsp;THE&nbsp;Awards. A full list of nominees can be found&nbsp;here.&nbsp;If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.

With dedicated research technical professionals alongside equipment investments, universities can foster a culture of equipment sharing. Here, Sarah Bennett explains this key role in resource management

‘Changing the culture from academic-owned equipment to shared ownership is not easy’

The quest for high-quality, reproducible outcomes has become increasingly crucial as research impacts various industries, including healthcare. Growing interdisciplinary collaboration and larger team participation present significant challenges to maintaining consistent quality control standards.Quality control is not solely about validating results. It involves several actions, such as designing, monitoring and validating research procedures to guarantee that research is executed with rigour and integrity and that each step leading to the results adheres to established standards. Here are a few strategies for ensuring research quality and integrity.Establish clear research protocolsThe success of any research endeavour depends on well-defined research protocols. These should outline each phase of the research process, from design to reporting structures. They should also ensure that all researchers involved in the project follow the same guidelines. For instance, a protocol may establish the precise dosage in a clinical trial, the duration of the study and the parameters for evaluating efficacy and adverse effects in pharmaceutical or medical research. Biased results may result from any deviation from these protocols, rendering the research unreliable. Therefore, the first step is to ensure that they are clear and accessible.Education and trainingEven with well-designed research protocols, the quality of the research is compromised if team members do not have the necessary training or understanding of them. Investing in continuous training programmes that ensure researchers are informed about the latest technologies, good practices and ethical considerations is essential. Training should be an essential component of a researcher's growth rather than a singular event. Regular conferences and seminars on laboratory techniques, ethical research conduct and statistical analysis are essential for ensuring that all participants in a research project possess the necessary skills to contribute meaningfully. For instance, a laboratory that conducts clinical trials may offer specialised training on good clinical practice to ensure that all researchers understand and adhere to the proper methods for safeguarding patient confidentiality, managing trial data and reporting adverse events.Data handling and validationOne of the most significant challenges to research quality control is the effective handling and validation of data. It is imperative to establish robust data administration systems that ensure accuracy, integrity and security. Institutions should implement data management strategies that specify how data should be collected, stored and analysed.&nbsp;In addition, ensure that the validity of research findings is confirmed through statistical methods and that datasets are examined regularly for errors or inconsistencies. For example, in clinical research, validation techniques such as replicating results through various statistical models or cross-verification with independent datasets can help ensure findings are robust.Resource collection: Research excellence: what is it and how can universities achieve it?No one agrees on what research leadership is, let alone how to do it wellUnderstanding ethics approval in academic researchPeer review&nbsp;Internal peer review procedures can help detect problems early, allowing necessary corrections before they affect the study results. Regular review of research processes enhances the quality control procedure. Internal quality assurance teams or external organisations can conduct audits to confirm adherence to ethical standards, research protocols and data management procedures.&nbsp;TechnologyTechnology plays an important role in enhancing the quality of research. It can significantly reduce human error and ensure reliable and consistent outcomes. In clinical trials, electronic data capture systems minimise errors in data entry and enable monitoring of real-time trial data. Additionally, artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms are increasingly used to identify trends, analyse complex datasets and validate results, providing new ways to ensure quality control.Ethical oversight&nbsp;Upholding ethical norms in research is essential for ensuring high-calibre results. Ethical review boards must be in place to evaluate research proposals and guarantee that researchers follow moral standards. Researchers should also receive training to recognise and handle ethical concerns relating to consent, data privacy and conflicts of interest. For instance, in pharmaceutical research, carrying out clinical trials to strict ethical guidelines protects patient rights and generates legitimate, accurate data.Nurturing integrity and transparency&nbsp;Institutions and research teams should foster a collaborative, transparent and honest environment where researchers feel comfortable discussing issues in their work, including protocol deviations, data integrity or conflicts of interest. Transparency also makes research accessible to the broader scientific community for examination. Open access to raw data and clear reporting of methods can help prevent the “file drawer problem” (whereby only positive results are published) and ensure that research findings are reproducible.To guarantee the reliability and validity of research findings, institutions should implement practical and mandatory quality control measures, including standardising procedures, integrating technology, providing regular training and maintaining comprehensive documentation. Quality control is not merely a regulatory necessity; it represents a commitment to the highest standards of research practices. Ultimately, it confirms that the conclusions drawn from research are based on sound evidence, benefiting researchers and society.Srinivas Mutalik is a principal and professor at Manipal College of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, India.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.

How to establish and promote adherence to protocols, ensure accurate and secure data handling and nurture a culture of transparency to improve the quality of research output

Quality is the best policy in research 

Sexual misconduct in surgery is not new and is not solved. And yet, awareness of it has never been greater. The Working Party on Sexual Misconduct in Surgery (WPSMS), a group of surgeons, clinicians and academic researchers, needed data to be able to knock on the doors of the powerful to bring about change. We worked together, deciding what data we needed to collect, and kept a scientific mindset to effect change to make healthcare safer for everyone. And now, data are proving to be a pivotal factor in addressing the problem.&nbsp;The impact of our research&nbsp;On the day of publication in the British Journal of Surgery (BJS), the WPSMS research hit The Times’ front page and was the talk of every theatre tearoom.There was justified public horror at the realisation that sexual assaults were happening in operating theatres, where vulnerable anaesthetised patients assumed that they would be kept safe.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Spotlight guide: THE Awards 2024: learn from the best in UK and Irish higher educationDespite positive steps, much remains to be done on sexual misconductInstitutionalising gender equality work within a universityOur data had shown that sexual harassment was widespread, with a third of the women surveyed having been sexually assaulted by a colleague in the past five years. Some of these criminal acts occurred while surgery was taking place.&nbsp;Why does this matter?&nbsp;At its most simple, if a surgical trainee is being indecently assaulted while she (it is usually a woman) is operating in close proximity to her supervisor, it is fair to say that neither she nor he (and it is usually a man) is concentrating on the person lying unconscious on the operating table in front of them. There is also a wealth of evidence showing that dysfunctional surgical teams have poor outcomes and that doctors who are harassed are less able to do their jobs well. Ultimately, sexual misconduct is a risk for patient safety.&nbsp;&nbsp;The journey to carrying out the research was several years long and often bumpy. Our group had no funding and was fuelled by being committed, like-minded, mutually supportive and outcome focused. Having a regular weekly evening meeting for several months, where everyone was listened to and there was little hierarchy, enabled us to finesse ideas in a space of psychological safety – an unfamiliar culture in the surgical world that most of us in the WPSMS inhabit.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Early barriers put in our way enabled us to work out what the important data would be to effect change. We needed to know how often these events were happening, particularly recently, how the system was dealing with them when they did, and what the workforce thought of the adequacy of the accountable bodies such as the General Medical Council (GMC) and the NHS in dealing with this issue.&nbsp;&nbsp;A survey was circulated in the autumn of 2022 with help from key stakeholders, including surgical royal colleges.&nbsp;The WPSMS had vital input from its academic psychology lead, Chris Begeny from the University of Exeter.&nbsp;&nbsp;In January 2023, Chris shared the survey findings with the group and a number of trusted allies.&nbsp;&nbsp;Many of us in the room had spent decades as women in surgery, and some had been significantly personally impacted. Yet, we were individually and collectively shocked – but not surprised – at the scale of recent misconduct, and deeply moved by the heartfelt stories participants had shared with us. We were also struck by the huge differences in the differing realities of men and women, with far fewer men not only being impacted but also declaring that they had witnessed sexual misconduct.&nbsp;This information felt key to the educational interventions that would be required in a predominantly male workforce.&nbsp;&nbsp;We presented the data under embargo to stakeholders four months before publication. By bringing expertise together to formulate solutions in collaboration, the powerful were brought into the conversation. After all, they were the ones who would be able to make the systemic shifts required.&nbsp;&nbsp;We increasingly learned to be effective by remaining scientifically driven, controlling our use of adjectives and repeatedly asking: “What can we all do to make healthcare safer for the workforce, and ultimately safer for the patients we look after?”&nbsp;&nbsp;Engagement with the media was key, as was timing. Prior to our publications, both NHS England and the GMC, who knew their performance in dealing with sexual misconduct was evaluated as inadequate by most of the workforce in our survey, announced major changes to address this issue.&nbsp;&nbsp;The BJS research publication was accompanied by the simultaneous release of the Breaking the Silence report in September 2023. The report drew on the data and contained personal stories outlining the culture of impunity surrounding often powerful perpetrators. These testimonies demonstrated why official reporting was rare. Many of those impacted described carrying lasting guilt at not having spoken up for fear of loss of their own career and knowing that their perpetrator remained in post, harming others. They portrayed the damaging long-term human impact of being targeted and of not getting justice.&nbsp;With both publications dropping at the same time and media allies poised for the story to land, attention was intense, with politicians, wider healthcare and the public they serve promising and demanding action.&nbsp;&nbsp;What we’ve achievedSo how did we keep minds and hearts focused?&nbsp;&nbsp;Our recommendations in Breaking the Silence were few and, we hoped, achievable, with prospective data collection a pivotal point. NHS England staff are now asked on a yearly basis if they have been subject to unwanted behaviour of a sexual nature, and this information is now public, with the scale of sexual misconduct in individual NHS trusts visible.&nbsp;The GMC now also finds out similar information from trainees. Unsurprisingly, women in surgery, particularly those in more junior positions, are most likely to experience sexual misconduct. These data provide corroboration of former research, provide a benchmark and give ongoing incentive to poorly performing organisations to manage the problem more effectively.&nbsp;The Care Quality Commission, which regulates healthcare providers and provides quality ratings, rightly sees this as a patient safety issue. In September 2024, the GMC released a further update of guidance for the medical profession.&nbsp;On 16 October 2024, at the WPSMS meeting at the Royal College of Surgeons, the NHS announced plans for anonymous reporting and access to independent investigations, two of our key recommendations. Baroness Merron, parliamentary under-secretary of state for patient safety, women’s health and mental health, attended and reiterated the need for systemic change to solve this critical issue. A new duty on employers to prevent sexual harassment in the workplace became law on 24 October.&nbsp;Next stepsWe are often asked: “Yes, but how do you change the culture?” with a head tilt of concern, and a passive acceptance that cultural change, especially around the behaviours of powerful people in a steep and often toxic hierarchy, is in the “too difficult” box.&nbsp;We are often faced with wilful blindness, where smart people deny the obvious, for reasons of fear and for organisational and self-protection.&nbsp;&nbsp;Addressing this issue is a moral and professional obligation for everyone involved and matters for all of us. There is an emerging expectation that those with power to make a difference will no longer be able to turn a blind eye, that the availability of comparable annual data will enable progress to be tracked, and the avoidance of accountability and responsible leadership will no longer be tolerated. &nbsp;Carrie Newlands is lead for clinical skills at the School of Medicine at the University of Surrey. The university was shortlisted in the Research Project of the Year: Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences category in the 2024 THE Awards. A&nbsp;full list of nominees can be found here.&nbsp;&nbsp;If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.

Our data revealed scale of sexual misconduct in UK surgery

The Working Party on Sexual Misconduct in Surgery’s Breaking the Silence report hit the front pages after exposing the extent of sexual harassment among surgical staff, even taking place in operating theatres. Here’s how data were key

How we used data to reveal the extent of sexual misconduct within the UK surgical workforce

British 17th-century history is far less well understood today than most other periods from our island’s story. Capturing the public imagination about its turbulent, hedonistic and theatrical dimensions was a key aim for Benjamin Redding and me, as University of East Anglia (UEA) historians, in the exhibition The Last Voyage of the Gloucester: Norfolk’s Royal Shipwreck, 1682, which was co-curated with Norfolk Museums Service curators Francesca Vanke and Ruth Battersby.The story of the ship’s tragic wrecking on sandbanks in May 1682 and its discovery in 2007 could not have been brought to life without the camaraderie between the exhibition’s curators and the Gloucester wreck discoverers, brothers Julian and Lincoln Barnwell of Norfolk Historic Shipwrecks.

  
      
  
    Image
                



          

  

The Last Voyage of the Gloucester: Norfolk’s Royal Shipwreck, 1682, Norwich Union Gallery, Norwich Castle Museum and Art Gallery. Photo: David Kirkham Photography

&nbsp;Teamwork, teamwork and more teamworkThis rapport, built on the trust that close partnership working creates, has been central to the project’s success. The exhibition in Norwich Castle Museum and Art Gallery had showcased key artefacts from the 542 rescued to date from the wreck site, many of exceptional quality and some unique. The historical research of the UEA team, funded by the Leverhulme Trust, had been used to bring objects to life and tell the stories of the warship’s 30-year naval career and the people associated with it, all situated against the tumultuous political events of the Restoration.&nbsp;Norfolk Museums Service curators and the in-house designers, experienced in creating exhibitions that communicate with visitors of all ages and backgrounds, helped to translate our cutting-edge research for wider audiences by creating multimedia displays and atmospheric staging.&nbsp;Spotlight guides: THE Awards 2024: learn from the best in UK and Irish higher educationHow to be proactive when amplifying research papersAmplifying research: five features of successful impact generationHaving a team with varied expertise, prepared to debate and argue for what they believed in, was fundamental to creating an exhibition that felt genuinely exciting and fresh. We certainly haven’t always agreed on best ways forward, and there are battle scars, but the arguments were definitely worth having as they made us think – and rethink – our ideas.Measuring impact on visitorsHaving worked on the exhibition for over three years, the team was gratified by its popularity, attracting record numbers – about 70,000 attendees across its seven-month run – and bringing visitors to Norwich from across the UK and internationally.&nbsp;In the exhibition, a discussion board with Post-It-style notes was used to collect immediate responses from visitors in a couple of words, with terms like “atmospheric”, “exciting”, “educational” and “well-researched” appearing. Discursive comments collected via forms, digital and physical, were equally positive: “Beautifully curated, with excellent historical background information”; “Stunning, and such an opportunity for Norfolk.”&nbsp;Curators offered exhibition tours, with gallery staff also giving daily tours, and we gave talks on in-progress research or curatorial choices, giving us access to direct and live visitor responses. Simply put, this is gold dust, immensely valuable when planning future project phases.&nbsp;

  
      
  
    Image
                



          

  

The Last Voyage of the Gloucester: Norfolk’s Royal Shipwreck, 1682, Bernard Matthews Gallery. Photo: David Kirkham Photography

&nbsp;Telling new stories in accessible formatsWe wanted to bring the shipwreck to life in the first room, the Norwich Union gallery, to share the excitement and danger of travelling in the 17th century through capturing the atmosphere of being on board a royal ship at sea with the heir to the throne, James, Duke of York, and his court. We also tried to be respectful of those that lost their lives on the voyage by creating a memento-mori-style display of broken or fragmentary artefacts from the wreck, buffeted and worn by over 300 years on the seabed.&nbsp;We included an original drama about who or what was to blame for the shipwreck by playwright Steve Waters. It was voiced by UEA students and alumni, colourfully animated by Eye Film, and then captioned for maximum accessibility. We even asked visitors to vote for who they thought was most responsible for the wreck. The Duke of York came out top, not very closely followed by the sandbanks.

  
      
  
    Image
                



          

  

Still from the animated drama by Steve Waters showing the Duke of York and the officers aboard the Gloucester, produced by Eye Film © UEA

&nbsp;In the exhibition’s second room, our focus was on the ship’s long underwater life, its 2007 discovery and the resulting archaeological and scientific processes of artefact rescue and conservation. A dive-through experience, created in partnership with Maritime Archaeology Trust with a soundtrack of a diver breathing, allowed visitors to immerse themselves in the undersea world that is now the ship’s resting place.&nbsp;Attracting media attentionAlthough our partnership working has been forged over several years, one career-defining, even life-changing moment stands out: on 10 June 2022, the discovery of the Gloucester was publicly announced and, simultaneously, UEA’s research on the shipwreck was published open access in the prestigious journal English Historical Review.&nbsp;The news quickly went global, with feature stories and interviews saturating the media. Many major international newspapers, magazines, websites and radio and television outlets ran stories, with coverage across nearly 2,000 outlets to date. Again, partnership working has been vital. Our UEA media team colleagues Simon Dunford, Cat Bartman and Laura Potts were central to the delivery of a communications strategy focused on how the shipwreck impacted people’s lives in the past, and&nbsp;how it can inspire change by creating a major heritage attraction in Great Yarmouth.Looking aheadSpearheaded by General the Lord Richard Dannatt, the charitable Gloucester 1682 Trust has been formed to support the conservation and display of artefacts. Housing them in a new museum in one of England’s most deprived areas will allow the Gloucester’s remarkable story to be owned by the local community.&nbsp;I have learned so much through this experience, about both myself and effective communication, and for colleagues who may have similar opportunities:Say “yes” to new challenges that will stretch you – be bold!Learn from those around you but be generous with your ideas – co-creation is fun!Socialising can enrich a team dynamic and be an efficient way to generate new ideas – go for a beer together (other drinks are available)!The Gloucester story, then and now, is not just about a ship or shipwreck, but goes much deeper. It expresses something elemental about human powerlessness when faced with the forces of the sea and speaks of people’s overconfidence when encountering the natural world. These stories have messages for today, and for tomorrow, if only we can listen.Claire Jowitt is professor of Renaissance studies at the University of East Anglia. The Gloucester Project was shortlisted in the Research Project of the Year: Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences category in the 2024 THE&nbsp;Awards. A full list of nominees can be found here.&nbsp;If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week,&nbsp;sign up for the Campus&nbsp;newsletter.

Sharing shipwreck stories to re-write maritime history

The story of the Gloucester shipwreck was too important to stay submerged. Here’s how academics, museum curators and the discoverers of the Gloucester wreck brought it back to the surface

Sharing shipwreck stories to rewrite maritime history

Did you know that:High blood pressure is responsible for more than half of all strokes and heart attacks?&nbsp;High blood pressure is a risk factor for heart disease, kidney disease and dementia?High blood pressure affects about a third of all men and of those, roughly 25 per cent&nbsp; have high blood pressure that is not controlled?&nbsp;&nbsp;But the challenge is reaching people who don’t know they have high blood pressure or don’t think it is important. People of Black and minority ethnic heritage in the UK are disproportionately affected by high blood pressure. There are a number of reasons for this, but lack of awareness and poorer engagement with the NHS, possibly because of lack of trust, is common. It’s important we identify new non-NHS settings for engaging people at risk of high blood pressure.At London South Bank University, we’ve taken an innovative approach to identifying and managing high blood pressure in our communities. We needed to involve people who are trusted in their local communities, so we recruited our diverse group of undergraduate nursing students and local partners to meet this challenge together.&nbsp;So what have we done?The starting point is working with local voluntary and charitable organisations to understand the needs of the local population. Since 2022, we’ve had two projects running to do this. We have worked with the Croydon BME Forum on a barbershop project, and we’ve also worked with Healthwatch Southwark and GOLD (Gift of Living Donation) on our Community Ambassador programmes. It is critical to run these programmes with people able to give healthcare messages to their own communities because of the trust they hold. Plus, many of them have experienced high blood pressure, diabetes and kidney disease in their families. This is important, because people who have experience of these conditions feel committed and passionate about the cause.THE Awards 2024 spotlight: learn from the best in UK and Irish higher education‘Doing human’: ways for researchers to make patients feel comfortable to express themselvesBuilding trust in research: how effective patient and public involvement can helpIn any programme, it is important to train people who are taking blood pressure measurements and giving advice. Our barbers are trained, online and in person, to take accurate blood pressure (BP) readings and give advice. We enrol second- or third-year nursing students as our Community Ambassadors because they are familiar with taking BP. We just need to teach them about how to have a conversation with the general public about managing blood pressure and what this means.For both projects we developed advice cards to give to people who have had their blood pressure measured. We ensure that we use using validated blood pressure machines so that we were able to give sound advice to those with high blood pressure.What have we learned?We often need to incentivise people to attend – either with freebies such as stress balls, or vouchers for reduced price haircuts.We need to assure people that having a BP reading taken will not be painful or involve needles, like a blood test.It is a good idea to involve a local influencer to give a talk at an event or promote the events on social media. Our hashtag is #knowyournumbers.Many people are reluctant to give their names or any contact details, so we assure them that we will just record the BP reading and nothing else.The education and resources that we provide need to be culturally appropriate, such as dietary advice for specific foods that are eaten by local people (for example, African or South Asian foods).&nbsp;What has the impact been?We have run two barbershop projects in south London. The first, in 2022, was a feasibility study, to see if barbers could be trained, could engage their clients to have their BP taken and could encourage them to seek NHS advice if required. Our second barbershop project is running in 2024 and, this year, we are following up clients who are recorded as having high BP, to see if they seek further management via the NHS.&nbsp;Our Community Ambassadors have run two annual events at the university for staff and students since 2022, one to mark Black History Month in October and another to mark World Kidney Day in March. Each event attracts 100 to 150 people.&nbsp;We have also run outreach events in our local community, in collaboration with Healthwatch, and also with a local mosque. At each event we have representatives from local NHS trusts and voluntary organisations to give dietary advice and information about organ donation.What do we need to do next?As with any initiative, we need to maintain momentum, ensure good succession planning and secure funding. Our Community Ambassador events are run every six months, and we have a fantastic planning team which organises the events and trains the students online. It’s important that we train new undergraduate students annually to ensure succession.Our budget for these events is minimal – approximately £300 per event for Ambassador T-shirts and freebies to give away. Our barbershop project requires ongoing research funding to continue, and this has been a challenge because we need evidence that barbershop clients go on to have their BP managed in the NHS. This is a longer-term outcome but sadly the NHS does not always focus on prevention or self-management.We would encourage other higher education institutions to consider running community healthcare events – there is a lot of knowledge and expertise among staff and students, many of whom have worked in the NHS. There are huge learning opportunities for healthcare students and numerous topics to consider, ranging from mental health to cancer care, and students from any discipline are usually very happy to attend and increase their healthcare knowledge for themselves and their families. We have fun at every event, and it is a privilege to hear and chat about the healthcare challenges that staff and students struggle with themselves or when caring for family members.Nicola Thomas is professor of kidney care at London South Bank University. The university won the Outstanding Contribution to the Local Community category in the 2024 THE&nbsp;Awards. A full list of nominees can be found here.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week,&nbsp;sign up for the Campus&nbsp;newsletter.

How to engage communities at risk

With Black and minority ethnic communities disproportionately affected by high blood pressure, academics found innovative ways to reach them. Here’s how to launch a community outreach programme that works

‘You can change the world with a haircut’: engaging communities at risk

Community engagement and co-production supports responsive research, equitable partnerships and research impact. Research funders increasingly prioritise community engagement and co-production with marginalised groups when considering funding applications. As research teams, how can we ensure our studies meaningfully engage with communities? It is vital that our work as researchers is genuinely participatory, identifying and responding to diverse community perspectives, rather than merely a tick box exercise.Our collaborative work with&nbsp;REDRESS, which has been shortlisted for the Times Higher Education award for international collaboration, adopted co-production approaches to improve holistic care for people living in Liberia, affected by neglected tropical diseases that affect the skin, such as leprosy and Buruli ulcer. We hope the model that guided this project offers insight for researchers, whatever their discipline. Our work was guided by our shared understanding and values for&nbsp;community engagement that emphasise “the meaningful, respectful, and fit-for purpose involvement of a range of community members in one or more aspects of the research project”.&nbsp;REDRESS was developed in response to research demand from within the Liberian Ministry of Health, and included the experiences of persons affected, such as&nbsp;John Brimah, a health worker, REDRESS co-investigator and patient advocate&nbsp;with lived experience of leprosy.&nbsp;People living with skin neglected tropical diseases in Liberia are often highly stigmatised within their communities, and even by health workers. It was therefore critical that we considered the underlying power dynamics at work, when deciding how best to work together. Here we share six key lessons we have learned through our experiences with co-production in REDRESS.1. Identify who the key communities areSome communities to engage are obvious, such as health decision-makers, persons affected by the condition being studied, and health workers, but there may be other less obvious but still important communities. Before starting REDRESS, we carefully considered who people with skin neglected tropical diseases engage with. This led us to involve other actors, such as traditional and faith healers, who are often the first source of care for people with skin neglected tropical diseases in Liberia. Working with them, using participatory methods such as photovoice and vignettes, developed our understanding of the care they provide within their communities.&nbsp;Additionally, we started to build relationships for their stronger collaboration with the health system, encouraging earlier referral of persons with skin neglected tropical diseases to biomedical care.&nbsp;Spotlight guide: THE Awards 2024: learn from the best in UK and Irish higher educationTHE podcast: unlocking people power through citizen scienceThe secret to long-term international research projects is trust and transparency2. Carry out a power analysisConsider the power dynamics for each community and how these might create barriers to genuine involvement in co-producing knowledge, then think about how to overcome these barriers. We found Gaventa’s&nbsp;power cube helpful in thinking through the levels, spaces and forms of power that can influence a person or community’s engagement within the study.&nbsp;Thinking through the barriers that certain communities might face when engaging with a study, means that we can proactively seek solutions to overcome these. For REDRESS this included using participatory methods, such as photovoice, vignettes and body-mapping, especially among persons with limited literacy; inviting multiple representatives of certain communities to meetings rather than a token single invitee; and creating opportunities for small group discussion.&nbsp;For example, we used a world cafe approach during our&nbsp;mid-term review meeting, which was held halfway through the intervention period to reflect on progress and identify improvement. The world cafe meant that persons affected freely shared their thoughts and opinions in a small group of peers, before nominating a representative to share with the wider group.&nbsp;3. Be creativeCreate a community engagement and involvement plan for optimal ways to engage communities meaningfully through the research cycle. This could involve persons affected by health conditions to act as co-researchers, within community advisory boards, in participatory methods and as part of workshops to co-design, evaluate and disseminate learning together.&nbsp;4. Invest in community engagementAllocate time and funds to&nbsp;invest in training and mentoring co-researchers to take on increasing responsibilities. REDRESS was a four-year study, which allowed our team the opportunity to gradually work with co-researchers to build their skills and confidence to take on increasingly complex responsibilities. For example, we started with simple data collection, building in opportunities for co-analysis, intervention development workshops and leading aspects of research dissemination at county, national and international levels. For future studies we would like to build in personal development plans with co-researchers.5. Be flexible&nbsp;Implement and monitor community engagement and involvement work throughout the research cycle. Routinely reflect on how things are going with communities and be willing to adapt and flex if things need to improve. For example, we worked with community advisory boards to develop their own “benchmarks” for success. Building on suggestions from regular community advisory board meetings, and during discussion sessions at the mid-term review, we identified ways for them to develop and implement their own action plans, such as carrying out radio campaigns and marketplace sessions to raise awareness about skin neglected tropical diseases. During the mid-term review meeting we actively sought to engage a wide range of stakeholders to celebrate early successes and to identify areas for improvement and jointly develop solutions.&nbsp;6. Think about sustainability of engagement structuresConsider how they can be supported beyond the life of the research project. By investing in community engagement for individuals and institutions, we sought to encourage sustainability of the collaborative co-production approaches introduced through REDRESS.&nbsp;Changing attitudes towards engagement of persons affected by skin neglected tropical diseases now means that people affected are routinely included within Ministry of Health neglected tropical diseases decision-making meetings. Finally, people affected by skin neglected tropical diseases have mobilised to establish and register as a network called the Network for Persons Affected by NTDs Liberia (NEPA-NTD).&nbsp;We have found it helpful to follow these six steps for strengthening our collaboration. We would love to learn from other collaborations as well – are there additional steps that you found helpful for co-producing research with communities? If so, please share with us.&nbsp;Rosalind McCollum is senior research associate at Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine.&nbsp;Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine was the winner of International Collaboration of the Year at the Times Higher Education Awards 2024 #THEAwards. A full list of shortlisted candidates can be found here.&nbsp;If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.

Advice on meaningfully engaging with diverse communities to co-produce research, drawn from a project looking at treatment for neglected tropical diseases in Liberia

Lessons for co-producing research with affected communities 

A common challenge that research institutions face is disseminating research results to the right audience in an accessible manner, says Figen Eker, news service director at AlphaGalileo. “In the age of digital media, we have access to so much information. But this doesn’t necessarily go with a good understanding of subjects covered by research articles, especially if the information is complex,” says Eker.AlphaGalileo is a research news service that helps research institutions streamline research communication by connecting them with bona fide journalists. Founded in 1998, AlphaGalileo’s initial focus was promoting Europe’s research achievements, but it soon expanded its scope to improving research communication internationally.AlphaGalileo has a database of 7,400 journalists who have registered with the platform after a thorough application process. It uses a set of targeted keywords to publish research news and send alerts to its registered journalists based on their specific interests. “The news goes to those who are interested in the subject, so they can write about it,” says Eker. This enables press offices to target their content directly to the journalists most likely to be interested.&nbsp;“It’s the same with the region,” says Kate Bourne, director of technology at AlphaGalileo. When journalists sign up, they choose the countries or regions that they’re interested in so the information they receive is curated for those regions. The platform also supports multilingual content to enhance global reach and enables press offices to post their research news releases in as many languages as they choose.&nbsp;AlphaGalileo’s vision is to make research accessible to diverse audiences across the world. “We work with press offices and communication officers instead of researchers directly. This helps to simplify the process because their job is to make complex research topics more understandable and accessible for people who are not experts in that field,” Eker says. “We help people understand the advances in research and the practical implications that can result from it.”Eker says that the solutions AlphaGalileo offers can be summed up using two words: effectiveness and reliability. The platforms support institutions to improve efficiency in research communication. “We try very hard to keep everything streamlined and simplify research news in an overwhelming world of information,” says Bourne.&nbsp;Another key feature of the platform is reliability. While researchers and press offices have access to a wide range of technological tools and platforms to share their research, this can be overwhelming. Adding to this challenge are concerns about false and inaccurate information, especially with the rise of modern technologies such as social media and AI.“With all of this technology at our fingertips, there’s also the responsibility to make sure that the information being put across is correct,” says Bourne. “What’s great about our service is that the press releases are coming directly from the source – from the institutions that are doing the research – disseminated through us directly to the journalists,” she concludes.Find out more about AlphaGalileo.

Technology has the potential to make research communication simpler and more accessible. However, careful curation is essential to maintain reliability and avoid misinformation

Promoting accessibility in research communication

More and more research claims to be participatory. But what does this mean in practice? Does it genuinely embed participants in the research process? How can we work well with participants so that lived experience drives the research agenda?&nbsp;Here, we offer reflections on moving from the use of lived experience in research to a process of co-designing research through arts methodologies.Our research, The Verbatim Formula (TVF), uses creative practices to work with young people who have experience of the care system to explore the questions that matter to them.This is done by adapting techniques from “headphone performance”, where recorded extracts from interviews are performed word-for-word in theatres. In TVF, our co-researchers decide which parts of their experiences of care are important to share and why.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp;Across disciplines, there are growing calls to place lived experience at the centre of research about or with groups and communities.&nbsp;This is especially prevalent in public health research, where insights derived from lived experience broaden and contextualise knowledge revealed through data analysis and translational methods. Although participants’ lives and motivations may not fit into neat academic flow charts, an appreciation of their significance minimises the risk that sharing lived experience for research could feel tokenistic or extractive.&nbsp;Emotionally charged lived experience data may prompt concerns about exposing and broadcasting trauma. However, research into emotive subjects can reveal often overlooked dimensions of living in and with systems. Safeguarding participants is essential, but processes should not be selected in order to protect professionals at the expense of a fuller understanding of lived experience.We have navigated such issues by moving towards “co-design”, where academics and participants with lived experience go on a journey to become “co-researchers”.&nbsp;Here we share insight on how to work creatively together, and the implications of this for research practice and funding.&nbsp;Arts methodologies&nbsp;Using creative performance practices like games and play brings collective joy, mutual vulnerability and trust to your working group. Whether it’s “Zombies”, “Splat!” or “Stuck in the Mud”, a quick burst of fun energises the room, and helps to tune us all into everyone present.&nbsp;For some co-researchers the importance of this willingness to play cannot be overstated. A core element of co-research is maintaining a collaborative environment which is relational. When people have been marginalised or placed in positions where they are suspicious of institutions, authorities or professionals with power, ongoing, enjoyable and respectful relationships are vital. Our ways of working demand hybrid and flexible roles, taking everyone out of their comfort zones. We can say from personal experience that there is nothing that brings so much laughter to the room as seeing the fear in the eyes of academic “elders” of the group before trying to beatbox.Spotlight guide: THE Awards 2024: learn from the best in UK and Irish higher educationResources exploring creativity in higher educationCampus podcast: unlocking people power through citizen scienceCreative practices lead to the expression of a range of nuanced, complex experiences. Sharing a testimony or script, some artwork or music, can elicit those lived and felt experiences that might be more difficult to articulate in a typical interview. Our role as academic co-researchers is often to offer space, or a stimulus that allows these experiences to emerge. This might be asking the group to make images from care with Plasticine or writing a poem telling us what “I am not…”. From here, we might explore and word our research questions together, making audio testimonies in the process.&nbsp;Working with specialist movement and sound artists, we have developed sequences that show experiences of being alienated through the maze of meetings and bureaucracy that confronts each care-experienced child.&nbsp;By blending in other art forms that are selected by individuals in the group, each person gets to choose and comment on which parts of their lived experiences are important. In TVF, it is often the affective experience of being in an alienating care system that our co-researchers have foregrounded.&nbsp;This has helped professionals making decisions on care to understand the impact of their choices on those in the care system.It is important that we share our work with our co-researchers’ peers and care professionals. The chance to recommend what needs to change, and to be heard by the people who have power to change things, confers status on co-researchers and gives shared impetus, motivation and meaning. &nbsp;Support for lived experience researchTVF co-researchers live busy lives, many of them dealing with zero-hour contracts, or pressures that affect their mental health and creative capacities. We have knock-backs, where people change their mind or feel unable to participate. Multiple plan Bs, for when people can’t turn up, are necessary. Most importantly, we have to develop a sensitive, realistic appreciation of the worlds of the people we are working with.&nbsp;Working with partners’ lived experience can involve a need for trauma-informed practices. We often factor in a reflective space adjacent to the research in which co-researchers have a chance to consider their own well-being.&nbsp;&nbsp;All of this impacts how collaborative research is resourced; it can be more time-consuming and expensive. Any underpinning pastoral support needs to be funded, along with the administrative, production and budgeting work that arts research requires. It is important to make sure our funding applications articulate why these resources are important. When our findings don’t easily map on to the requirements or metrics that measure academic outputs, we have to narrate them accordingly and persuasively. Our artist collaborators and evaluators also need to appreciate the working context.&nbsp;There are tensions in our practices with what might be expected of us as academics. We have found no linear pathway nor final answer, instead, there is a process. There is open-ended conversation and dialogue, and a willingness to try to change our path in accordance with co-researchers’ needs and suggestions. Some outputs of our research will not be captured in a published paper but expressed as an ongoing exploration. Neither is it always about finding a policy solution, but about working with system users to say what works for them in ways that inform or allow that system to evolve.&nbsp;Responsibility and reflexivityInvolving co-researchers in our work has been an incremental process. Our long-term commitment to collaborative research means the&nbsp;depth of participation goes beyond the tokenistic or advisory, and that the research has meaning for those involved. Co-researchers’ participation in all stages of research, including funding applications, is essential for this shift. Shared, mutual joy in each other, our working relationships, and our creative practices, as well as a belief that the research is worthwhile, continue to nourish the project. This co-research approach means that research practices change. You have to be prepared for the research to change you&nbsp;too.And the consequences for the academy? Deeper multi-layered discoveries that disrupt working in extractive and alienating ways with our lived experience research partners. Lived experience research is a complex and long-term affair, but it is rich and fulfilling. It’s time to engage and invest in it properly.Sylvan Baker is a senior lecturer in community performance applied theatre at the Royal Central School of Speech and Drama and a creative learning and education associate at Queen Mary University of London.Maggie Inchley is a reader in contemporary theatre and performance and director of schools engagement (drama) at Queen Mary University of London.The Royal Central School of Speech and Drama, in collaboration with Queen Mary University of London,&nbsp;was shortlisted for Knowledge Exchange/Transfer Initiative of the Year at the Times Higher Education Awards 2024 #THEAwards. A full list of shortlisted candidates can be found here.&nbsp;If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.

How creative arts can support collaborative research 

Find out how performance practices can support participatory research centred around emotionally charged lived experiences

The Verbatim Formula: using creative arts for collaborative research 

Language is not neutral. It shapes and is shaped by the contexts in which it is used, particularly in academia, and it is a tool for both colonisation and resistance. In 1492, celebrated Spanish humanist Antonio de Nebrija formally addressed Queen Isabella I of Castile, defending his book Grammar of the Castilian Language, arguing that language has always been the companion of empire, for it is the means by which laws are imposed on conquered peoples. French Afro-Caribbean psychiatrist and philosopher Frantz Fanon, nearly five centuries later, noted that the use of the coloniser’s language is not simply a form of identification with the coloniser, it is also the “voice of the combatants”, a tool of liberation that serves to spread messages of resistance.&nbsp;Today, the dominance of English as the global academic lingua franca mirrors this historic power dynamic. As English continues to dominate international academic discourse, as seen in our main journals and best-known academic publishing companies, it marginalises other languages and the diverse perspectives they carry. In this context, we must ask ourselves: what are the implications for research being increasingly confined to the English language? And how can we ensure that other languages contribute meaningfully to global academic conversations?Equity in academia: beyond linguistic dominanceThe global academic community has long accepted English as the default language for research dissemination. This acceptance, however, comes with significant implications. Researchers whose first language is not English face considerable challenges – they must master a language that may feel foreign and disconnected from their cultural and intellectual roots. This process often starts at the doctoral level, where scholars must leave behind their native linguistic and cultural frameworks in favour of English to be considered part of the “international” research community.Introducing ‘translanguaging’ – and other ways to promote multilingualismVirtual mobility: a first step to creating global graduates10 tips to succeed in publishing in English as a second languageThis linguistic shift is more than a simple translation of words; it involves adopting an entirely different academic identity. For many, this means distancing themselves from the cultural influences that shaped their intellectual development. The result is often an imperfect assimilation into the English-speaking academic world, where researchers struggle to contribute original ideas that are deeply rooted in their own cultural contexts.The impact of this linguistic hegemony is particularly evident in qualitative and critical research fields, where the nuances of language play a crucial role and the ability to articulate complex, culturally embedded ideas in English can be a daunting task. The pressure to conform to English-language norms can lead to a focus on “getting the English right” rather than making meaningful contributions to the field.&nbsp;Justice in language: language as a power structureIn academia, English operates as a gatekeeper, determining who can access and contribute to the most prestigious platforms of knowledge production.The power of English is often invisible, naturalised within the academic system. Researchers who cannot fully command the English language are at a disadvantage, not just in terms of linguistic competence but also in their ability to shape and influence academic discourse. The consequence is a form of linguistic violence where non-native English speakers must suppress their cultural identities and abandon the priorities of their regions to participate in the global academic conversation.This issue extends beyond individual struggles; it reflects broader social and historical power dynamics. The dominance of English in academia marginalises local knowledge systems and reduces the diversity of perspectives that are essential for a truly global exchange of ideas. Although everyone will agree that linguistic competence is a technical skill, it is more than that: language transforms itself into a form of social capital that privileges specific cultural identities and regional priorities within the academic field.Opportunities: creating space for linguistic diversityThe goal is not to replace and condemn English. After all, it has been used by people around the world to communicate their research and perspectives; it has also served to support critical thinking and free speech in many countries that would not welcome dissent in local academic environments governed by bureaucratic and autocratic logics. It can be, as Fanon put it, used by combatants. The aim, rather, is to push back against the hegemony of English.&nbsp;To do so, we must actively create spaces where other languages can thrive in academic discussion. This is not just about translating works from one language to another but about valuing the different ways in which knowledge is produced and communicated across cultures.For example, swimming against the tide, the journal Critical Perspectives on Accounting has modified its editorial policy to admit papers that are originally written in English, French or Spanish. These are reviewed in their original language and then published in both English and, eventually, in French or Spanish.Embracing linguistic diversity is about equity and justice. And embracing the richness that other languages bring to our understanding of complex global issues. This requires a collective effort from researchers, institutions and academic journals to recognise and value the contributions that language can bring to the global academic community. By doing so, we can begin to dismantle the linguistic barriers that have long limited our understanding of the world and pave the way for a more inclusive and equitable academic landscape.&nbsp;This article is based on an editorial, “Language was always a companion of the empire”, published in English and Spanish in Critical Perspectives on Accounting.&nbsp;&nbsp;Javier Husillos is an associate professor in departamento de gestión de empresas (department of business management) at the Universidad Pública de Navarra (UPNA) in Pamplona, Spain. Carlos Larrinaga is a professor of accounting in the departamento de economía y administración de empresas (department of economics and business administration) at the Universidad de Burgos, Spain.&nbsp;Daniel Martinez&nbsp;is an associate professor in the department of accounting and management control at HEC Paris, France.If you’d like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week,&nbsp;sign up for the Campus newsletter.

Embracing linguistic diversity in global academic publishing

English operates as a gatekeeper in academia, determining who can access and contribute to the most prestigious platforms of knowledge production. We must create spaces where other languages can thrive, write three European academics

Embracing linguistic diversity and equity in global academic publishing

“I definitely would consider myself a researcher now, now that I’m able to redefine that word ‘researcher’.” (Rahesa, 7.11,&nbsp;Episode 2)How can an academic unite two very different sides to their work – one focused on historical research, the other geared towards widening access to higher education? That is the challenge I was grappling with when I conceived the “Whose Power?” project at Leeds City Museum, funded by the&nbsp;Arts and Humanities Research Council.&nbsp;The aim was to learn about how to do participatory research with young people, by co-producing knowledge catalysed by my specific research area – late 19th-century women making everyday energy decisions in their homes. Together with members of the Preservative Party, a diverse group of 14- to 24-year-olds working as youth curators at Leeds City Museum, we have explored domestic objects in the collections, using them to start a conversation among ourselves and with museum audiences, through an exhibition, about whose power is overlooked in traditional histories of energy. We have thought about advocacy and power in energy change in the future.Recognising the power of young people’s voices and responding to the group members’ ambitions to learn more about podcasting, we have produced&nbsp;Whose Power? Over the five episodes, we question our project, our processes and our learning.&nbsp;After 18 months of working with the Preservative Party, I’ve discovered that participatory research is something we’ve been doing all along, even if it wasn’t identified as such.So, having consulted with the group, what tips do we have for those embarking on similar projects?Plan to changeExpect to throw your work plan out of the window.When I submitted the AHRC application, I included a beautiful one-page work plan. Very early on, I asked one of the members, Bobby, how the group does projects. Their answer filled an organised academic’s heart with fear. “Anarchy. I think it’s very hard to nail down a Pres Party approach […] because it depends who’s in the room during that session.” (4.43,&nbsp;Episode 2). This mapped closely onto the response of the group facilitator, Jordan, to the work plan: &nbsp;“I remember kind of trying to, or hoping to, explain to you that this is something that may likely change and that the group will shape it.” (3.04,&nbsp;Episode 1)When I met the group, they were finalising a significant period of work. It would culminate in&nbsp;Overlooked, an exhibition that ran until June 2023 at the museum. This meant that the first six months of the original plan were thwarted in the most wonderful way. I spent this time learning about how the group curated a successful exhibition and helping them navigate conferences and award acceptance events. While none of this featured in the original work plan, it provided vital time to create the safe space required for all effective participatory research with young people.As Lauren Theweneti, Preservative Party senior mentor and co-author of this article, said to me when we were three weeks from exhibition opening with nothing to hang on the walls: “It will happen.” It might not happen according to your usual timetable for academic projects. But, done right, participatory research will make it happen because everybody feels empowered and everybody wants the project to succeed.Create a safe space“I love Pres Party. Pres Party is the place in the world where I feel the happiest and where I feel the safest.” (Bobby, 9.24,&nbsp;Episode 2)&nbsp;Creating a safe space is more than just paying attention to safeguarding and ethics. It is vital that everybody has the time and support to come to the project in their own ways.&nbsp;While I had thought carefully about an iterative approach to ethics in the original application, I still planned to complete initial consent forms in the first month. I hadn’t fully accounted for how this project would be shaped by the group’s needs and wants.&nbsp;For example, group member Tae’s initial reaction when the project and ethics was mentioned was “I’m not interested in this professor just coming to talk at me about things that I don't necessarily care about.” It took about four months for them to feel safe enough to ask to complete the ethics process “for my own peace of mind […] I wanted to talk to you about what this whole project was to you” (7.49, Episode 4).&nbsp;The original project was entitled Empowering Women: Co-Producing Histories of Women and Energy in the Home, directly reflecting my&nbsp;previous research. Tae’s considerations led to a new title, “Whose Power?” and new questions. They wrote the questions we chose to stencil onto the walls of our exhibition,&nbsp;Whose Power? Energy Change in the Home, focusing on&nbsp;whose history of energy is recorded and why. The questions asked exhibition visitors to think about how people’s gender, race and class link to who gets to make energy decisions. How can revealing a wider diversity of people making energy changes in their homes help us all feel empowered in the future of energy change?&nbsp;‘Just trust’Safe spaces rely on trusting relationships. Having worked with the Preservative Party for 12 years, Esther (community engagement manager, Leeds City Museum) found that the key to participatory research with young people is “to allow those conversations to happen […] that slowly we will see the threads of commonality within the group. And that will itself organically emerge as a project.” (9.42,&nbsp;Episode 1). As an academic asking to be allowed to join in to this process, I had to learn from the older members, like Lauren, who we appointed as mentors, and from the wider group, that building trust was “difficult” and time-consuming, but utterly crucial.&nbsp;Trust is vital. It takes time and energy but it will be worth it. Only with trust comes the redistribution of power that is at the heart of participatory research.&nbsp;“Participation done well has power at its heart, but it’s not power to close off. It’s not power to shut down, it’s power to open up” (Abigail, 18.45,&nbsp;Episode 3).Abigail Harrison Moore is professor of art history and museum studies at the University Leeds and Lauren Theweneti is senior mentor of the Preservative Party at Leeds City Museum and associate lecturer in history at Sheffield Hallam University.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus&nbsp;newsletter.

When engaging young people in research, trust is key

How can we collaborate with young people to co-produce research? Keep these three things in mind

When engaging young people in participatory research, trust is key

International collaboration is critical in countless fields and disciplines, and essential in biomedical engineering – lives literally depend upon it. By bringing together experts from different countries and disciplines, we can harness a wide and diverse range of knowledge, skills and resources. These collaborations can involve partnerships with academia, industry, healthcare institutions, government agencies and philanthropy, in developed and developing nations, and allow us to tackle global health challenges.At Virginia Tech, I teach and run the&nbsp;Therapeutic Ultrasound and Non-Invasive Therapies Laboratory, where we develop histotripsy, a novel focused ultrasound technology, for the treatment of liver cancer and other clinical applications. For histotripsy to reach its full potential, we need to leverage transdisciplinary research teams that expand beyond the boundaries of any single institution.&nbsp;Embracing disagreement in research co-productionUsing a business framework to advocate for international research collaborationResource collection: how to promote your research for greater impactAt the biomedical engineering and mechanics department, we can transform healthcare by developing technologies that improve diagnosis, treatment and patient care worldwide. To maximise global impact, I recommend inter-related strategies:Understand limitations to improve access to technologyVirginia Tech&nbsp;Team Malawi is a great example of a transdisciplinary global collaboration. Created to address the&nbsp;limited access to affordable healthcare innovations in Malawi and other low- and middle-income countries, the vision for this initiative is to use a screen-diagnose-treat-prevent approach to improve community wellness for underserved populations.&nbsp;Team Malawi, which was launched by Andy and Penny Muelenaer, collaborates with colleagues at the Malawi University of Science and Technology (MUST) to develop the portable and affordable ultrasound technologies needed at this locale for improving cancer diagnosis and treatment. We harness public-private partnerships to scale up the production and global distribution of medical technologies, ensuring they reach underserved populations. Importantly, the programme is being led by faculty and students from MUST, who continually liaise with teams at Virginia Tech.&nbsp;Here’s a great example of this close working relationship –&nbsp;two recent MUST graduates, Ruth Mtuwa and Nathan Sambo, recently joined my lab as PhD students; when they graduate, they will return to Malawi to establish and direct the Team Malawi focused ultrasound programme. I emphasise here that local leadership is essential for creating a self-sustaining programme.Check your ego at the doorThere have been many points where members of this group could have siloed their work at their institutions, but we share a vision of helping patients around the world, and that far outweighs who gets the credit. The organic expansion of histotripsy is a direct result of this attitude.Our first human liver cancer trial,&nbsp;the Theresa study, was led by Joan Vidal-Jove in Barcelona, Spain. Working with Vidal-Jove was an ideal option for translating histotripsy into human cancer patients for the first time since due to both his expertise in conducting previous human trials with a related technology as well as his inclusive and collaborative attitude towards conducting such a groundbreaking clinical trial. This successful trial led to a large international collaboration that would not have been possible without Vidal-Jove’s leadership. For the Theresa study, Vidal-Jove recruited an interventional radiologist, Xavier Serres, to join and co-lead the trial with him. The spirit of openness and inclusiveness between Vidal-Jove and Serres set the foundation for what grew into a large international research partnership that continues to move this new technology into clinical use. One of the leaders of this collaborative international team, Fred Lee from the University of Wisconsin, once commented that, when it comes to research, one plus one equals three. I have found this to be true for every successful research partnership I’ve done, particularly those that involve international collaborations.&nbsp;Align incentives and pursue sustained fundingAnyone who has tried to build an international research programme understands that funding is often the biggest hurdle. Once you build strong partnerships with aligned organisations, the next step is to understand the challenges that each stakeholder faces to ensure continued contributions to the success of the larger collaborative programme. This often requires significant effort and sustained funding for each member of the organisation. Sometimes this happens organically, as when an industry partner is willing to fund multi-centre clinical trials, but often it requires ongoing efforts to find ways to keep in place sustained funding for research and development aspects of the programme.My field is driven in large part by non-profit organisations that support our international collaborations; for example, we work with the&nbsp;Focused Ultrasound Foundation, an organisation that connects researchers throughout the world and funds projects that involve partnerships between academic, industry and clinical institutions. This type of funding is essential to advance new technologies from the research lab into the clinic.Educate the next generation&nbsp;Empowering the next generation of biomedical engineers is crucial for sustained progress. A great example is offered by the two graduate students I mentioned earlier who will launch and direct the Team Malawi focused ultrasound programme in Africa. Additionally, undergraduate and graduate students in my lab interact with our international partners every week in virtual meetings, and many of them have also spent extended periods working directly with collaborators in France, Spain, Canada and Malawi.&nbsp;Focus on global health needsTo achieve meaningful progress globally, biomedical engineering research and development must focus on addressing the most pressing health needs worldwide.&nbsp;Achieving global progress in biomedical engineering depends on a collective commitment to collaboration, education and funding and understanding global health disparities. By working together across borders and disciplines, we can truly achieve transformative progress in healthcare and improve pressing health outcomes worldwide.Eli Vlaisavljevich is an associate professor and the Kendall and Laura Hendrick junior faculty fellow in biomedical engineering and mechanics and director of the Therapeutic Ultrasound and Non-Invasive Therapies Laboratory at Virginia Tech.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.

Global health challenges such as cancer demand collective efforts that transcend national boundaries. Eli Vlaisavljevich shares how he leverages international collaborations to produce groundbreaking biomedical work

Leveraging international collaborations to tackle global health challenges

The University of Oxford’s pro vice-chancellor for innovation on how universities and industry can work together for the benefit of all, plus a leading data scientist on why data needs careful handling to protect future research efforts

THE podcast: knowledge exchange and data management as drivers of research and innovation

The world of higher education philanthropy has changed significantly in recent years. Donations have slowed on some fronts, and donors are increasingly interested in programmes that have real-world impact,&nbsp;data shows. They want their funding to be used to solve Big Issues, including enhancing human physical and mental health, meeting environmental challenges, advancing science and technology, and using advanced data-driven capabilities such as artificial intelligence to improve the lives of people around the world.&nbsp;One way that universities, especially in countries where they are heavily reliant on philanthropy – including the US, where I received my degrees, and Israel, where I now work – can tap into this trend is by establishing programmes to support academic spin-offs and translational research that could produce technologies to solve global challenges. This can require a shift in the way that universities typically work with donors. But rethinking relationships with donors is essential for continued funding towards important research, as well as keeping institutions of higher education relevant in a fast-changing world.&nbsp;The challenges for institutions of higher learning include falling enrolment because of demographic changes and high tuition fees, as well as competition for talent and funding from the private sector. These challenges affect institutional fundraising. In&nbsp;2023, contributions from individual non-alumni donors in the US fell 10.5 per cent over 2022 levels, while alumni contributions fell 11.1 per cent over the same period. Meanwhile, donations from institutional backers such as organisations, corporations and foundations have remained flat since 2022. As the challenges with enrolment and faculty brain drain are set to worsen, funding will probably continue to be a challenge.Read more: how exactly does research get funded?Philanthropists, governing boards and faculty must play active roles in university governanceResource collection: what innovation needs to thrive in higher educationThose individuals and institutions that continue to donate are being more discerning,&nbsp;conscious of impact and expect to be more involved in the projects they fund; in my experience, they want their money to go towards more than just a name on a building. Donors are increasingly interested in being part of an ecosystem that actively helps turn ideas into tangible innovations and solutions that change the world. Indeed,&nbsp;a list of the top US university and college donations in recent years – including contributions of up to a billion dollars – shows a clear trend. A large portion of those donations went to programmes that marry advanced tech, such as AI, with biology, chemistry, medicine and other science-related areas.&nbsp;A good example is a $500-million (£381-million) donation by Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan to Harvard University for the development of an institute to&nbsp;advance research in AI and neuroscience. And they are not alone. Leonard A. Lauder, chairman emeritus of the Estée Lauder Companies, gave $5 million to the University of Arizona Cancer Center to advance clinical and translational research on ovarian cancer – the cancer that took his wife Evelyn in 2011.&nbsp;Virginia Commonwealth University recently received a&nbsp;$16 million gift from longtime benefactor C. Kenneth Wright for two endowed chairs “so that new discoveries can be made and new treatments can be developed” in a variety of medical and biotechnology areas. And&nbsp;in 2021, the Wadhwani Foundation, chaired by American-Indian billionaire Romesh T. Wadhwani – which works with institutions to develop programmes in AI and biotechnology – made a large donation to the University of North Dakota for creation of an endowed chair in translational research to “reduce the time often required to ‘translate’ novel discoveries in the laboratory to the direct care of patients in the clinic, whether in the form of new pharmaceuticals or other therapeutics”.Universities are increasingly realising that translational science programmes better succeed at making real-world impact when the needs of the end user, as well as commercial possibilities, are considered early on in the research. This can be done through in-house programmes that oversee the translating of research to real-world solutions, treatments or products.&nbsp;The Zimin Institute for AI Solutions in Healthcare at Technion Israel Institute of Technology provides the funding to chaperone a university’s most promising researchers with the funding, know-how and resources needed to bring their ideas to life. The foundation has also established this model at Arizona State University (focused on smart cities) and Tel Aviv University (biomedical devices). The Zimin institutes also build the bridges to partner with external organisations, introducing the academic innovators early to end users and partners so that innovation is honed to ultimate needs. The US&nbsp;National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) offers guidance to universities on how to build translational science programmes – and how to connect with supporters seeking to advance solutions. Many universities have partnered with NCATS to develop their translational science programmes.When seeking out or working with donors to these types of programmes, universities need to be prepared to work with them as partners, similar to how start-ups work with venture capitalists and other investors. These philanthropists want visibility into what research is happening, plans for how it will reach the consumer or commercial market, and reports on progress. Philanthropists active in this field will want to work closely with academic administrators and department heads and may help make connections or be involved in connections the university makes with private-sector partners who can bring solutions to market.&nbsp;Working in such a way can be challenging at first, because it is a shift in culture, and some researchers may feel their academic freedom is at risk. But as long as the projects are well defined and focused, and the goals are clear, this should not be the case. The best way to deal with these potential challenges is to carefully define the scope of the funded work at the beginning of the relationship, as best as possible, and to stay in regular communication about progress of the research. Both universities and the funding organisations should understand that things may happen along the way, in the course of the research, that require a change of plans or even an adjustment of goals.&nbsp;While philanthropists don’t take a cut of revenue or profit resulting from commercialisation, often the entrepreneurs who profit from companies that started with academic research will reinvest earnings back into charitable initiatives that fund or promote science. In addition, the success of translational programmes and the awareness about the real-world impact of science can feed back into encouraging funding for early-stage basic research, for which direct funding has become more difficult.&nbsp;Although basic science may start through intellectual curiosity or pure academic pursuit, in today’s world, this is often no longer enough to draw funding. But by directing at least some promising research towards issues that have stumped the world and working with the appropriate partners to bring those solutions to market, university science programmes can become promising vehicles for changing the world – which is what interests many philanthropists today.&nbsp;Shai Shen-Orr is director of the&nbsp;Zimin Institute for AI in Healthcare Solutions at the Technion Israel Institute of Technology.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.

Advice for working with philanthropic donors

Amid academia’s challenges related to talent retention and fundraising, universities can use translational research programmes to enhance scientific edge and real-world impact, and strengthen donor relations 

Donors want to see real-world impact. What does that mean for higher education in the sciences?

During introductions in a research meeting I&nbsp;attended recently, all the professionals were brief, giving their job title, organisation and highlights of professional achievements. The community organisation leaders and members, on the other hand, shared information about their conditions, their treatment and anecdotes about their personal life. This sparked conversation as they swapped stories about their common experiences. The researchers – including me – started having a mini panic as we wondered whether we would ever get through to the “meat” of the agenda.Eventually, it dawned on us that through this conversation, people were making connections, getting comfortable and addressing the questions that we had prepared.Involving patients and the public in the design and delivery of health and social care research can improve the relevance and quality of the research and help build trust in the research and its outcomes. It is increasingly a prerequisite to receiving research funding – and more and more often the norm.How to facilitate knowledge exchange and build trust with policymakersEmbracing disagreement in research co-productionCommunity-engaged research can give a voice to marginalised peopleHowever, a perennial challenge within the world of patient and public involvement in research is how to effectively include people from a greater diversity of backgrounds. Some researchers have done excellent work reaching out to communities and changing working practices (such as having meetings outside usual work hours) or developing links with community organisations representing people underserved by research.But once we have people in the room, how do we create an inclusive environment that will keep them there? Something that has struck me in meetings, and in subsequent conversations, with both the public and researchers, is the different worlds that professionals and members of the public often inhabit. I&nbsp;want to make clear that, for the purposes of this article, I&nbsp;exaggerate differences between these worlds and make huge generalisations. And I&nbsp;also recognise that no&nbsp;one falls neatly into a professional or public box.Where professional and public are worlds apartProfessionals tend to operate in a world characterised by formality and where objectivity and evidence are valued. It is a world of carefully crafted agendas, where we value people expressing themselves succinctly and keeping to the point, a world in which we champion “being professional” – that is, being serious and revealing little about our personal lives.(Hence, the public contributions to research meetings are often much more interesting and entertaining than the professionals’.)Clearly, we all tailor our behaviours and how we communicate to a given audience. This is often appropriate and necessary – for example, during a pandemic, no&nbsp;one wants to hear a wisecracking official in a jester’s hat imparting sad news.However, this environment is alien to many people we want to involve in research. They may be unfamiliar with, and even overawed by, the structure and the formality of the usual research meeting. Being professional can mean that we don’t “do&nbsp;human” well. In everyday conversations, people tend to meander when they speak rather than stick to an agenda. They may want to connect and get to know others before volunteering a view or experience. And how they express themselves can also be quite different. In patient and public involvement, people have lived experience of a condition or a service. They will often be passionate and emotive and want to share their frustrations and other experiences. And sometimes they will laugh and joke to make themselves feel at ease.Bridging the gap between professional and publicSo how do we build bridges between these two worlds? We need to create a safe, inclusive environment in which people feel comfortable to be their authentic selves and express themselves, an environment that encourages us all to “do&nbsp;human” better. Here are my three tips:Build in time for making connectionsBudget permitting, build “getting to know you” meetings or events into your research planning. These could be informal affairs arranged outside the research meeting, or you could include time in meetings for people to get to know each other. For example, allow a longer introductions section on the agenda or have an informal lunch before the meeting starts.Step outside your professional roleWhen getting to know each other, researchers could share information about themselves that goes beyond stating role, employer and work-based accomplishments. Talk to each other about hobbies and interests. Swap stories.Be flexible&nbsp;Having an agenda, a structure and a purpose are all important, but so is being flexible. Be alert to the flow and dynamic in the meeting. Sometimes it won’t follow the order of your agenda. Don’t panic. Accept that people sometimes hop across themes and issues as they talk on a topic; this is how conversations flow. Allow for a degree of people jumping between topics and agenda points. If people are talking, it’s likely they feel comfortable in expressing themselves. And if they are talking, then you will be achieving your goal of getting people to inform your research.In an often-grey professional world, it is good to embrace a bit of colour. Bridging this gap between public and professional worlds is so important. It will enable us to create connections, to include people in our research and enable people to feel comfortable in expressing themselves and contributing to research.Gary Hickey is a senior public involvement manager at the University of Southampton.&nbsp;If you’d like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.

Research that makes patients feel comfortable to share

When patient and public involvement is done in an inclusive, safe environment, it results in more relevant, higher-quality health and social care research

‘Doing human’: ways for researchers to make patients feel comfortable to express themselves

Taking part in a project brings many benefits for researchers, but less documented are the challenges that can create cumulative negative effects on academics’ mental health. Each stage of a project brings different challenges to trust for researchers, as this study has identified. When the leader of a project knows the typical challenges to trust that researchers might face, they will understand what to aim to mitigate at each stage.Researchers often face additional challenges beyond their research. For example, they may have to move regularly to work on a new project because of the short contracts offered. They are often in a new town or foreign country with a different culture and language. Researchers’ heavy reliance on technology means that learning how to use new software can delay their progress and reduce their productivity.Research shouldn’t cause trauma – let’s find a better wayResearchers need support to change the world – here’s how to provide itHow to build trust as a research supervisorWithin the project team itself, building a team requires building trust, but researchers must also wait and hope that they are credited for the research output.These disparate challenges put pressure on researchers’ mental health and cause anxiety.Five stages of a research projectPrevious research has focused on four stages of a project: forming, storming, norming and adjourning. Our research adds a fifth stage: post-project collaboration. This stage is an implicit or explicit part of most research projects. For example, a postdoctoral researcher expects to be credited for their work even if it is published in a journal years after the end of the project.Post-project collaboration is important in the context of research. For universities and researchers alike, long-term sustainable networks are vital. The money spent on research is often in hope that beyond the project’s immediate goals being achieved, a network or ecosystems will also be triggered.The challenges at each of the five stages are identified in the table below. This enables the leader to focus on a manageable number of challenges at each stage. Some challenges are in only one stage of the process, while others occur across multiple stages. Conflict is not a challenge at the start, but establishing trust is. This suggests that low trust at the start causes problems later; it is a delayed reaction. Once the conflict happens, it might be too late, so the trust should be built early.

  
      
  
    Image
                



          

  

Figure 1: A model for reducing the challenges for researchers in projects across five stages

&nbsp;Trust is important in several collaboration settings, particularly at the start, until participants familiarise themselves with each other and the project team matures. In research teams, because of the long time until the research is published, often more than three years, an additional, long-term cause for risk and distrust can arise that is resolved only once the research is published.Challenges to trust at each of the five stagesAt the first stage, where the team is formed, trust should be built to cover four topics: trust in the leader, process, evaluation method, and trust in being credited in published work. If the leader builds the researchers’ trust in them at the start, they free up time to focus on other challenges in the second stage of the project. The other challenges present at the first stage, such as trust in the evaluation method, may be difficult to resolve completely at the first stage, but they can be reduced at each stage as far as possible.At the third stage, norming, new challenges usually emerge as people may start to run out of the goodwill they had at the start, and they may stop giving the benefit of the doubt when they disagree. Demotivation, disengagement and conflict often start to come out. If a foundation of trust in relation to the other challenges has been built at the earlier stages, the challenges in the third stage will be easier to overcome.In the final two stages of the project, adjourning and post-project collaboration, a new vision needs to be communicated effectively as the original vision will stop resonating after the norming stage. Without a follow-up project on the horizon, another shared vision of collaborating in the future could be built.For those challenges that cannot be solved outright, the leader of the research project must show an awareness of them and what effect they can have. The leader should be ambidextrous, in the sense of focusing on the project deliverables and the socio-psychological aspects of research teamwork. Meeting the project goals and building trust in the team is a more sustainable approach to research projects.Alex Zarifis is a lecturer in information systems at the University of Southampton, UK.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.

Principal investigators should know what challenges to trust their research team may face at each stage of a project – from team building to post-project collaboration – so they can focus support effectively

Building trust to support researchers’ mental health

When academics and students collaborate on research projects, it can enhance the quality of the research and boost student success. Additionally, it can also promote a sense of student belonging.&nbsp;Students need to be ready for a real-world environment where change is the constant. Research knowledge and enterprise are often required to develop rapidly to meet these challenges, and collaborating with students is an effective way to teach them this.&nbsp;Could AI manage your research project?Making group work work: how to enable successful student collaborationShow your research impact: a guide for academics and researchersTogether with BA Hons Animation students and staff in the faculty of liberal arts and sciences at the University of Greenwich, we are undertaking a collaborative project entitled “Our Kid from the North of the South of the M1 River”. It fuses together animation and sociological autobiography as a pedagogical approach to exploring lived experience.&nbsp;The project charts my journey to professorship, as one of very few Black female professors in the UK. It also seeks to raise awareness of the leaky pipelines faced by global majority women in academia and encourage institutions to recognise the importance of our retention and progression. I also wish to highlight academia as a possible career for young global majority women. Drawing on our work so far, and other collaborative work undertaken, such as our Student Stories Project, I’ll share valuable insights on collaborating with students on research projects.How to create opportunities to collaborateAt the University of Greenwich, we have an Office of Undergraduate Research hub, which I set up in 2018 and ran until 2021. It has gone from strength to strength, thanks to innovative work undertaken by one of our colleagues within the faculty. This has helped to enhance our research environment, because it’s fostered a culture in which staff and students can work together in scoping out research collaborations and undertaking funding applications. These transferable skills also benefit students’ employability.Collaborative opportunities may occur through existing projects, as was the case with “Our Kid from the North of the South of the M1 River”.&nbsp; While staff will need to steer the overall direction of the projects, students should be encouraged to identify and work on areas that best reflect their interests and strengths.&nbsp;Conversely, staff and students can start from scratch and develop ideas for projects together. Perhaps these ideas are in line with world issues, or affect their everyday experiences. For instance, I received funding centrally from the university to collaborate with students and my counterpart in another faculty on a Student Stories project. It centred on issues impacting student experience at our institution.&nbsp;Student co-researchers were encouraged to develop key themes and shape the overall project direction. They touched on the cost of living crisis, student poverty and balancing work and study, which affected their experiences.&nbsp;As a way of recording their stories, we co-created podcasts. This research has informed guidance around student experience at the university, and also in framing our institution’s Black and Minority Ethnic Awarding Difference theory of change. It also contributed to our access and participation plan for the Office of Students.Mapping and matching skills to the relevant parts of the projectThe skills the students are acquiring in their studies will come in useful on this research project. “Our Kid from the North of the South of the M1 River” needed animators, filming and sound producers, as well as project management, all skills that feature in their degrees. Work with students to identify and map out their particular strengths, so that they can focus on relevant areas.&nbsp;We found that some students were keen to go beyond their comfort zone and try new skills or technologies. Encourage this, and organise training if needed.&nbsp;They were then divided into subgroups based on skill sets. Although we facilitated these groups, we encouraged students’ creativity as much as possible, which they embraced fully. This has resulted in a fantastic animation of my story.Co-creating milestones and agreeing updatesA core facet of the project management stage was setting of timelines and regular progress reviews, which took into account staff and student availability. We established the most appropriate times to meet, deciding on weekly Friday touch point meetings, and agreed task completion dates, as well as points to review. We also ensured flexibility, should issues arise – such as additional work shifts for students, urgent staff meetings, etc.Recognising students’ workStudents should always receive full recognition for their work. Not only will this build their confidence in their abilities, but it increases their likelihood of wanting to undertake further projects. Recognition can include many forms, including identifying opportunities to showcase their work at events within and beyond the institution. “Our Kid from the North of the South of the M1 River”, for example, will be shown at various festivals externally, and at Stephen Lawrence’s 50th birthday commemoration at the University of Greenwich. If papers are produced on the back of the research, students should be named as co-producers, alongside tutors.Since students have donated time, energy and skills to projects, we ensured that they received payment at the going rate, and extra for any additional work on the project. This is especially important, given that many are facing the brunt of the cost of living crisis. Failure to do so is exploitative, unethical and undermines their experiences.Louise Owusu-Kwarteng is associate dean of student success and professor in applied sociology in the faculty of liberal arts and sciences at the University of Greenwich.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.

How to collaborate with students on research projects

Students and academic staff collaborating on research projects offers many benefits for everyone involved. Here’s how to do it

Co-production, at its simplest, involves the providers and users of services working together to find a collective solution or outcome. It has gained traction as a means of enhancing and evolving patient and public involvement (PPI) in health and social care.Although interpretations of and guidance on co-production vary, it is generally regarded as a values-led approach in which researchers, patients and the public share power. Differences among guidance documents are subtle. I was a co-author of the National Institute for Health and Care Research’s guidance on co-producing a research project and in this we identified five key principles:sharing power, in which the research is owned by those working on a projectincluding all perspectives and skills, whereby the research includes all people who can make a contributionrespecting and valuing the knowledge of all those working together on the research, as everyone is of equal importance&nbsp;reciprocity, so everyone benefits from their inputbuilding and maintaining relationships, to ensure that people are valued, their potential is unlocked and power is shared.Principles can give us a framework and guide our work. But it’s by applying the guidance that we add experience, practice and nuance. In this way we can enrich the guidance and the advice that we provide.&nbsp;Allowing disagreement and dissenting voices in co-productionCo-production is not all consensus and harmony, however. And what the guidance is less explicit about – although it emphasises dialogue, reflection and flexibility – is the importance of allowing and enabling disagreements and dissenting voices.&nbsp;Advice for managing difficult university staff discussionsCampus podcast: how to do public engagementResources to support and improve research managementHaving disagreements, discussions and arguments is all part of the creative process, and we need to embrace them. Through dissent and debate we can often improve what we produce and the knowledge we create. People are usually mature enough to know that we do have to move forward with a project and make decisions, and to know when to pick their battles. The skill is creating the right environment – a safe environment – within which people feel they can disagree.&nbsp;So, what can we do to create this environment?&nbsp;Here are four tips:Collectively develop a “ways of working” document that sets out rules or principles for how all parties will work together. This gathers people together to negotiate and agree a set of statements. In addition, you can include statements that encourage people to recognise that it’s OK to disagree. I always include a statement about disagreeing agreeably. It is important to challenge and disagree – as long as it is done respectfully.&nbsp;Develop good relationships. If you have long-term, established relationships with people, it can often (although certainly not always) be easier to work through differences of opinion or nuances in approach. People are used to each other, respect each other and feel comfortable about disagreeing and sharing opinions. Obviously, though, many projects bring together people who don’t know each other for a short period of time. In an ideal world, it would be useful to have events or get-togethers before the project to help develop relationships. Consider events that involve people stepping outside their roles to get to know each other.&nbsp;Organise reflective sessions. Create a space where you can have open and honest discussions about how the group is working. Are we being true to the co-production principles? Are we creating spaces in which people can express an opinion? If not, what can we do about it? Within these spaces, it is important to emphasise the importance of people being able to express their views and to disagree. These sessions can be recorded and written up briefly – one or two pages, almost like a blog – to share with the whole group. Reflective sessions are safe spaces for people to air their views and thoughts, debate, discuss and argue, agree disagreeably and then work out a way forward.Play devil’s advocate. Sometimes, in a group setting, people will be reticent about disagreeing through fear of upsetting others or appearing stupid by going against the consensus. Here, I think someone like the PPI lead on a project can proffer an alternative view. (The PPI lead is someone who has responsibility for managing and overseeing all PPI activities on a project.) This may: a) give someone else the confidence to speak up; and b) ensure that alternatives are discussed. Of course, the devil’s advocate doesn’t have to believe in the alternative view.The guidance, in my opinion, focuses a lot on sharing power and working together, with an emphasis on developing relationships and moving towards a consensus on decision-making. But&nbsp;debate is also part of developing and improving our projects, plans and products. It’s time to embrace the role of disagreement and embed it within the co-production process.Gary Hickey is head of&nbsp;Agora Digital Centre&nbsp;in the School of Healthcare Enterprise and Innovation at the University of Southampton.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.

Co-producing a research project is not all consensus and harmony, so these four tips will guide research collaborators in how to allow and enable disagreements and dissenting voices 

Embracing disagreement in research co-production

“It’s lonely at the top!” I am sure you have heard this saying before, and yes, management can sometimes feel solitary because, as a manager, you are often the one who must make that final decision. However, I truly believe if you are a good manager, you can minimise this feeling.Here are five things that an effective manager needs to do, based on my experience.Demonstrate impeccable communication skillsCommunication skills are paramount in management. We need to be able to communicate well in various ways:Verbal skills: ensure that you use clear language. Avoid any acronyms or jargon, but if you must use them ensure that you define them. Monitor your tone, diction and pace of your speech.&nbsp;Having good verbal skills is not only about how you speak but also about how you listen. Communication is a two-way process and if you are actively listening and engaged in what the person is saying, you are paying respect to the person you’re speaking to. A good way to show that you are actively listening is to repeat parts of what the person has said to you in your response. So, you may say something like “What I heard you say was…” This not only shows the person that you were listening, but offers an opportunity to clear up any misunderstandings.Non-verbal skills: you must be mindful of your body language when communicating because the person you are speaking to will interpret your message in specific ways depending on what they see. Be mindful of your facial expressions and hand movements.Written skills: we all have felt someone’s tone in an email. Therefore, it is important to be cognisant of how your written message could come across. Be aware of how the words you have chosen may be perceived and of how you are feeling when you are writing. If you are feeling a strong emotion such as anger, frustration or annoyance, it would be better to write that email a little later!Be likeable without the need to be likedWe are socialised to be likeable and nice. We were taught to share, be kind and speak to people even when we do not want to. This causes us to need to be, or at least appear to be nice. Now, being nice is fine, and being liked is also necessary for a manager. However, it is the need to be liked that can cause challenges. As a manager, you are not always going to be liked, and if that is a motivator, you may be unwilling to make the right decisions, which will affect your performance and your institution. Even if people do not like you, having them respect you for your standpoints or for how you generally behave is much more important than being liked.&nbsp;Making yourself likeable can be difficult when dealing with many different personality types. However, some things I have found that have helped me as a manager include:Being equitableBeing trustworthy&nbsp;Admitting if you don’t know something&nbsp;Having a sense of humourAdmitting when you are wrong.Show integrityFor a team to be effective, they must trust their manager, and without integrity, there is no trust. Honesty, probity, rectitude, whichever word you prefer, a manager must have these qualities. &nbsp;You can demonstrate them in the following ways:Giving credit where it is due&nbsp;Showing gratitudeShowing respect&nbsp;Avoiding gossipFollowing policy and procedures.Delegate effectivelyAs a manager, you should delegate with the intention of developing your staff and give them opportunities to shine outside of their normal roles. It can be difficult to delegate if you feel that the person may not be able to do the job as well as you can. However, to be a good manager, you must be able to develop and enhance the skills of the people you are responsible for.Resource collection: Should I become a university administrator?An introvert’s guide to networkingBridging the communication gap between administrators and facultyDemonstrate emotional intelligenceYou must be able to manage yourself before you can manage others. This is where emotional intelligence comes in. The theory of emotional intelligence was introduced by Peter Salovey and John D. Mayer in the 1990s, and further developed and brought to the lay public by Daniel Goleman.&nbsp;Here are some questions to ask yourself if you want to enhance your emotional intelligence:How self-aware are you?&nbsp;Do you know what triggers you and what calms you?&nbsp;Do you have a realistic perception of how others see you?Do you know how to manage your emotions and behaviour?&nbsp;Can you keep your emotions under control and remain professional?Can you detect people’s emotions?Are you able to understand another person’s opinion even if you do not agree with them?&nbsp;Are you able to imagine what a person’s experience might be like even if you have never had it?Management is rewarding, but managing people is not an easy task. It takes commitment and genuine passion to develop and empower people to achieve their very best. Happy managing!Colleen Robinson-Hunte is a programme manager at the University of the West Indies Global Campus and a subject matter expert and curriculum writer in small business management and management and leadership.&nbsp;If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.

Are you ready to manage?

Management is rewarding, but managing people is not an easy task. It takes commitment and genuine passion to develop and empower people to achieve their very best, writes Colleen Robinson-Hunte

Should academics be worried that the findings of their research will traumatise people? It’s a valid question.&nbsp;We know everyday experiences have the potential to be a source of psychological distress and trauma. Researchers explore challenging and complex issues, affecting society and individuals – and it’s important to consider how we can make sure our findings don’t cause further harm.&nbsp;What is trauma and what does it mean to be trauma-informed?Trauma is more common than we might think, with about 70 per cent of people estimated to have experienced it at some point in their life. Although there is no accepted definition of trauma, a strong starting point is the definition by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, which describes it as an event or circumstance which has lasting effects on an individual’s well-being.&nbsp;Trauma overwhelms us. It makes us feel like we can't handle things – and it can build up over time, affecting our overall health. But here’s the thing: if we know about the potential for trauma, we can do something about it.Dealing with abuse after public commentaryA case for bringing ethics of friendship and care to academic researchFive tips for building healthy academic collaborationsBeing trauma-informed means recognising that the things we do and share, including research findings,&nbsp; could potentially hurt people. So, before we dive into how to handle this, let’s talk about why it matters.Why it matters to be trauma-informedHow can people – participants, researchers or public as a whole – be traumatised by the sharing of research news after projects have finished? Well, in a nutshell, you don’t have to experience something first-hand to be affected by it. This phenomenon is more commonly known as “vicarious trauma” or “secondary trauma” and can happen when we connect emotionally with what we’re hearing or reading. For example, reading an upsetting news story can trigger secondary trauma. When we connect meaningfully with something, we are inevitably affected by it.&nbsp;When research findings are hard-hitting, such as highlighting discrimination and inequalities, those engaging with them are exposed to the risk of psychological distress in ways we cannot predict. With psychological distress comes the risk of trauma, which has huge implications for our well-being.Research news is meant to connect with us, to make us think and feel something. But what if those feelings end up being negative? We don’t always know how people will react to what we share, and that is a problem. That’s where trauma-informed principles come in.&nbsp;Trauma-informed principlesTrauma-informed principles are guidelines that help us share research in a way that acknowledges the potential for trauma and aims to prevent any extra distress.There are six in total. Here they are, and what they mean in practice:Safety&nbsp;This is about more than just physical safety. Researchers should ensure emotional safety by being mindful of each interaction during research.&nbsp;Trustworthiness and transparencyIt’s vital that you are honest and clear with participants when laying out what you plan to do, what they can expect and what you are setting out to achieve.&nbsp;Peer support&nbsp;Support networks are vital in life, and during research this is no different. Researchers understand the challenges faced by other researchers, and can provide valuable support.&nbsp;Collaboration and mutualityResearch can feel like us-and-them. Instead research and dissemination should promote a sense of coming together to explore findings and next steps, working together as partners where the input of those involved is mutually agreed.Empowerment, voice and choiceInvolving the people on which the research is based and who it impacts is crucial. It’s important that the voice of participants and those who are affected by research is valued, and they have a role in shaping decisions.&nbsp;Cultural, historical and gender issuesWe know stereotypes, discrimination and bias can be a source of trauma.&nbsp; When research collaboratively works with people impacted by its findings, it can help support an appropriate, sensitive and effective way forward.&nbsp;Using these principles as a guide, researchers can universally approach dissemination in a way that acknowledges the potential for trauma and buffer against additional distress that the research may communicate.&nbsp; &nbsp;For example, during the pandemic, researchers took a close look at how they shared their findings on the impact of visiting restrictions in care homes with the stakeholders who regulated this. They already knew that these limitations were emotionally draining and extremely difficult for those affected, and made sure to protect people from any extra trauma.To do this, they put several important measures in place. These included giving people a heads-up about their trauma-informed approach, letting people have a say in how the information was shared, taking breaks during discussions to give people time to reflect and making sure that quieter voices were heard.&nbsp;Researchers said this created a sense of safety in an open, permissive and non-judgmental space. This approach allowed researchers to put a different lens on the findings, with participants making researchers sensitive to the alternative perspectives of their role in the project. Researchers said that without the trauma-informed approach, the findings would have been didactic. Instead, they gained illustrative insights into the real stories that created authentic reflection and was an important reality check on how to share distressing information with other groups.&nbsp;Trauma-informed research dissemination is important because trauma can come from everyday things, such as news stories or even just a conversation. Our tipping point is invisible and we may not know ourselves where our threshold is. Researchers should be acutely aware of this, and be vigilant in protecting participants and those consuming their research. This promotes a sense of safety and is a necessary best-practice step that the research community must test further.&nbsp;It’s a step in the right direction to ensure our research doesn’t cause negative outcomes for individuals, alongside any positives it brings for wider society. We can’t – and clearly shouldn’t – avoid tackling difficult subjects. However, the right approach can help ensure we handle them in a sensitive and considered way.&nbsp;Eileen Harkess-Murphy is lecturer in health and life sciences at the University of the West of Scotland.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week,&nbsp;sign up for the Campus newsletter.

Research shouldn’t cause trauma – let’s find a better way

How can we conduct research and share results without affecting the well-being of those around us? Eileen Harkess-Murphy advocates for a trauma-informed approach 

Every now and again, you find yourself involved in a university project that feels particularly special – something you think about after hours, something that you know will remain with you once it has concluded. When that project comes along, you really want to talk about it. Sometimes though, words aren’t enough – you want to show people the project. But how exactly do you do that?It was this thought process that led us to try presenting our research in a different way, demonstrating the real-life impact of one of our projects. We decided to&nbsp;make a documentary.&nbsp;Finding Our VoiceThe research project in question was called Finding Our Voice. Developed in conjunction with theatre group&nbsp;At Home At The Theatre, the initiative saw people living with dementia perform alongside professional actors. We wanted to test performance as a way of unlocking hidden skills and memories – and it worked. Residents at Torrance Lodge Care Home in Kilmarnock, where we ran Finding Our Voice, grew in confidence, giving family members and staff the chance to catch a glimpse of the person who had been hidden for so long.&nbsp;Making the documentaryThe atmosphere during the workshops was infectious. Each session was unique, designed around the interests of the participants. One week, you might be performing musical theatre, the next, stand-up comedy. The challenge was to film these sessions and capture the atmosphere in the room, giving viewers the chance to see for themselves how the participatory performance can enhance lives.&nbsp;Life after publication: promote your work for maximum impactAmplifying research: five features of successful impact generationFive things to know before you launch a research podcastAt the University of the West of Scotland, we are fortunate to have a high number of working professionals from the film and television industries on staff. As a first step, they attended one of the sessions simply to observe – witnessing a high-energy hour, where the sense of joy and achievement from participants was abundantly clear. The room was small, a potential obstacle in capturing what was happening.&nbsp;We drafted in an experienced camera operator – and UWS alumnus – Steven Donnelly, who has worked on shows such as 007: Road to a Million, Amazon’s The Great Escapists and Billy Connolly: Made in Scotland. Not only did he have the expertise required to work around the limited space, he oversaw two student camera operators and a sound recordist, ensuring the project created valuable opportunities for current students. The film itself was shot over two days, with the workshops themselves facilitated by At Home at the Theatre and BA Performance student Claudia Kelly.&nbsp;The crew captured enough footage to give the editor a greater choice of shots, but little actual direction was necessary. In situations like this, filmmakers must try to capture the small moments, such as the tapping foot, the encouraging smile, the hand on the arm or simply eyes willing someone on. Occasionally, a director will point these out to a camera operator, but the best moments tend to spot them themselves. It’s about working as another pair of eyes to capture the moments that illuminate the project. The residents were so involved in the workshop that they almost completely ignored the presence of the cameras. Usually, directors can only hope for that to be the case.&nbsp;The resulting footage was edited by Angela Slaven (you may have seen her recent documentary, Imagine, about the Pet Shop Boys) and demonstrates how film production offers a wide range of opportunities, which is an important learning point for students.&nbsp;…And that’s a wrap!We believe the finished film tells the story behind the research – and, crucially, its impact – as effectively as a journal article or conference paper. It will certainly sit alongside these modes of dissemination, adding a level of colour and accessibility. After all, an image is worth a thousand words.&nbsp;Early findings from the project suggest that participation had a positive impact on the residents’ lives, including wider family life and relationships. We hope that, in capturing the work on film, this positivity can be shared and celebrated.&nbsp;It’s also allowed our students to work with a generation of people they otherwise would not have met in that setting. Not only have they been paid for their work, they’ve worked alongside high-profile figures within the industry.&nbsp;Would we do it again? Absolutely – and indeed, another documentary is being made about a separate research project, creating further opportunities for students and making the value of our research visible, to an audience who may otherwise not have the opportunity to directly see the impact it has.Making a film doesn’t have to be a complex process. We live in a world where images and moments are being captured all the time on our smartphones. Sometimes, it takes the embodied viewpoint captured through a smartphone lens to demonstrate the real essence of research. So, perhaps we’re all filmmakers.&nbsp;If you are thinking that a filmed record could help increase the impact of your research – or add an element to it – talk to lecturers in your film and TV division as soon as possible.&nbsp; They may be able to help with a budget to include in your grant proposal.As academics, we’re encouraged to shout about our work. Perhaps, by screening it, we are doing so more loudly.&nbsp;James Layton is lecturer in BA Performance and Paul Tucker and Bettina Talbot are lecturers in BA Broadcast Production: TV &amp; Radio, all at the University of the West of Scotland.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week,&nbsp;sign up for the Campus&nbsp;newsletter.

The making of: turning a research project into a documentary

To get your research findings into as many hands as possible, consider filming a documentary. James Layton, Paul Tucker and Bettina Talbot offer their advice

In the future of research support, generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) isn’t just a tool; it’s your colleague and ally. Whether you’re crafting grants or shaping policy, GenAI offers a wide range of possibilities tailored to the unique role of each research manager. Sure, it can’t write a full grant proposal on its own – yet – but when used strategically, GenAI has the potential to increase both the efficiency and quality of our work. So, how can research managers integrate this into diverse workflows?In this article, we will outline a general framework for human-AI collaboration in research support that most research managers can apply. Before you start, familiarise yourself with current AI guidelines at your institution and take steps to apply GenAI responsibly.Step 1: define your workflowBefore asking what GenAI can do, define what you do. Map out your common work processes: list all the steps you take during a typical day or project. Reflect on your list and look for bottlenecks. Which steps usually take the most time? Can GenAI help?Furthermore, keep in mind that “GenAI” is a broad term: there are countless tools available, each with a different speciality and a set of strengths and weaknesses. We consider two types of GenAI support:Automation: we delegate routine or repetitive tasks to save timeAugmentation: we consult GenAI like a colleague and increase the level of our work.Experiment with different tools and see which ones fit your workflow best. For inspiration, let’s look at a few examples of what GenAI can do:Type of toolHow GenAI adds valueGeneral purposeGenAI chatbots can quickly write an email, summarise long texts or brainstorm in a conversational formatResearchThey can find relevant sources and minimise hallucinations (AI-generated inaccuracies) using AI-powered data analysis toolsProductivityThey extract information from PDFs such as calls for proposalsWritingThey can improve your writing and make your message clearer. This is especially useful for non-native English speakersImage generationThey can create project logos, proposal figures and presentation illustrationsTeachingThey can create workshop outlines, presentation slides and other educational resourcesStep 2: plan your GenAI collaborationAfter you have mapped out your workflow, identify the steps where GenAI could add value and determine what its role will be. Every collaboration starts from a common understanding of responsibilities and a task division that plays to the talents of each team member. Applying this approach to GenAI can help you leverage the technology’s strengths while focusing on where you add the most value as the human operator. Assign tasks to your GenAI tool strategically and prioritise accordingly. Not every document needs to be award-winning, and not every task should be completed quickly.Resource collection: AI transformers like ChatGPT are here, so what next?Can we spot AI-written content?ChatGPT and generative AI: 25 applications to support researchExample: drafting an impact pathway using GenAIImpact is one of the three main sections in a Horizon Europe proposal. This non-technical part is often where researchers seek guidance from research managers for a helicopter perspective. The AI-augmented process below showcases how people (research managers and researchers) and GenAI can collaborate to develop a strong draft of an impact pathway.Step 3: fine-tune your collaborationAs with human colleagues, establishing a great collaboration won’t happen overnight. If it’s your first time using GenAI, start with just one or two simple tasks. Build on successful examples and expand on them to become a winning team.Icebreaker: Every good result starts with a good prompt. There are many resources about prompt engineering, which is beyond the scope of this article. Once you write a prompt, test and adjust as needed. If you like the output, save your prompt in a personal “prompting library” for later access and to share with colleagues.Conversation: Working with GenAI requires more effort than simply pasting a prompt into a textbox: it’s a discussion. GenAI tools deliver the best output when used in a conversational manner, so don’t just use the first response you get. Give examples and feedback.Outcome: there will always be some trial and error involved. Experiment to find out how you and GenAI can form the best team and complement each other best. If you don’t get the output you wanted, perhaps your task was too complex and needs to be broken down into multiple, logical steps.Step 4: stay in the loopEven if you’re happy with the result, your work is not done! As the human in the loop, you are responsible for any GenAI-assisted output. Always check GenAI output for bias and hallucinations, and edit the text to better fit your own voice.GenAI opens a whole new frontier in research support, streamlining complex processes and enhancing our work. Each small step you take to explore this technology pushes the boundaries and shapes the future of our profession. With your guidance, GenAI can act as a collaborator to augment – not replace – your expertise.Ryan Henderson and Tse-Hsiang Chen are grant advisers at the University Medical Center Utrecht. Ayla Kruis is a grant and career advisor at Utrecht University.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.

Embrace the possibilities of generative AI in research support with a strategic mindset. Ryan Henderson, Ayla Kruis and Tse-Hsiang Chen share their practical framework for successful human-AI collaboration

Enhance GenAI collaboration for future-proof research support

What happens when a literary scholar turns her attention to local archives such as inventories and court records? English professor Alexandra Harris talks about writing history, uncovering centuries of silent lives for her new book, and the interdisciplinary power of the humanities

THE podcast: bringing an outsider’s eye to primary sources

“Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn’t stop to think if they should.” Ian Malcolm’s prescient words from Jurassic Park ring true decades later as we discover the far-reaching implications of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI). How can we harness the strength of this modern-day dinosaur, while minimising the risk that our choices come back to bite us?

  
      
  
    Image
                



          

  

The perils of GenAI. We generated this figure in less than a minute using AI (Adobe Firefly). On the surface, it’s a pretty convincing cartoon of a Tyrannosaurus Rex and a scientist. But can you spot the errors? While GenAI can create a relatively likely image (or text), it is not designed to have an actual understanding of the content.

GenAI is transforming the way we approach research support and is being touted by some as the most disruptive technology since the internet. Whether you agree with this or dismiss it as hype,&nbsp;an increasing number of researchers are already using GenAI to write grant applications and scientific papers. Recognising this, the European Commission recently published&nbsp;living guidelines on the responsible use of GenAI for researchers, research organisations and funding bodies. This is a great starting point as we consider how we can use this tool, as well as how we should use it.&nbsp;Here, we provide concrete advice for research support professionals on how to responsibly integrate genAI into their work.Protect privacy and data&nbsp;GenAI models use large amounts of (often publicly available) data, which could include sensitive information, and it’s usually not possible to delete data from a language model. It’s therefore safest to assume that most GenAI tools are not GDPR-compliant. We recommend:&nbsp;Treating GenAI inputs as if you were posting them publicly. If you wouldn’t post it in a public online space, don’t put it in an openly available GenAI tool.Educating yourself about how the AI service provider handles the data you enter. Crucially, will your data be used to further train the model? Many tools allow you to opt out of this.Using a local, offline model for more sensitive information. This requires more tech-savviness but can be worth it for the added privacy it offers.Review all outputs for accuracy and biasGenAI models recognise patterns without understanding the content. This makes them prone to hallucination: confidently asserting a “fact” that seems plausible but is nonsensical or unrelated to the input (for instance, a reference to a journal article that doesn’t exist). Since factual errors can be easy to miss, check any AI-generated output carefully. Be aware that you are always responsible for what you publish in your name, as most funders and publishers agree that AI cannot legally claim authorship. &nbsp;Human review can also help mitigate AI bias. Large models such as ChatGPT are trained on text written by humans so they have inherited our own biases and stereotypes. If the training data is biased or incomplete, the AI's outputs will also be biased or incomplete. To avoid factual errors and bias in your work, always critically review any GenAI outputs and be aware of what data set was used to train the model.&nbsp;Resource collection: AI transformers like ChatGPT are here, so what next?ChatGPT and generative AI: 25 applications to support researchAdapt, evolve, elevate: ChatGPT is calling for interdisciplinary actionBe transparent about using GenAIWith all the potential issues, not everyone will be keen to trust GenAI. Have an open discussion with the researchers you support about it, including your preferred tools and what information they are comfortable sharing with them. Together, you can set clear boundaries for when and how GenAI can be used in your collaboration.This extends to submitting funding applications and reporting to funding agencies. Follow the guidelines provided by funding agencies, and honestly disclose any substantial use (in other words beyond basic author support) of GenAI in proposals.Educate yourself and othersThere is still so much to learn about how to use genAI responsibly and effectively, and most higher education staff are in the same boat. What can research support staff do?Stay up to date: as technology and the laws surrounding it evolve, knowledge quickly becomes outdated. Staying –&nbsp;and helping colleagues to stay –&nbsp;up to date is essential. At our research institutions (University Medical Center Utrecht and Utrecht University) we are currently developing training on the effective and responsible use of GenAI for support staff and researchers, and will update these frequently.&nbsp;Find or create a GenAI community: connect to professional networks within or outside your organisation to share knowledge and exchange best practices. Or find colleagues around you who share an interest in GenAI and create your own!Share your knowledge and experience: you can introduce newcomers and “non-techies” to genAI by curating a list of prompts and use cases, as well as the basic principles of prompt engineering.&nbsp;Develop clear guidelines: develop and communicate GenAI policy and guidelines. The living guidelines from the European Commission offer a great introduction but organisations may wish to expand on these for their specific situations.By approaching GenAI with a healthy mix of curiosity and scepticism, we can contribute significantly to integrating GenAI into our organisations – without looking back and wondering “what have we done?”.Ryan Henderson is grant advisor at the University Medical Center Utrecht; Ayla Kruis is grant and career advisor at Utrecht University.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.

Navigating the new frontier of research support

As Generative AI gains traction in the world of research, Ryan Henderson and Ayla Kruis shed light on using it responsibly in research support

The GenAI awakening: navigating the new frontier of research support

Nicolas Leech-Crier, Jule Chapman, Jim McLeod and Samona Marsh are not your average researchers. They’re not grad students or faculty members. They don’t write grants or rely on publications to advance their careers. Yet their collaborative research has been made required reading for first-year medical students at the University of British Columbia.&nbsp;Leech-Crier, Chapman, McLeod and Marsh, residents of the Downtown Eastside (DTES) neighbourhood of Vancouver, are four of 16 co-authors of&nbsp;Research 101: A Manifesto for Ethical Research in the Downtown Eastside. The manifesto is geared towards academic researchers but provides information for anyone (artists, journalists, film-makers, volunteer groups) hoping to communicate the complexity of the community’s story elsewhere. It responds to a history of people&nbsp;extracting knowledge and stories from the DTES community in harmful ways.&nbsp;How to make public engagement work for early career academicsUse students to facilitate impactful collaborations that benefit the communityDon’t be fooled – community outreach can be even better onlineIn a&nbsp;co-authored academic publication in&nbsp;Harm Reduction Journal,&nbsp;Leech-Crier reflected on the injustice of research without reciprocity in his community: “It’s really not fair that we consistently contribute our hearts and souls into never-ending research... but they’ll just smile and shake our hands, politely thank us for participating in whatever new thing their findings may conclude...and we’ll probably never see them again.”The manifesto demonstrates how community perceptions of what constitutes ethical and respectful practice should guide research projects, especially when those projects involve members of communities that are already heavily studied and stigmatised. It offers clear, practical advice about not perpetuating stigma, practising reciprocity and sharing power with the community members in question.&nbsp;The expertise and knowledge shared by these community co-authors is based on lived experience and relationships – core aspects of a growing movement for more community-engaged research at post-secondary institutions.&nbsp;What is community-engaged research?In a traditional research project, there is an inherent power imbalance between the researcher and the researched. The researcher almost always holds the power to decide what questions to ask, what data to focus on, what issues to highlight, what quotes to use and how research should be acted upon.&nbsp;Community-engaged research (CER), on the other hand, makes space for communities to work in partnership with academic researchers. It asks: Are those most affected by the problem at the table? Do they play decision-making roles in the direction of studies? Published in 2021, the&nbsp;Community Resource Handbook: A Guide to Community-Engaged Research produced by&nbsp;Simon Fraser University’s Community Engaged Research Initiative explores the key considerations, methods and ethical principles of this approach.&nbsp;Rather than focusing solely on advancing knowledge in a particular field, CER is centred on community transformation and social change that meets the needs of the community itself.&nbsp;Why is CER important?CER gives a voice to marginalised, exploited or underserved communities. Research has long been&nbsp;a source of harm in Indigenous communities, used to&nbsp;justify acts of genocide and land theft. In the 1940s, researchers from the Canadian federal government&nbsp;exploited the malnutrition&nbsp;of Indigenous children living in residential schools to test the effects of nutritional supplements on children’s health. The experiments continued despite children in the study dying of malnutrition – and the results eventually showed the supplements&nbsp;did not work.&nbsp;Indigenous-led and community-engaged research projects are showing how these communities can use research to regain control over their knowledge and history. These approaches focus on following traditional protocols, honouring their&nbsp;free prior and informed consent and respecting community norms. For instance, the research project&nbsp;Húy̓at: Our Voices Our Land used video, photos and stories to present an Indigenous perspective on Húy̓at (Hauyat), one of an immense network of culturally important landscapes in Heiltsuk territory on the Central Coast of British Columbia.&nbsp;Heiltsuk Chief Marilyn Slett&nbsp;says of the project: “With this publicly accessible website, we’re sharing our inseparable connection with our homelands as it holds true for all First Nations up and down the coast. We believe the Húy̓at website will become a great resource for schools and for people who are interested in better understanding First Peoples’ culture.”&nbsp;CER can help inform better policy. The drug toxicity crisis has devastated communities large and small across North America. The policy response has often failed to address the problem, and for many the crisis can feel insurmountable.&nbsp;“Walk with Me:&nbsp;Uncovering the Human Dimensions of the Overdose Crisis” is a project developed by research and community teams in Kamloops and the Comox Valley in BC, which involves survivors of the overdose crisis, their family members and front-line workers participating in “Story Walks” designed to enable deep reflection and generate dialogue leading to change. Researchers then work with the community to bring the insights of the project into play with emergency departments, healthcare settings and policing departments (and other systems responsible for addressing the crisis). Researchers and community members also develop policy reports and present them to decision-makers in order to facilitate change.&nbsp;For those interested how to incorporate community-engaged research into their work or how to embark on their own community-engaged research project, consider:Browsing SFU CERi’s&nbsp;Community Resource Handbook: A Guide to Community-Engaged ResearchTalking to the community engagement office or research services at your home university to understand what supports exist&nbsp;Engaging with&nbsp;Commmunity-based Research Canada by attending their events, subscribing to their newsletter or joining their community-of-practice monthly meetings&nbsp;Exploring Living Knowledge Network to access an&nbsp;international network of Science Shops and Community Based Research.Research is a powerful form of storytelling. It influences the decisions we make and the issues we prioritise. Inviting community members to set the agenda and guide a project’s ethical compass is essential for telling the stories we desperately need to hear.&nbsp;Tara Mahoney is the research and engagement lead for the Community Engaged Research Initiative at Simon Fraser University; Scott Neufeld is an assistant professor in community psychology at Brock University, who recently earned his PhD in social psychology from Simon Fraser University.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week,&nbsp;sign up for the Campus newsletter.

Community-engaged research gives a voice to the marginalised

Our biggest challenges cannot be resolved by ‘expert’ research alone – community knowledge is essential. Tara Mahoney and Scott Neufeld argue that researchers should let communities set the agenda

Community-engaged research can give a voice to marginalised people

Analytical testing is the driving force of collaboration between higher education and industry, enabling both sides to create, innovate and provide solutions to problems they face. But how can we enhance analytical testing services to nurture these collaborations? Here, I’ll cover the best ways and highlight benefits, challenges and strategies to each method.Why is analytical testing significant?Analytical testing offers invaluable insights into the composition, properties and behaviour of materials, chemicals and products.Researchers need support to change the world – here’s how to provide itHow can we take research from the lab to the marketplace?To extend your research’s impact, be bold and collaborate widelyThroughout history, these insights have propelled scientific discovery, eased the product development process and fuelled technological innovation. Techniques such as chromatography, spectroscopy and mass spectrometry have empowered researchers to analyse molecular structures, authenticate materials and evaluate product quality. For example, the electron microscope is widely used across a range of sectors, from food to engineering and forensic studies.By harnessing the power of analytical testing, both academics and industry professionals can make informed decisions, pinpoint areas for improvement and drive innovation across various sectors.Challenges versus opportunitiesDespite its significance, higher education and industry are constantly facing challenges associated with analytical testing services in collaborative projects. The need for niche equipment, expertise and resources, as well as differences in priorities and urgency in adhering to timelines, must be considered.But these challenges can be overcome through strategic partnerships, leveraging on platforms such as a memorandum of understanding/agreement (MOU/MOA). Both parties can maximise the endless possibilities of analytical testing while accomplishing their common goals together.How is this possible?To use analytical testing to enhance collaboration between universities and industry, think strategically.First, universities and industries need to establish research centres or centralised laboratories equipped with cutting-edge analytical equipment and experts. These centres can serve as hubs for collaborative projects, knowledge exchange and technology transfer between the academic world and industry. Both could collaborate in the development of customised methods for specific industry needs to ensure accurate and reliable results. By offering analytical testing services to industries, universities can recover operational costs, optimising their resources. As a result, universities save on both operational and capital expenditures.The second step is to nurture interdisciplinary collaboration partnerships. These are essential as they foster projects that can exist in various domains, including problem-solving, product development and even joint research publications. Initiatives such as these benefit from diverse perspectives and expertise contributed by experts hailing from an array of disciplines, such as materials science, chemistry, engineering and more. Most importantly, this approach would enable research findings to advance towards practical applications, eventually driving economic returns and societal impact.Another crucial consideration is quality assurance, often overlooked by many universities despite its significance in industry. One contributing factor to this neglect is the distinction between industry and university projects. While industry initiatives are typically commercial, university projects serve educational purposes. ISO/IEC&nbsp;17025 is a globally acknowledged standard for testing and calibration labs, ensuring precise and reliable analytical tests. Embracing this standard would enhance research projects, particularly those requiring adherence to specific benchmarks, while instilling stakeholder confidence.Marketing and engaging promotions on analytical testing services can also facilitate collaboration, through short courses, workshops and webinars. These platforms would raise a awareness of the benefits of analytical testing and its potential implementations across various industries. This also opens the door for both university researchers and industry experts to collaborate, build networks and exchange knowledge.Tailor-made training programmes and structured educational courses can provide university students and industry personnel with the required skills and knowledge in analytical testing techniques and methodologies. This nurtures a competent workforce, capable of driving innovation and excellence in collaborative projects.The proof is in the puddingPractical case studies and their success stories show the substantial impacts of joint projects via analytical testing between universities and industries. For instance, an MOU between the Centralised Analytical Laboratory of a university and a renewable energy company may use sophisticated analytical facilities to characterise the performance and effectiveness of renewable energy technologies. This collaboration may even progress alternative sustainable yet economical energy solutions, which would be able to tackle the urgent environmental challenges and expedite the transformation journey towards a clean energy future.Economically, the possibilities for such collaboration projects to turn into products or technologies with commercial potential are limitless. For example, a partnership between a university that majors in engineering and a company whose business is in automotive manufacturing might use analytical testing to improve the design and performance of its automotive components. By incorporating the wonders of analytical insights into the product creation phase, they would produce not only products that consumers need but also drive economic growth and competitiveness.Enhancing analytical testing services would boost effective collaboration between universities and industries. Analytical testing services are the key for universities and industries to foster creativity and innovation, while simultaneously providing solutions to complex challenges and helping to achieve their shared goals together. Interdisciplinary collaboration, technology integration, strategic engagement, capability-building and quality assurance are essential in enhancing analytical testing services and maximising their impact on collaborative projects.The world is changing, and collaboration between universities and industries needs to evolve dynamically. Analytical testing will remain significant in propelling progress and generating value for important stakeholders. It is with strategic partnerships, innovative methods and a dedication to excellence that universities and industries can shape an illustrious horizon for future research and innovation.Imtias Amir Bahauddin is laboratory manager at Universiti Teknologi Petronas.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter

Analytical testing is the key to industry collaborations

Analytical testing services can revolutionise collaboration between universities and industries. Imtias Amir Bahauddin explains how

What’s the key to collaborations between HE and industry? Analytical testing services

Talent support and knowledge transfer work best when the spirit of professional competition goes hand in hand with teamwork. Mentoring and intergenerational exchange also have a role in this area. The benefits of this approach can be borne out in international contests – and flow into improving innovation and patient care.Here, teachers from Semmelweis University, who are cardiologists at the university’s Heart Centre, share their experiences and advice on collaboration and mentoring, based on their success in a 2023 electrocardiography (ECG) diagnostics competition.Teamwork and a competitive spirit: the secrets of successThe competitive spirit and cooperation are not mutually exclusive. Combining competition with cooperation in talent support fosters a healthy learning environment for medical students and encourages the growth of each student.At Semmelweis University (and in Hungarian universities in general), the approach starts when teachers invite talented students to participate in the work of the Scientific Students’ Association. Under the supervision of a professional in the chosen field, they usually prepare for a competition on campus, where the best research papers will be selected. These papers can advance to the National Scientific Students’ Association Conference organised by the National Council of Student Research Societies. The competitive spirit – the seeds of which are planted during the undergraduate years at the university – is present also at the postdoctoral level and lives on in the tireless activities of the working groups in which mentors work together with their fellows.Give educators the skills to bring assessment into the futurePledges and charters in medical schools: catalysts for change or performative promises?What underpins effective patient and public involvement in health and social care research?The competitive and cooperative environment at the Semmelweis Heart Centre is beneficial not only for the doctors, as a driving force for continuous enhancement of their knowledge, but also, first and foremost, for the patients. As a result, patient care is provided by physicians who can offer an effective therapy based on the richest knowledge and technological advances available.However, it is essential that competition not overshadow cooperation. In our working group, we are all happy if any one of our colleagues or a supervisee of a colleague is successful at a conference or a contest. We take it to be the success of the team, because behind this person there are always many other people – colleagues, fellow students, mentors and the grand old scientists of the field on whose intellectual legacy a specific discipline or working group is built – without whose example or support this success could never have been achieved. Success, too, is for the common cause: for the benefit of our patients.Three pillars of mentorship in training physiciansIn such a fertile environment, it is the mentor who still has a key role to play in developing talent. And what are the qualities that make someone a good mentor? In our experience, becoming a professional mentor has three pillars: competency, credibility and a spirit of continuity.First, mentors should display a strong foundation of medical knowledge, clinical experience and specialised training, allowing us to effectively guide our supervisees’ professional development. To stay competent in our primary area of practice, we must practise continuous learning and stay up to date with advances and guidelines in our field. Competency goes hand in hand with an orientation to success in patient care, which, in our field of expertise, means consistently striving for positive patient outcomes.Second, credibility is essential in establishing trust and confidence not only between doctor and patient but also between mentors and young doctors. For a mentor to be credible, and respected and trusted by their supervisee, they must have appropriate expertise in the relevant areas. Of no less importance are excellent communication skills. Mentors must be able to convey their knowledge and expertise effectively through clear explanations and constructive feedback. An honest and open environment encourages questions, discussions and the exchange of ideas. In the work of our team, for example, complex pathologies and diseases are inevitable. In such cases, older colleagues must pass on their experience to younger generations while remaining open to innovative ideas from young doctors.Third, talent support can be successful in the long run only if it is done in continuity. In our working group, for example, mentors who give guidance to their students do this with the ammunition of the legacy of their grand old medical professors (such as Sándor Juhász-Nagy, József Tenczer and Zoltán Szabó in the field of cardiology). This spirit is carried forward by their former student Béla Merkely, the rector of Semmelweis University and head of the Heart and Vascular Centre. They work with their young colleagues and former PhD students, as well as with the PhD supervisees of their former PhD students. Thusly, in the interventional laboratories, several generations are present at the same time.Competition and collaboration are a winning combinationNothing justifies this approach to talent management more than the fact that being and working in such a professional atmosphere gives you the training, knowledge and skills to finish in first place in a global competition, even without any specific, tailored preparation for it. The best preparatory training has proved to be the daily practice at our clinic.Every year, at the annual congress of the European Heart Rhythm Association, a competition is held for young cardiologists from all over the world to compare their skills in one of the most widely used methods for the diagnosis of heart diseases: electrocardiography. In 2023, the young cardiologists of Semmelweis University won this two-round competition. It is a great honour to win this tough competition, where the best professionals of different nations compare their skills based on the accuracy and speed of diagnoses.Since then, we – the winning team and our mentor, László Gellér – have been invited to a handful of television programmes and interviewed by many media platforms to talk about this contest, and the key factors on the road to success.László Gellér is a cardiologist, full professor and deputy head of the department of cardiology, and head of the electrophysiology working group and the department of day cardiology at the Heart Centre of Semmelweis University, Hungary. He is the president-elect of the Hungarian Society of Cardiology.Zoltán Salló and Nándor Szegedi are both cardiologists and members of the electrophysiology working group at the Heart Centre of Semmelweis University, Hungary.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.

Competition, cooperation and continuity in talent support play integral roles in training and preparing medical professionals, and improving patient care, write three cardiologists

How to train world-champion cardiologists

How can we bridge the gap between the moment of academic discovery and a successful product launch into the marketplace? As&nbsp;researchers, our goal is to improve overall quality of life for individuals or society as a whole, but a host of challenges lie between lab desk and shop shelf.When transitioning from research to commercialisation, the main challenge is going to be uniting the differing priorities of each party. Academics are focused on fundamental knowledge and principles, while industry players are looking for market feasibility and practical applications. To build bridges, researchers need to adapt their findings to market needs.How to facilitate knowledge exchange and build trust with policymakersTo extend your research’s impact, be bold and collaborate widelyFive tips for building healthy academic collaborationsSuccessful transition from lab to market requires a strategic approach, involving meticulous planning, collaboration between the teams involved and effective communication with stakeholders. We’ve developed five strategies that can be adopted by researchers to boost their research into commercial success.1. Identify market potentialThe first step is to identify the market potential. It is crucial to understand the needs and gaps in the industry. Conduct market research, if possible, to zero in on potential customers and competitors, helping you to understand where your product or technology can fit in the marketplace.When you’ve worked out your market potential, tailor the research approach to align with the industry’s standards and requirements. This will help to streamline the transition to commercialisation.2. Prototype developmentDevelop a prototype based on the fundamental research findings to showcase the technology’s capabilities in a real-world environment. Industry partners will be more likely to invest in technologies that have proven their feasibility.3. Seek advice from technology transfer officesEach university has its own technology transfer office (TTO), which is responsible for advising and facilitating researchers in transitioning their research into commercialisation. Work closely with your institution’s TTO to seek advice on licensing opportunities, patents and industry partnerships.4. Get out thereParticipate in technology showcase activities such as exhibitions, conferences and networking events, to demonstrate the technology and attract potential investors. A bonus is that this can also increase your chances of securing funding opportunities from industry partners or government agencies.5. Form strategic partnership with industry partnersFoster partnerships with industry players through collaboration projects to boost the transition of research into industrial applications. Industry partners can provide insight on the developed technology, access to resources and potential pathways to commercialisation.While transitioning research into market success can be challenging, strategic planning, perseverance and adaptability make it possible. Not only will it help researchers to improve society, it also has positive implications for the institution. Investing the revenue generated from successful commercialisation into further research and development will allow its impact to grow and grow.Vorathin Epin, Ibham Veza, Mazian Mohammad and Abdul Rahim Othman are part of the mechanical engineering department at Universiti Teknologi Petronas.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.

How can we take research from the lab to the marketplace?

When getting the products of your research into the hands of the people who need them, challenges arise. Vorathin Epin, Ibham Veza, Mazian Mohammad and Abdul Rahim Othman offer advice on how to overcome them

In the manga series One Piece, Monkey D.&nbsp;Luffy pursues his dream of becoming a pirate king. He recruits crew members with diverse skills and embarks on a quest, encountering countless obstacles in his pursuit of the legendary One Piece treasure. Reading&nbsp;it, I&nbsp;was reminded of a principal investigator assembling a multidisciplinary team of experts and going in search of research funding, facing rejection after rejection along the way.Despite the challenges Luffy faces, he perseveres with unwavering determination, belief in his dream and, most importantly, resilience. In academia, resilience skills are essential tools for dealing with rejection and achieving the ultimate goal: funding for groundbreaking research.The four key steps to writing a successful funding bidHow to lose a grant in 10 waysA guide to writing grant proposalsAs a researcher of psychology, I’ve reflected on the psychological attributes that have helped me build resilience and navigate the turbulent seas of grant proposal rejections. I’ll share three that I’ve adopted when writing grant proposals, an approach I&nbsp;name the 3&nbsp;Gs: Grit, Growth mindset and Goal disengagement.GritGrit is like a powerful engine that combines the fuel of passion with the driving force of perseverance. Perseverance alone is not enough. Without passion, the effort feels like a chore as it lacks the intrinsic motivation necessary for enduring challenges and setbacks, leading to exhaustion and burnout. Conversely, passion alone lacks the resilience needed to overcome setbacks. Integrating the qualities of perseverance and passion, you can develop grit by defining clear, meaningful goals and immersing yourself in activities that captivate your attention and passion.Growth mindsetGrowth mindset is the belief that your intelligence and abilities can be developed through effort and learning. People with a growth mindset see challenges as opportunities to learn and grow, while those with a fixed mindset view them as setbacks that prove their limitations. As a researcher, you can develop a growth mindset by analysing your failures to identify areas for improvement. Approach future problems with new strategies, and seek constructive criticism from colleagues and mentors to improve your research methods and writing. Celebrate the hard work you put into a project, not just the outcome, and view your colleagues’ achievements as inspiration, not a threat.Growth mindset and grit often work hand in&nbsp;hand. Growth mindset is a belief system, while grit is a personality trait. Growth mindset can foster grit, as it encourages people to see challenges as opportunities to learn and grow, leading to increased motivation and perseverance.Grit can help people maintain a growth mindset, allowing them to push through setbacks and continue working towards their goals. This can prevent them from giving up or developing a fixed mindset. Adopting a growth mindset allows researchers to reflect on their failures and consider strategies that might improve their research proposals. Possessing grit enables researchers to stay on course and keep driving towards their goals.Goal disengagementThe goal disengagement theory refers to the psychological processes involved in detaching from unattainable goals. To clarify, goal disengagement is not about giving up your dream entirely. It can serve as a buffer for overzealous use of the two previous factors, growth mindset and grit, which may become ineffective.More specifically, goal disengagement involves adjusting the relative value of the goal, reappraising the loss and reallocating resources towards new pursuits. For instance, I&nbsp;was fixated on writing grants based on popular ideas and had jumped on a bandwagon for which I did not have the right reins. When the first two proposals relating to this idea failed, I&nbsp;decided to end the pursuit. Disengaging from the initial idea led me to focus more on research topics closer to my heart, and which I&nbsp;have more experience in. Because of this, I&nbsp;then had a new idea, and its proposal was awarded in a competitive grant call. In retrospect, I&nbsp;am glad that I&nbsp;was unable to conduct the earlier two studies because it would have meant pursuing research that I&nbsp;might not have found particularly meaningful.While the 3&nbsp;Gs approach has worked relatively well for me, carving out a research proposal and applying for grants is a personal journey, and this approach may not work for every researcher. We each evolve into a pirate king in our own right, and you may adopt part of the 3 Gs approach or integrate the approach in your current strategies. Like finding the One Piece treasure, the path of our research journey is uncertain. My wish is for you to track down your One Piece and use it for the betterment of the world.Peter Tay is an assistant professor at Singapore Institute of Technology.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.

Set sail on the choppy waters of grant proposals

If securing research funding is like a budding pirate king navigating choppy waters in search of untold treasures, how can we build the resilience to keep journeying on? Peter Tay shows how

Set sail on the choppy waters of grant proposals with the 3 Gs approach

Researchers at Hong Kong Polytechnic (PolyU) draw on the university’s rich heritage, established capabilities and expertise to contribute to technological advancements with the potential to foster a better living environment for everyone. Both frontier and translational research are important in this aim – the former focuses on exploring new discoveries and theories, while the latter aims to address emerging societal issues with practical solutions.PolyU academics also benefit from our close connections with local communities and industries, allowing them to directly address long-term societal needs and provide impactful solutions. The Research and Innovation Office plays a pivotal role in establishing these connections. We bring together resources, facilities and funding support to strengthen research initiatives.Building trust in research: how effective patient and public involvement can helpHow to lose a grant in 10 waysAdvice for effective cross-team collaboration for researchWhile we do not directly engage in research activities, we provide comprehensive support that enhances the university’s research development and impact. Our academics are free to focus on their work, findings and potential applications. Zuankai Wang’s research has contributed to groundbreaking discoveries and applications in engineering, while&nbsp;Allen Au’s research on Web3 technology has received a global award and is being deployed in Hong Kong’s new wholesale central bank digital currency project.&nbsp;Building a research-savvy environmentFostering collaboration and networking among researchers, both within the university and externally, means creating opportunities for them to connect with their peers. One way to achieve this is by encouraging interdisciplinary research collaborations, which will establish channels for future research cooperation.&nbsp;Conduct regular workshops and seminars for university staff and academics around the world to promote the sharing of research and insights. Plan these events carefully, focusing on relevant topics.What’s also vital to a research-savvy environment is support. Providing resources helps fuel the generation of research activity, from experimentation to evaluation. Administration and promotional support are essential for managing these resources effectively.Supporting funding opportunitiesOf course, when conducting research, financial support is crucial. Despite the availability of governmental, institutional and commercial funding opportunities, researchers may not always be fully aware of the options that align best with their requirements. The Research and Innovation Office offers assistance with funding applications.&nbsp;The research grants, like those granted by the Research Grants Council of the University Grants Committee in Hong Kong, require substantial administrative support for the submissions and requirements.&nbsp;As part of this, we also provide regular workshops for researchers to learn about funding sources, application requirements and proposal writing tips.&nbsp;By promoting successful grant applications and the dissemination of research impacts, we’ve found a way to help researchers encourage each other. They can highlight their results and showcase their research and innovations by participating in industrial and institutional conferences and themed events.&nbsp;Promoting researchA nurturing environment for early career researchers and students can help generate an abundance of new ideas and create an enriching research culture.&nbsp;Recognising outstanding research contributions from young academics can encourage their future research efforts. We’ve set up the Young Innovative Researcher Award to recognise the pioneering and inventive work of researchers under 35 who have demonstrated research excellence in addressing global challenges.&nbsp;The 2023 recipients came from diverse fields including healthcare, applied physics, AI, electronics and information engineering.Dealing with challengesDeveloping impactful university research entails challenges, but these are essential aspects of the research process. The challenges faced by administration and management include securing funding, fostering interdisciplinary collaboration between researchers from diverse disciplines, and ensuring communication and coordination run smoothly.During the research process, constraints on time and resources can create issues. Meeting project aims, publishing research findings and seeking promotion opportunities can all present challenges for researchers but are necessary for continued success and ongoing impact.Publishing research findings and seeking promotion opportunities presents a challenge because we have to find an appropriate angle to promote the finding.&nbsp;For example, this applied physics research on developing optoelectronic graded neurons for perceiving dynamic motion is very technical for a non-scientific audience. So we applied the angle of nature-inspired research from flying insects such as Drosophila to explain the concept.&nbsp;Research contributes to the progress of knowledge and technology. When it’s impactful, it results in innovative technologies and solutions, fosters economic growth, helps society develop and improves the quality of all our lives. As part of this, collaborations and partnerships with external institutions, industries and government agencies facilitate knowledge exchange and resource sharing, delivering mutually beneficial outcomes. Also, involving students helps provide them with valuable learning opportunities, assists them in developing problem-solving skills and prepares them for their future careers.Lixin Situ is assistant director at the Research and Innovation Office at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University.&nbsp;If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week,&nbsp;sign up for the Campus newsletter.

Give researchers the support to change the world

To generate world-changing research, the Hong Kong Polytechnic University’s Research and Innovation Office took on the role of fostering collaboration and allocation of resources to allow their academics to focus completely on their work. Lixin Situ outlines how to provide support.

Researchers need support to change the world – here’s how to provide it

Experts demystify what open access and open research are, tips for best practice, and where the movement and research culture are heading

THE podcast: what is open access?

What is the purpose of international collaboration and why, with the increased risks associated with sharing new scientific information across borders, would anyone decide to go through the bureaucratic maze to find a suitable, agreeable way of doing it?&nbsp;To answer such questions, let’s borrow a business framework known as PESTEL, which combines political, economic, social, technological, environmental and legal factors. This framework is typically used to capture the macro-trends present in a specific society at a certain moment in time. Using it can help researchers interrogate the multi-faceted implications of international collaboration in research.PoliticsScience and, implicitly, scientific research should be done for the benefit of the whole world. Once secrecy becomes a priority in research, only a small fraction of society benefits from it.Politics should be excluded from scientific research, but this is utopic. Unfortunately, advanced research is often strongly regulated in its international exposure by political measures. Still, one can foresee how research can bridge the gap between politically diverse countries and regions. Imagine that global issues are addressed by research developed coherently across different countries. We would have all the puzzle pieces we need at our disposal (although we might still need the strategy to piece the whole picture together). In such a situation, we must put aside political differences and focus simply on scientific affinities when designing a research project that involves international collaboration.EconomyThe nature of the present world is variable, uncertain, confusing and ambiguous (VUCA). The term VUCA is generally used to describe the dynamics of business environments as technology advances rapidly and unpredictably in recent times. In scientific research, however, VUCA attributes are necessary to make progress; a researcher must understand the variability of a phenomenon, the finite degree of certainty, the confusion created by different sets of data and the ambiguity of new data without a demonstrated background theory. Scientific research must reveal the unknown, bringing up elements of VUCA, and this is how it should be.How does all this relate to the economy? First, the drivers of the economy often push research in specific directions. Second, the economy’s stability influences the stability of research institutions. And, third, the economic policy largely determines funding for carrying out fundamental research. Under such conditions, researchers would benefit from positioning their research on global parameters, for instance on climate change and pandemic prevention as the two axes, since these issues are globally relevant.&nbsp;SocietyScientific research rarely reaches the eyes of the public, unless Nobel Prize season is upon us. Otherwise, it hovers somewhere in the background of a functioning society, ensuring that such a society has the seeds for a bright future. As change accelerates around the world, actions driven by long-term purposes become less and less attractive. This is detrimental to society, as long-term dreams vanishing away often take with them the confidence in a bright future and the optimism necessary for dynamic action.The truth is that fundamental research doesn’t need to transform into commercial products. Fundamental research – as well as applied research, for that matter – can be shared widely in society as an exercise in thinking deeply and widely about the realities of the world.This makes it important to understand the needs of a society with enhanced empathy, local and global, not only at the superficial, product or service level, but also considering its history, culture, education system and other elements. This can help researchers improve society in the long run.Resource collection: Research excellence: what is it and how can universities achieve it?How to publish responsible reproducible researchNo one agrees on what research leadership is, let alone how to do it wellTechnology&nbsp;It is easy to see the connection between technology and scientific research. Many times, research requires a certain technology to be developed, while technology, on the other hand, requires advanced research for its development. The two fields generate multiple interconnections and allow for a rich transfer of information.The importance of international collaboration emerges most visibly at this boundary. The potential applications of a certain research project are dependent on the vision of the researchers, which is another aspect in which one can leverage international collaboration.To allow the development of research technologies that can truly connect countries, researchers must seek out feedback from different stakeholders, including colleagues, friends and students, along with partnerships that connect research and technology.The environment&nbsp;In a modern-day context, researchers have to deeply consider the impact and implications of their research on the environment as tackling issues such as global warming becomes of critical importance.&nbsp;Environmental issues we are facing today do not belong to a single nation or a single continent. They are global issues. Taking it one step further, one can imagine, using empathy, how one’s research can be used to improve situations in different places across the world. Only in doing so can a researcher understand the potential of their work’s impact. This is where international collaboration can truly reveal its value because researchers across borders can provide unique points of view, complementary to each other in many cases.Researchers must work on their empathy by identifying opportunities for their research to be applied in countries far away from the one where research is being carried out.The lawResearchers must also consider their research from various legal perspectives. They must be aware of possible legal issues related to copyright, purposes of use or even insufficiently defined rules and regulations due to the novelty of the research. Once again, international collaboration is necessary to visualise and align a variety of legal aspects with which researchers from a single country would be otherwise unfamiliar.Researchers should take the time to learn about the legal aspects of international partnerships so that they can avoid serious issues in the long run. A good starting point is from the guidelines of the proposals they want to apply for, but it is only possible to gain a deeper understanding by discussing the experiences of other collaborators.In short, international collaboration is essential in the era we are living in. Its impact and intricacies are very complex and difficult to capture all at once, and even more difficult to encapsulate into a single framework. However, I hope that this resource can serve as a good starting point to position you towards effective and impactful international collaboration.Daniel Moraru is an associate professor at the Research Institute of Electronics, Shizuoka University, Japan.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week,&nbsp;sign up for the Campus newsletter.

Advocating for international research collaboration

In this resource, Daniel Moraru uses a framework to help researchers interrogate the multi-faceted implications of international collaboration in research

Using a business framework to advocate for international research collaboration

Professional advice for academic research leaders, managers and university administrators to enhance their institutions’ research quality and impact

Research management

Latest resources

Elsevier helps researchers and healthcare professionals advance science and improve health outcomes for the benefit of society.

Discover Elsevier

Discover

More from THE

Sign up

Collaborate with THE

About

Legal stuff