Inaugural lecture

Last week, I delivered my inaugural lecture here at Brighton. It was a decade ago when I first delivered it, soon after being promoted to Professoriate. So, when I accepted the invitation at Brighton, I thought I could just update my slides from the first inaugural – easy!  But, when I sat down to look through them, I realised that so much has happened that I needed to tell my story differently.  And, yes, in my view, inaugural lectures are a story – a story about you, your journey, your achievements, your area of research and all the ups and downs along the way.  I feel very strongly that these lectures must give a flavour of your intellectual activity and research, but that’s only one element.

To start with, you need to make sure the talk is accessible to all, and I mean all. In this respect, these lectures are unique: on which other occasion would anyone be delivering a lecture where the audience includes family, friends, your wider university community, your past and present students, your research collaborators, school children and general public?

In many ways, I am lucky as my research area of ‘Allergies’ is something that almost everyone has heard of. When I sat down to tell the story of my research career and my journey, my first compilation of slides numbered 246!!!  After some severe weeding, I managed to get this down to 92 slides to deliver in 50 minutes …… and I managed it in 55.

I was extremely pleased to see colleagues from every school at the University and my UEB colleagues in the audience, together with colleagues from the University of Sussex, local college students and members of the general public who wanted to know more about allergies.

What I had not realised, and certainly not appreciated, was that colleagues across the University did not know about my research career. I was promoted to the Professoriate at an institution that I had worked at for number of years so, when I delivered my first inaugural lecture, the campus community knew of my work.  This was not the case here, so the reactions of colleagues from Brighton was very different and I was touched by colleagues from the School of Art, who were there in really good numbers, who all said how much they enjoyed it.  An established Professor from the Business School, who I have become quite fond of as an intellectual powerhouse, put an interesting question to me after the lecture.  He asked why, with my research career to date, did I decide to become a PVC?  An interesting question, but, so far, I have not really thought these are competing agendas.  Through a fantastic team of students and collaborators, I can carry on my research and, through my role as a PVC Research and Enterprise, I want to make a difference to researchers across the University across all disciplines or areas.  These are part of the same agenda.  I must admit though, I am very choosy about which research projects I take on these days.

I was most touched by Kasia, a Fine Art undergraduate student with multiple food allergies, who came to speak to me afterwards to say that some my work on allergen characterisation and food labelling has directly impacted her life and she wanted to thank me in person. How special is this?  She then asked me if I would sit for her as she would want to do my portrait! To which I said I would be delighted.  I know I will cherish this painting.

As a result of my inaugural and the contact that individuals who attended made afterwards, I have now agreed to do a session at Brighton Café Scientifique and will be visiting Allergy Therapeutics in Worthing to explore potential collaborations.

Above all, as I prepared the lecture and reflected on all the wonderful people I have collaborated with on research over the years, it provided me with an opportunity to publically thank and acknowledge them and to celebrate our shared successes.  I certainly would not have been able to deliver this lecture without their work.

So, despite the initial apprehension about a second inaugural, I am very pleased that I did it.

The Association for Science Education (ASE) can trace its origins back to 1900.  ASE is the professional body for all those involved in science education and is the largest subject association in the UK.  ASE membership caters for secondary and primary school teachers and technicians. It promotes improvements in science education and education in general, specifically through advice and support for teachers.  The ASE has worked closely with the University throughout its history.  The current President of the ASE is Dannielle George, Professor of Microwave and Communications Systems, University of Manchester, who took the reins from Sir David Bell (VC, University of Reading) in 2016.  The ASE runs an excellent programme of science Continuing Professional Development for teachers and technicians, from TeachMeets (informal events for local teachers to share their innovative teaching ideas) to national conferences.

The ASE journal ‘School Science Review’ (produced three times a year) is circulated to all secondary school science teachers who are members of the ASE (which is pretty much all of them).  It is also sent to university libraries and education centres and is read worldwide.  The September 2017 issue was on the theme of ‘Public Understanding of Science’ which covered subjects such as fake science, popular science and how to teach students complex concepts.  I was extremely pleased to see 8 of the 14 articles in this special issue were by scientists from the University of Brighton and our School of Pharmacy and Biomolecular Sciences (PABS) was featured extensively.  There was an excellent article (We are all mutants) by Professor Timson, Head of PABS, which I am sure every A-Level biology teacher covering genetic mutation will find extremely informative and helpful in conveying this complex area.  Professor Sosabowski, Dr Olivier and Seija Maata wrote about natural products and they even outlined 2 experiments that are suitable for A-Level chemistry.  Dr Scutt and Dr Allen had written an article about using simulation to facilitate understanding of medicines.  Dr Patel and Dr Ingram, together with two of our MPharm students (Simon Crane and Alan Mokree) and Marion Curdy, a Learning Technologies Advisor, shared the concept of mini lectures to support and enhance traditional face-face lectures for undergraduate students.

Jorj Kowszn from the School of Computing, Engineering and Mathematics provided a fascinating article, ‘The Village Election’, which was based on his introductory lecture to a third year undergraduate course on the Mathematics of Social Choice.

My favourite article was one with an extremely catchy title – ‘Scientific U-turns: eight occasions when science changed its mind’ – by Professor Sosabowski and Professor Guard.  It gave some really interesting examples but, having carefully followed the evidence base for some of the examples such as MMR and Autism, a better title could have been: ‘Scientific U-turns: eight occasions when science provided more robust evidence’.  But I admit that’s not that catchy!

Overall, an excellent special issue and one that secondary school science teachers across the country will benefit from.  What a good way to demonstrate the reach of our efforts in the public understanding of science.  Thank you to all those who contributed!

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 (5^th 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….

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.

A lot has happened on the R&E front, both within the university and externally, and I thought this would be a good opportunity to update you all.

The REF2021 consultation is now closed following a couple of months of fairly intense activity, gathering views from colleagues internally via School consultations, meeting and discussing the practicality of what has been proposed and what impact it will have to University Alliance institutions. And, of course, there were the HEFCE town meetings which highlighted many areas of sector consensus, irrespective of the research intensity of institutions. As predicted in my earlier blog, the key issues remain the approach to submission of staff, non-portability of outputs and institutional impact case studies.  HEFCE has received over 370 responses and we look forward to hearing the outcome of the consultation in the autumn.  Read our response (PDF).

Our REF Steering Group met few weeks ago and we will start to assess our REF outputs once we know the outcome of consultation. We already have some insight on the quality of our outputs through the previous ‘Strategic Review Process’ but we will start our REF preparations in a more comprehensive and systematic way later in the year.

The Industrial Strategy is under consultation and Shona Campbell wrote a really informative guest blog which summarises the opportunities that this strategy offers. The deadline for submission of responses is mid-April and we will be sharing our response over the next few weeks.

Our Strategic R&E Plan was approved in January and, earlier this month, the University Management Board approved the associated Implementation Plan (IP).  I wish to express my particular thanks to the Deputy Heads of School for R&E: although a small group of us within the R&E management team worked extremely hard in preparing the first draft of the IP, the input of the Deputy Heads during our first away day was key. The IP will remain a live document and we will need to review it regularly, but I am very proud of it and very pleased that each objective will be delivered via discrete action plans. Deputy Heads will be sharing the IP via their School meetings and you will have an opportunity to see it for yourself.  It will be our road map over the next four years as we start to grapple with all the objectives we have set ourselves. Naturally, as it is with any plan, not every aspect will be dealt with in the first year. Having said this, there are number of immediate actions and high on the priority list are the Brighton Futures and Centres of Excellence in Research and Enterprise (COREs). On Friday, you would have seen a call from me for expressions of interest to lead the Brighton Futures. These are vital, mainly externally facing, roles to build and promote partnerships internally and externally and to horizon-scan opportunities for the Brighton Futures.  If you are keen to find out more, please get in touch with me.  The deadline for EOIs is 13 April.

Also this week, I will be circulating the call for COREs. The call will be cascaded via the Deputy Heads and will also be issued directly to Directors of existing centres. A number of you have already asked for draft criteria and are already working on your applications.  Professor Ashworth led on preparation of the policy and operational document for COREs and I know he scrutinised many models from across the sector so I am confident that the document we now have is sector-leading. The deadline for submission of applications is the end of May and we hope to launch the COREs in the new academic year.

Also high on the priority list for this year is to ensure our Quality Related (QR) income is used to support the research infrastructure and help the delivery of the Strategic R&E plan. The majority of QR is invested via Schools and, for 17/18, we need to make sure that tis investment is aligned to the implementation of the Strategic R&E plan, so Schools are being asked to articulate this as part of the annual planning process.

We are now finalising the programme for our R&E Conference and registration will open this week. At about the same time we will issue our first R&E newsletter. We hope to have three editions annually, and I hope this will be a platform for you to contribute and keep updated.  So, watch out for the first issue!

A great deal happening over the next few months …..

Tara Dean, Pro-Vice Chancellor Research Enterprise

Industrial Strategy Green Paper – Tara Dean, Pro-Vice Chancellor Research & Enterprise

The Government issued the ‘Building our Industrial Strategy’ Green Paper towards the end of January, inviting views on its plans to support growth and improve living standards across the UK.  It has taken me few weeks to read it carefully and I can share that the strategy is a clear signal that the approach to economic growth is changing, and the catalyst is Brexit.

The Strategy recognises that the UK must become more innovative, build on its world-leading science base and develop its skills base; that it must create the right institutions to bring sectors and places together; and that it must cultivate its world-leading sectors. Universities can play a vital role in achieving these ambitions. The priorities are to increase ‘productivity’, close the gap with global competitor nations and to rebalance the economy of the UK in regional terms.

Active engagement in the many aspects of developing and delivering the Industrial Strategy will be crucial for universities’ self-interest. UK universities support more than 750,000 jobs (2.7% of all UK employment) and generate an economic output in excess of £73 billion a year. The UK’s Higher Education sector is the envy of the world, and the Government could make use of the vast knowledge our universities cultivate and communicate.  The UK is home to exceptional universities and people travel from so many different countries to experience our Higher Education system. The links universities build internationally – whether through partnerships, overseas campuses or recruiting international students – can have a positive impact in terms of soft-power. UK universities can play an increasingly important role in fostering international relationships and I hope that the strategic importance of the Higher Education sector will be reflected in the Industrial Strategy as the Government moves forward with its proposals.

University Alliance has published a paper setting out how Alliance universities can help government deliver its ambitions for growth.  The document, Universities: delivery partners for industrial strategy, sets out how, by working closely with business, Alliance universities produce high-level skills and support high-value innovation.  Universities are not only deeply rooted in their cities and surrounding regions but have networks that span different economic and administrative boundaries within the UK.

The Industrial Strategy is built on what the Government is calling 10 ‘pillars’:

• Investing in science, research and innovation
• Developing skills
• Upgrading infrastructure
• Supporting businesses to start and grow
• Improving procurement
• Encouraging trade and inward investment
• Delivering affordable energy and clean growth
• Cultivating world-leading sectors
• Driving growth across the whole country
• Creating the right institutions to bring together sectors and places

The Green Paper is strong on research and innovation.  The new Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund (£2bn/yr in steady state by 2020-21) will be delivered primarily through the newly established UKRI.  Exactly how UKRI will do this is still not clear.  When it comes to skills, the document is quite vague.  Degree apprenticeships and postgraduate taught provision are not mentioned at all, which does make one wonder if the role of universities in the skills supply line has been appreciated at all.

Overall, this Green Paper is a stage in a process. The Government appears to be seeking a coherent and consistent strategy which will lead to the formulation of a set of policies that are designed to improve the performance of the economy. Time will tell whether this stronger embracing of industrial strategy is any more successful than its predecessors.

The Green Paper is open for consultation until 17 April 2017.

Research and Enterprise Strategic Plan 2017-2021 – Tara Dean, Pro-Vice Chancellor Research & Enterprise

I am delighted to confirm that the Research and Enterprise Strategic Plan (2017-2021) was approved by the University Management Board on Friday 20^thJanuary.   I can’t remember who it was who said that planning is bringing the future into the present so you can do something about it now.  This is exactly what we hope to do with our Strategic Plan.  Over the past couple of weeks, I have been visiting our different campuses to update staff on progress with the plan and its implementation.  When you look at other universities’ research and enterprise/innovation strategies, it is obvious how similar they are. They all talk about taking the institute from point A to point B, with B being a better place.  So, they all aspire to a better performance in REF, more external funding, more PgRs, more partnerships and impact.  What differentiates a good strategy from a bad one is how it will be implemented.  Sadly, many strategies fall down at this point and become a Strategy Put On The Shelf (SPOTS) and I have worked in institutions where this has been the case.  Following the fanfare launch of the strategy, everyone is waiting and nothing happens till the next strategy is put in place and the cycle continues.  I am determined that this will not be the case with our Strategic Plan. This is precisely why we have already started to think of the workstreams which will enable the delivery of the strategic goals and objectives.  I am acutely aware that not everyone will be behind all the changes that need to happen: right from the start, there will be the sceptics, the early adopters and those who will resist all the changes.  A plan is only as good as those who see it through, and I know there are many of us who want to see it through and more and more of you will get behind it as you see it being implemented.  As I went round the campus talking to staff, I felt that many of you are keen to engage with the Plan and help it realise its potential.

In few weeks’ time, I will approaching my 6 month anniversary here at Brighton. When I started, I went round every School talking about the need to develop a plan.  At times, I felt that many were ambivalent, questioning and not convinced at all.  Six months on, I can sense a big change and the emails I have received indicate that many of you are eager to get behind the principles and objectives stated in the Plan.  Many have already volunteered to take a more active role in implementing it.   As Professor Howie Rush reminded me at one of the campus meetings, to deliver on 7 goals and 35 objectives is quite an ambitious task, and I could not agree more.  But, we should not shy away from it.  All the objectives are needed and we need to be ambitious.  Intelligence without ambition is like a bird without wings.  Providing we are ambitious, plan well, work hard and keep a close eye on progress, we will make it.

My final word has to be to thank you all for your contributions during the consultations and for all your insightful contributions and comments at various fora and meetings and by emails. Whilst implementing the plan I will do my best to exercise a leadership that will serve the institution and all those within it who are passionate about research and enterprise.

This will be a new era for us and our work has just begun!

A very happy New Year to you all! I hope you have had a restful break and are looking forward to what the New Year has in store for us.  2016 was quite a year.  Who could have anticipated us leaving the EU, Trump coming to power in the US and the word ‘post-truth’ being selected as the Oxford Dictionary’s ‘Word of the Year’.  Thomas Carlyle, a Scottish philosopher, has a wonderful quote: “I do not believe in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance”.  When I reflect on the events of June and November in 2016, I think this quote sums it up beautifully.  Here’s to a better 2017.

Now, in this first blog of 2017, I had planned to write about the upcoming campus visits where I will be discussing our new R&E Strategic Plan, but I have decided to write about these after the visits are complete. So, instead, I am going to write about an interesting article that an old friend brought to my attention.  The article is entitled ‘Toward the Discovery of Citation Cartels in Citation Networks’ and can be accessed in full at http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fphy.2016.00049/full

In many disciplines, the number of citations that an article receives is considered a key measure of academic impact and quality. There are many reasons why an article might be cited.  Sometimes it is because it is the first/only study in the field, sometimes because it gives a good overview of the field or that it is of very high quality and describes the best available evidence in the field.  My most cited journal article (nearly 600 citations) was published in 2002 and is the first and, to date, the only article on a population-based study demonstrating the rise of allergy to peanuts.  I was lucky enough to follow two whole population birth cohorts, born 10 years apart, assessing the incidence of peanut allergy.  So, ever since the publication of this article, most studies in the area cite it.  I am very proud of it but it is, by no means, my best article.

The article I recommend you to read talks about the rising problem of citation cartels. These are defined as groups of authors that cite each other disproportionality more than they do other groups of authors that work in the same area, and which, therefore, artificially increases their citation rates.  The authors have come up with a model that can identify citation cartels by using semantic web tools. They state that their purpose is not to prevent this phenomenon, or to discredit authors that could be accidentally caught in the citation cartel, but to show that citation cartels exist, and that all responsible for publishing papers, Editors and Reviewers need to be aware of this.

I wonder if REF panels who consider citations will also take account of this!