Guest blog – Shona Campbell outlines the opportunities within the Industrial Strategy Green Paper

I am pleased to bring you the first of my guest blogs. This blog is written by our newly appointed Knowledge Exchange manager Shona Campbell. It summarises the opportunities within the Industrial Strategy Green Paper and what we are doing centrally to ensure we are in a good position to respond to them.

Tara’s blog in February explored the Industrial Strategy green paper (open for consultation until April 17th) noting that ‘Investing in science, research and innovation’ is one of the ten pillars upon which the strategy is built. Undoubtedly the most significant aspect for the research base is the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund (ISCF) to which a total of £4.7 billion has been committed, starting with an investment of £270 million in 2017-18, rising to an extra £2 billion per year by 2020-21. The fund will back technologies where the UK has the potential to take an industrial lead, supporting all stages from early research to commercialisation. With the first Challenges announced (read on!) it is timely to share what we know, what we don’t, and what we’re doing about it across the university.

In late January/early February, industry and the research base were invited to inform the definition and prioritisation of Challenges to be issued by Innovate UK & RCUK (UKRI) through a series of workshops and a consultation. I represented the University at one of the workshops (which were incredibly popular with 4 times more applicants than there were places). Areas which were consulted on don’t come as a great surprise and are very much in line with Innovate UK sector priorities:

  • Bioscience and biotechnology
  • Leading edge healthcare and medicine
  • Manufacturing processes and materials of the future
  • Smart, flexible and clean energy technologies
  • Quantum technologies
  • Robotics and artificial intelligence
  • Satellites and space technologies
  • Transformative digital technologies
  • Integrated and sustainable cities
  • Technologies for the creative industries

Workshop participants were presented with several straw man Challenges within each area and charged with rewriting them, discarding them, combining them, splitting them up, identifying whole new Challenges, then pitching those considered to be highest priority to participants who then, in low-tech fashion, each voted for their preferences using colourful stickers. Debate was intense, parochial in places but largely constructive, and it will be interesting to see what emerges from the consultation and what weight was given to the aforementioned stickers! Progress has clearly been made as the first Challenges were announced in this week’s budget:

  • Development, design and manufacture of batteries to power the next generation of electric vehicles;
  • Artificial intelligence and robotics systems to operate in extreme and hazardous environments;
  • New medicine manufacturing technologies to accelerate patient access to new drugs and treatments.

What else can we predict at this point in time? We expect at least the early Challenges to have quick turnarounds as Innovate UK is under pressure to spend (not just allocate) ISCF budget in 2017/18. We can already see that projects that can spend money early will be prioritised: ahead of any Challenges being issues the partnership for a high scoring but unsuccessful proposal involving Roger Evans from Computing, Engineering & Maths that fits within Technologies for the creative industries has been asked to confirm willingness to re-submit, without amendment or a full re-assessment) so there is potential for the early bird to catch the worm!

With the university’s research expertise aligning with many of the ISCF areas, and a great track record of business-industry collaboration, the Knowledge Exchange team are delving into the detail of the potential Challenges and will be in touch with academics over the coming weeks to encourage and provide support to respond to announced Challenges, gear up for anticipated competitions, positioning ourselves to bring together strong consortia to develop valuable impactful collaborative projects. May the challenge commence!

Competition launch details aren’t available at the time of writing so we don’t yet know the format; a variety of funding mechanisms were consulted on but we can be confident that Collaborative R&D grants will play a significant part.

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.

Industrial Strategy Green Paper

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

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 20thJanuary.   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!

Citation cartels

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!

REF, public engagement and our own measures of excellence

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!

Consultation on Strategic Research and Enterprise Plan

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 4th 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.

Research and Enterprise Strategic plan 2016-2017

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

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!

Reflection on my School visits

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!