Research and Enterprise Conference – 2017

On Monday 5th of June, we held the University’s inaugural Research and Enterprise Conference.  The purpose of the event was to inform colleagues of the national landscape and the opportunities and challenges for research and enterprise. Both our external speakers, Professor Sweeney and Dr Faye Taylor, did an excellent job in achieving this. I was also keen to share my journey as a relative newcomer to Brighton, to highlight our priorities for 2017/18 and to give colleagues an opportunity to ask questions. When I was working on my presentation, I realised that we have made phenomenal progress in the past nine months and we should all be proud of what we have achieved and excited about the journey ahead. The conference also served as a good platform to inform colleagues of external funding schemes that we need to explore further and Ingrid Pugh and Shona Campbell did an excellent double act in telling us about the opportunities that the GCRF and the Industrial Strategy offer. Professor Ravenscroft had literally stepped off a plane from China and I hope you agree that the plans for the Doctoral College that he described will make life so much easier for our PGRs and supervisors.

Everyone had been eagerly waiting for the presentations from the Brighton Futures academic leads. The conference was their first opportunity to share their thinking for each of the Futures. They do not officially start in their roles until August but they are already thinking about the road map for their area and how the Futures interconnect. The Brighton Futures are an exciting opportunity for us to build inter-disciplinarity and to showcase our research and enterprise activities.

The Research and Enterprise Excellence Awards were a perfect end to the conference and allowed us to recognise the achievements of many colleagues.

Above all, the conference was an excellent opportunity for our community to come together. When I welcomed everyone in the morning, it was so pleasing to look at the packed Huxley lecture theatre and see staff with different roles and responsibilities from across the University. My mentor once told me that people who want to make things better, rally around leaders who talk about making things better. I reflected after the conference on how excellent the attendance was and what a positive buzz surrounded the whole day and, without wishing to be big-headed, the truth of this statement came back to me. I want to make our research and enterprise better, I have a passion for excellence and I hope I have demonstrated that I confront what isn’t working with optimism!

Many of you sent me lovely emails after the conference saying how much you enjoyed the day and found it helpful and informative. One of the best comments was from a colleague who has been with us for just a few years who said: “For the first time in a couple of years now, I felt part of a community that had a mission and purpose.”

Of course, while our week started with an event that provided a positive and upbeat message on the future potential for research and enterprise at Brighton, the week ended very differently for the nation. The turnout was much higher than in previous elections but I wonder what the outcome would have been if all eligible people had voted. As Plato said: “One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors”.  I have made this country my home but I genuinely never thought we would find ourselves in the position we are in now……

But, coming back to the Research and Enterprise Conference, I will end this blog by thanking you all for supporting it and contributing to its success.  Visit our Research and Enterprise Conference webpage to find out more about the programme, presenters and awards.

Brighton Futures

In September, with support from my team, I started a series of School meetings and met hundreds of staff for the very first time.  I wanted to share my approach to developing the strategic plan for R&E, to obtain a better insight into those areas where we have real strengths and to hear from staff about those areas they felt would present particular challenges to progressing research and enterprise and, of course, to start the dialogue on what we mean by enterprise!!!  Nine months on, we have progressed in leaps and bounds!  We now have an ambitious strategic plan for R&E with a detailed implementation plan and we have reviewed our core structures for supporting R&E, both in terms of the leadership and systems we need to reach our ambitions.  Many of us from across the university (library, RESP, DRDs, IS, Finance) have been involved in reviewing tenders for a new Research Information Management System (RIMS) and a small team are visiting other institutions to see our shortlisted options in action.  By the time you read this, a few colleagues will be on their way to the University of Bangor!  Having a fit for purpose RMIS will be a real step forward and will make life so much easier for all of us.

As usual I digressed. I wanted to talk about how, during the School meetings, there was a reassuring consistency in the areas where we all felt we have strength in terms of area of enquiry, critical mass and profile, as well as reputation. Universities usually showcase these area under ‘themes’.  It is, in my view, important that these themes reflect interdisciplinary working and strengths.  Many institutions just badge these under broad challenges, such as integrated health, sustainability, cancer, risk and security, etc., but these do not, generally, reflect the essence of the institution.  So, we got to the last School meeting at the School of Health Science, Eastbourne.  It was a hot afternoon and it is fair to say we were quite tired by then.  After the meeting, we started to debate how we could use terms which would be novel, forward looking and reflect areas of existing strength.  Eventually, the term ‘Brighton Futures’ was coined!  Wind the clock forwards few months and we have been interviewing for academic leads for each of our five Brighton Futures.  When the call for expressions of interest went out, a colleague asked me: ‘do you really think individuals will come forward?”. I must admit that took me back a bit.  I had not for a second contemplated the possibility of staff not volunteering to do this.  The question unsettled me but then the expressions of interest started to arrive and I relaxed a bit and, by the deadline, I was delighted that 16 people volunteered.  We interviewed everyone. Through this process, I got to know a couple of colleagues that I had not previously had the opportunity to meet and what a pleasure it was to see their enthusiasm and dedication.  We have some excellent colleagues here at Brighton!

I am pleased to share with you that we have now appointed academic leads for all the Brighton Futures: Prof. Kath Browne (Responsible Futures), Prof. Matteo Santin (Healthy Futures), Dr Mark Devenney (Radical Futures), Prof. David Cotterrell (Creative Futures) and Prof. Karen Cham (Connected Futures).  I am really looking forward to working with them.  There will be a slot at the Research and Enterprise Conference (5th of June) where you will be able to hear from them.  There will be plenty of opportunities for you participate in the Brighton Futures activities once their plans are firmed up.

Exciting times ahead….

Assessing Research

Our University’s REF steering group last met two weeks ago and Professor Andrew Church mentioned that a number of HEIs are adopting specific initiatives to assess research.  We will consider these initiatives more closely over the coming months but I would like to share these with you now.

Firstly, the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (usually referred to as San Francisco DORA) is one that has been referred to fairly frequently.  I first heard of DORA in 2015 when I read ‘The Metric Tide’, the report of the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management. This report recommended that institutions sign up to DORA and, since then, the uptake among UK institutions has been growing: DORA now has over 12,000 signatories worldwide of which 10 or so are from the UK and include Sussex, Manchester, Imperial, Brunel, Edinburgh and UCL.

DORA was initiated by the American Society of Cell Biology and a group of publishers and journal editors back in 2012 in order to “improve the ways in which the outputs of scientific research are evaluated”.  It centres on the belief that there is an over-reliance on bibliometrics, such as the Journal Impact Factor, which is seen by many as flawed.  Other key themes are that research needs to be evaluated on its own merit (not on which journal it’s published in) and that we need to make the best of the flexibility afforded by online publishing.

DORA makes a general recommendation that bibliometrics should not be used as a “surrogate measure” for the quality of research and then makes a number of specific recommendations for publishers, academic institutions, research funders, organisations that supply metrics and individual researchers.  All the aforementioned are invited to sign DORA.

For a university, signing DORA would mean it is obliged to:

  • Be explicit about the criteria it uses for the assessment of research and researchers
  • Reinforce that the content of research is what is important (rather than what metric scores it has or what journal it is published in)
  • Consider the value and impact of all research outputs
  • Consider using a variety of measures to assess research and researchers

So, why have only a handful of UK universities signed it?  Some would say DORA feels rather negative in tone and I have even heard some referring to it as an ‘anti-journal metric triade’.

Subsequent to the publication of DORA, the bibliometric experts at the Centre for Science and Technology Studies in Leiden, in collaboration with Professor Diana Hicks (Georgia Tech), published the Leiden Manifesto in April 2015.  This, too, is set against the “Impact Factor obsession” and offers “best practice in metrics-based research assessment so that researchers can hold evaluators to account, and evaluators can hold their indicators to account”.  The manifesto recommends 10 principles that are derived from the best practices of (quantitative) bibliometric exercises.

The following is a very brief summary of the principles:

  1. Quantitative evaluation should support qualitative, expert assessment
  2. Measure the performance against the research objectives of the institution, group or researcher
  3. Protect excellence in locally relevant research
  4. Keep data collection and analytical processes open, transparent and simple
  5. Allow those evaluated to verify data and analysis
  6. Account for variation by field in publication and citation practices
  7. Base assessment of individual researchers on a qualitative judgement of their portfolio
  8. Avoid misplaced concreteness and false precision
  9. Recognise the systemic effect of the assessment and indicators
  10. Scrutinise indicators regularly and update them

In an effort to make the manifesto as accessible as possible, there is a really neat video version which is well worth watching: .

I must admit, I feel a lot more comfortable with the Leiden Manifesto, which takes a more positive approach: a balanced call for the sensible, contextualised and transparent use of all publication metrics.  There is no option to sign up to this but, earlier this year, both the University of Bath and Loughborough University announced that they have developed a set of principles to assess their research which draws upon Leiden Manifesto.  At our next REF steering group, we will discuss both these initiatives at length and deciding whether they can inform our approach.

University of Brighton’s Sabbatical Awards for 17/18

Sabbatical leave has been around for over a century and, if you look into its history, you may be surprised to find it originated in Australia in the 1860s when the University of Sydney granted leave of absence to its Professors on the grounds that it “would be highly conducive to the interests of the University”. It was not until the 1920’s that Oxford and Cambridge where the early adopters in the UK.

Although it started to become standard practice, not everyone was in favour of it and, in 1931, Arthur Currie, the principal of McGill University, dismissed sabbatical leave as unnecessary and extravagant.

“Seeing that our summer vacations are so long,” he wrote. “The need of a sabbatical year does not arise to the same extent as in those institutions where the terms are spread more generally over the whole year. With us … a professor is given a four months’ vacation. I notice that many of them spend it teaching in summer schools – or fishing, or enjoying themselves in some other way.”

This view, quite frankly, annoys me and, over half a century later, I hope it is not held by many. Research is not a leisure activity and sabbatical leave should not be the exclusive privilege of professors. We want to encourage researchers to develop achievable and sensible plans for their sabbatical leave, and to be accountable for delivering against these plans. Such a planning/application process can be useful in setting sensible and achievable goals, and I think there needs to be some measure of accountability for how that time is used. Ultimately, there is a cost associated with running a sabbatical scheme and it is only fair for universities that run this scheme (and let me assure you that not all universities do) to make sure the sabbatical is designed to benefit both the individual and the institution. This is why I believe a sabbatical should not be a right…. but should be a ‘right to apply’…

Two of the universities I used to work at gave sabbaticals which required others in the department to cover the duties of the individual on sabbatical. This is, by and large, the model in research-intensive institutions, where the proportion of staff involved in research is high and almost every academic staff member involved in research which will draw on a sabbatical at some point.

I am pleased that we have been operating a sabbatical scheme for many years and my records show that, since 2012/2013 alone, the institution has committed almost £1M to cover the costs associated with sabbaticals. This year’s round was the first that I was involved in. When I joined the University, I asked the Research Office to provide me with a report on the success of the scheme and whether the pledged milestones had been met by staff who had secured a sabbatical. Sadly, the emerging picture was not as positive as I had hoped. Nevertheless, I feel this is a scheme we must continue with but, perhaps, with a clearer articulation of expectations.

So, we have simplified the process with a one-step application and introduced a cap of £10k so we can support more staff. There was a good evidence from previous rounds that many applications fell below £10K (in 2016/17 for example the average level of support requested was £9,012) and, although I have picked up concerns that introducing this cap could lead to fewer applications, I am pleased to report that we received the highest number of applications since the scheme began.

This year, only three applications came from Professors, so the sabbatical scheme is being used to support rising stars, ECRs and middle-career staff wanting to increase the intensity of their research activity, which is really pleasing to note. In total, we received 46 applications (26 in 2016/2017) and awarded 11 sabbaticals. Colleagues in the College of Arts and Humanities were the main beneficiaries, with 6 awards being granted to staff there.

When the panel met, each application was read and independently rated by two reviewers: applications were then discussed by the whole panel. There was a good consensus between the reviewers and we had many high quality applications. Going forward, with the permission of the applicants, we will be making some of these high quality applications available on sharepoint so future candidates can learn from them.

All successful candidates have now been notified and I wish them all the best in achieving their goals.

Week 1 as a PVC R&E!

Well, the 15th of August finally came and, as I arrived at Mithras (a form of Mithra – an Iranian God!) House, I was greeted by Colin, the caretaker, who had been expecting me.  After 16 years of commuting from the Isle of Wight by Hovertravel (affectionately known as Bothertravel), a 15 minute drive to work, admittedly aided by my trusty satnav, was a lovely change. At my office, I was greeted by 20-odd boxes of books and framed pictures, etc. that have followed me from office to office. I must thank the lovely Faculty of Science staff at University of Portsmouth who packed them all up for me and arranged their transport to Brighton.  Thanks to a very efficient PA, Carolyn, we managed to unpack quite quickly and then, as if by magic, a lovely bouquet of flowers arrived from Portsmouth to wish me well!

It will not be a surprise that my first week involved meetings with a number of new colleagues and, for those that I have not met yet, the video below is a greeting from me.

By day two, I had managed to navigate my way round the IT system, staff central etc. and, of course, the email system. I have not used Outlook for over a decade but it does not seem to have changed that much!

I was appointed at the end of February and have been visiting the University since then in preparation for my start.  But, no matter how much you try to prepare and understand in advance, there is nothing quite like a lived experience, although the middle of August and Clearing week is probably not a typical week in any university.

I have tried to be ‘curious’ and ‘actively observe’ and I can already say that we are blessed with some wonderful people who have served the University for a number of years and are eager to embrace changes which could improve our position. This is an absolute blessing for me and I really look forward to working with these colleagues.

Many of my 1:1 meetings this week were with members of the Research Office team and, as an academic researcher who has drawn on the support of such staff at three other universities, I am extremely impressed by how knowledgable, engaged and supportive they are.  I am also particularly impressed that there are almost enough musicians among them to form an ensemble – a bassoonist, pianist, violinists and choral scholars!  I joined some of them for a drink on Wednesday evening and know I will have lots of fun working with them.  I am a passionate believer in having fun at work!

Of course, the A-level results were out and, on Thursday, I popped over to the Clearing HQ at Cockcroft to see how we run this exercise.  My special thanks to Carl Griffiths from Academic Services who spent some time with me explaining how it has been done this year, etc.  It is very professional: to be able to say that calls are answered within 3 seconds will be the envy of many institutions.

I have also been introduced to a novel concept: ‘UniInfo’.  My 300-odd emails on a missing trolley, available folders, tickets for V festival, needs for lifts, railcards and Southern rail, pub quizzes, etc. were not quite what I expected my inbox to be filled with but, apparently, there is a way to deal with it.  Note to self for week 2: make sure I learn how to do this!

Finally, my gratitude to all of you who have welcomed me to the University community so warmly.

Professor Taraneh Dean

To subscribe to my blogs simply click here for the RSS feed and select your preferred option.