Author Archives: Carolyn Lindsay

Research and Enterprise Strategic plan 2016-2017

Posted on by
Reply

I am hoping that, by the time you read this blog post, you will have received a draft of the new strategic plan for Research and Enterprise. I knew from Day 1 that leading on the development of the strategic plan was of the highest priority and that it needed to be done in a relatively short period of time; not only to tie in with the University’s Strategy, but also because we have not had a plan for R&E for some time, and the sooner we have a clear plan, the better.

Like many others, I have been on leadership courses on developing strategic plans, and I have read widely on the subject. Let me digress and tell you about a book which is quite illuminating when it comes to strategic planning. The book is Good Strategy/Bad Strategy by Richard Rumelt. What I like about this book is the breakdown of what makes a bad strategy and, as you read it, you realise how many bad ones you have encountered!! The book also provided me with many real examples of bad and good strategic planning. Apart from reading about it and going on a course, I had the opportunity to lead on the development of a strategic plan for research and innovation at my previous institution. The difference with that plan was that I knew the institution very well and had already been working there for a number of years. So, I knew the first step in developing the plan here would be to ‘immerse myself’, and to get to know the organisation by speaking and listening to as many people as I could. I soon realised that the more people I spoke with, the more I heard the same sorts of things, and this was enormously helpful in identifying the issues that the plan needed to tackle. When developing a plan, many organisations become totally inward-focussed, but I believe it is essential to also seek out external perspectives, and we are indeed doing this as part of the exercise. The other key point which helped whilst working on the plan was the commitment made by myself and my immediate team made to stay focused and pragmatic.

As you read the draft plan, you will note that we have identified a number of principles that underpin the plan itself, and its implementation. The power of these principles is in the living of them, not the writing of them. We need to organise our R&E activities around these principles and ensure we create a culture where these principles can thrive. Culture begins with beliefs and finds expression in behaviours. So, when it comes to creating a culture of excellence in R&E, we need to ask ourselves “what do we mean by excellence, and what behaviour reflects this”?

Excellence is all about the pursuit of better. There is a very large global organisation with the motto ‘We make the best better’!! To me, any organisation (be it a university or any other type of organisation) that isn’t getting better is getting worse. Another aspect of excellence is a commitment to building strong partnerships and relationships. Isolation is the enemy of excellence. Another aspect of excellence is a dedication to transparency: during my meetings with staff, I was overwhelmed by how hungry they were in their pursuit of transparency within the organisation. Lack of transparency distracts and weakens organisations. Excellence also requires responsibility, and the personal pursuit of excellence is the first responsible step toward organisational excellence.

I hope that, as you read the plan, you will see it as road map in pursuit of excellence. You have an opportunity to engage with this plan as it is developed further, and I encourage you to be part of this journey.

Researcher Development Programme 2016-17

Posted on by
Reply

It is my pleasure to introduce you to the new ‘Researcher Development Programme’ for the academic year 16-17: https://staff.brighton.ac.uk/ease/ro/Pages/Workshops.aspx. This year, the Research Office are launching the programme for the whole year, making it easy for you to plan and book your attendance in advance. It is a varied, informative and helpful programme of workshops, ranging from ‘Introduction to the Global Challenge Fund’ to ‘Making the most of research mentoring’. There are a total of 31 workshops, with many of our researchers contributing to them (thank you for your leadership and citizenship). The programme is structured within the Vitae Researcher Development Framework, which has been developed by and for researchers, in consultation with academics and the public and private sectors.

I really don’t wish to sound like my parents by saying, “We never had anything like that in my day”, but “We……..”. I often think how my research career would have progressed if I had been supported along the way and learned about different aspects of becoming a successful researcher.   I think I may have progressed much more quickly. If I am honest, for the first decade of my research career, I learned mainly from my mistakes and by closely observing how successful researchers worked.   One of the workshops on offer is on ‘Building collaborative networks’ and this is exactly what early career researchers need to do. Professor O’Reilly, who will be delivering this workshop, has extensive experience of collaborative working and there is nothing better than to hear from someone who has done it and is willing to share their knowledge and experience.   It took me a long time to build successful collaborative networks for my research area and a number of my early attempts failed because I tried to build networks of different researchers who had similar capabilities and expertise as myself. It was only through attending a conference where I listened to a presentation by a researcher who was talking about his network that I realised how I had gone wrong. Collaboration is successful when the partners are dissimilar but share a common interest in the research problem, and when the resources or intellectual methods of one partner are significantly different from the other. Collaboration requires two-way effort and benefit, so each partner must identify a resource that the other can provide that contributes to a shared goal. Years later, I am pleased that I have been part of number of successful networks and have gained many friends and colleagues through collaborative research.

My advice to you is don’t just learn from mistakes, take maximum advantage and attend these workshops!

British Science Festival 2017 comes to Brighton

Posted on by
Reply

The British Science Association (BSA) provides opportunities for all people to enjoy, explore, investigate and discuss science and it has a wonderful new mission: ‘A society where science is a part of, not set apart from, society and culture’. Historically, going back to 1831, the BSA used to hold annual meetings and it was at these meetings that the major scientific advances were announced. In 2005, these annual meetings became ‘Festivals’, spanning a number of days and open to anyone who is interested to learn about cutting-edge research in science, engineering and technology. Alongside the main Festival programme, there are events aimed at families and schools.

The annual Festival is, indeed, the BSA’s premier programme and is one of Europe’s largest celebration of science, engineering and technology. It has been held in many cities around the UK, including York, Liverpool, Birmingham, Aberdeen and Swansea, the most southerly of these being held in Surrey in 2009. So, it is very pleasing that, in 2017, the British Science Association Festival is coming to the south coast, co-hosted by our University and University of Sussex!

The Festival will provide a fantastic opportunity for the scientists in our two institutions to highlight the amazing research happening in Brighton. There will also be Nobel Prize winners, TV personalities, top researchers, family-friendly presenters and entertainers from around the country who will share their passion for science with the public.

Professor Andrew Lloyd has led our bid and I, for one, know how competitive the bidding process and selection is. I know because my previous institution also applied to host it with what was regarded as a strong bid. So, many congratulations to Andrew and others who supported him! Of course, just like a research bid, the joy of securing the award is almost immediately followed by a realisation of the enormity of what needs to be done to deliver the project! As a University, we are committed to public and community engagement, and this commitment is recognised through such awards, through our performance in REF, and through the fact that many institutions from across the globe regularly visit us to see how we do it. So, I have absolutely no doubt that Andrew will be supported by everyone as he starts planning for this event in collaboration with the University of Sussex.

You can be involved in number of ways and, naturally, I will expect our researchers to nominate themselves to present their research. But, whether presenting or attending, the 5-9th of September 2017 will be a very special week!

On a final note, I am delighted that Professor Dame Nancy Rothwell will be the next president of BSA. With 185 presidents to date and only 9 female presidents, there is some serious catching up to do on that front!

Stern Review of REF and what does it mean for us

Posted on by
Reply

In 2006, Professor Nicholas Stern led a review on the Economics of Climate Change. The review was a 700-page report and discussed the effect of global warming on the world economy. A decade later, we now have the report from another Stern review, a review of the Research Excellence Framework. When it was published in July, I was mightily pleased that it was only 56 pages. This meant I could read it almost in one sitting and certainly within 24 hours of its release.

I know there are many articles, blogs and twitter activity under #sternreview and, naturally, I have read all the published views and have been contemplating what this might mean for future assessments and for us at the University of Brighton. Stern proposes that the findings and recommendations are turned into concrete proposals upon which the sector can be consulted by the end of this year, i.e. within 4 months!!

There are, in total, 12 recommendations but the ones that have been the subject of most debate and are likely to strongly influence the shape of future submissions are those listed under Outputs; in particular, proposals on ‘Submission of all research active staff’ and ‘Outputs should not be portable’. So, allow me to talk about these two recommendations in this blog.

I am sharing my views on these points on two levels, as a researcher who has been returned to every exercise since 1996 and as a research leader responsible for our next submission.

Submission of all ‘Research Active’ staff – There are clearly those who strongly favour this approach and those who do not. The call for evidence during the review indicated moderate support from HEIs, individuals and other organisations. In terms of retaining a selective approach, there was equally moderate support among HEIs, but no or limited support from individuals and other organisations consulted. So, if the call for evidence response prevails, this may be a policy which will go forward next time round. Of course, the main issue here is whether this will lead to distinctive demarcation between research and teaching academic careers and, if so, does that matter? Should we not celebrate all that we do and ensure we have clear promotion paths for all? When it comes to staff contracts, I must say I am in agreement with a tweet made on this by David Sweeney from HEFCE which advocated that staff contracts need to be an honest statement of what the employer expects of its staff.

But, how do we define ‘research active’? In my previous institution as Director of Research, I attempted to do this, initially thinking we could have an institution-wide definition. I soon realised that this would not be the case and we ended up with three definitions across five faculties, one of which was: “

“A quasi inductive method is adopted to assess research active or engaged, which is defined as anyone who is undertaking research or transferring knowledge on a consistent basis (currently “consistent” not strictly defined) which is or is seeking to reach the public domain in some commonly understood to be appropriate form or other”.

Which makes me smile every time I read it.

Outputs should not be portable – This recommendation alarmed me most and my discomfort stems from two angles. Firstly, people move jobs. Take me, for example. Since the last exercise, I have published 4 papers in 2014, 8 in 2015 and 9 in 2016. Amongst these, there are at least 10 papers that I would wish to put forward to some sort of assessment prior to next REF submission. Would the University of Portsmouth return my publications now that I have left? What message would a REF sub-panel receive if many of the outputs submitted are by people who have left?
Secondly, there is the impact on the careers of many Early Career Researchers. In my previous post, I chaired all the appointment committees in my Faculty and the great majority of the appointments made were to very bright scientists who had a string of fixed term research contracts and were seeking to establish themselves on an open ended academic contract. The strength of their publications and their potential in future research assessment exercises was always considered. This was not ‘gaming’, in my opinion, and was more about creating opportunities for ECRs. We can now imagine a scenario where a mobile ECR might delay submitting a paper until they have moved institution! Will ‘under review’ be the new game plan?

To conclude, whether we like it or not, REF is here to stay and I, for one, welcome the review recommendation to support excellence wherever it is found.