This may be a misleading label for this blog but, if I had labeled it ‘miscellaneous’, you probably would not be reading it.

Last week, I attended the ‘Inside Government’ annual conference on Research and Development. Not surprisingly, most speakers talked about the next REF (now referred to as ‘REF2’ due to the uncertainty of its timing) and the Stern review.  Very shortly, HEFCE will launch a 14-week consultation on REF2.  This will include a number of events across the country and a 70-page consultation document with 40-odd questions.  One of the talks at the conference provided us with a flavour of what this might contain.  The issue of staff selection was the subject of much debate and dominated the Q&A session. The dominant position seems to be the removal of any institutional decisions on staff selected for submission.  David Sweeney stated very clearly that the default position will be to use the HESA staff categorization, unless the as a result of consultation the sector comes up with a better way which does not involve institutional judgment). He emphasised that universities need to ensure that staff have the right contracts and staff who are on R&T contracts should be doing both.  I could not agree more, and I believe that staff should undertake the activities contractually expected of them.  However, the assumption underpinning all this is that all research is the REF type of research.  This is simply wrong.  For many anchor universities like ours, research tackles many of the issues for our local, regional and national communities.  This is enormously valuable research, funded by external agencies, with good publication outputs leading to real change.  The REF is simply one element within the research ecosystem of a university.  For some universities, it may very well be the dominant element and, for others who see themselves as significant contributors to their local and regional landscape, REF is not a dominant element.  This does not mean that staff who do this type of research should not have research as part of their contract.

Time will tell what the final decision will be, but I do hope this point is shared by many and is taken on board.

Let me now move on to the topic of public engagement. Last week, I also attended the annual conference of National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement (NCCPE).  Public engagement as a key activity of universities has moved on quite significantly in the past decade and the fact that four VCs delivered plenaries at this 2-day event testifies to this.  The first day ended with an award ceremony celebrating excellence in public engagement.  There were a total of 180 submissions and a final short list of 18 awards under 6 categories.  I was immensely proud that our ‘Boingboing Youth Partnership’ was one of the finalists under the ‘Working in partnership’ category.  The poster looked great and it was nice to talk to our PhD student and a young volunteer who were there at the event.  At the end of the award ceremony, NCCPE announced the launch of the Sir Prof. David Watson award.  This international award, the first of its kind, will recognise achievements by community and university partners working together to build a healthier, just and sustainable community.  It has been set up in memory of Professor Watson, our former VC, who created the Brighton award-winning Community University Partnership Programme. A group of us were invited to attend a closed round table discussion on day two, mainly to discuss three key points.  How can public engagement move from good to great? What are the implications of Brexit on the role of experts in public life and does our approach to engaging with the public need to change as a result?  And finally, can we build the links between excellent engagement and excellent teaching?  There were some really good discussions on all these points and I look forward to the emerging report which will capture the views of this group.

Whilst there, I also learned of a new charter mark – the ‘Engage Watermark’. This is an award granted to institutions to recognize their commitment and strategic support for public engagement. The four award levels (bronze, silver, gold and platinum) relate to the different stages that an institution might reach in its support for public engagement.  The first such award was given to Queen Mary University of London who successfully achieved a gold award.  Over the next year at Brighton, we need to make sure that the excellent work we have done in public engagement is recognized and CUPP will be leading our application for this recognition.

Finally, our measure of excellence! This year, the AHRC sought central university co-ordination of applications for membership of the AHRC peer review college.  We have a number of staff who have served the maximum number of years possible and we currently have five existing members.  In this year’s call, we submitted 16 applications, all as members of the Academic College.  Additionally, we nominated three individuals as strategic reviewers, one as an international reviewer and one as a technical reviewer.   I was extremely pleased when we heard that all our nominations have been successful.  This is quite an achievement and a measure of the excellent quality of our academic staff.  With existing serving members, this means that, for AHRC alone, we have 21 academic staff who are members of their PRC.  Many congratulations to everyone and, in particular, to the successful ECRs!

As you know, the draft Strategic Plan for Research and Enterprise has been circulated for your comments and input. There is a neat Gov.UK publication on ‘Consultation Principles’ which states that consultations should have a purpose, be clear and concise and that they are only part of a process of engagement.

When the draft plan went out, I was not entirely sure what the responses would be, how many would engage with the process or whether the comments and points would be helpful and constructive? The consultation closed on the 4^th November and, as usual, there were a few late returns (which, in this case, were accepted on the basis of ‘better late than never’!).  Firstly, let me assure you that I have read everything at least three times and it was fantastic to have responses from every School!!  Some Schools sent me one collated response, two of our Research Centres had met to discuss the plan and submitted an extremely thorough response and the rest were from individuals.  In addition, I had some good comments from Academic Services and RESP, and a response from the A&H CRD, but, sadly, many of our central departments did not respond at all.

When it came to individual responses, the one that amused and intrigued me the most was from a Professor I have yet to meet who congratulated me and, by and large, liked the plan. They concluded their feedback with a poem called Hyenas, written in 2011, lamenting the historic lack of a UoB Research Policy and suggesting it would make a good forward to the new one!

So, what has been happening since the consultation closed?  A small group of us have been working hard to refine and update the Strategic Plan.  One thing that is worth mentioning is that we will create a detailed implementation plan which will cover the actions and activities needed to ensure we meet our objectives.  Naturally, some aspects of this will be easier than others and some we will address sooner rather than later, but the key thing is that we will need to work together to deliver the objectives.

Early in the New Year I will be visiting all campuses and, hopefully, can share what will be the final version with you.

Many thanks for your engagement and all your contributions.

I have now been here over a month, and the past couple of weeks have been rather busy.

Before I get to that, I need to mention a big high so far which was the ‘Future’s Bright’ event on 21st of September. This is an annual event organised by the Research Office for our Early Career Researchers (ECRs).  On the morning of the event, I tweeted about how much I was looking forward to it and Professor Nash responded that it is a really inspiring event… and how right he was!  It is a really good way of bringing our ECRs together and the programme gave them opportunities to network with each other.  We must not forget, however, that a key way of supporting ECRs is to ensure they can network and talk to senior researchers within the institution and this is where I felt we could do better.  Attendance by a few more Professors/Deputy Heads of Research/ Heads of Schools, even just for the networking session, would have, I am sure, enriched the ECRs experience. Nevertheless, it was a really good event.

So, on to School visits. I knew that one of my first tasks would be to lead on the development of the University’s Strategic Plan for Research and Enterprise and, in fact, weeks before starting, I had agreed with my team how we would approach this. Communication with, and the involvement of, staff was paramount in our thinking, so the first initiative was to visit all Schools on all campuses, to share the process with staff, to start to get some input to the strategic plan and to open the dialogue.  We have just completed the last of these 16 site visits to which a total of 543 staff have attended. The 20th of September was a testing day in terms of stamina, with four School visits on one day!

So, allow me to reflect. To start with, I need to say that I have enjoyed all of them and it has been an excellent way of inducting me to the institution, even if this was not the primary aim. And, judging by the emails I have received, many of you also found it informative.

My approach to all the visits has been the same and we had many frank and open discussions, often going beyond the research and enterprise agenda. At almost every visit I discovered some unusual and unique practices, including internal charging for equipment use, internal processes for our Postgraduate Researchers and issues around our promotion pathways, which will need to be addressed. None of these are insurmountable with good communication and a determination to fix them.

As someone new to the new organisation, I was struck by the lack of trust staff seem to have in the way the university has been led and managed in the past. Having said this, there was also an acknowledgment this has changed quite considerably in the past year. One of the ways a leader can earn trust is to practice transparency regarding their intentions. Trust is strengthened with openness. As the person who will champion and lead the university’s research and enterprise endeavours, my promise to you all is one of transparency and openness.

The School visits are now completed and they have given me much food for thought and many of the points will be captured as we put the Strategic Plan for Research and Enterprise together.

Thank you all for your contributions and my thanks especially to my team who attended all these sessions with me and have supported me along the way.

Onwards and upwards!