Discover Elsevier

Research management

Peer-to-peer professional advice for academic research leaders, managers and administrators from universities around the world


Language is not neutral. It shapes and is shaped by the contexts in which it is used, particularly in academia, and it is a tool for both colonisation and resistance. In 1492, celebrated Spanish humanist Antonio de Nebrija formally addressed Queen Isabella I of Castile, defending his book Grammar of the Castilian Language, arguing that language has always been the companion of empire, for it is the means by which laws are imposed on conquered peoples. French Afro-Caribbean psychiatrist and philosopher Frantz Fanon, nearly five centuries later, noted that the use of the coloniser’s language is not simply a form of identification with the coloniser, it is also the “voice of the combatants”, a tool of liberation that serves to spread messages of resistance.&nbsp;Today, the dominance of English as the global academic lingua franca mirrors this historic power dynamic. As English continues to dominate international academic discourse, as seen in our main journals and best-known academic publishing companies, it marginalises other languages and the diverse perspectives they carry. In this context, we must ask ourselves: what are the implications for research being increasingly confined to the English language? And how can we ensure that other languages contribute meaningfully to global academic conversations?Equity in academia: beyond linguistic dominanceThe global academic community has long accepted English as the default language for research dissemination. This acceptance, however, comes with significant implications. Researchers whose first language is not English face considerable challenges – they must master a language that may feel foreign and disconnected from their cultural and intellectual roots. This process often starts at the doctoral level, where scholars must leave behind their native linguistic and cultural frameworks in favour of English to be considered part of the “international” research community.Introducing ‘translanguaging’ – and other ways to promote multilingualismVirtual mobility: a first step to creating global graduates10 tips to succeed in publishing in English as a second languageThis linguistic shift is more than a simple translation of words; it involves adopting an entirely different academic identity. For many, this means distancing themselves from the cultural influences that shaped their intellectual development. The result is often an imperfect assimilation into the English-speaking academic world, where researchers struggle to contribute original ideas that are deeply rooted in their own cultural contexts.The impact of this linguistic hegemony is particularly evident in qualitative and critical research fields, where the nuances of language play a crucial role and the ability to articulate complex, culturally embedded ideas in English can be a daunting task. The pressure to conform to English-language norms can lead to a focus on “getting the English right” rather than making meaningful contributions to the field.&nbsp;Justice in language: language as a power structureIn academia, English operates as a gatekeeper, determining who can access and contribute to the most prestigious platforms of knowledge production.The power of English is often invisible, naturalised within the academic system. Researchers who cannot fully command the English language are at a disadvantage, not just in terms of linguistic competence but also in their ability to shape and influence academic discourse. The consequence is a form of linguistic violence where non-native English speakers must suppress their cultural identities and abandon the priorities of their regions to participate in the global academic conversation.This issue extends beyond individual struggles; it reflects broader social and historical power dynamics. The dominance of English in academia marginalises local knowledge systems and reduces the diversity of perspectives that are essential for a truly global exchange of ideas. Although everyone will agree that linguistic competence is a technical skill, it is more than that: language transforms itself into a form of social capital that privileges specific cultural identities and regional priorities within the academic field.Opportunities: creating space for linguistic diversityThe goal is not to replace and condemn English. After all, it has been used by people around the world to communicate their research and perspectives; it has also served to support critical thinking and free speech in many countries that would not welcome dissent in local academic environments governed by bureaucratic and autocratic logics. It can be, as Fanon put it, used by combatants. The aim, rather, is to push back against the hegemony of English.&nbsp;To do so, we must actively create spaces where other languages can thrive in academic discussion. This is not just about translating works from one language to another but about valuing the different ways in which knowledge is produced and communicated across cultures.For example, swimming against the tide, the journal Critical Perspectives on Accounting has modified its editorial policy to admit papers that are originally written in English, French or Spanish. These are reviewed in their original language and then published in both English and, eventually, in French or Spanish.Embracing linguistic diversity is about equity and justice. And embracing the richness that other languages bring to our understanding of complex global issues. This requires a collective effort from researchers, institutions and academic journals to recognise and value the contributions that language can bring to the global academic community. By doing so, we can begin to dismantle the linguistic barriers that have long limited our understanding of the world and pave the way for a more inclusive and equitable academic landscape.&nbsp;This article is based on an editorial, “Language was always a companion of the empire”, published in English and Spanish in Critical Perspectives on Accounting.&nbsp;&nbsp;Javier Husillos is an associate professor in departamento de gestión de empresas (department of business management) at the Universidad Pública de Navarra (UPNA) in Pamplona, Spain. Carlos Larrinaga is a professor of accounting in the departamento de economía y administración de empresas (department of economics and business administration) at the Universidad de Burgos, Spain.&nbsp;Daniel Martinez&nbsp;is an associate professor in the department of accounting and management control at HEC Paris, France.If you’d like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week,&nbsp;sign up for the Campus newsletter.

Embracing linguistic diversity in global academic publishing

English operates as a gatekeeper in academia, determining who can access and contribute to the most prestigious platforms of knowledge production. We must create spaces where other languages can thrive, write three European academics

Embracing linguistic diversity and equity in global academic publishing

“I definitely would consider myself a researcher now, now that I’m able to redefine that word ‘researcher’.” (Rahesa, 7.11,&nbsp;Episode 2)How can an academic unite two very different sides to their work – one focused on historical research, the other geared towards widening access to higher education? That is the challenge I was grappling with when I conceived the “Whose Power?” project at Leeds City Museum, funded by the&nbsp;Arts and Humanities Research Council.&nbsp;The aim was to learn about how to do participatory research with young people, by co-producing knowledge catalysed by my specific research area – late 19th-century women making everyday energy decisions in their homes. Together with members of the Preservative Party, a diverse group of 14- to 24-year-olds working as youth curators at Leeds City Museum, we have explored domestic objects in the collections, using them to start a conversation among ourselves and with museum audiences, through an exhibition, about whose power is overlooked in traditional histories of energy. We have thought about advocacy and power in energy change in the future.Recognising the power of young people’s voices and responding to the group members’ ambitions to learn more about podcasting, we have produced&nbsp;Whose Power? Over the five episodes, we question our project, our processes and our learning.&nbsp;After 18 months of working with the Preservative Party, I’ve discovered that participatory research is something we’ve been doing all along, even if it wasn’t identified as such.So, having consulted with the group, what tips do we have for those embarking on similar projects?Plan to changeExpect to throw your work plan out of the window.When I submitted the AHRC application, I included a beautiful one-page work plan. Very early on, I asked one of the members, Bobby, how the group does projects. Their answer filled an organised academic’s heart with fear. “Anarchy. I think it’s very hard to nail down a Pres Party approach […] because it depends who’s in the room during that session.” (4.43,&nbsp;Episode 2). This mapped closely onto the response of the group facilitator, Jordan, to the work plan: &nbsp;“I remember kind of trying to, or hoping to, explain to you that this is something that may likely change and that the group will shape it.” (3.04,&nbsp;Episode 1)When I met the group, they were finalising a significant period of work. It would culminate in&nbsp;Overlooked, an exhibition that ran until June 2023 at the museum. This meant that the first six months of the original plan were thwarted in the most wonderful way. I spent this time learning about how the group curated a successful exhibition and helping them navigate conferences and award acceptance events. While none of this featured in the original work plan, it provided vital time to create the safe space required for all effective participatory research with young people.As Lauren Theweneti, Preservative Party senior mentor and co-author of this article, said to me when we were three weeks from exhibition opening with nothing to hang on the walls: “It will happen.” It might not happen according to your usual timetable for academic projects. But, done right, participatory research will make it happen because everybody feels empowered and everybody wants the project to succeed.Create a safe space“I love Pres Party. Pres Party is the place in the world where I feel the happiest and where I feel the safest.” (Bobby, 9.24,&nbsp;Episode 2)&nbsp;Creating a safe space is more than just paying attention to safeguarding and ethics. It is vital that everybody has the time and support to come to the project in their own ways.&nbsp;While I had thought carefully about an iterative approach to ethics in the original application, I still planned to complete initial consent forms in the first month. I hadn’t fully accounted for how this project would be shaped by the group’s needs and wants.&nbsp;For example, group member Tae’s initial reaction when the project and ethics was mentioned was “I’m not interested in this professor just coming to talk at me about things that I don't necessarily care about.” It took about four months for them to feel safe enough to ask to complete the ethics process “for my own peace of mind […] I wanted to talk to you about what this whole project was to you” (7.49, Episode 4).&nbsp;The original project was entitled Empowering Women: Co-Producing Histories of Women and Energy in the Home, directly reflecting my&nbsp;previous research. Tae’s considerations led to a new title, “Whose Power?” and new questions. They wrote the questions we chose to stencil onto the walls of our exhibition,&nbsp;Whose Power? Energy Change in the Home, focusing on&nbsp;whose history of energy is recorded and why. The questions asked exhibition visitors to think about how people’s gender, race and class link to who gets to make energy decisions. How can revealing a wider diversity of people making energy changes in their homes help us all feel empowered in the future of energy change?&nbsp;‘Just trust’Safe spaces rely on trusting relationships. Having worked with the Preservative Party for 12 years, Esther (community engagement manager, Leeds City Museum) found that the key to participatory research with young people is “to allow those conversations to happen […] that slowly we will see the threads of commonality within the group. And that will itself organically emerge as a project.” (9.42,&nbsp;Episode 1). As an academic asking to be allowed to join in to this process, I had to learn from the older members, like Lauren, who we appointed as mentors, and from the wider group, that building trust was “difficult” and time-consuming, but utterly crucial.&nbsp;Trust is vital. It takes time and energy but it will be worth it. Only with trust comes the redistribution of power that is at the heart of participatory research.&nbsp;“Participation done well has power at its heart, but it’s not power to close off. It’s not power to shut down, it’s power to open up” (Abigail, 18.45,&nbsp;Episode 3).Abigail Harrison Moore is professor of art history and museum studies at the University Leeds and Lauren Theweneti is senior mentor of the Preservative Party at Leeds City Museum and associate lecturer in history at Sheffield Hallam University.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus&nbsp;newsletter.

When engaging young people in research, trust is key

How can we collaborate with young people to co-produce research? Keep these three things in mind

When engaging young people in participatory research, trust is key

International collaboration is critical in countless fields and disciplines, and essential in biomedical engineering – lives literally depend upon it. By bringing together experts from different countries and disciplines, we can harness a wide and diverse range of knowledge, skills and resources. These collaborations can involve partnerships with academia, industry, healthcare institutions, government agencies and philanthropy, in developed and developing nations, and allow us to tackle global health challenges.At Virginia Tech, I teach and run the&nbsp;Therapeutic Ultrasound and Non-Invasive Therapies Laboratory, where we develop histotripsy, a novel focused ultrasound technology, for the treatment of liver cancer and other clinical applications. For histotripsy to reach its full potential, we need to leverage transdisciplinary research teams that expand beyond the boundaries of any single institution.&nbsp;Embracing disagreement in research co-productionUsing a business framework to advocate for international research collaborationResource collection: how to promote your research for greater impactAt the biomedical engineering and mechanics department, we can transform healthcare by developing technologies that improve diagnosis, treatment and patient care worldwide. To maximise global impact, I recommend inter-related strategies:Understand limitations to improve access to technologyVirginia Tech&nbsp;Team Malawi is a great example of a transdisciplinary global collaboration. Created to address the&nbsp;limited access to affordable healthcare innovations in Malawi and other low- and middle-income countries, the vision for this initiative is to use a screen-diagnose-treat-prevent approach to improve community wellness for underserved populations.&nbsp;Team Malawi, which was launched by Andy and Penny Muelenaer, collaborates with colleagues at the Malawi University of Science and Technology (MUST) to develop the portable and affordable ultrasound technologies needed at this locale for improving cancer diagnosis and treatment. We harness public-private partnerships to scale up the production and global distribution of medical technologies, ensuring they reach underserved populations. Importantly, the programme is being led by faculty and students from MUST, who continually liaise with teams at Virginia Tech.&nbsp;Here’s a great example of this close working relationship –&nbsp;two recent MUST graduates, Ruth Mtuwa and Nathan Sambo, recently joined my lab as PhD students; when they graduate, they will return to Malawi to establish and direct the Team Malawi focused ultrasound programme. I emphasise here that local leadership is essential for creating a self-sustaining programme.Check your ego at the doorThere have been many points where members of this group could have siloed their work at their institutions, but we share a vision of helping patients around the world, and that far outweighs who gets the credit. The organic expansion of histotripsy is a direct result of this attitude.Our first human liver cancer trial,&nbsp;the Theresa study, was led by Joan Vidal-Jove in Barcelona, Spain. Working with Vidal-Jove was an ideal option for translating histotripsy into human cancer patients for the first time since due to both his expertise in conducting previous human trials with a related technology as well as his inclusive and collaborative attitude towards conducting such a groundbreaking clinical trial. This successful trial led to a large international collaboration that would not have been possible without Vidal-Jove’s leadership. For the Theresa study, Vidal-Jove recruited an interventional radiologist, Xavier Serres, to join and co-lead the trial with him. The spirit of openness and inclusiveness between Vidal-Jove and Serres set the foundation for what grew into a large international research partnership that continues to move this new technology into clinical use. One of the leaders of this collaborative international team, Fred Lee from the University of Wisconsin, once commented that, when it comes to research, one plus one equals three. I have found this to be true for every successful research partnership I’ve done, particularly those that involve international collaborations.&nbsp;Align incentives and pursue sustained fundingAnyone who has tried to build an international research programme understands that funding is often the biggest hurdle. Once you build strong partnerships with aligned organisations, the next step is to understand the challenges that each stakeholder faces to ensure continued contributions to the success of the larger collaborative programme. This often requires significant effort and sustained funding for each member of the organisation. Sometimes this happens organically, as when an industry partner is willing to fund multi-centre clinical trials, but often it requires ongoing efforts to find ways to keep in place sustained funding for research and development aspects of the programme.My field is driven in large part by non-profit organisations that support our international collaborations; for example, we work with the&nbsp;Focused Ultrasound Foundation, an organisation that connects researchers throughout the world and funds projects that involve partnerships between academic, industry and clinical institutions. This type of funding is essential to advance new technologies from the research lab into the clinic.Educate the next generation&nbsp;Empowering the next generation of biomedical engineers is crucial for sustained progress. A great example is offered by the two graduate students I mentioned earlier who will launch and direct the Team Malawi focused ultrasound programme in Africa. Additionally, undergraduate and graduate students in my lab interact with our international partners every week in virtual meetings, and many of them have also spent extended periods working directly with collaborators in France, Spain, Canada and Malawi.&nbsp;Focus on global health needsTo achieve meaningful progress globally, biomedical engineering research and development must focus on addressing the most pressing health needs worldwide.&nbsp;Achieving global progress in biomedical engineering depends on a collective commitment to collaboration, education and funding and understanding global health disparities. By working together across borders and disciplines, we can truly achieve transformative progress in healthcare and improve pressing health outcomes worldwide.Eli Vlaisavljevich is an associate professor and the Kendall and Laura Hendrick junior faculty fellow in biomedical engineering and mechanics and director of the Therapeutic Ultrasound and Non-Invasive Therapies Laboratory at Virginia Tech.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.

Global health challenges such as cancer demand collective efforts that transcend national boundaries. Eli Vlaisavljevich shares how he leverages international collaborations to produce groundbreaking biomedical work

Leveraging international collaborations to tackle global health challenges

The University of Oxford’s pro vice-chancellor for innovation on how universities and industry can work together for the benefit of all, plus a leading data scientist on why data needs careful handling to protect future research efforts

THE podcast: knowledge exchange and data management as drivers of research and innovation

The world of higher education philanthropy has changed significantly in recent years. Donations have slowed on some fronts, and donors are increasingly interested in programmes that have real-world impact,&nbsp;data shows. They want their funding to be used to solve Big Issues, including enhancing human physical and mental health, meeting environmental challenges, advancing science and technology, and using advanced data-driven capabilities such as artificial intelligence to improve the lives of people around the world.&nbsp;One way that universities, especially in countries where they are heavily reliant on philanthropy – including the US, where I received my degrees, and Israel, where I now work – can tap into this trend is by establishing programmes to support academic spin-offs and translational research that could produce technologies to solve global challenges. This can require a shift in the way that universities typically work with donors. But rethinking relationships with donors is essential for continued funding towards important research, as well as keeping institutions of higher education relevant in a fast-changing world.&nbsp;The challenges for institutions of higher learning include falling enrolment because of demographic changes and high tuition fees, as well as competition for talent and funding from the private sector. These challenges affect institutional fundraising. In&nbsp;2023, contributions from individual non-alumni donors in the US fell 10.5 per cent over 2022 levels, while alumni contributions fell 11.1 per cent over the same period. Meanwhile, donations from institutional backers such as organisations, corporations and foundations have remained flat since 2022. As the challenges with enrolment and faculty brain drain are set to worsen, funding will probably continue to be a challenge.Read more: how exactly does research get funded?Philanthropists, governing boards and faculty must play active roles in university governanceResource collection: what innovation needs to thrive in higher educationThose individuals and institutions that continue to donate are being more discerning,&nbsp;conscious of impact and expect to be more involved in the projects they fund; in my experience, they want their money to go towards more than just a name on a building. Donors are increasingly interested in being part of an ecosystem that actively helps turn ideas into tangible innovations and solutions that change the world. Indeed,&nbsp;a list of the top US university and college donations in recent years – including contributions of up to a billion dollars – shows a clear trend. A large portion of those donations went to programmes that marry advanced tech, such as AI, with biology, chemistry, medicine and other science-related areas.&nbsp;A good example is a $500-million (£381-million) donation by Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan to Harvard University for the development of an institute to&nbsp;advance research in AI and neuroscience. And they are not alone. Leonard A. Lauder, chairman emeritus of the Estée Lauder Companies, gave $5 million to the University of Arizona Cancer Center to advance clinical and translational research on ovarian cancer – the cancer that took his wife Evelyn in 2011.&nbsp;Virginia Commonwealth University recently received a&nbsp;$16 million gift from longtime benefactor C. Kenneth Wright for two endowed chairs “so that new discoveries can be made and new treatments can be developed” in a variety of medical and biotechnology areas. And&nbsp;in 2021, the Wadhwani Foundation, chaired by American-Indian billionaire Romesh T. Wadhwani – which works with institutions to develop programmes in AI and biotechnology – made a large donation to the University of North Dakota for creation of an endowed chair in translational research to “reduce the time often required to ‘translate’ novel discoveries in the laboratory to the direct care of patients in the clinic, whether in the form of new pharmaceuticals or other therapeutics”.Universities are increasingly realising that translational science programmes better succeed at making real-world impact when the needs of the end user, as well as commercial possibilities, are considered early on in the research. This can be done through in-house programmes that oversee the translating of research to real-world solutions, treatments or products.&nbsp;The Zimin Institute for AI Solutions in Healthcare at Technion Israel Institute of Technology provides the funding to chaperone a university’s most promising researchers with the funding, know-how and resources needed to bring their ideas to life. The foundation has also established this model at Arizona State University (focused on smart cities) and Tel Aviv University (biomedical devices). The Zimin institutes also build the bridges to partner with external organisations, introducing the academic innovators early to end users and partners so that innovation is honed to ultimate needs. The US&nbsp;National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) offers guidance to universities on how to build translational science programmes – and how to connect with supporters seeking to advance solutions. Many universities have partnered with NCATS to develop their translational science programmes.When seeking out or working with donors to these types of programmes, universities need to be prepared to work with them as partners, similar to how start-ups work with venture capitalists and other investors. These philanthropists want visibility into what research is happening, plans for how it will reach the consumer or commercial market, and reports on progress. Philanthropists active in this field will want to work closely with academic administrators and department heads and may help make connections or be involved in connections the university makes with private-sector partners who can bring solutions to market.&nbsp;Working in such a way can be challenging at first, because it is a shift in culture, and some researchers may feel their academic freedom is at risk. But as long as the projects are well defined and focused, and the goals are clear, this should not be the case. The best way to deal with these potential challenges is to carefully define the scope of the funded work at the beginning of the relationship, as best as possible, and to stay in regular communication about progress of the research. Both universities and the funding organisations should understand that things may happen along the way, in the course of the research, that require a change of plans or even an adjustment of goals.&nbsp;While philanthropists don’t take a cut of revenue or profit resulting from commercialisation, often the entrepreneurs who profit from companies that started with academic research will reinvest earnings back into charitable initiatives that fund or promote science. In addition, the success of translational programmes and the awareness about the real-world impact of science can feed back into encouraging funding for early-stage basic research, for which direct funding has become more difficult.&nbsp;Although basic science may start through intellectual curiosity or pure academic pursuit, in today’s world, this is often no longer enough to draw funding. But by directing at least some promising research towards issues that have stumped the world and working with the appropriate partners to bring those solutions to market, university science programmes can become promising vehicles for changing the world – which is what interests many philanthropists today.&nbsp;Shai Shen-Orr is director of the&nbsp;Zimin Institute for AI in Healthcare Solutions at the Technion Israel Institute of Technology.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.

Advice for working with philanthropic donors

Amid academia’s challenges related to talent retention and fundraising, universities can use translational research programmes to enhance scientific edge and real-world impact, and strengthen donor relations 

Donors want to see real-world impact. What does that mean for higher education in the sciences?

During introductions in a research meeting I&nbsp;attended recently, all the professionals were brief, giving their job title, organisation and highlights of professional achievements. The community organisation leaders and members, on the other hand, shared information about their conditions, their treatment and anecdotes about their personal life. This sparked conversation as they swapped stories about their common experiences. The researchers – including me – started having a mini panic as we wondered whether we would ever get through to the “meat” of the agenda.Eventually, it dawned on us that through this conversation, people were making connections, getting comfortable and addressing the questions that we had prepared.Involving patients and the public in the design and delivery of health and social care research can improve the relevance and quality of the research and help build trust in the research and its outcomes. It is increasingly a prerequisite to receiving research funding – and more and more often the norm.How to facilitate knowledge exchange and build trust with policymakersEmbracing disagreement in research co-productionCommunity-engaged research can give a voice to marginalised peopleHowever, a perennial challenge within the world of patient and public involvement in research is how to effectively include people from a greater diversity of backgrounds. Some researchers have done excellent work reaching out to communities and changing working practices (such as having meetings outside usual work hours) or developing links with community organisations representing people underserved by research.But once we have people in the room, how do we create an inclusive environment that will keep them there? Something that has struck me in meetings, and in subsequent conversations, with both the public and researchers, is the different worlds that professionals and members of the public often inhabit. I&nbsp;want to make clear that, for the purposes of this article, I&nbsp;exaggerate differences between these worlds and make huge generalisations. And I&nbsp;also recognise that no&nbsp;one falls neatly into a professional or public box.Where professional and public are worlds apartProfessionals tend to operate in a world characterised by formality and where objectivity and evidence are valued. It is a world of carefully crafted agendas, where we value people expressing themselves succinctly and keeping to the point, a world in which we champion “being professional” – that is, being serious and revealing little about our personal lives.(Hence, the public contributions to research meetings are often much more interesting and entertaining than the professionals’.)Clearly, we all tailor our behaviours and how we communicate to a given audience. This is often appropriate and necessary – for example, during a pandemic, no&nbsp;one wants to hear a wisecracking official in a jester’s hat imparting sad news.However, this environment is alien to many people we want to involve in research. They may be unfamiliar with, and even overawed by, the structure and the formality of the usual research meeting. Being professional can mean that we don’t “do&nbsp;human” well. In everyday conversations, people tend to meander when they speak rather than stick to an agenda. They may want to connect and get to know others before volunteering a view or experience. And how they express themselves can also be quite different. In patient and public involvement, people have lived experience of a condition or a service. They will often be passionate and emotive and want to share their frustrations and other experiences. And sometimes they will laugh and joke to make themselves feel at ease.Bridging the gap between professional and publicSo how do we build bridges between these two worlds? We need to create a safe, inclusive environment in which people feel comfortable to be their authentic selves and express themselves, an environment that encourages us all to “do&nbsp;human” better. Here are my three tips:Build in time for making connectionsBudget permitting, build “getting to know you” meetings or events into your research planning. These could be informal affairs arranged outside the research meeting, or you could include time in meetings for people to get to know each other. For example, allow a longer introductions section on the agenda or have an informal lunch before the meeting starts.Step outside your professional roleWhen getting to know each other, researchers could share information about themselves that goes beyond stating role, employer and work-based accomplishments. Talk to each other about hobbies and interests. Swap stories.Be flexible&nbsp;Having an agenda, a structure and a purpose are all important, but so is being flexible. Be alert to the flow and dynamic in the meeting. Sometimes it won’t follow the order of your agenda. Don’t panic. Accept that people sometimes hop across themes and issues as they talk on a topic; this is how conversations flow. Allow for a degree of people jumping between topics and agenda points. If people are talking, it’s likely they feel comfortable in expressing themselves. And if they are talking, then you will be achieving your goal of getting people to inform your research.In an often-grey professional world, it is good to embrace a bit of colour. Bridging this gap between public and professional worlds is so important. It will enable us to create connections, to include people in our research and enable people to feel comfortable in expressing themselves and contributing to research.Gary Hickey is a senior public involvement manager at the University of Southampton.&nbsp;If you’d like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.

Research that makes patients feel comfortable to share

When patient and public involvement is done in an inclusive, safe environment, it results in more relevant, higher-quality health and social care research

‘Doing human’: ways for researchers to make patients feel comfortable to express themselves

Taking part in a project brings many benefits for researchers, but less documented are the challenges that can create cumulative negative effects on academics’ mental health. Each stage of a project brings different challenges to trust for researchers, as this study has identified. When the leader of a project knows the typical challenges to trust that researchers might face, they will understand what to aim to mitigate at each stage.Researchers often face additional challenges beyond their research. For example, they may have to move regularly to work on a new project because of the short contracts offered. They are often in a new town or foreign country with a different culture and language. Researchers’ heavy reliance on technology means that learning how to use new software can delay their progress and reduce their productivity.Research shouldn’t cause trauma – let’s find a better wayResearchers need support to change the world – here’s how to provide itHow to build trust as a research supervisorWithin the project team itself, building a team requires building trust, but researchers must also wait and hope that they are credited for the research output.These disparate challenges put pressure on researchers’ mental health and cause anxiety.Five stages of a research projectPrevious research has focused on four stages of a project: forming, storming, norming and adjourning. Our research adds a fifth stage: post-project collaboration. This stage is an implicit or explicit part of most research projects. For example, a postdoctoral researcher expects to be credited for their work even if it is published in a journal years after the end of the project.Post-project collaboration is important in the context of research. For universities and researchers alike, long-term sustainable networks are vital. The money spent on research is often in hope that beyond the project’s immediate goals being achieved, a network or ecosystems will also be triggered.The challenges at each of the five stages are identified in the table below. This enables the leader to focus on a manageable number of challenges at each stage. Some challenges are in only one stage of the process, while others occur across multiple stages. Conflict is not a challenge at the start, but establishing trust is. This suggests that low trust at the start causes problems later; it is a delayed reaction. Once the conflict happens, it might be too late, so the trust should be built early.

  
      
  
    Image
                



          

  

Figure 1: A model for reducing the challenges for researchers in projects across five stages

&nbsp;Trust is important in several collaboration settings, particularly at the start, until participants familiarise themselves with each other and the project team matures. In research teams, because of the long time until the research is published, often more than three years, an additional, long-term cause for risk and distrust can arise that is resolved only once the research is published.Challenges to trust at each of the five stagesAt the first stage, where the team is formed, trust should be built to cover four topics: trust in the leader, process, evaluation method, and trust in being credited in published work. If the leader builds the researchers’ trust in them at the start, they free up time to focus on other challenges in the second stage of the project. The other challenges present at the first stage, such as trust in the evaluation method, may be difficult to resolve completely at the first stage, but they can be reduced at each stage as far as possible.At the third stage, norming, new challenges usually emerge as people may start to run out of the goodwill they had at the start, and they may stop giving the benefit of the doubt when they disagree. Demotivation, disengagement and conflict often start to come out. If a foundation of trust in relation to the other challenges has been built at the earlier stages, the challenges in the third stage will be easier to overcome.In the final two stages of the project, adjourning and post-project collaboration, a new vision needs to be communicated effectively as the original vision will stop resonating after the norming stage. Without a follow-up project on the horizon, another shared vision of collaborating in the future could be built.For those challenges that cannot be solved outright, the leader of the research project must show an awareness of them and what effect they can have. The leader should be ambidextrous, in the sense of focusing on the project deliverables and the socio-psychological aspects of research teamwork. Meeting the project goals and building trust in the team is a more sustainable approach to research projects.Alex Zarifis is a lecturer in information systems at the University of Southampton, UK.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.

Principal investigators should know what challenges to trust their research team may face at each stage of a project – from team building to post-project collaboration – so they can focus support effectively

Building trust to support researchers’ mental health

When academics and students collaborate on research projects, it can enhance the quality of the research and boost student success. Additionally, it can also promote a sense of student belonging.&nbsp;Students need to be ready for a real-world environment where change is the constant. Research knowledge and enterprise are often required to develop rapidly to meet these challenges, and collaborating with students is an effective way to teach them this.&nbsp;Could AI manage your research project?Making group work work: how to enable successful student collaborationShow your research impact: a guide for academics and researchersTogether with BA Hons Animation students and staff in the faculty of liberal arts and sciences at the University of Greenwich, we are undertaking a collaborative project entitled “Our Kid from the North of the South of the M1 River”. It fuses together animation and sociological autobiography as a pedagogical approach to exploring lived experience.&nbsp;The project charts my journey to professorship, as one of very few Black female professors in the UK. It also seeks to raise awareness of the leaky pipelines faced by global majority women in academia and encourage institutions to recognise the importance of our retention and progression. I also wish to highlight academia as a possible career for young global majority women. Drawing on our work so far, and other collaborative work undertaken, such as our Student Stories Project, I’ll share valuable insights on collaborating with students on research projects.How to create opportunities to collaborateAt the University of Greenwich, we have an Office of Undergraduate Research hub, which I set up in 2018 and ran until 2021. It has gone from strength to strength, thanks to innovative work undertaken by one of our colleagues within the faculty. This has helped to enhance our research environment, because it’s fostered a culture in which staff and students can work together in scoping out research collaborations and undertaking funding applications. These transferable skills also benefit students’ employability.Collaborative opportunities may occur through existing projects, as was the case with “Our Kid from the North of the South of the M1 River”.&nbsp; While staff will need to steer the overall direction of the projects, students should be encouraged to identify and work on areas that best reflect their interests and strengths.&nbsp;Conversely, staff and students can start from scratch and develop ideas for projects together. Perhaps these ideas are in line with world issues, or affect their everyday experiences. For instance, I received funding centrally from the university to collaborate with students and my counterpart in another faculty on a Student Stories project. It centred on issues impacting student experience at our institution.&nbsp;Student co-researchers were encouraged to develop key themes and shape the overall project direction. They touched on the cost of living crisis, student poverty and balancing work and study, which affected their experiences.&nbsp;As a way of recording their stories, we co-created podcasts. This research has informed guidance around student experience at the university, and also in framing our institution’s Black and Minority Ethnic Awarding Difference theory of change. It also contributed to our access and participation plan for the Office of Students.Mapping and matching skills to the relevant parts of the projectThe skills the students are acquiring in their studies will come in useful on this research project. “Our Kid from the North of the South of the M1 River” needed animators, filming and sound producers, as well as project management, all skills that feature in their degrees. Work with students to identify and map out their particular strengths, so that they can focus on relevant areas.&nbsp;We found that some students were keen to go beyond their comfort zone and try new skills or technologies. Encourage this, and organise training if needed.&nbsp;They were then divided into subgroups based on skill sets. Although we facilitated these groups, we encouraged students’ creativity as much as possible, which they embraced fully. This has resulted in a fantastic animation of my story.Co-creating milestones and agreeing updatesA core facet of the project management stage was setting of timelines and regular progress reviews, which took into account staff and student availability. We established the most appropriate times to meet, deciding on weekly Friday touch point meetings, and agreed task completion dates, as well as points to review. We also ensured flexibility, should issues arise – such as additional work shifts for students, urgent staff meetings, etc.Recognising students’ workStudents should always receive full recognition for their work. Not only will this build their confidence in their abilities, but it increases their likelihood of wanting to undertake further projects. Recognition can include many forms, including identifying opportunities to showcase their work at events within and beyond the institution. “Our Kid from the North of the South of the M1 River”, for example, will be shown at various festivals externally, and at Stephen Lawrence’s 50th birthday commemoration at the University of Greenwich. If papers are produced on the back of the research, students should be named as co-producers, alongside tutors.Since students have donated time, energy and skills to projects, we ensured that they received payment at the going rate, and extra for any additional work on the project. This is especially important, given that many are facing the brunt of the cost of living crisis. Failure to do so is exploitative, unethical and undermines their experiences.Louise Owusu-Kwarteng is associate dean of student success and professor in applied sociology in the faculty of liberal arts and sciences at the University of Greenwich.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.

How to collaborate with students on research projects

Students and academic staff collaborating on research projects offers many benefits for everyone involved. Here’s how to do it

Co-production, at its simplest, involves the providers and users of services working together to find a collective solution or outcome. It has gained traction as a means of enhancing and evolving patient and public involvement (PPI) in health and social care.Although interpretations of and guidance on co-production vary, it is generally regarded as a values-led approach in which researchers, patients and the public share power. Differences among guidance documents are subtle. I was a co-author of the National Institute for Health and Care Research’s guidance on co-producing a research project and in this we identified five key principles:sharing power, in which the research is owned by those working on a projectincluding all perspectives and skills, whereby the research includes all people who can make a contributionrespecting and valuing the knowledge of all those working together on the research, as everyone is of equal importance&nbsp;reciprocity, so everyone benefits from their inputbuilding and maintaining relationships, to ensure that people are valued, their potential is unlocked and power is shared.Principles can give us a framework and guide our work. But it’s by applying the guidance that we add experience, practice and nuance. In this way we can enrich the guidance and the advice that we provide.&nbsp;Allowing disagreement and dissenting voices in co-productionCo-production is not all consensus and harmony, however. And what the guidance is less explicit about – although it emphasises dialogue, reflection and flexibility – is the importance of allowing and enabling disagreements and dissenting voices.&nbsp;Advice for managing difficult university staff discussionsCampus podcast: how to do public engagementResources to support and improve research managementHaving disagreements, discussions and arguments is all part of the creative process, and we need to embrace them. Through dissent and debate we can often improve what we produce and the knowledge we create. People are usually mature enough to know that we do have to move forward with a project and make decisions, and to know when to pick their battles. The skill is creating the right environment – a safe environment – within which people feel they can disagree.&nbsp;So, what can we do to create this environment?&nbsp;Here are four tips:Collectively develop a “ways of working” document that sets out rules or principles for how all parties will work together. This gathers people together to negotiate and agree a set of statements. In addition, you can include statements that encourage people to recognise that it’s OK to disagree. I always include a statement about disagreeing agreeably. It is important to challenge and disagree – as long as it is done respectfully.&nbsp;Develop good relationships. If you have long-term, established relationships with people, it can often (although certainly not always) be easier to work through differences of opinion or nuances in approach. People are used to each other, respect each other and feel comfortable about disagreeing and sharing opinions. Obviously, though, many projects bring together people who don’t know each other for a short period of time. In an ideal world, it would be useful to have events or get-togethers before the project to help develop relationships. Consider events that involve people stepping outside their roles to get to know each other.&nbsp;Organise reflective sessions. Create a space where you can have open and honest discussions about how the group is working. Are we being true to the co-production principles? Are we creating spaces in which people can express an opinion? If not, what can we do about it? Within these spaces, it is important to emphasise the importance of people being able to express their views and to disagree. These sessions can be recorded and written up briefly – one or two pages, almost like a blog – to share with the whole group. Reflective sessions are safe spaces for people to air their views and thoughts, debate, discuss and argue, agree disagreeably and then work out a way forward.Play devil’s advocate. Sometimes, in a group setting, people will be reticent about disagreeing through fear of upsetting others or appearing stupid by going against the consensus. Here, I think someone like the PPI lead on a project can proffer an alternative view. (The PPI lead is someone who has responsibility for managing and overseeing all PPI activities on a project.) This may: a) give someone else the confidence to speak up; and b) ensure that alternatives are discussed. Of course, the devil’s advocate doesn’t have to believe in the alternative view.The guidance, in my opinion, focuses a lot on sharing power and working together, with an emphasis on developing relationships and moving towards a consensus on decision-making. But&nbsp;debate is also part of developing and improving our projects, plans and products. It’s time to embrace the role of disagreement and embed it within the co-production process.Gary Hickey is head of&nbsp;Agora Digital Centre&nbsp;in the School of Healthcare Enterprise and Innovation at the University of Southampton.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.

Co-producing a research project is not all consensus and harmony, so these four tips will guide research collaborators in how to allow and enable disagreements and dissenting voices 

Embracing disagreement in research co-production

“It’s lonely at the top!” I am sure you have heard this saying before, and yes, management can sometimes feel solitary because, as a manager, you are often the one who must make that final decision. However, I truly believe if you are a good manager, you can minimise this feeling.Here are five things that an effective manager needs to do, based on my experience.Demonstrate impeccable communication skillsCommunication skills are paramount in management. We need to be able to communicate well in various ways:Verbal skills: ensure that you use clear language. Avoid any acronyms or jargon, but if you must use them ensure that you define them. Monitor your tone, diction and pace of your speech.&nbsp;Having good verbal skills is not only about how you speak but also about how you listen. Communication is a two-way process and if you are actively listening and engaged in what the person is saying, you are paying respect to the person you’re speaking to. A good way to show that you are actively listening is to repeat parts of what the person has said to you in your response. So, you may say something like “What I heard you say was…” This not only shows the person that you were listening, but offers an opportunity to clear up any misunderstandings.Non-verbal skills: you must be mindful of your body language when communicating because the person you are speaking to will interpret your message in specific ways depending on what they see. Be mindful of your facial expressions and hand movements.Written skills: we all have felt someone’s tone in an email. Therefore, it is important to be cognisant of how your written message could come across. Be aware of how the words you have chosen may be perceived and of how you are feeling when you are writing. If you are feeling a strong emotion such as anger, frustration or annoyance, it would be better to write that email a little later!Be likeable without the need to be likedWe are socialised to be likeable and nice. We were taught to share, be kind and speak to people even when we do not want to. This causes us to need to be, or at least appear to be nice. Now, being nice is fine, and being liked is also necessary for a manager. However, it is the need to be liked that can cause challenges. As a manager, you are not always going to be liked, and if that is a motivator, you may be unwilling to make the right decisions, which will affect your performance and your institution. Even if people do not like you, having them respect you for your standpoints or for how you generally behave is much more important than being liked.&nbsp;Making yourself likeable can be difficult when dealing with many different personality types. However, some things I have found that have helped me as a manager include:Being equitableBeing trustworthy&nbsp;Admitting if you don’t know something&nbsp;Having a sense of humourAdmitting when you are wrong.Show integrityFor a team to be effective, they must trust their manager, and without integrity, there is no trust. Honesty, probity, rectitude, whichever word you prefer, a manager must have these qualities. &nbsp;You can demonstrate them in the following ways:Giving credit where it is due&nbsp;Showing gratitudeShowing respect&nbsp;Avoiding gossipFollowing policy and procedures.Delegate effectivelyAs a manager, you should delegate with the intention of developing your staff and give them opportunities to shine outside of their normal roles. It can be difficult to delegate if you feel that the person may not be able to do the job as well as you can. However, to be a good manager, you must be able to develop and enhance the skills of the people you are responsible for.Resource collection: Should I become a university administrator?An introvert’s guide to networkingBridging the communication gap between administrators and facultyDemonstrate emotional intelligenceYou must be able to manage yourself before you can manage others. This is where emotional intelligence comes in. The theory of emotional intelligence was introduced by Peter Salovey and John D. Mayer in the 1990s, and further developed and brought to the lay public by Daniel Goleman.&nbsp;Here are some questions to ask yourself if you want to enhance your emotional intelligence:How self-aware are you?&nbsp;Do you know what triggers you and what calms you?&nbsp;Do you have a realistic perception of how others see you?Do you know how to manage your emotions and behaviour?&nbsp;Can you keep your emotions under control and remain professional?Can you detect people’s emotions?Are you able to understand another person’s opinion even if you do not agree with them?&nbsp;Are you able to imagine what a person’s experience might be like even if you have never had it?Management is rewarding, but managing people is not an easy task. It takes commitment and genuine passion to develop and empower people to achieve their very best. Happy managing!Colleen Robinson-Hunte is a programme manager at the University of the West Indies Global Campus and a subject matter expert and curriculum writer in small business management and management and leadership.&nbsp;If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.

Are you ready to manage?

Management is rewarding, but managing people is not an easy task. It takes commitment and genuine passion to develop and empower people to achieve their very best, writes Colleen Robinson-Hunte

Should academics be worried that the findings of their research will traumatise people? It’s a valid question.&nbsp;We know everyday experiences have the potential to be a source of psychological distress and trauma. Researchers explore challenging and complex issues, affecting society and individuals – and it’s important to consider how we can make sure our findings don’t cause further harm.&nbsp;What is trauma and what does it mean to be trauma-informed?Trauma is more common than we might think, with about 70 per cent of people estimated to have experienced it at some point in their life. Although there is no accepted definition of trauma, a strong starting point is the definition by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, which describes it as an event or circumstance which has lasting effects on an individual’s well-being.&nbsp;Trauma overwhelms us. It makes us feel like we can't handle things – and it can build up over time, affecting our overall health. But here’s the thing: if we know about the potential for trauma, we can do something about it.Dealing with abuse after public commentaryA case for bringing ethics of friendship and care to academic researchFive tips for building healthy academic collaborationsBeing trauma-informed means recognising that the things we do and share, including research findings,&nbsp; could potentially hurt people. So, before we dive into how to handle this, let’s talk about why it matters.Why it matters to be trauma-informedHow can people – participants, researchers or public as a whole – be traumatised by the sharing of research news after projects have finished? Well, in a nutshell, you don’t have to experience something first-hand to be affected by it. This phenomenon is more commonly known as “vicarious trauma” or “secondary trauma” and can happen when we connect emotionally with what we’re hearing or reading. For example, reading an upsetting news story can trigger secondary trauma. When we connect meaningfully with something, we are inevitably affected by it.&nbsp;When research findings are hard-hitting, such as highlighting discrimination and inequalities, those engaging with them are exposed to the risk of psychological distress in ways we cannot predict. With psychological distress comes the risk of trauma, which has huge implications for our well-being.Research news is meant to connect with us, to make us think and feel something. But what if those feelings end up being negative? We don’t always know how people will react to what we share, and that is a problem. That’s where trauma-informed principles come in.&nbsp;Trauma-informed principlesTrauma-informed principles are guidelines that help us share research in a way that acknowledges the potential for trauma and aims to prevent any extra distress.There are six in total. Here they are, and what they mean in practice:Safety&nbsp;This is about more than just physical safety. Researchers should ensure emotional safety by being mindful of each interaction during research.&nbsp;Trustworthiness and transparencyIt’s vital that you are honest and clear with participants when laying out what you plan to do, what they can expect and what you are setting out to achieve.&nbsp;Peer support&nbsp;Support networks are vital in life, and during research this is no different. Researchers understand the challenges faced by other researchers, and can provide valuable support.&nbsp;Collaboration and mutualityResearch can feel like us-and-them. Instead research and dissemination should promote a sense of coming together to explore findings and next steps, working together as partners where the input of those involved is mutually agreed.Empowerment, voice and choiceInvolving the people on which the research is based and who it impacts is crucial. It’s important that the voice of participants and those who are affected by research is valued, and they have a role in shaping decisions.&nbsp;Cultural, historical and gender issuesWe know stereotypes, discrimination and bias can be a source of trauma.&nbsp; When research collaboratively works with people impacted by its findings, it can help support an appropriate, sensitive and effective way forward.&nbsp;Using these principles as a guide, researchers can universally approach dissemination in a way that acknowledges the potential for trauma and buffer against additional distress that the research may communicate.&nbsp; &nbsp;For example, during the pandemic, researchers took a close look at how they shared their findings on the impact of visiting restrictions in care homes with the stakeholders who regulated this. They already knew that these limitations were emotionally draining and extremely difficult for those affected, and made sure to protect people from any extra trauma.To do this, they put several important measures in place. These included giving people a heads-up about their trauma-informed approach, letting people have a say in how the information was shared, taking breaks during discussions to give people time to reflect and making sure that quieter voices were heard.&nbsp;Researchers said this created a sense of safety in an open, permissive and non-judgmental space. This approach allowed researchers to put a different lens on the findings, with participants making researchers sensitive to the alternative perspectives of their role in the project. Researchers said that without the trauma-informed approach, the findings would have been didactic. Instead, they gained illustrative insights into the real stories that created authentic reflection and was an important reality check on how to share distressing information with other groups.&nbsp;Trauma-informed research dissemination is important because trauma can come from everyday things, such as news stories or even just a conversation. Our tipping point is invisible and we may not know ourselves where our threshold is. Researchers should be acutely aware of this, and be vigilant in protecting participants and those consuming their research. This promotes a sense of safety and is a necessary best-practice step that the research community must test further.&nbsp;It’s a step in the right direction to ensure our research doesn’t cause negative outcomes for individuals, alongside any positives it brings for wider society. We can’t – and clearly shouldn’t – avoid tackling difficult subjects. However, the right approach can help ensure we handle them in a sensitive and considered way.&nbsp;Eileen Harkess-Murphy is lecturer in health and life sciences at the University of the West of Scotland.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week,&nbsp;sign up for the Campus newsletter.

Research shouldn’t cause trauma – let’s find a better way

How can we conduct research and share results without affecting the well-being of those around us? Eileen Harkess-Murphy advocates for a trauma-informed approach 

Every now and again, you find yourself involved in a university project that feels particularly special – something you think about after hours, something that you know will remain with you once it has concluded. When that project comes along, you really want to talk about it. Sometimes though, words aren’t enough – you want to show people the project. But how exactly do you do that?It was this thought process that led us to try presenting our research in a different way, demonstrating the real-life impact of one of our projects. We decided to&nbsp;make a documentary.&nbsp;Finding Our VoiceThe research project in question was called Finding Our Voice. Developed in conjunction with theatre group&nbsp;At Home At The Theatre, the initiative saw people living with dementia perform alongside professional actors. We wanted to test performance as a way of unlocking hidden skills and memories – and it worked. Residents at Torrance Lodge Care Home in Kilmarnock, where we ran Finding Our Voice, grew in confidence, giving family members and staff the chance to catch a glimpse of the person who had been hidden for so long.&nbsp;Making the documentaryThe atmosphere during the workshops was infectious. Each session was unique, designed around the interests of the participants. One week, you might be performing musical theatre, the next, stand-up comedy. The challenge was to film these sessions and capture the atmosphere in the room, giving viewers the chance to see for themselves how the participatory performance can enhance lives.&nbsp;Life after publication: promote your work for maximum impactAmplifying research: five features of successful impact generationFive things to know before you launch a research podcastAt the University of the West of Scotland, we are fortunate to have a high number of working professionals from the film and television industries on staff. As a first step, they attended one of the sessions simply to observe – witnessing a high-energy hour, where the sense of joy and achievement from participants was abundantly clear. The room was small, a potential obstacle in capturing what was happening.&nbsp;We drafted in an experienced camera operator – and UWS alumnus – Steven Donnelly, who has worked on shows such as 007: Road to a Million, Amazon’s The Great Escapists and Billy Connolly: Made in Scotland. Not only did he have the expertise required to work around the limited space, he oversaw two student camera operators and a sound recordist, ensuring the project created valuable opportunities for current students. The film itself was shot over two days, with the workshops themselves facilitated by At Home at the Theatre and BA Performance student Claudia Kelly.&nbsp;The crew captured enough footage to give the editor a greater choice of shots, but little actual direction was necessary. In situations like this, filmmakers must try to capture the small moments, such as the tapping foot, the encouraging smile, the hand on the arm or simply eyes willing someone on. Occasionally, a director will point these out to a camera operator, but the best moments tend to spot them themselves. It’s about working as another pair of eyes to capture the moments that illuminate the project. The residents were so involved in the workshop that they almost completely ignored the presence of the cameras. Usually, directors can only hope for that to be the case.&nbsp;The resulting footage was edited by Angela Slaven (you may have seen her recent documentary, Imagine, about the Pet Shop Boys) and demonstrates how film production offers a wide range of opportunities, which is an important learning point for students.&nbsp;…And that’s a wrap!We believe the finished film tells the story behind the research – and, crucially, its impact – as effectively as a journal article or conference paper. It will certainly sit alongside these modes of dissemination, adding a level of colour and accessibility. After all, an image is worth a thousand words.&nbsp;Early findings from the project suggest that participation had a positive impact on the residents’ lives, including wider family life and relationships. We hope that, in capturing the work on film, this positivity can be shared and celebrated.&nbsp;It’s also allowed our students to work with a generation of people they otherwise would not have met in that setting. Not only have they been paid for their work, they’ve worked alongside high-profile figures within the industry.&nbsp;Would we do it again? Absolutely – and indeed, another documentary is being made about a separate research project, creating further opportunities for students and making the value of our research visible, to an audience who may otherwise not have the opportunity to directly see the impact it has.Making a film doesn’t have to be a complex process. We live in a world where images and moments are being captured all the time on our smartphones. Sometimes, it takes the embodied viewpoint captured through a smartphone lens to demonstrate the real essence of research. So, perhaps we’re all filmmakers.&nbsp;If you are thinking that a filmed record could help increase the impact of your research – or add an element to it – talk to lecturers in your film and TV division as soon as possible.&nbsp; They may be able to help with a budget to include in your grant proposal.As academics, we’re encouraged to shout about our work. Perhaps, by screening it, we are doing so more loudly.&nbsp;James Layton is lecturer in BA Performance and Paul Tucker and Bettina Talbot are lecturers in BA Broadcast Production: TV &amp; Radio, all at the University of the West of Scotland.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week,&nbsp;sign up for the Campus&nbsp;newsletter.

The making of: turning a research project into a documentary

To get your research findings into as many hands as possible, consider filming a documentary. James Layton, Paul Tucker and Bettina Talbot offer their advice

In the future of research support, generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) isn’t just a tool; it’s your colleague and ally. Whether you’re crafting grants or shaping policy, GenAI offers a wide range of possibilities tailored to the unique role of each research manager. Sure, it can’t write a full grant proposal on its own – yet – but when used strategically, GenAI has the potential to increase both the efficiency and quality of our work. So, how can research managers integrate this into diverse workflows?In this article, we will outline a general framework for human-AI collaboration in research support that most research managers can apply. Before you start, familiarise yourself with current AI guidelines at your institution and take steps to apply GenAI responsibly.Step 1: define your workflowBefore asking what GenAI can do, define what you do. Map out your common work processes: list all the steps you take during a typical day or project. Reflect on your list and look for bottlenecks. Which steps usually take the most time? Can GenAI help?Furthermore, keep in mind that “GenAI” is a broad term: there are countless tools available, each with a different speciality and a set of strengths and weaknesses. We consider two types of GenAI support:Automation: we delegate routine or repetitive tasks to save timeAugmentation: we consult GenAI like a colleague and increase the level of our work.Experiment with different tools and see which ones fit your workflow best. For inspiration, let’s look at a few examples of what GenAI can do:Type of toolHow GenAI adds valueGeneral purposeGenAI chatbots can quickly write an email, summarise long texts or brainstorm in a conversational formatResearchThey can find relevant sources and minimise hallucinations (AI-generated inaccuracies) using AI-powered data analysis toolsProductivityThey extract information from PDFs such as calls for proposalsWritingThey can improve your writing and make your message clearer. This is especially useful for non-native English speakersImage generationThey can create project logos, proposal figures and presentation illustrationsTeachingThey can create workshop outlines, presentation slides and other educational resourcesStep 2: plan your GenAI collaborationAfter you have mapped out your workflow, identify the steps where GenAI could add value and determine what its role will be. Every collaboration starts from a common understanding of responsibilities and a task division that plays to the talents of each team member. Applying this approach to GenAI can help you leverage the technology’s strengths while focusing on where you add the most value as the human operator. Assign tasks to your GenAI tool strategically and prioritise accordingly. Not every document needs to be award-winning, and not every task should be completed quickly.Resource collection: AI transformers like ChatGPT are here, so what next?Can we spot AI-written content?ChatGPT and generative AI: 25 applications to support researchExample: drafting an impact pathway using GenAIImpact is one of the three main sections in a Horizon Europe proposal. This non-technical part is often where researchers seek guidance from research managers for a helicopter perspective. The AI-augmented process below showcases how people (research managers and researchers) and GenAI can collaborate to develop a strong draft of an impact pathway.Step 3: fine-tune your collaborationAs with human colleagues, establishing a great collaboration won’t happen overnight. If it’s your first time using GenAI, start with just one or two simple tasks. Build on successful examples and expand on them to become a winning team.Icebreaker: Every good result starts with a good prompt. There are many resources about prompt engineering, which is beyond the scope of this article. Once you write a prompt, test and adjust as needed. If you like the output, save your prompt in a personal “prompting library” for later access and to share with colleagues.Conversation: Working with GenAI requires more effort than simply pasting a prompt into a textbox: it’s a discussion. GenAI tools deliver the best output when used in a conversational manner, so don’t just use the first response you get. Give examples and feedback.Outcome: there will always be some trial and error involved. Experiment to find out how you and GenAI can form the best team and complement each other best. If you don’t get the output you wanted, perhaps your task was too complex and needs to be broken down into multiple, logical steps.Step 4: stay in the loopEven if you’re happy with the result, your work is not done! As the human in the loop, you are responsible for any GenAI-assisted output. Always check GenAI output for bias and hallucinations, and edit the text to better fit your own voice.GenAI opens a whole new frontier in research support, streamlining complex processes and enhancing our work. Each small step you take to explore this technology pushes the boundaries and shapes the future of our profession. With your guidance, GenAI can act as a collaborator to augment – not replace – your expertise.Ryan Henderson and Tse-Hsiang Chen are grant advisers at the University Medical Center Utrecht. Ayla Kruis is a grant and career advisor at Utrecht University.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.

Embrace the possibilities of generative AI in research support with a strategic mindset. Ryan Henderson, Ayla Kruis and Tse-Hsiang Chen share their practical framework for successful human-AI collaboration

Enhance GenAI collaboration for future-proof research support

What happens when a literary scholar turns her attention to local archives such as inventories and court records? English professor Alexandra Harris talks about writing history, uncovering centuries of silent lives for her new book, and the interdisciplinary power of the humanities

THE podcast: bringing an outsider’s eye to primary sources

“Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn’t stop to think if they should.” Ian Malcolm’s prescient words from Jurassic Park ring true decades later as we discover the far-reaching implications of generative artificial intelligence (GenAI). How can we harness the strength of this modern-day dinosaur, while minimising the risk that our choices come back to bite us?

  
      
  
    Image
                



          

  

The perils of GenAI. We generated this figure in less than a minute using AI (Adobe Firefly). On the surface, it’s a pretty convincing cartoon of a Tyrannosaurus Rex and a scientist. But can you spot the errors? While GenAI can create a relatively likely image (or text), it is not designed to have an actual understanding of the content.

GenAI is transforming the way we approach research support and is being touted by some as the most disruptive technology since the internet. Whether you agree with this or dismiss it as hype,&nbsp;an increasing number of researchers are already using GenAI to write grant applications and scientific papers. Recognising this, the European Commission recently published&nbsp;living guidelines on the responsible use of GenAI for researchers, research organisations and funding bodies. This is a great starting point as we consider how we can use this tool, as well as how we should use it.&nbsp;Here, we provide concrete advice for research support professionals on how to responsibly integrate genAI into their work.Protect privacy and data&nbsp;GenAI models use large amounts of (often publicly available) data, which could include sensitive information, and it’s usually not possible to delete data from a language model. It’s therefore safest to assume that most GenAI tools are not GDPR-compliant. We recommend:&nbsp;Treating GenAI inputs as if you were posting them publicly. If you wouldn’t post it in a public online space, don’t put it in an openly available GenAI tool.Educating yourself about how the AI service provider handles the data you enter. Crucially, will your data be used to further train the model? Many tools allow you to opt out of this.Using a local, offline model for more sensitive information. This requires more tech-savviness but can be worth it for the added privacy it offers.Review all outputs for accuracy and biasGenAI models recognise patterns without understanding the content. This makes them prone to hallucination: confidently asserting a “fact” that seems plausible but is nonsensical or unrelated to the input (for instance, a reference to a journal article that doesn’t exist). Since factual errors can be easy to miss, check any AI-generated output carefully. Be aware that you are always responsible for what you publish in your name, as most funders and publishers agree that AI cannot legally claim authorship. &nbsp;Human review can also help mitigate AI bias. Large models such as ChatGPT are trained on text written by humans so they have inherited our own biases and stereotypes. If the training data is biased or incomplete, the AI's outputs will also be biased or incomplete. To avoid factual errors and bias in your work, always critically review any GenAI outputs and be aware of what data set was used to train the model.&nbsp;Resource collection: AI transformers like ChatGPT are here, so what next?ChatGPT and generative AI: 25 applications to support researchAdapt, evolve, elevate: ChatGPT is calling for interdisciplinary actionBe transparent about using GenAIWith all the potential issues, not everyone will be keen to trust GenAI. Have an open discussion with the researchers you support about it, including your preferred tools and what information they are comfortable sharing with them. Together, you can set clear boundaries for when and how GenAI can be used in your collaboration.This extends to submitting funding applications and reporting to funding agencies. Follow the guidelines provided by funding agencies, and honestly disclose any substantial use (in other words beyond basic author support) of GenAI in proposals.Educate yourself and othersThere is still so much to learn about how to use genAI responsibly and effectively, and most higher education staff are in the same boat. What can research support staff do?Stay up to date: as technology and the laws surrounding it evolve, knowledge quickly becomes outdated. Staying –&nbsp;and helping colleagues to stay –&nbsp;up to date is essential. At our research institutions (University Medical Center Utrecht and Utrecht University) we are currently developing training on the effective and responsible use of GenAI for support staff and researchers, and will update these frequently.&nbsp;Find or create a GenAI community: connect to professional networks within or outside your organisation to share knowledge and exchange best practices. Or find colleagues around you who share an interest in GenAI and create your own!Share your knowledge and experience: you can introduce newcomers and “non-techies” to genAI by curating a list of prompts and use cases, as well as the basic principles of prompt engineering.&nbsp;Develop clear guidelines: develop and communicate GenAI policy and guidelines. The living guidelines from the European Commission offer a great introduction but organisations may wish to expand on these for their specific situations.By approaching GenAI with a healthy mix of curiosity and scepticism, we can contribute significantly to integrating GenAI into our organisations – without looking back and wondering “what have we done?”.Ryan Henderson is grant advisor at the University Medical Center Utrecht; Ayla Kruis is grant and career advisor at Utrecht University.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.

Navigating the new frontier of research support

As Generative AI gains traction in the world of research, Ryan Henderson and Ayla Kruis shed light on using it responsibly in research support

The GenAI awakening: navigating the new frontier of research support

Nicolas Leech-Crier, Jule Chapman, Jim McLeod and Samona Marsh are not your average researchers. They’re not grad students or faculty members. They don’t write grants or rely on publications to advance their careers. Yet their collaborative research has been made required reading for first-year medical students at the University of British Columbia.&nbsp;Leech-Crier, Chapman, McLeod and Marsh, residents of the Downtown Eastside (DTES) neighbourhood of Vancouver, are four of 16 co-authors of&nbsp;Research 101: A Manifesto for Ethical Research in the Downtown Eastside. The manifesto is geared towards academic researchers but provides information for anyone (artists, journalists, film-makers, volunteer groups) hoping to communicate the complexity of the community’s story elsewhere. It responds to a history of people&nbsp;extracting knowledge and stories from the DTES community in harmful ways.&nbsp;How to make public engagement work for early career academicsUse students to facilitate impactful collaborations that benefit the communityDon’t be fooled – community outreach can be even better onlineIn a&nbsp;co-authored academic publication in&nbsp;Harm Reduction Journal,&nbsp;Leech-Crier reflected on the injustice of research without reciprocity in his community: “It’s really not fair that we consistently contribute our hearts and souls into never-ending research... but they’ll just smile and shake our hands, politely thank us for participating in whatever new thing their findings may conclude...and we’ll probably never see them again.”The manifesto demonstrates how community perceptions of what constitutes ethical and respectful practice should guide research projects, especially when those projects involve members of communities that are already heavily studied and stigmatised. It offers clear, practical advice about not perpetuating stigma, practising reciprocity and sharing power with the community members in question.&nbsp;The expertise and knowledge shared by these community co-authors is based on lived experience and relationships – core aspects of a growing movement for more community-engaged research at post-secondary institutions.&nbsp;What is community-engaged research?In a traditional research project, there is an inherent power imbalance between the researcher and the researched. The researcher almost always holds the power to decide what questions to ask, what data to focus on, what issues to highlight, what quotes to use and how research should be acted upon.&nbsp;Community-engaged research (CER), on the other hand, makes space for communities to work in partnership with academic researchers. It asks: Are those most affected by the problem at the table? Do they play decision-making roles in the direction of studies? Published in 2021, the&nbsp;Community Resource Handbook: A Guide to Community-Engaged Research produced by&nbsp;Simon Fraser University’s Community Engaged Research Initiative explores the key considerations, methods and ethical principles of this approach.&nbsp;Rather than focusing solely on advancing knowledge in a particular field, CER is centred on community transformation and social change that meets the needs of the community itself.&nbsp;Why is CER important?CER gives a voice to marginalised, exploited or underserved communities. Research has long been&nbsp;a source of harm in Indigenous communities, used to&nbsp;justify acts of genocide and land theft. In the 1940s, researchers from the Canadian federal government&nbsp;exploited the malnutrition&nbsp;of Indigenous children living in residential schools to test the effects of nutritional supplements on children’s health. The experiments continued despite children in the study dying of malnutrition – and the results eventually showed the supplements&nbsp;did not work.&nbsp;Indigenous-led and community-engaged research projects are showing how these communities can use research to regain control over their knowledge and history. These approaches focus on following traditional protocols, honouring their&nbsp;free prior and informed consent and respecting community norms. For instance, the research project&nbsp;Húy̓at: Our Voices Our Land used video, photos and stories to present an Indigenous perspective on Húy̓at (Hauyat), one of an immense network of culturally important landscapes in Heiltsuk territory on the Central Coast of British Columbia.&nbsp;Heiltsuk Chief Marilyn Slett&nbsp;says of the project: “With this publicly accessible website, we’re sharing our inseparable connection with our homelands as it holds true for all First Nations up and down the coast. We believe the Húy̓at website will become a great resource for schools and for people who are interested in better understanding First Peoples’ culture.”&nbsp;CER can help inform better policy. The drug toxicity crisis has devastated communities large and small across North America. The policy response has often failed to address the problem, and for many the crisis can feel insurmountable.&nbsp;“Walk with Me:&nbsp;Uncovering the Human Dimensions of the Overdose Crisis” is a project developed by research and community teams in Kamloops and the Comox Valley in BC, which involves survivors of the overdose crisis, their family members and front-line workers participating in “Story Walks” designed to enable deep reflection and generate dialogue leading to change. Researchers then work with the community to bring the insights of the project into play with emergency departments, healthcare settings and policing departments (and other systems responsible for addressing the crisis). Researchers and community members also develop policy reports and present them to decision-makers in order to facilitate change.&nbsp;For those interested how to incorporate community-engaged research into their work or how to embark on their own community-engaged research project, consider:Browsing SFU CERi’s&nbsp;Community Resource Handbook: A Guide to Community-Engaged ResearchTalking to the community engagement office or research services at your home university to understand what supports exist&nbsp;Engaging with&nbsp;Commmunity-based Research Canada by attending their events, subscribing to their newsletter or joining their community-of-practice monthly meetings&nbsp;Exploring Living Knowledge Network to access an&nbsp;international network of Science Shops and Community Based Research.Research is a powerful form of storytelling. It influences the decisions we make and the issues we prioritise. Inviting community members to set the agenda and guide a project’s ethical compass is essential for telling the stories we desperately need to hear.&nbsp;Tara Mahoney is the research and engagement lead for the Community Engaged Research Initiative at Simon Fraser University; Scott Neufeld is an assistant professor in community psychology at Brock University, who recently earned his PhD in social psychology from Simon Fraser University.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week,&nbsp;sign up for the Campus newsletter.

Community-engaged research gives a voice to the marginalised

Our biggest challenges cannot be resolved by ‘expert’ research alone – community knowledge is essential. Tara Mahoney and Scott Neufeld argue that researchers should let communities set the agenda

Community-engaged research can give a voice to marginalised people

Analytical testing is the driving force of collaboration between higher education and industry, enabling both sides to create, innovate and provide solutions to problems they face. But how can we enhance analytical testing services to nurture these collaborations? Here, I’ll cover the best ways and highlight benefits, challenges and strategies to each method.Why is analytical testing significant?Analytical testing offers invaluable insights into the composition, properties and behaviour of materials, chemicals and products.Researchers need support to change the world – here’s how to provide itHow can we take research from the lab to the marketplace?To extend your research’s impact, be bold and collaborate widelyThroughout history, these insights have propelled scientific discovery, eased the product development process and fuelled technological innovation. Techniques such as chromatography, spectroscopy and mass spectrometry have empowered researchers to analyse molecular structures, authenticate materials and evaluate product quality. For example, the electron microscope is widely used across a range of sectors, from food to engineering and forensic studies.By harnessing the power of analytical testing, both academics and industry professionals can make informed decisions, pinpoint areas for improvement and drive innovation across various sectors.Challenges versus opportunitiesDespite its significance, higher education and industry are constantly facing challenges associated with analytical testing services in collaborative projects. The need for niche equipment, expertise and resources, as well as differences in priorities and urgency in adhering to timelines, must be considered.But these challenges can be overcome through strategic partnerships, leveraging on platforms such as a memorandum of understanding/agreement (MOU/MOA). Both parties can maximise the endless possibilities of analytical testing while accomplishing their common goals together.How is this possible?To use analytical testing to enhance collaboration between universities and industry, think strategically.First, universities and industries need to establish research centres or centralised laboratories equipped with cutting-edge analytical equipment and experts. These centres can serve as hubs for collaborative projects, knowledge exchange and technology transfer between the academic world and industry. Both could collaborate in the development of customised methods for specific industry needs to ensure accurate and reliable results. By offering analytical testing services to industries, universities can recover operational costs, optimising their resources. As a result, universities save on both operational and capital expenditures.The second step is to nurture interdisciplinary collaboration partnerships. These are essential as they foster projects that can exist in various domains, including problem-solving, product development and even joint research publications. Initiatives such as these benefit from diverse perspectives and expertise contributed by experts hailing from an array of disciplines, such as materials science, chemistry, engineering and more. Most importantly, this approach would enable research findings to advance towards practical applications, eventually driving economic returns and societal impact.Another crucial consideration is quality assurance, often overlooked by many universities despite its significance in industry. One contributing factor to this neglect is the distinction between industry and university projects. While industry initiatives are typically commercial, university projects serve educational purposes. ISO/IEC&nbsp;17025 is a globally acknowledged standard for testing and calibration labs, ensuring precise and reliable analytical tests. Embracing this standard would enhance research projects, particularly those requiring adherence to specific benchmarks, while instilling stakeholder confidence.Marketing and engaging promotions on analytical testing services can also facilitate collaboration, through short courses, workshops and webinars. These platforms would raise a awareness of the benefits of analytical testing and its potential implementations across various industries. This also opens the door for both university researchers and industry experts to collaborate, build networks and exchange knowledge.Tailor-made training programmes and structured educational courses can provide university students and industry personnel with the required skills and knowledge in analytical testing techniques and methodologies. This nurtures a competent workforce, capable of driving innovation and excellence in collaborative projects.The proof is in the puddingPractical case studies and their success stories show the substantial impacts of joint projects via analytical testing between universities and industries. For instance, an MOU between the Centralised Analytical Laboratory of a university and a renewable energy company may use sophisticated analytical facilities to characterise the performance and effectiveness of renewable energy technologies. This collaboration may even progress alternative sustainable yet economical energy solutions, which would be able to tackle the urgent environmental challenges and expedite the transformation journey towards a clean energy future.Economically, the possibilities for such collaboration projects to turn into products or technologies with commercial potential are limitless. For example, a partnership between a university that majors in engineering and a company whose business is in automotive manufacturing might use analytical testing to improve the design and performance of its automotive components. By incorporating the wonders of analytical insights into the product creation phase, they would produce not only products that consumers need but also drive economic growth and competitiveness.Enhancing analytical testing services would boost effective collaboration between universities and industries. Analytical testing services are the key for universities and industries to foster creativity and innovation, while simultaneously providing solutions to complex challenges and helping to achieve their shared goals together. Interdisciplinary collaboration, technology integration, strategic engagement, capability-building and quality assurance are essential in enhancing analytical testing services and maximising their impact on collaborative projects.The world is changing, and collaboration between universities and industries needs to evolve dynamically. Analytical testing will remain significant in propelling progress and generating value for important stakeholders. It is with strategic partnerships, innovative methods and a dedication to excellence that universities and industries can shape an illustrious horizon for future research and innovation.Imtias Amir Bahauddin is laboratory manager at Universiti Teknologi Petronas.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter

Analytical testing is the key to industry collaborations

Analytical testing services can revolutionise collaboration between universities and industries. Imtias Amir Bahauddin explains how

What’s the key to collaborations between HE and industry? Analytical testing services

Talent support and knowledge transfer work best when the spirit of professional competition goes hand in hand with teamwork. Mentoring and intergenerational exchange also have a role in this area. The benefits of this approach can be borne out in international contests – and flow into improving innovation and patient care.Here, teachers from Semmelweis University, who are cardiologists at the university’s Heart Centre, share their experiences and advice on collaboration and mentoring, based on their success in a 2023 electrocardiography (ECG) diagnostics competition.Teamwork and a competitive spirit: the secrets of successThe competitive spirit and cooperation are not mutually exclusive. Combining competition with cooperation in talent support fosters a healthy learning environment for medical students and encourages the growth of each student.At Semmelweis University (and in Hungarian universities in general), the approach starts when teachers invite talented students to participate in the work of the Scientific Students’ Association. Under the supervision of a professional in the chosen field, they usually prepare for a competition on campus, where the best research papers will be selected. These papers can advance to the National Scientific Students’ Association Conference organised by the National Council of Student Research Societies. The competitive spirit – the seeds of which are planted during the undergraduate years at the university – is present also at the postdoctoral level and lives on in the tireless activities of the working groups in which mentors work together with their fellows.Give educators the skills to bring assessment into the futurePledges and charters in medical schools: catalysts for change or performative promises?What underpins effective patient and public involvement in health and social care research?The competitive and cooperative environment at the Semmelweis Heart Centre is beneficial not only for the doctors, as a driving force for continuous enhancement of their knowledge, but also, first and foremost, for the patients. As a result, patient care is provided by physicians who can offer an effective therapy based on the richest knowledge and technological advances available.However, it is essential that competition not overshadow cooperation. In our working group, we are all happy if any one of our colleagues or a supervisee of a colleague is successful at a conference or a contest. We take it to be the success of the team, because behind this person there are always many other people – colleagues, fellow students, mentors and the grand old scientists of the field on whose intellectual legacy a specific discipline or working group is built – without whose example or support this success could never have been achieved. Success, too, is for the common cause: for the benefit of our patients.Three pillars of mentorship in training physiciansIn such a fertile environment, it is the mentor who still has a key role to play in developing talent. And what are the qualities that make someone a good mentor? In our experience, becoming a professional mentor has three pillars: competency, credibility and a spirit of continuity.First, mentors should display a strong foundation of medical knowledge, clinical experience and specialised training, allowing us to effectively guide our supervisees’ professional development. To stay competent in our primary area of practice, we must practise continuous learning and stay up to date with advances and guidelines in our field. Competency goes hand in hand with an orientation to success in patient care, which, in our field of expertise, means consistently striving for positive patient outcomes.Second, credibility is essential in establishing trust and confidence not only between doctor and patient but also between mentors and young doctors. For a mentor to be credible, and respected and trusted by their supervisee, they must have appropriate expertise in the relevant areas. Of no less importance are excellent communication skills. Mentors must be able to convey their knowledge and expertise effectively through clear explanations and constructive feedback. An honest and open environment encourages questions, discussions and the exchange of ideas. In the work of our team, for example, complex pathologies and diseases are inevitable. In such cases, older colleagues must pass on their experience to younger generations while remaining open to innovative ideas from young doctors.Third, talent support can be successful in the long run only if it is done in continuity. In our working group, for example, mentors who give guidance to their students do this with the ammunition of the legacy of their grand old medical professors (such as Sándor Juhász-Nagy, József Tenczer and Zoltán Szabó in the field of cardiology). This spirit is carried forward by their former student Béla Merkely, the rector of Semmelweis University and head of the Heart and Vascular Centre. They work with their young colleagues and former PhD students, as well as with the PhD supervisees of their former PhD students. Thusly, in the interventional laboratories, several generations are present at the same time.Competition and collaboration are a winning combinationNothing justifies this approach to talent management more than the fact that being and working in such a professional atmosphere gives you the training, knowledge and skills to finish in first place in a global competition, even without any specific, tailored preparation for it. The best preparatory training has proved to be the daily practice at our clinic.Every year, at the annual congress of the European Heart Rhythm Association, a competition is held for young cardiologists from all over the world to compare their skills in one of the most widely used methods for the diagnosis of heart diseases: electrocardiography. In 2023, the young cardiologists of Semmelweis University won this two-round competition. It is a great honour to win this tough competition, where the best professionals of different nations compare their skills based on the accuracy and speed of diagnoses.Since then, we – the winning team and our mentor, László Gellér – have been invited to a handful of television programmes and interviewed by many media platforms to talk about this contest, and the key factors on the road to success.László Gellér is a cardiologist, full professor and deputy head of the department of cardiology, and head of the electrophysiology working group and the department of day cardiology at the Heart Centre of Semmelweis University, Hungary. He is the president-elect of the Hungarian Society of Cardiology.Zoltán Salló and Nándor Szegedi are both cardiologists and members of the electrophysiology working group at the Heart Centre of Semmelweis University, Hungary.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.

Competition, cooperation and continuity in talent support play integral roles in training and preparing medical professionals, and improving patient care, write three cardiologists

How to train world-champion cardiologists

How can we bridge the gap between the moment of academic discovery and a successful product launch into the marketplace? As&nbsp;researchers, our goal is to improve overall quality of life for individuals or society as a whole, but a host of challenges lie between lab desk and shop shelf.When transitioning from research to commercialisation, the main challenge is going to be uniting the differing priorities of each party. Academics are focused on fundamental knowledge and principles, while industry players are looking for market feasibility and practical applications. To build bridges, researchers need to adapt their findings to market needs.How to facilitate knowledge exchange and build trust with policymakersTo extend your research’s impact, be bold and collaborate widelyFive tips for building healthy academic collaborationsSuccessful transition from lab to market requires a strategic approach, involving meticulous planning, collaboration between the teams involved and effective communication with stakeholders. We’ve developed five strategies that can be adopted by researchers to boost their research into commercial success.1. Identify market potentialThe first step is to identify the market potential. It is crucial to understand the needs and gaps in the industry. Conduct market research, if possible, to zero in on potential customers and competitors, helping you to understand where your product or technology can fit in the marketplace.When you’ve worked out your market potential, tailor the research approach to align with the industry’s standards and requirements. This will help to streamline the transition to commercialisation.2. Prototype developmentDevelop a prototype based on the fundamental research findings to showcase the technology’s capabilities in a real-world environment. Industry partners will be more likely to invest in technologies that have proven their feasibility.3. Seek advice from technology transfer officesEach university has its own technology transfer office (TTO), which is responsible for advising and facilitating researchers in transitioning their research into commercialisation. Work closely with your institution’s TTO to seek advice on licensing opportunities, patents and industry partnerships.4. Get out thereParticipate in technology showcase activities such as exhibitions, conferences and networking events, to demonstrate the technology and attract potential investors. A bonus is that this can also increase your chances of securing funding opportunities from industry partners or government agencies.5. Form strategic partnership with industry partnersFoster partnerships with industry players through collaboration projects to boost the transition of research into industrial applications. Industry partners can provide insight on the developed technology, access to resources and potential pathways to commercialisation.While transitioning research into market success can be challenging, strategic planning, perseverance and adaptability make it possible. Not only will it help researchers to improve society, it also has positive implications for the institution. Investing the revenue generated from successful commercialisation into further research and development will allow its impact to grow and grow.Vorathin Epin, Ibham Veza, Mazian Mohammad and Abdul Rahim Othman are part of the mechanical engineering department at Universiti Teknologi Petronas.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.

How can we take research from the lab to the marketplace?

When getting the products of your research into the hands of the people who need them, challenges arise. Vorathin Epin, Ibham Veza, Mazian Mohammad and Abdul Rahim Othman offer advice on how to overcome them

In the manga series One Piece, Monkey D.&nbsp;Luffy pursues his dream of becoming a pirate king. He recruits crew members with diverse skills and embarks on a quest, encountering countless obstacles in his pursuit of the legendary One Piece treasure. Reading&nbsp;it, I&nbsp;was reminded of a principal investigator assembling a multidisciplinary team of experts and going in search of research funding, facing rejection after rejection along the way.Despite the challenges Luffy faces, he perseveres with unwavering determination, belief in his dream and, most importantly, resilience. In academia, resilience skills are essential tools for dealing with rejection and achieving the ultimate goal: funding for groundbreaking research.The four key steps to writing a successful funding bidHow to lose a grant in 10 waysA guide to writing grant proposalsAs a researcher of psychology, I’ve reflected on the psychological attributes that have helped me build resilience and navigate the turbulent seas of grant proposal rejections. I’ll share three that I’ve adopted when writing grant proposals, an approach I&nbsp;name the 3&nbsp;Gs: Grit, Growth mindset and Goal disengagement.GritGrit is like a powerful engine that combines the fuel of passion with the driving force of perseverance. Perseverance alone is not enough. Without passion, the effort feels like a chore as it lacks the intrinsic motivation necessary for enduring challenges and setbacks, leading to exhaustion and burnout. Conversely, passion alone lacks the resilience needed to overcome setbacks. Integrating the qualities of perseverance and passion, you can develop grit by defining clear, meaningful goals and immersing yourself in activities that captivate your attention and passion.Growth mindsetGrowth mindset is the belief that your intelligence and abilities can be developed through effort and learning. People with a growth mindset see challenges as opportunities to learn and grow, while those with a fixed mindset view them as setbacks that prove their limitations. As a researcher, you can develop a growth mindset by analysing your failures to identify areas for improvement. Approach future problems with new strategies, and seek constructive criticism from colleagues and mentors to improve your research methods and writing. Celebrate the hard work you put into a project, not just the outcome, and view your colleagues’ achievements as inspiration, not a threat.Growth mindset and grit often work hand in&nbsp;hand. Growth mindset is a belief system, while grit is a personality trait. Growth mindset can foster grit, as it encourages people to see challenges as opportunities to learn and grow, leading to increased motivation and perseverance.Grit can help people maintain a growth mindset, allowing them to push through setbacks and continue working towards their goals. This can prevent them from giving up or developing a fixed mindset. Adopting a growth mindset allows researchers to reflect on their failures and consider strategies that might improve their research proposals. Possessing grit enables researchers to stay on course and keep driving towards their goals.Goal disengagementThe goal disengagement theory refers to the psychological processes involved in detaching from unattainable goals. To clarify, goal disengagement is not about giving up your dream entirely. It can serve as a buffer for overzealous use of the two previous factors, growth mindset and grit, which may become ineffective.More specifically, goal disengagement involves adjusting the relative value of the goal, reappraising the loss and reallocating resources towards new pursuits. For instance, I&nbsp;was fixated on writing grants based on popular ideas and had jumped on a bandwagon for which I did not have the right reins. When the first two proposals relating to this idea failed, I&nbsp;decided to end the pursuit. Disengaging from the initial idea led me to focus more on research topics closer to my heart, and which I&nbsp;have more experience in. Because of this, I&nbsp;then had a new idea, and its proposal was awarded in a competitive grant call. In retrospect, I&nbsp;am glad that I&nbsp;was unable to conduct the earlier two studies because it would have meant pursuing research that I&nbsp;might not have found particularly meaningful.While the 3&nbsp;Gs approach has worked relatively well for me, carving out a research proposal and applying for grants is a personal journey, and this approach may not work for every researcher. We each evolve into a pirate king in our own right, and you may adopt part of the 3 Gs approach or integrate the approach in your current strategies. Like finding the One Piece treasure, the path of our research journey is uncertain. My wish is for you to track down your One Piece and use it for the betterment of the world.Peter Tay is an assistant professor at Singapore Institute of Technology.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.

Set sail on the choppy waters of grant proposals

If securing research funding is like a budding pirate king navigating choppy waters in search of untold treasures, how can we build the resilience to keep journeying on? Peter Tay shows how

Set sail on the choppy waters of grant proposals with the 3 Gs approach

Researchers at Hong Kong Polytechnic (PolyU) draw on the university’s rich heritage, established capabilities and expertise to contribute to technological advancements with the potential to foster a better living environment for everyone. Both frontier and translational research are important in this aim – the former focuses on exploring new discoveries and theories, while the latter aims to address emerging societal issues with practical solutions.PolyU academics also benefit from our close connections with local communities and industries, allowing them to directly address long-term societal needs and provide impactful solutions. The Research and Innovation Office plays a pivotal role in establishing these connections. We bring together resources, facilities and funding support to strengthen research initiatives.Building trust in research: how effective patient and public involvement can helpHow to lose a grant in 10 waysAdvice for effective cross-team collaboration for researchWhile we do not directly engage in research activities, we provide comprehensive support that enhances the university’s research development and impact. Our academics are free to focus on their work, findings and potential applications. Zuankai Wang’s research has contributed to groundbreaking discoveries and applications in engineering, while&nbsp;Allen Au’s research on Web3 technology has received a global award and is being deployed in Hong Kong’s new wholesale central bank digital currency project.&nbsp;Building a research-savvy environmentFostering collaboration and networking among researchers, both within the university and externally, means creating opportunities for them to connect with their peers. One way to achieve this is by encouraging interdisciplinary research collaborations, which will establish channels for future research cooperation.&nbsp;Conduct regular workshops and seminars for university staff and academics around the world to promote the sharing of research and insights. Plan these events carefully, focusing on relevant topics.What’s also vital to a research-savvy environment is support. Providing resources helps fuel the generation of research activity, from experimentation to evaluation. Administration and promotional support are essential for managing these resources effectively.Supporting funding opportunitiesOf course, when conducting research, financial support is crucial. Despite the availability of governmental, institutional and commercial funding opportunities, researchers may not always be fully aware of the options that align best with their requirements. The Research and Innovation Office offers assistance with funding applications.&nbsp;The research grants, like those granted by the Research Grants Council of the University Grants Committee in Hong Kong, require substantial administrative support for the submissions and requirements.&nbsp;As part of this, we also provide regular workshops for researchers to learn about funding sources, application requirements and proposal writing tips.&nbsp;By promoting successful grant applications and the dissemination of research impacts, we’ve found a way to help researchers encourage each other. They can highlight their results and showcase their research and innovations by participating in industrial and institutional conferences and themed events.&nbsp;Promoting researchA nurturing environment for early career researchers and students can help generate an abundance of new ideas and create an enriching research culture.&nbsp;Recognising outstanding research contributions from young academics can encourage their future research efforts. We’ve set up the Young Innovative Researcher Award to recognise the pioneering and inventive work of researchers under 35 who have demonstrated research excellence in addressing global challenges.&nbsp;The 2023 recipients came from diverse fields including healthcare, applied physics, AI, electronics and information engineering.Dealing with challengesDeveloping impactful university research entails challenges, but these are essential aspects of the research process. The challenges faced by administration and management include securing funding, fostering interdisciplinary collaboration between researchers from diverse disciplines, and ensuring communication and coordination run smoothly.During the research process, constraints on time and resources can create issues. Meeting project aims, publishing research findings and seeking promotion opportunities can all present challenges for researchers but are necessary for continued success and ongoing impact.Publishing research findings and seeking promotion opportunities presents a challenge because we have to find an appropriate angle to promote the finding.&nbsp;For example, this applied physics research on developing optoelectronic graded neurons for perceiving dynamic motion is very technical for a non-scientific audience. So we applied the angle of nature-inspired research from flying insects such as Drosophila to explain the concept.&nbsp;Research contributes to the progress of knowledge and technology. When it’s impactful, it results in innovative technologies and solutions, fosters economic growth, helps society develop and improves the quality of all our lives. As part of this, collaborations and partnerships with external institutions, industries and government agencies facilitate knowledge exchange and resource sharing, delivering mutually beneficial outcomes. Also, involving students helps provide them with valuable learning opportunities, assists them in developing problem-solving skills and prepares them for their future careers.Lixin Situ is assistant director at the Research and Innovation Office at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University.&nbsp;If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week,&nbsp;sign up for the Campus newsletter.

Give researchers the support to change the world

To generate world-changing research, the Hong Kong Polytechnic University’s Research and Innovation Office took on the role of fostering collaboration and allocation of resources to allow their academics to focus completely on their work. Lixin Situ outlines how to provide support.

Researchers need support to change the world – here’s how to provide it

Experts demystify what open access and open research are, tips for best practice, and where the movement and research culture are heading

THE podcast: what is open access?

What is the purpose of international collaboration and why, with the increased risks associated with sharing new scientific information across borders, would anyone decide to go through the bureaucratic maze to find a suitable, agreeable way of doing it?&nbsp;To answer such questions, let’s borrow a business framework known as PESTEL, which combines political, economic, social, technological, environmental and legal factors. This framework is typically used to capture the macro-trends present in a specific society at a certain moment in time. Using it can help researchers interrogate the multi-faceted implications of international collaboration in research.PoliticsScience and, implicitly, scientific research should be done for the benefit of the whole world. Once secrecy becomes a priority in research, only a small fraction of society benefits from it.Politics should be excluded from scientific research, but this is utopic. Unfortunately, advanced research is often strongly regulated in its international exposure by political measures. Still, one can foresee how research can bridge the gap between politically diverse countries and regions. Imagine that global issues are addressed by research developed coherently across different countries. We would have all the puzzle pieces we need at our disposal (although we might still need the strategy to piece the whole picture together). In such a situation, we must put aside political differences and focus simply on scientific affinities when designing a research project that involves international collaboration.EconomyThe nature of the present world is variable, uncertain, confusing and ambiguous (VUCA). The term VUCA is generally used to describe the dynamics of business environments as technology advances rapidly and unpredictably in recent times. In scientific research, however, VUCA attributes are necessary to make progress; a researcher must understand the variability of a phenomenon, the finite degree of certainty, the confusion created by different sets of data and the ambiguity of new data without a demonstrated background theory. Scientific research must reveal the unknown, bringing up elements of VUCA, and this is how it should be.How does all this relate to the economy? First, the drivers of the economy often push research in specific directions. Second, the economy’s stability influences the stability of research institutions. And, third, the economic policy largely determines funding for carrying out fundamental research. Under such conditions, researchers would benefit from positioning their research on global parameters, for instance on climate change and pandemic prevention as the two axes, since these issues are globally relevant.&nbsp;SocietyScientific research rarely reaches the eyes of the public, unless Nobel Prize season is upon us. Otherwise, it hovers somewhere in the background of a functioning society, ensuring that such a society has the seeds for a bright future. As change accelerates around the world, actions driven by long-term purposes become less and less attractive. This is detrimental to society, as long-term dreams vanishing away often take with them the confidence in a bright future and the optimism necessary for dynamic action.The truth is that fundamental research doesn’t need to transform into commercial products. Fundamental research – as well as applied research, for that matter – can be shared widely in society as an exercise in thinking deeply and widely about the realities of the world.This makes it important to understand the needs of a society with enhanced empathy, local and global, not only at the superficial, product or service level, but also considering its history, culture, education system and other elements. This can help researchers improve society in the long run.Resource collection: Research excellence: what is it and how can universities achieve it?How to publish responsible reproducible researchNo one agrees on what research leadership is, let alone how to do it wellTechnology&nbsp;It is easy to see the connection between technology and scientific research. Many times, research requires a certain technology to be developed, while technology, on the other hand, requires advanced research for its development. The two fields generate multiple interconnections and allow for a rich transfer of information.The importance of international collaboration emerges most visibly at this boundary. The potential applications of a certain research project are dependent on the vision of the researchers, which is another aspect in which one can leverage international collaboration.To allow the development of research technologies that can truly connect countries, researchers must seek out feedback from different stakeholders, including colleagues, friends and students, along with partnerships that connect research and technology.The environment&nbsp;In a modern-day context, researchers have to deeply consider the impact and implications of their research on the environment as tackling issues such as global warming becomes of critical importance.&nbsp;Environmental issues we are facing today do not belong to a single nation or a single continent. They are global issues. Taking it one step further, one can imagine, using empathy, how one’s research can be used to improve situations in different places across the world. Only in doing so can a researcher understand the potential of their work’s impact. This is where international collaboration can truly reveal its value because researchers across borders can provide unique points of view, complementary to each other in many cases.Researchers must work on their empathy by identifying opportunities for their research to be applied in countries far away from the one where research is being carried out.The lawResearchers must also consider their research from various legal perspectives. They must be aware of possible legal issues related to copyright, purposes of use or even insufficiently defined rules and regulations due to the novelty of the research. Once again, international collaboration is necessary to visualise and align a variety of legal aspects with which researchers from a single country would be otherwise unfamiliar.Researchers should take the time to learn about the legal aspects of international partnerships so that they can avoid serious issues in the long run. A good starting point is from the guidelines of the proposals they want to apply for, but it is only possible to gain a deeper understanding by discussing the experiences of other collaborators.In short, international collaboration is essential in the era we are living in. Its impact and intricacies are very complex and difficult to capture all at once, and even more difficult to encapsulate into a single framework. However, I hope that this resource can serve as a good starting point to position you towards effective and impactful international collaboration.Daniel Moraru is an associate professor at the Research Institute of Electronics, Shizuoka University, Japan.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week,&nbsp;sign up for the Campus newsletter.

Advocating for international research collaboration

In this resource, Daniel Moraru uses a framework to help researchers interrogate the multi-faceted implications of international collaboration in research

Using a business framework to advocate for international research collaboration

What is open research? This is a question I&nbsp;keep hearing, from both those coming across the term for the first time and those who might be considered experts. The question might be stimulated by Research Excellence Framework 2029 developments, UK Reproducibility Network (UKRN) activities or any number of UK research culture initiatives. The question often prompts debates that won’t come to a definitive answer but do generate a lot of agreement.So, I have taken it upon myself to digest years’ worth of pondering into an article that might help those who need a primer or a fresh perspective.In my opinion, “open research” is a wastebasket term. In my academic discipline of taxonomy, fish would be considered a wastebasket group, so I&nbsp;don’t mean this in a pejorative sense. I&nbsp;mean that it’s a collection of “things” that are helpful for us to think about together but don’t necessarily have a natural or perfect definition. So, open research is a collection of best practices that enable us to meet principles of openness, transparency, replicability and accountability.You might also come across the synonym “open science”. Open science is Unesco’s preferred term, but in the UK, “science” is a loaded word, which is typically exclusive of arts and humanities. We use “open research” to be clear that we are being as inclusive as Unesco and other international organisations intend to be.Open access: why and how to do itResearchers should harness the explorer’s spirit to find their career pathConferences, TED talks and social media: the ultimate tools for academic profile buildingExamples of open research practices might include: pre-registrations (to ensure that findings are reported honestly without a&nbsp;posteriori bias); early sharing of findings and data, as preprints or staged micropublications (for example, NIHR threaded publication model); citizen science; open source software; open hardware; open access publishing or archiving; open and “findable, accessible, interoperable and reproducible” (FAIR) records of non-journal article outputs, including FAIR data; and open or collegiate peer review.Depending on your sensibilities, you might place some of these practices under the banner of reproducibility, research integrity or research culture as well, or instead. Similarly, declarations of competing interests, contributor role definitions for the authorships (for example, CRediT), and open educational resources might be included in open research practices or might be considered adjacent to&nbsp;them.All these options contribute to my sense that “open research” is a wastebasket term. What is clear is that open research is done throughout the research lifecycle, and I&nbsp;would refrain from saying it’s from “cradle to grave” because if open research is done properly, the materials can be replicated, reused and built upon on an ongoing basis.It’s at this point that many people reading this might think: “Hang&nbsp;on, I’ve been doing some of this for years.” Yes, you probably have to some extent. What I&nbsp;would like current research culture initiatives to achieve is for researchers to start optimising existing practices so the outputs remain reproducible 20 years in the future and beyond. For this, we need to convince our institutions to&nbsp;invest in curation of data and digital preservation, and to identify approaches or systems that support best practice.Some would go further and say that tools and data supporting open research should be non-proprietary and that institutions should invest only in open infrastructures that cannot be bought and sold and have community governance (according to, for example, POSI principles). Some might also extend this to sources for meta-research (research on research) and institutional decision-making. In part, the lack of community governance, transparency, rigour and “measuring what matters” (see Inorms’ “Rethinking the Rankings”) was what drove Utrecht University to withdraw from the Times Higher Education World University Rankings. Meanwhile, other institutions are signing declarations to say they are more than their rank, and the Leiden Ranking has transitioned to using only open data in the interest of transparency.It’s inevitable that despite my opinion indicating that a definition of open research is subjective and which practices are included is personal, the problems created by transparency and reproducibility in research are pervasive, and so many organisations have attempted to define and redefine open research. We shouldn’t allow these definitions and their inclusiveness or exclusiveness to become barriers to the best practice they are intended to promote. Individuals should do what works for them, enhances their research and helps build trust in that research, according to discipline-accepted standards and their audiences.For me, it’s important that all research, whether it’s exploratory or explanatory, heuristic or analytic, follows these core principles and practices at the very least:Researchers should open up their projects are early as possible. This can foster trust, and potentially leads to collaborations and gains in priority over work or an idea, protecting intellectual property (IP) in plain sight. It often seems counter-intuitive, but it isn’t at all. By opening your work up to scrutiny and collaboration, you take priority over those ideas in the public domain. Also, if corporate espionage is suspected but the material is hidden on a hard drive, it would be difficult to prove that IP had been accessed or stolen.It’s unlikely that a research paper or review article is truly the research output, but given the effort that has gone into creating open access platforms over the past 20 years, making articles open access is relatively painless and should be practised.Consider what the research output actually is and think about how that can be made more reproducible. For example, through open source licences for software or removing barriers to the reproduction of hardware and making it clear what users can do through high-quality publicly available and machine-readable metadata.Data must be FAIR and “open as possible and closed as necessary” or the research is not trustworthy.Publish results that weren’t expected or those that might be considered negative or a failure. This will not only advance research as much as the “success stories” but will prevent resources being wasted in the future. Scholarly journals in a particular discipline might not accept these outputs, so if that is the case, there is an opportunity for communities to come together to agree appropriate existing platforms or to develop them. This is potentially a function that scholarly societies could fulfil as a value proposition for membership.These approaches will work to establish trust in research, grow an individual’s profile and foster collaborations and future opportunities, to name a few benefits. Your work may benefit from being built upon long into the future, meaning that you will leave a&nbsp;richer legacy, and the public will benefit from faster development of technology, policy and practice.After reading this article, please just take five minutes to think about what you could do that you’re not doing now or how you could optimise what you are doing in line with open research principles, and how you could be a better advocate for open research practices.For the purpose of open access, a Creative Commons attribution (CC&nbsp;BY) licence has been applied to the submitted version of this manuscript.Steven U. Vidovic is head of open research and publication practice at the University of Southampton.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.

What is open research?

Broadly, open research principles aim to foster openness, transparency, replicability and accountability, writes Steven Vidovic. Here, he offers a fresh perspective along with practices to establish trust in research and foster collaborations and future opportunities

Open research: what is it, really? 

Publishing through an open access (OA) journal is a powerful way to amplify researchers’ accessibility and collaboration and give their work much bigger impact.&nbsp;These digital publications make articles available and reusable worldwide, generally free of charge and without restrictions, and usually accessible immediately upon publication.&nbsp;OA publishing allows researchers to share their findings and methodologies with a global audience.Virginia Tech’s journals programme dates back to 1991 through the university’s first electronic-only open access journal,&nbsp;The Journal of the International Academy of Hospitality Research. Today, we have journals that cover topics from across the humanities, life sciences, engineering and technology studies. Several are edited by Virginia Tech undergraduate and graduate students.&nbsp;As librarians, we should embrace open researchThree ways libraries are championing the open access movementIs open access tarnished?We are open to adding journals in new subject areas that reflect emerging strengths of the university and can also transition an existing journal from subscription-based to open access.&nbsp;Here are my key takeaways for running open access journals effectively, based on my experience. Find out researchers’ goalsThe first thing I do when faculty members approach me about publishing research is find out what their goals are. Are the researchers motivated by a desire to contribute to the greater good? Perhaps they consider their research to be their life’s work and they simply want it to be broadly available. Is their objective to obtain citations? This might be the case if they are on the promotion and tenure (P and T) track. All reasons are valid. Understanding faculty members’ rationale for choosing open access can influence how their research is published.Omit paywalls and processing charges whenever possible&nbsp;Almost all Virginia Tech’s&nbsp;open access journals are diamond access, meaning they are freely accessible immediately upon publication; there is no paywall, nor are there publication fees. That is, authors are not required to pay article processing charges (APCs) to publish in the journal, and readers can access the research at no charge. If journals are behind paywalls, potential readers need to buy subscriptions or rely on their libraries or funders to do so.&nbsp;There is one exception to this. In 2019, Virginia Tech launched its first APC-based journal,&nbsp;Studies in Engineering Education, as part of a broader effort to expand the scale of the journals programme by testing a different business model. That journal is being transitioned to diamond access. The Virginia Tech University Libraries are funded by the university, allowing us to make journals freely available.&nbsp;Ensure your journals’ editorial policies and peer-review processes are clear&nbsp;Journals should have clear editorial and peer-review processes. Virginia Tech’s open access journals all have editorial policies that outline submission guidelines, editorial boards, peer-review processes, ethical standards and publication criteria. Each journal determines its own peer-review process. Most of Virginia Tech publishing journals have a blind peer-review process; I also recommend that non-peer-reviewed content within peer-reviewed journals is clearly identified. Editorial boards are made up of subject-matter experts, so they can contribute to the peer-review and editorial processes.Set up consistent publication schedules&nbsp;Some of our journals are published on a rolling basis, while others go out periodically, generally once per year. It’s best to be clear about publication schedules. Consistency in publication builds trust and attracts both readership and submissions.Determine the most appropriate copyright and licensing policiesAt Virginia Tech, each journal determines its own copyright and licensing policy, but we strongly encourage that individual authors be permitted to retain their rights while giving the journal non-exclusive rights. All our journals are openly licensed, using one of the licenses available from&nbsp;Creative Commons. Creative Commons licences are generally recommended in open-access publishing because they offer a range of options, allowing authors to retain specific rights at their discretion while promoting openness and encouraging reuse.Promote your journal and its researchPromoting your open access journal will help it to attract submissions and readership. Some ways to do this include social media, academic conferences, collaborating with other journals and organisations, and using your institution’s resources to increase visibility. University Libraries at Virginia Tech have a dedicated communications team headed by Ann Brown, and she can promote for us as well. We also encourage journals to do their own marketing. Word of mouth is powerful, so researchers can use their own networks of colleagues and professional acquaintances to spread the word.The advantages of open access journals are clear: they have broad and global reach, the cost savings over hard copies are significant and research availability is immediate. By establishing open access journals, higher education institutions can establish a platform that not only contributes to the open-access movement but also provides a valuable resource for researchers eager to share their work with the world.Corinne Guimont is associate director of publishing and digital scholarship at University Libraries at Virginia Tech.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week,&nbsp;sign up for the Campus newsletter.

Democratising research through OA journals

The rise of open access publishing has democratised knowledge dissemination, allowing researchers to share their findings with a global audience. Here, Corinne Guimont offers insights on running OA journals at a higher education institution

Democratising research through open access journals

At the University of Edinburgh, the Wellcome-funded Institutional Translation Partnership Award (iTPA) team has built a community of 1,000 early career researchers (ECRs) who are working with industry, charities and the NHS on a host of human health and well-being projects, including demand data-driven placement of defibrillators in Scotland, a toolkit for parents and teachers of neurodiverse children and a point-of-care tool to assess the viability of liver transplants. They have turned £1.8 million of Wellcome Trust project funding into £12.2 million of further investment. That’s a return on investment of 600 per cent!So, how have they done this? iTPA programme lead and entrepreneur-in-residence Lysimachos Zografos reveals six elements that have proved key.1. An entrepreneurial approachWe approached building a culture of innovation around ECRs like we would the development of a new service. The “lean start-up” methodology means listening to your clients and taking an iterative approach – measuring success and improving or discarding as you go – and it’s worked well for us.To do this, you start by building a funnel to attract people, which we did by running events (with pizza) for postdocs, inviting speakers, providing scientist-to-entrepreneur training and taking cohorts to inspiring conferences such as Wired Health.Another way to get people into the funnel has been to offer small grants of £1,000. We’ve given out 66 of these. We then run calls for bigger grants of £5,000, £20,000 and £50,000. We’re stingy, though; if other entities, such as the Medical Research Council or the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, will fund a project, that’s great, because it means we can fund more ourselves. Amelia Hodgson, our project manager, makes sure that everything runs smoothly. We have the luxury of not being tied to commercial-only KPIs, so we also fund impactful not-for-profit activities, such as community interest company EPIC, which produces resources for parents and teachers of neurodiverse children.2. No idea too early, none left behindWe never send anyone away, but we do ask tough questions such as: who is it helping? Does it solve a problem? Does it scale? Why are you better placed to deliver this? We try to reply with appropriate kindness, so we might say: “Check back in a year once you’ve done this and this,” but we never say: “No, that won’t work.” Don’t ignore something because it failed once.3. Building a communityDon’t just count numbers; nurture a lively community. To do this, it’s important to have an open-door policy where people can reach out directly or through an online platform. Answer any questions within the day. When you spot a need that others might share, run quick surveys and then organise training accordingly. Always ask for feedback after training and events to understand what works and what doesn’t. &nbsp;We facilitate design thinking for new ideas and encourage cross-college collaborations. For instance, if someone from the College of Science and Engineering is building tech for haemodialysis, have they talked to a nephrologist, from medicine? We deliberately try to mix junior and senior people, along with those working on different kinds of technology that could be complementary. We provide tailored information to researchers, such as market analysis and competition maps, as well as evergreen resources such as online courses.4. MentorshipWe started with two entrepreneurs in residence five years ago and have since added another one. Jeff Wright and I specialise in start-ups and spin-outs and commercially developing technologies. Now we also have Andrew McBride, an expert in clinical and biomedical translation. Along with innovation executive Joe Murphy, we provide a non-academic perspective.Resource collection: Research excellence: what is it and how can universities achieve it?Resource collection: What innovation needs to thrive in higher educationWe can make research more ethical without compromising its qualityOffering this support and mentorship to ECRs on a one-to-one basis gives us a deep understanding of individual and project-specific needs and means we can provide tailored advice. This can be from technical input and project management to how to build better relationships between start-up co-founders.5. Using tech to scaleWe leverage technology to help us scale the community. We have an online platform that pulls in data from the university’s research expertise database, which helps us build collaborations. We are also using AI to develop tools that recommend funding on the basis of activity and interests.6. A fertile environmentUsing the methods above, we have tapped into a diverse demographic of underserved and bright people, and for that, we can’t really take credit! It’s also important that we’re part of a growing entrepreneurial culture at the University of Edinburgh, partly resulting from the strong performance of our commercialisation service, Edinburgh Innovations, of which iTPA has been a part over the past six years. Achieving impact from research is now central to the university’s strategic direction and this provides fertile ground for our work.Lysimachos Zografos is Wellcome iTPA programme lead and entrepreneur-in-residence at the University of Edinburgh.&nbsp;If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.

Empower ECRs to commercialise their research

Early career researchers face many barriers when it comes to translating their research into commercial success, be they a lack of time, being overlooked in favour of more established colleagues or simply not knowing where to start

First and foremost, ask yourself what research you can openly share.&nbsp;Making data open access is a fundamental step in advancing research and promoting not just domestic but global collaboration. The European Union’s Horizon 2020 programme gave us the tagline for research data: “as open as possible and as closed as necessary”.&nbsp;So before making data open access, it’s crucial to understand the principles that underpin the open access movement.&nbsp;Open data involves removing barriers to accessing information, enabling anyone to freely use, share and build upon data. While it does aim to minimise restrictions, if any of your research involves proprietary, confidential or otherwise sensitive information, you may need to reconsider sharing, remove or anonymise sensitive data, obtain consent if people are involved or restrict access to parts of your research.As librarians, we should embrace open researchSharing qualitative research through open accessThree ways libraries are championing the open access movement&nbsp;This article provides a guide on how to contribute to the growing movement of transparent and accessible research, effectively accelerating the pace of discovery and innovation.Be FAIRAfter you have decided what you can share, the next step is to prepare your data. An acronym is useful to explain how best to do this: FAIR.&nbsp;The “F” stands for “findable”. You want to make your research easily findable, so I recommend assigning persistent identifiers, such as digital object identifiers (DOIs), to your datasets. These identifiers ensure that your data remains easily discoverable and citable over time. Think of a persistent identifier like a link to a website; it works in a similar manner, except this link will not end up broken. Repositories often offer DOI assignment as part of their services, contributing to the long-term visibility and impact of your open access data.The “A” in FAIR stands for accessible. For open data, this involves finding the most appropriate repository for your research. Deposit your data in a trusted repository to ensure its long-term accessibility. Research data repositories may be run by institutions or funding agencies or for research communities. If you’re having difficulty selecting a repository, consult with your colleagues or funders in your research sphere or turn to your institution’s library. Research libraries like Virginia Tech University Libraries, where I work, have a wealth of expertise on research data.&nbsp;The “I” denotes interoperable. This means placing your data and documentation in formats that are useful to your community. If there are community standards for either data or documentation formats, use them. If not, default to sharing your data and documentation in open formats (for example, txt or csv) for ease of input into applications and in combining them with other data and documentation.Finally, “R” stands for reusable. Make sure you include a data readme file and all necessary metadata (meaning data about the data) – how it was collected, analysed and interpreted. Without metadata, your research cannot be reused. Follow any community standards that exist in creating this documentation. Include relevant software or written code with your data that analyses, visualises or otherwise manipulates your data.Additionally, have a clear and concise data access statement outlining the terms and conditions for accessing and using your data. Selecting the right licence is crucial for governing the use of your open access data. Imagine a dataset with 20 licences for different pieces – it would be almost impossible to use. A public domain dedication – CC0 –&nbsp;is the most open and flexible; I recommend using it whenever possible. Creative Commons licences, such as CC BY (Attribution) or&nbsp;CC BY-SA (Attribution-ShareAlike), offer flexibility in defining the terms of use while maintaining the spirit of openness.Post-sharingOnce you’ve shared your research, consider promoting your open access data to maximise its impact. Share through social media and through academic networks, especially those in which you have previously shared your data. Your institution may also want to promote it through press releases or news feeds. I also recommend encouraging feedback and collaboration to enhance your research’s visibility. Many repositories provide metrics and analytics to help you understand how your data is being used. Monitoring impact allows you to assess the reach and influence of your contribution to the broader research community.Making data open access is a transformative step towards improving collaboration, transparency and innovation in research. By following these guidelines and embracing the principles of openness, researchers can contribute to the collective advancement of global knowledge.Jonathan Petters is associate director of data management and curation services at Virginia Tech University Libraries. He participates in Research Data Alliance groups and was recently on the executive board of the Research Data Access and Preservation Association.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.

Opening doors to knowledge: making data open access

Making data open access has become a cornerstone of transparent and collaborative research practices. Here, Jon Petters provides a brief guide on how to do it, emphasising accessibility, reproducibility and interoperability 

A research-informed storybook approach is a novel way for researchers to get their work into the public domain – and impact the day-to-day lives of those who can put their findings to real-world use. In this case, these people may include children, young people, parents and teachers. A picture book can amalgamate expertise and experience from sources as diverse as researchers, organisations, charities and other stakeholders.

This method allows researchers to distil academic information and theory into an accessible and directly applicable format. It can also address a common gap between recommendations for primary-care providers based on research and the lack of clear guidance or resources for how to implement them. 

We have written a series of research-informed children’s books on issues such as the importance of nature, healthy eating/eating disorders and maths anxiety. We aimed to bring knowledge and information to children as well as to their teachers and parents or carers. 


	Using the art of storytelling to help students build resilience when learning online
	Students’ life stories can bridge the gap between theory and practice
	Resource collection:&nbsp;Creativity in higher education


The storybook approach illustrates how research can be used to develop a product that impacts stakeholders and the community and&nbsp;generates further research and refinement. The book is a&nbsp; concrete discussion piece rather than an abstract idea. The user experience and insight from this can pave the way for follow-up enquiry, enhancing research relevance and viability.



  
      
  
    Image
                



          

  

Co-author Rebecca Petronzi reading Noodle's Nature Adventure.
Photo courtesy of the authors



&nbsp;

For example, to promote emotion regulation and normalise maths talk to address maths anxiety, we produced a maths anxiety storybook written in verse for children aged four to seven years. The 20-page book with illustrations, Whoopsie Doodle Little Noodle: Noodle’s Maths Challenge, belongs to a wider series of research-informed children’s books.

The storybook draws on key maths anxiety literature and addresses associates of maths anxiety that can influence the development and experience of maths – for example, self-efficacy, emotion regulation, mathematical resilience, the value of maths and building intrinsic motivation to learn. 

The general concept of the research-informed storybooks and imagery was conceived to address the increasingly complex issues that children navigate. The initial stages of development focused on devising the main and supporting characters, the images (and style of these) and a consistent structure of the storybook in terms of a series of mistakes taking place that lead to learning opportunities. This presented an opportunity for children to exclaim the title of the book Whoopsie Doodle Little Noodle&nbsp;in response to mistakes to support engagement and enjoyment. 

Our storybook concept sample with supporting images was evaluated by professionals from a number of roles including teachers, headteachers, family liaison officers, parents and special educational needs coordinators&nbsp;(Sencos) in response to key questions pertaining to focus, suitability and age-appropriateness. This feedback confirmed that the main protagonist (a dog) making a series of mistakes that children could learn from ensured a critical distance, allowing children to safely engage with challenging and sometimes unfamiliar experiences. Children also found the storybook content and images engaging and primary-care providers emphasised the importance of consistent positive messages within the stories. 

The development of each storybook drew on key literature in a particular area, often with the storybook authors working in collaboration with research or organisational experts. They brought guidance on how to embed their key works into the stories. As the authors obtained an understanding of the literature, key ideas and themes were identified, and a story was devised through an iterative process. 

Once the focus, language and storyline had been evaluated, the images were created. Children’s illustrations are a key part of their reading comprehension, and these were also subject to expert feedback so they aligned with the story and accurately depicted the intended message carefully and sensitively. &nbsp;

Our maths anxiety storybook has been used in research, and findings suggest that children engaged well with this approach, which achieved the aim of normalising maths talk in a non-judgement-based environment and led to more positive perspectives of maths, particularly for children who had initially self-reported higher maths anxiety. A similar approach to storybook development resulted in a collaborative project with an eating disorder charity. This project used focus group data from stakeholders to develop the storyline and images for a targeted storybook to support parents and teachers in approaching the increasingly prevalent issue of disordered eating/eating disorders in children. 

As higher education aims to be a force for positive impact on a national and international scale, perhaps researchers should consider outputs and approaches for their key research findings that are suitable to the needs of the audience the results should impact. This would be in line with endeavours to be more accessible and support social mobility. The storybook approach allowed us to extract and condense key study findings and put recommendations into the hands of the people who would benefit most.

The academic peer-review process, of course, remains a quality benchmark for research papers and ensures the dissemination of pertinent findings across the academic sphere. However, arguably the true measure of real-life impact is key concepts and information transferring from the academic sphere to the public domain. 

Dominic Petronzi is a senior lecturer in psychology, Dean Fido is associate professor of forensic psychology, and Rebecca Petronzi is a lecturer in initial teaching training (primary/EYTS) and English subject leader, all at the University of Derby. 

If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week,&nbsp;sign up for the Campus newsletter.

Using storybooks to share research with the public

Storybooks offer a collegial method of sharing research findings beyond the peer-reviewed journals of academia – and putting it in the hands of the people who can best use the information, write Dominic Petronzi, Dean Fido and Rebecca Petronzi

Using storybooks to share research with a wider audience

Librarians have been at the centre of the university community for many years, our roles evolving and changing with new technologies and initiatives. Today, we’re are at the forefront of promoting open access and open research.While the concept is a noble aspiration, it’s not always easy to achieve. The Nazarbayev University (NU) librarians have been promoting open access, working side by side with other key stakeholders since the early days to bring these ideas closer to reality.Three ways libraries are championing the open access movementIs open access tarnished?Why does open access make publishing more complicated?We’ve been developing and implementing plans to become stronger partners in the university’s open research strategy. Here are some of the steps we’ve taken.Guided by university’s strategic directionThe strategic direction of the library is closely aligned with the university’s overall organisational and research strategies. NU’s research output is growing, and the university encourages publishing its research in open access. We collaborate with the research administration to establish a shared vision and mission to align the services to support researchers.The library developed its first open access policy in 2019 to support its institutional repository. While it served us well, it has become evident that the existing policy needs to be reassessed and updated to align it with the current national open research aspirations and to move Kazakhstan towards becoming a knowledge economy.To improve its organisational positioning, the library has identified three key areas of attention from its own strategy: staff, services and spaces, with a strong focus on staff professional development. Staff are invited to upskill, undertake advanced training and attend relevant conferences. This is to enhance the quality of library services and the performance of librarians, particularly in the area of research support, and to improve library teaching and learning support and information literacy programmes for the university community.Restructuring the library &nbsp;We restructured the library to ensure high-quality support for research and to meet the evolving needs of the research and learning community.We did this by creating a Library Research Support team to provide scholarly communications education and open access support. The responsibilities of this team include working with university researchers and professors, becoming a part of the university-wide research support systems and improving the visibility of library contributions in the area of open research. The office also manages the institutional repository based on the open access principles.We set up a Teaching and Learning Support team, focused on revising the existing information literacy programme to advance service, including training on the approaches to open access publishing, open educational resources platforms and research methodologies. Besides raising awareness of open access, the coordinated support covers the improved new guides and training sessions designed to develop actionable skills in research assessment, ethical practice and publishing routes.The Electronic Resources Management team assists in the open access initiative by exploring transformative agreements and author publishing charges (APCs) with publishers.Capacity building with staff developmentOur strategy included upskilling the library staff on open access practices and the best dissemination methods. Alignment with the university’s open access strategy is essential – the library should tailor its research services to the needs of the university. We aimed to understand international trends concerning advocating open access in a university setting.We decided to attend conferences with programmes that would help us shape the library’s future development. Networking and connecting with other higher education professionals has proved very beneficial to our mission.After this, we developed internal training schedules to share the knowledge we gained at conferences and workshops with each other, and to also transfer this knowledge to other libraries in Kazakhstan. Interested staff can also pursue a degree or professional certificates.Building stronger partnerships and relationshipsWe redesigned our research support services at the library to complement and assist the work of other units in the university. This included increasing collaboration with the university research administration team, the researchers and publishers, establishing the librarians as strong partners with a shared vision. The library further established its position by:Working directly with the researchers and faculty at the universityNegotiating with publishers to obtain better agreements and contracts for publishingAdvising faculty on APC and publications optionsAdvocating the benefits of publishing in open access and the greater exposure to research articlesDissemination and promotion of NU scientific output via the institutional repositoryTraining offered in collaboration with the university entitiesCo-organising Research Week and OA Week, increasing awareness activities to help open up university research to a global audience.Becoming a stronger strategic partner in a university setting requires working together with other university entities with a common goal to achieve a shared idea. The library at NU has transformed its structures, upskilled its staff and championed the call for open access and open science. Remember, open science can open new doors.Jerald Cavanagh, Darya Zvonareva, Monika Bukowska, April Manabat and Yelizaveta Kamilova are all members of the library team at Nazarbayev University.

As librarians, we should embrace open research

Open access represents a new opportunity, and librarians are ideally placed to implement it. Nazarbayev University’s library team offers their advice

The open access movement has progressed very slowly over the past few decades. Recent changes to US federal guidelines for grant funding have rejuvenated the conversation around a sustainable open access publishing model. Although the perfect publishing model has yet to present itself, libraries have worked diligently to support this initiative over the years and have a vested interest in free access to information. One of the core missions of libraries is to provide equitable access to information in perpetuity. The open access movement fits nicely with that mission, so it makes sense that libraries would support and advocate for open access. 
	The double-edged sword of open access publishing
	How to sustain a journal and beat the academic publishing racket
	THE podcast: how the university library is an agent of change
Here are three ways libraries have worked with institutions to support open access that you can and should take advantage of today. Institutional repositories collect and preserve institutional knowledgeAn institutional repository (IR) aims to collect, preserve and disseminate a digital copy of knowledge produced by institution members. Many institutions have adopted open access policies that require using IRs hosted by the library to archive their intellectual output. The adoption of IRs can vary by institution, but there are a few key reasons why you should consider putting your work in your IR. 1. You retain the copyright of your work In most cases, as an author, co-author or creator (for example), you have the right to submit a copy of your manuscript to your institutional repository. This ensures that your work is accessible without a paywall, thus giving your work a wider reach. Many publishers now include provisions for authors to retain copies of their work in their institutional repositories. Unless you have signed over your rights to the publisher, you own the copyright of your scholarship. 2.&nbsp;Institutional repositories help you meet federal funding requirements Federal funding agencies are adopting Fair (findable, accessible, interoperable and repeatable) principles for federally funded research. IRs are a resource for meeting those funding requirements without additional cost or effort. 3. They provide unique identifiers Unique identifiers such as Orcid&nbsp;and digital object identifiers (DOI) make attribution, discovery and sharing of your intellectual output much more straightforward and accurate, thereby maximising the impact of your scholarship. Unique identifiers are becoming instrumental in information discovery and access.4. It’s an archive Libraries are trusted places to preserve information for the long term, and you can rest assured that your work can be found years and years into the future. Libraries negotiate transformative agreements As open access becomes strongly desired and, in many cases, a requirement for scholars to share their work, libraries are advocating for the transformation of the publishing model by negotiating transformative agreements. These agreements shift the financial burden of publishing open access scholarship from the scholars to the institution. Traditionally libraries have had subscriptions to journals on a “pay to read” basis. The scholar must pay an article processing or publishing charge (APC) for the same journal to publish their work open access, or “pay to publish”. Often, the cost is as high as $3,000 (£2,370) to $5,000 per article. But publishers offer a different model where APCs are included in the subscription price. Now, libraries pay to “read and publish” or “publish and read”, where the costs are bundled. The money the institution saves in APCs often offsets the additional subscription cost. In some cases, the price is about the same. Your library is probably negotiating these deals with publishers on your behalf. Before paying an enormous APC, check with your library. &nbsp;Consultation services Libraries offer consultation services to support open access initiatives and practices within academic institutions. These services typically include guidance on navigating copyright, assisting researchers in understanding open-access publishing options and policies, and providing resources and tools for locating reputable open-access journals and repositories. Additionally, they provide training and workshops on open-access publishing, copyright compliance and research data management, empowering researchers to adopt open access practices effectively. They also have relationships with peers across institutions, locally and globally, through organisations and memberships that they leverage to acquire knowledge and access tools to facilitate open-access scholarship. Libraries have evolved with the open access movement to keep up with the demand, and librarians have developed the skills to assist researchers and scholars. To take advantage of the library’s specialist expertise, contact your librarian. In many respects, libraries are carrying the torch for open access and are crucial in advancing the movement. They are working tirelessly to foster a culture of openness, transparency and collaboration within the academic community. By leveraging their expertise and resources, libraries empower researchers and scholars to navigate the evolving scholarly communication landscape effectively. As the open access movement continues to gain momentum, libraries will continue to advocate for equitable access to information and are a valuable resource for you. Karen Glover is associate dean for content, access and user services at the Georgia Tech Library at Georgia Institute of Technology.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week,&nbsp;sign up for the Campus newsletter.

Three ways libraries are championing open access

Scholars and researchers should take advantage of libraries’ support of and expertise around open access publishing. Asking a librarian for help could protect your work and save you money

Three ways libraries are championing the open access movement

Many health and social care research funders, in the UK and beyond, now require that research proposals include patients and the public in the design and subsequent delivery of that research. This can lead to improvements in the quality and relevance of the research.&nbsp; But what makes for effective patient and public involvement (PPI)? Two key approaches underpin effective PPI: a rules-based approach and a values-driven one. &nbsp;Rules are those things that we must do. For example, some funders tell us that we must have PPI plans, that there must be a public involvement lead, that people need to be paid for their work, and that you need to have at least two members of the public involved. These rules are positive in that they ensure that public involvement is a consideration in research proposals and set criteria by which a proposal will be assessed. As with all good rules, they come with a consequence for not complying. In this case, if researchers don’t include public involvement plans in their proposal, they won’t get funding.
	Building trust in research: how effective patient and public involvement can help
	The four key steps to writing a successful funding bid
	Advice for effective cross-team collaboration for research
However, there are dangers in over-relying on a rules-based approach. Some people will do the bare minimum to comply with the rules. They will tick the boxes and meet criteria that they must but no more. Early on in my research career, I was involved in research in which we recruited two members of the public on to a steering committee. They received little support, struggled to understand the papers they were given, and often couldn’t make meeting times because of other responsibilities. Subsequently, they were unable to make much of a contribution, but the PPI requirement had been fulfilled.Others will see the rules as a set of criteria that can simply be met by contacting a PPI adviser at the last minute, who will then bolt on an off-the-shelf PPI plan to complete the proposal. Anyone who has worked as a PPI adviser will be familiar with the Friday-afternoon call that runs along the lines of: “We’ve written our research proposal. Now we just need you to advise on the PPI part. Oh, and it needs to be submitted on Monday.” (I exaggerate only slightly.) Also, we can’t have rules for every eventuality; every research project is unique, throwing up different PPI challenges requiring flexibility and often innovation in how we respond.So, what is the answer? An alternative is a values-based approach. In this approach researchers internalise the values of PPI and make it part of the culture of the research team and the way they think about and do their research. Researchers think about and embrace PPI. Why is it important and what does it mean for their research? In this way the PPI will be truly embedded in the research rather than bolted on as an afterthought. A good reviewer can usually tell when something has been bolted on and either reject the proposal or send it back to the researcher and ask them to revise it. The UK public involvement standards are a good place to start. The six standards – inclusive opportunities, working together, support and learning, communications, impact and governance – are a set of values that will find expression in different ways for each project. They provide a framework for you to consider how your PPI plans can be tailored to the needs of that piece of research. Your PPI plans will differ depending on the issue, the budget, the context. There is no one-size-fits-all solution. PPI is more art than science. However, there are dangers to having no rules and over-relying on a values-based approach. Not least is that many, already busy, researchers might perceive it to be an extra burden and cost, and PPI would likely slip down the list of priorities from “must do” to “would be nice to do”.In truth, of course, we need a balance between the rules and the values. We need PPI processes and procedures, and we need PPI to be part of the research culture. But my firm belief is that a more values-based approach, in which researchers believe in and embrace why they are doing PPI, and have thought about how it could best work in their research, will lead to better, embedded, more meaningful and enjoyable PPI. So, follow the very good rules that research funders have in place and work with PPI experts to embed the values throughout your research.Gary Hickey is head of&nbsp;Agora Digital Centre&nbsp;in the School of Healthcare Enterprise and Innovation at the University of Southampton.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week,&nbsp;sign up for the Campus newsletter.

What underpins effective PPI in healthcare research?

Is it rules or values? The two key ways to approach the art of PPI in healthcare research should come together in process, procedures and culture, writes Gary Hickey

What underpins effective patient and public involvement in health and social care research? 

The recent revelations of chaos and occlusion emerging from the UK Covid-19 Inquiry have provided sobering insights into the culture of evidence within Whitehall. However, they are unlikely to surprise those with first-hand experience in communicating research to civil servants or politicians. With evidence that public officials were offended by the “direct criticism” of academics, reports of cognitive biases and groupthink and officials’ misinterpretation of technical terms, the inquiry will continue to reveal significant fragilities in the “evidence-based policy machine” that Whitehall claims to be.Elsewhere, there are reports that the Department for Education is keeping tabs on critical academics and attempting to cancel conferences. While there are longstanding concerns over the discourse of “impact”, including the potential for “grimpact”, and the spread of “meaningless research” that is helpful in securing employment but little else – it stands to reason that researchers entering into knowledge exchange activities with public officials might feel conflicted between the need to demonstrate impact and the value of speaking truth to power.Tips for navigating the ‘evidence-based policy machine’For more than three years, I was a government social researcher in two arm’s-length bodies of the Ministry of Justice, and I&nbsp;regularly worked with academics who acted as consultants, contractors or communicators of evidence. I&nbsp;was frequently preoccupied with getting research in the right hands, understood by the right people, or acted upon at the right time, sometimes with the aid of academic researchers.I heard of official research reports disappearing or being revised for years before being permanently shelved. Based on these experiences, my “top tip” for anyone who wants to engage with policymakers is to focus on contributing to the policymakers’ culture of evidence policy subsystems – characterised by shared topical areas and territorial geographies and made up of different mixes of public, commercial and non-governmental – rather than solely aiming at influencing policy.Inventing shared practicesOne strategy to accomplish this would be through more dialogue to share practices, such as the interpretation of research data. This would involve researchers in close dialogue with officials to develop a mutual understanding of the contingencies of data, policy problems and evidence production. This could be done through support for open dialogue to discuss research evidence and research practices.This approach would help officials understand the limits of evidence and support the establishment of shared practices for mutual understanding of evidence’s potential uses. A word of caution, however. For these open dialogues to work, trust is critical. Surveillance, silencing critical scholars and ignoring, misinterpreting or discrediting research can breach trust. There is always the potential for conflict between researchers and public officials. Greater openness and literacy about the importance of shared practices within evidence production are sorely needed.
	Resource collection: How to promote your research for greater impact
	Amplifying research: five features of successful impact generation
	What’s the story? Creative ways to communicate your research
Hope and cultures of evidenceRather than focusing efforts on designing an effective dissemination strategy, researchers can invest their hope in building better cultures of evidence. Such efforts require substantial work to translate and organise new shared practices for using and interpreting evidence. These efforts call for a long-term commitment of resources, far more significant than most funding cycles or engagement activities allow.Researchers should seek to understand how officials within policy subsystems use evidence within their own policy networks, and what interpretive frameworks they use to understand the relevance, meaning and quality of evidence. How evidence tends to be procured, disregarded and interpreted within policymaking processes sets conditions for whether your evidence will be timely or useful. I&nbsp;saw research reports shelved once their findings were seen to challenge a policy customer’s views and position. Be aware that informal power hierarchies exist within these groups, so try to understand where it lies and who the informal brokers are that can exchange evidence with key officials during critical phases of policy processes.Secrecy, distrust and co-dependenceIt’s an open secret that a culture of distrust and co-dependence exists between academia and Whitehall. To help overcome this, seek input from policymakers during research design and involve officials in your research programmes. However, once these relations have been established, those same officials may depart from a subsystem, and you’ll have to start from square one. If you prefer to stay out of a policy subsystem, consider working with external champions of evidence, such as heads of the government social research profession, or other advocacy coalitions.Those offering practical tips for communicating research to policymakers tend to overemphasise the design of policy briefing documents rather than face up to the thornier topics of power and inequality. Policy dissemination “how-to” lists, created by communication specialists, while nominally practical, essentially assume that improved dissemination strategies increase the likelihood that policymakers will draw on your research. Sadly, in my experience, evidence with a substantive, ie, non-trivial, impact on policy is few and far between. It is rare when research does more than reinforce an existing policy position.Moving beyond ‘getting heard’Although you may be “getting heard”, that doesn’t always mean that your research has a longer-term impact on a policy subsystem or the culture of evidence within Whitehall. Rather, substantive impacts require significant investment in understanding the challenges of working with officials operating within a policy subsystem. Teasing out the value and relevance of evidence from noisy information environments isn’t easy. These officials consciously manage their own and their department’s reputational risks and tread cautiously to not rely on scant, potentially fragile evidence.Cultivating good evidence habits within public sector bodies, such as the Department for Education or the Home Office, might be a better use of your time and resources. In our “post-truth” era, trust in research is fragile, expert advice can be found wanting, as we are seeing in the case of the Covid inquiry. Those seeking to create impact with their evidence should be ready to understand how public sector bodies make sense of the value of research. Misunderstandings, delays and suspicion are inevitable. The only solution is more, not less, dialogue. Researchers and public sector bodies need to invent new ideas and shared practices for understanding how research could and should contribute to progressive policy change.Julian Molina is a lecturer in public policy at the University of Bristol.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.

Facilitate knowledge exchange with policymakers

Those seeking to create impact with their evidence should be ready to understand how public sector bodies make sense of the value of research, writes Julian Molina

How to facilitate knowledge exchange and build trust with policymakers

Academics have long believed we needed only to convince our peers of the validity of our research. Now social media makes it increasingly challenging for the public to get at the truth. We must share our informed ideas with them. The Faculty of Graduate Studies at Dalhousie University has been committed to that since 2020.Our OpenThink programme is part of the faculty’s larger professional development programme. Each year, we recruit between 13 and 17 PhD students to become Thinkers. They act as ambassadors for graduate studies and their work by sharing their PhD research and ideas through public engagement. Thinkers must write at least one short newsletter article each month that we publish on our blog site. We also encourage them to seek publication in popular media outlets.Our OpenThink programme runs on a calendar year and we select our Thinkers by the middle of December the year before based on how well they write non-academically, ensuring maximum diversity in gender, ethnicity, topic of research, and research department.How we recruit our ThinkersWhen recruiting students for a scheme such as this, it is important to have buy-in from your communications office because a strong recruitment campaign is essential. It should begin several months before a new group starts. Effective practices to increase applications include publishing a news story in your campus newsletter and emailing staff, faculty and alumni to ask them to encourage people in their network to apply. This year, our communications manager created targeted emails to those who opened but didn’t click on the email and to those who didn’t open the email at all. A social media campaign highlighting the advantages of taking part and the deadline is also important.Resource collection: tips for sharing your research and professional expertise with consumer mediaAmplifying research: five features of successful impact generationResearch excellence: what is it and how can universities achieve it?How we recruit our workshop leadersThinkers attend monthly workshops on how to communicate with the public, how to write about their work and ideas, how to publicise them and how to respond to interviews. Most workshops are open to all graduate students and offer a very hands-on approach.The easiest way to source workshop leaders is to seek out expertise within your university’s network. In our case, Dalhousie has a close relationship with the University of Kings College in Nova Scotia, which trains students to communicate with the public. Award-winning journalists make up much of its faculty, so we invited those with facilitation skills who also had expertise in writing article pitches and using social media.Students need substantial support to write non-academically. It doesn’t come naturally after years of training in academic writing. Hosting hands-on workshops gives individuals immediate feedback, builds a group dynamic and boosts confidence.Having relationships with the press also helps. For example, Dalhousie has a relationship with The Conversation Canada. Other institutions may build relationships with media outlets such as local newspapers. Don’t limit yourself to the expertise within your faculty; one of Dalhousie’s Board of Governors works with a leading PR firm, which now offers us training, and Dalhousie’s Creative Director teaches students how to use images.It is important to build relationships with trainers year after year if you want a committed group of educators. Alumni can also become trainers, because they understand the student experience.OpenThink’s core topicsThese are the topics we teach our Thinkers on the programme:Communicating research in three minutes (preparation for Dalhousie’s annual 3 Minute Thesis competition)Op-ed writingWriting for The Conversation. We now offer this training in three workshops: with the editor in chief; with a panel of published OpenThink alumni; with a pitch-writing and critiquing workshopCreating an identityGiving a great interviewCreating engaging, meaningful imagesBuilding confidence through coachingIndividual coaching is essential. For OpenThink it involves:Reviewing all blogs students submit for the first two months and providing individual feedback on their writingOffering individual feedback on articles to submit to The Conversation CanadaProviding extra editing help to students whose first language is not English.&nbsp;Building comradeshipThinkers tell us that comradeship is one of the factors that appeals to them about OpenThink. At the first meeting of new Thinkers, the director and communications staff encourage Thinkers to build rapport by introducing themselves. They then discuss different aspects of the programme and its benefits and let them know that the director is available to help if needed. Throughout the year, organisers of the programme build comradeship by:Providing snacks and drinks at meetingsEncouraging Thinkers to read and repost each other’s X (formerly Twitter) postsHaving Thinkers share their work in workshops and learn from each other as well as from expertsCreating a web page that refers to Thinkers as a group (for example, as Dalhousie’s latest thought leaders) and including an archive section with posts for each year’s cohort.Public scholarship is not “one size fits all”. There are three other programmes similar to OpenThink in Canada. The University of British Columbia has the Public Scholars Initiative, which is the oldest programme, closely followed by Concordia’s Public Scholars, then Dalhousie’s OpenThink and, finally, the University of Toronto has its PhDs for Public Impact programme. Each was modelled on the ones that came before, and each was uniquely adapted to its setting.Final tips for those interested in piloting a similar scheme:Institutional support from the unit that houses the programme is essential. In our case, the faculty dean actively supported and advocated for the programme from the beginningThere must be one central resource person (a director) who provides year-long contact for ThinkersInstitutions can run the programme at a relatively low cost. We offer modest stipends for Thinkers and our workshop leaders generously offer their expertise for free (we give them thank you gifts and cards). The director’s duties can be offered through secondment from a university department or through a sessional instructor position.OpenThinker alumni themselves provide a growing body of resources for the programme. They are strong advocates for the programme, encouraging applications. They act as trainers and their success stories raise the profile of the programme, resulting in more media interest.OpenThink not only serves as a platform for PhD students to act as ambassadors of their research but aspires to cultivate a culture of public engagement in a world where the intersection of academia and the public sphere is crucial. The programme stands as a testament to the positive impact of proactive engagement and the sharing of informed ideas.Lynne M. Robinson is co-founder and director of Dalhousie OpenThink.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week,&nbsp;sign up for the Campus newsletter.

How a thought leadership programme can amplify PhD research

Dalhousie's OpenThink programme shows how universities can empower the next generation of thought leaders and facilitate public engagement 

We set up a thought leadership programme to amplify PhD research

One of my biggest bugbears is the amount of time and resources spent on press releases. (If we’ve met in person, you’ve probably heard me talk about this!) Too many mornings, I am faced with an inbox that’s full to the brim with press releases, which then sit unread and piling up until they’re deleted. I feel a little guilty admitting that, but I know I’m not alone in this.This frustration isn’t just felt by the editors, journalists and broadcasters receiving them. I’ve lost count of the number of conversations I’ve had with communicators who spend an inordinate amount of time getting their press releases approved – with too often very little impact in return. One communicator told me that they spent three full workdays getting a press release through internal approvals. Another said that, in the past year, only one of the dozens of press releases they had prepared were approved. They were expected just to keep producing them, never sure which ones would get the final tick. How demotivating – and what a waste of a talented team of communicators. 
	Show your research impact: a guide for academics and researchers
	Maximise your research impact with these seven LinkedIn tips
	Get the word out: four ways to communicate with non-academic audiences
I get it – complex organisations can have complex processes. But what about the opportunity cost? Ask any journalist and they will tell you that they ignore most press releases. So why are they the staple of every communications plan? Why isn’t anyone pushing back?Let me segue to the third-greatest movie of all time (after Terminator 2:&nbsp;Judgment Day and The Godfather): The Lord of the Rings.&nbsp;At the start of the film, Galadriel the elf shares the provenance of The One Ring and its mysteries: “History became legend; legend became myth.” That’s what the press release industrial complex is about. It’s so ingrained in communications that we just accept it as the basic requirement of every communications plan. Tick! We’ve produced a press release. Tick! We’ve followed up with the journalists, who have probably already binned them. Most universities will track their press release output as part of their overall communications metrics. But have we considered whether press releases correlate with more impact, whether it’s more media coverage for your research and impact, better awareness of your university’s brand and areas of expertise or a better relationship with journalists? Are we measuring the right things?Instead of doing the same old, same old, why not run an experiment? Have you ever measured the value of not doing some or even all of those press releases? What if you invested that money and time into other communications methods, such as original content or social media posts? Often, when I suggest this, I get a lot of shock and pushback that feels almost automatic, as if I’m attacking a sacred cow. In a way, I am – so much of the argument in favour of the press release is based on the myth that it must be a necessary staple. My favourite argument is that the scientists will be upset because they like press releases. Is this true? I think they’d prefer an approach that led to more funding. What if, instead of spending time on the same old, the focus were on creating modern, eye-grabbing content that established you as a leader in that field? A website that’s compelling to read will become a destination point for your area of expertise – and will make the press release irrelevant. Journalists are always hunting for stories, so if your website is the go-to place for that topic, you have a much greater opportunity to attract media attention. You can always get in touch with a direct email when something groundbreaking happens.There are plenty of ways to promote your stories.&nbsp;Journalists are all over social media – try something creative, as Australia’s CSIRO did, to stand out.
  
      
  
    Image
                



          

  
&nbsp;&nbsp;

  
      
  
    Image
                



          

  

Image: facebook.com/CSIROnews

&nbsp;Social media gives you a perfect opportunity to see what others are doing and to experiment with your own approach. You could explore a new strategy for engaging a different audience, invest in a new platform or partner with an influencer. You could experiment with different types of content, such as short-form videos, Q&amp;As with staff, competitions and memes – or try something unexpected, like Duolinguo’s famous owl. There are endless ways to reach the public. So ditch the press release and spend your time (and money) on something more effective. Kylie Ahern&nbsp;is publisher of&nbsp;The Brilliant&nbsp;and CEO of&nbsp;STEM Matters.This is an edited version of the post&nbsp;“Stop producing press releases, they are a waste of time”, which was published&nbsp;on&nbsp;LinkedIn&nbsp;on 29 October 2023.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week,&nbsp;sign up for the Campus newsletter.

Why press releases are a waste of your comms team’s time

Most universities will track press release output as part of overall communications metrics – but, asks Kylie Ahern, have you considered other ways to generate media coverage, awareness of your brand or better relationships with journalists? 

Getting academic research in front of key influencers – and using it to inform governmental decisions – is what we strive for. After all, what’s the point in quality research sitting in a lab or on a laptop? But in the UK, where policy officials often rely on familiar academics and can fail to draw on expert opinion from a range of experiences, how can new voices make themselves heard? How can researchers bring a diverse range of gender, ethnicity and geographic location to policymakers’ attention?The government and parliament need tools that make finding the right experts easy. The Universities Policy Engagement Network (UPEN) bridges the gap between academics and policymakers. How can we diversify the expert voices in the policymaking space? There is plenty that academics and institutions can do to add to UPEN’s work to diversify the voices that policymakers hear. 
	Academics can respond to published-evidence requests from government and parliament (for example, via governmental consultations, parliamentary inquiries and areas of research interest). The last offer a unique opportunity to engage with government, aimed at developing how research can address policy problems and putting in place more systemic mechanisms to support relationship building.
	Networking is also well worth investing in. It can help identify the right people and organisations to talk to and offers an excellent opportunity for learning about ongoing or emerging policy needs. Researchers can attend events, run seminars (many government departments invite academics for lunchtime workshops), and submit written responses to parliamentary inquiries and the government’s areas of research interest. X (formerly Twitter) and LinkedIn can also be used to develop networks. X, in particular, provides an insight into policy conversations and an opportunity to interact with people who share similar interests.
	
	UPEN also provides regular opportunities to network, such as the Ukraine’s Recovery: Rebuilding with Research conference, organised by UPEN and the Royal Society. The conference brought together policymakers and researchers from UK and Ukrainian universities to explore how research can help tackle challenges facing policymakers – from rebuilding Ukraine’s economy to addressing the complex needs related to health and well-being, re-imagining regional security and partnerships and planning for a green recovery.
	Lastly, taking up a secondment with national government, devolved administration, local government or parliament is a fantastic way for researchers to understand more about the policy world and have an impact. This can be done through the UKRI Policy Fellowship programme or by engaging directly with a relevant public policy team at your university. Another opportunity is the Royal Society pairing scheme, which pairs research scientists with UK parliamentarians and civil servants. 
How can policymakers reach out to universities?Many academic colleagues are passionate about seeing their research used and are willing to put in the time to achieve impact, but they need ideas on how and where to engage. UPEN can support them, including through training and regular knowledge-exchange opportunities.&nbsp; 
	Five steps for engaging policymakers with research
	Writing and presenting reports for government: five dos and five don’ts
	What does ‘strengthen research capacity’ mean in practice?
UPEN has established itself as a partner that makes it easier for policymakers to ask questions of universities.The network now needs to find effective ways to develop stronger relationships with policymakers and make it simpler for them to draw on a more diverse field of researchers. One way could be by working closely with the UK government chief scientific adviser’s office and a network of chief scientific advisers (CSAs) across departments. CSAs can play a vital brokering role in government and UPEN can support with that, as the network offers a unique knowledge of both policy and research environments.The network is also looking to engage with a wider set of partners, such as NGOs and think tanks, and academics working on the study of policymaking. How can researchers leverage the network?UPEN was founded in 2018 to build a community of universities committed to increasing the impact of research on public policy. The network of 120 institutions acts as a contact point for policymakers to ask questions of experts at member universities. Researchers keen to engage with policy can:
	Subscribe to UPEN weekly updates, featuring opportunities to engage with the UK government, parliament, devolved administrations and beyond
	Respond to evidence needs from policymakers 
	Participate in UPEN-organised knowledge exchange meetings with key policymaking bodies, including the UPEN annual conference 
	Contribute to UPEN blogs and share thoughts and reflections on engagement. 
Yaryna Basystyuk is policy engagement manager in the Public Policy Southampton&nbsp;team at the University of Southampton. She is also chair of the international subcommittee of the&nbsp;Universities Policy Engagement Network&nbsp;(UPEN). If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week,&nbsp;sign up for the Campus newsletter.

How to increase policy impact

Academic research is invaluable in informing governments and leaders so they can make decisions that affect us all. Here, Yaryna Basystyuk offers advice on how to make your research count in the policy world 

Driving change through knowledge: how to increase policy impact 

Given the years of study and expertise scientists have under their belts, expressing research and innovations clearly to their peers can be relatively simple. However, presenting work to the general public is more challenging. To engage their interest, higher education marketers must present the research in an accessible way and relate the findings to issues they face in everyday life.

In addition to boosting an institution’s brand and reputation, presenting research and innovation in an engaging way to a broader audience significantly enhances its potential impact. Scientific and technological knowledge can then reach a wider audience, foster greater understanding and gain wider recognition of its significance. Furthermore, it helps to develop a scientifically literate society, encouraging public engagement and awareness of innovation and scientific matters. But, most importantly, it motivates researchers and their young research fellows to remain dedicated to their work, knowing their findings can have a meaningful effect on daily life.


	Five things to know before you launch a research podcast
	Get the word out: four ways to communicate with non-academic audiences
	Researchers: fight back against your struggle with self-promotion


But promoting academic research can present a dilemma for marketing professionals. You want to publicise your team’s ground-breaking discoveries and innovations to the public, but in order to capture the interest of the media, you have to find a compelling perspective on their work. Other educational and research institutions are competing for the same space. Presenting research from a layman’s point of view is an art in itself, requiring communication and coordination skills. It can be a time-consuming, demanding process, involving developing and drafting key messages and then delivering and pitching those messages to the media and the public.

Plan for success

It’s crucial to develop a strategic plan for research marketing and communication. You must develop a comprehensive understanding of the university departments, areas of research expertise, academic journals, research funding grants, ongoing research projects and the researchers involved. Keep updated on the latest research developments and journal publications by using internal communication platforms, announcements, referrals and social media posts.

Manage your message

Maintain consistency in managing your message. Working with the principal investigators, identify a specific topic to focus on together. To do so, conduct a comprehensive study and review of the researchers’ published journals, thoroughly checking scientific terms and concepts. Conducting interviews with researchers is not only essential for zeroing in on an impactful research angle, it will also help you to gain a better understanding of their work and get direct clarification of any issues or confusions that emerge. 

Of course, you might be sharing research content in multiple languages. For example, if producing research stories and news releases in both English and Chinese, accurate translation is required for absolute precision, especially when using scientific and technical terminology.

Spread the word

Employ diverse promotional platforms to convey research outcomes and innovations to the general public. Use various forms, such as feature stories, news releases, social media posts, videos and newsletters. This will help to communicate the message in a manner that facilitates broader understanding and information dissemination.

A photograph can convey a wealth of information. For example, a feature story highlighting ground-breaking solar energy technology accompanied by an image of the researcher holding a piece of solar panel under the sunlight can hook the media’s attention. Using visual representation in this way presents an interesting angle on innovation technology in this field and how it applies to sustainable environment development.

Find the perfect writer

For written communication, appoint a professional and experienced scientific and technical writer. This is especially important when dealing with a range of topics. A knowledge of the fields related to research and innovation, such as computing, construction and environment, engineering, healthcare and life science, as well as design and humanities, is invaluable.

Iris Lai is research marketing and promotion manager at Hong Kong Polytechnic University.

If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week,&nbsp;sign up for the Campus newsletter.

Science communication tips for marketers

When research reaches a broader audience, it improves the society we live in and inspires the next generation of scientists. Iris Lai offers her advice on engaging the public with your work 

Every journey towards obtaining a doctoral degree is distinct and personal. But talk to doctoral students and you’ll find that each journey contains recurring threads. One of the most significant is managing relationships with supervisors.

It’s a question of balancing personalities, backgrounds and ways of thinking. While this is not necessarily easy to do, poor relationships almost inevitably create a poor learning environment. Given that each student is different, the idea of a one-size-fits-all approach may seem fanciful, but there is one common ingredient in creating a successful supervisor-supervisee relationship – trust. Fragile yet vital, trust must be treated with care, and, to bring about positive and effective collaboration, it cannot be overlooked.


	A case for bringing ethics of friendship and care to academic research
	How universities can help rebuild trust in science
	Putting trust at the heart of higher education


But how do we, as academics, build trust, and what do we do when trust is broken?

Building trust as a supervisor

Set trust by signalling your ability, empathy and integrity. Do this by competently guiding a student through the research process, providing insightful and clear feedback, offering constructive criticism and demonstrating a good understanding of the subject matter.

Empathy is equally important. Supervisors need to convey to sense of genuine care and concern for the well-being and success of the student. Foster a supportive and nurturing environment, be approachable and take a clear interest in your supervisee’s development, both academic and personal.

Maintain open communication, be transparent about expectations and act fairly in interactions with your supervisees. As a result, they will feel secure in the integrity of the guidance provided.

It is, however, a two-way relationship. We must also look at how the supervisee can manage their side of the trust equation.

Building trust as a doctoral student

Managing relationships with supervisors involves a simple yet impactful approach – cultivating reciprocity in the expectations set by the supervisor. Trust is an ever-present theme in effective supervisor-supervisee relationships, and it goes beyond mere compliance with expectations. It involves a nuanced understanding of each other’s roles, needs and contributions.

For example, seeking clarity on the supervisor’s expectations demonstrates a genuine commitment to understanding the parameters and objectives of the research collaboration. Transparent communication sets a foundation for trust, as it demonstrates the supervisee’s eagerness to align their efforts with the supervisor’s vision for the project.

Responding quickly is an additional factor that contributes to the trust-building process. It requires both the supervisee and that supervisor to be prompt in acknowledgement of emails, messages and requests, demonstrating a commitment to collaborative working. From the supervisee’s perspective, it reinforces the idea that they value the supervisor’s time and input.

When a supervisee shows initiative in shouldering responsibilities without constant supervision, they create a positive impression on their supervisor. A proactive approach conveys a sense of ownership and dedication to the research goals, reinforcing the trust that the supervisor places in the supervisee’s ability to contribute meaningfully to the project.

Distrust and what to do about it

What happens when trust is broken? The outcome is a decline in trust, giving way to distrust.

Factors such as dishonesty, poor communication, competing priorities, personal conflicts, unrealistic expectations, failure to acknowledge contributions, and reneging on commitments can lead to distrust and a breakdown in interactions.

No one wishes for this situation to happen, but what do you do if it does?

First, don’t underestimate the power of an apology where it is due. The promise to improve in itself can be enough to lead to a positive resolution. For clarity, I’m not talking about apologies that involve trading blame, but rather, apologies that are made quickly and sincerely, with responsibility fully accepted. This demonstrates accountability and that the party in question is willing to take ownership.

In my recent research on trust, I also found that verbal explanations were important in clearing the air of distrust, as they facilitate real-time feedback, enabling the supervisor and that supervisee to address concerns or questions immediately. This promotes a better understanding of each other’s perspectives and fosters a sense of openness and transparency – essential elements in rebuilding trust.

Kingsley Omeihe is a senior lecturer at the University of the West of Scotland.

If you found this interesting and want advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week, sign up for the Campus newsletter.

How to build trust as a research supervisor

Building trust is a crucial foundation of the supervisor-supervisee relationship. Kingsley Omeihe argues it’s a two-way process

How to build trust as a research supervisor 

Sharing expertise and experience of academia will come naturally to most academics, but acting as a source of developmental support might not, at least not initially.Over the last decade, I’ve had the privilege of supervising many students at various stages of their academic journeys. Some have been undergraduate students working on their dissertations, some postgraduate master’s students, while others have been working on their doctoral theses.&nbsp;Here I share my advice based on what I’ve learned during my time as a research supervisor and the five key aspects of the supervisory role.Set realistic goalsFirst, as supervisors embark on new projects, they should be realistic with their goals – and this is also the case for the supervisees. In short, a work-life balance must be met to ensure that progress is not at the expense of health and well-being. Setting appropriate milestones to effectively respond to the demands of the project is crucial. This should allow time for priorities to be met, while also putting welfare at the forefront.Five tips for building healthy academic collaborationsHow to change research cultures to support the well-being of PhD studentsNo one agrees on what research leadership is, let alone how to do it wellAcross the term or semester, confirm a number of mini-deadlines and ensure that simple catch-ups take place every seven to 10 days. I’ve found that setting these rules helps to reassure students and maintains their focus.Communicate to gain contextIt is vital that supervisors understand new and ongoing factors affecting their research. This appreciation of context, and engaging in conversation about it, both motivates researchers and increases the validity of the work in question. It also helps in understanding any gaps, problems or challenges within the topics. Students and new researchers will feel included and valued as they begin their investigations.As a key starting point – ask relevant questions. What is the situation that this research topic concerns? Who is involved? What are the impacting factors and where can more information be found?Be the mentor, not a research robotBeing knowledgeable is fundamental to being a successful and competent supervisor – but so is being relatable. Those you are working with need to know that you care about them not only as colleagues, but also as individuals. Be aware of (and willing to talk about) how the research journey affects each researcher and their family and how it can lead to sacrifices being made in day-to-day life. Being approachable builds strong working relationships and ultimately leads to a positive research culture.Supervisors should emphasise that the journey has its ups and downs. They should encourage students and research groups to take time to relax, recharge and enjoy their hobbies and interests. A focus solely on work is not sensible or sustainable. The role of the supervisor is not merely about meeting research objectives – it’s about helping students become well-rounded and successful individuals.Manage workloadsFor many academics and research students, workload consists of both teaching and research and can feel rather intense. That’s not to mention role-specific duties, which obviously vary. Agreeing on what is the priority term-to-term results in working smarter and more efficiently.&nbsp;Consider the many responsibilities your team members are juggling and plan effectively. Target specific conferences or external engagement activities relevant to the research focus, to confirm writing projects and timelines for research within the calendar year.Emphasise exposure and impactEffective supervisors ensure that their students and groups are part – and feel part – of their research communities. They also ensure the work they are supervising is visible on the widest possible scale and that the supervisee understands why this is important. What is the purpose of research if it is not shared and placed firmly in the public sphere? If we are to make an impact on society, we must talk about what we are doing.Pose the following questions to your supervisees at the beginning and end of the journey: What are the (expected) contributions of this research? What knowledge or subject area does this research advance? Where is the significant value? Most importantly, who benefits – and how?Reflecting on my career as a research supervisor has helped me identify the challenges that need to be addressed in the role. Above all, being an authentic mentor who is approachable, takes workloads into consideration, prioritises work-life balance and provides reassurance will benefit everyone.Robert Crammond is a senior lecturer at the University of the West of Scotland.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week,&nbsp;sign up for the Campus&nbsp;newsletter.

What does a research supervisor do?

Research supervisors must learn to be authentic mentors, as well as sharing their experience and knowledge. Robert Crammond reflects on his time in the role

At the time of writing, the UK Covid-19 Inquiry is under way. The key purpose of the inquiry is to look at the impact of the pandemic and learn lessons from the UK’s response to it. Probably like a lot of people who are involved in health research, I have been following the inquiry with great interest. A key theme that’s been apparent for me has been trust – in particular, the loss of public trust in health professionals, policymakers and politicians. And sometimes in the research itself.Trust is the glue that bonds us together. We need it for effective government and governance. The public need to have trust (at least to some degree) in “experts”, be they politicians, policymakers, clinicians or researchers. Trust is needed so that people follow laws, rules and instruction and advice. Trust is non-partisan and relevant to people of all political persuasions, ages and religions. And trust was a key motivation for establishing the Agora Digital Centre back in 2021. We are an enterprise unit based in the School of Healthcare Enterprise and Innovation at the University of Southampton. We offer three key services to researchers in health and social care. 
	THE podcast: how to do public engagement
	Devolved research funding in universities – a counter-narrative
	Multilayered interventions to foster community relationships
First is a consultancy service, where we collaborate with researchers to improve and support how they involve patients and the public in their research. We can be co-applicants on research proposals or the patient- and public-involvement lead on a proposal; we can provide costings for patient and public involvement as well as give advice and guidance on research proposals and projects. Second, we provide training and run events, such as workshops, for researchers and the public on patient and public involvement. Finally, we are seeking to develop a network of community organisations representing minoritised ethnic communities with whom we will work to increase their representation in research.Key rationales for involving patients and the public in research include that it results in more relevant and better quality research and outcomes. Patients and the public can bring insight into what issues affect and are of importance to them and their communities. They bring their experiences of what it is like to live with an illness or condition or use a particular service. They can provide advice on how to recruit participants from their communities, suggest what language would work on recruitment documents and data-collection instruments, add nuance to the interpretation of research findings and recommend how best to engage and disseminate research findings to communities. And, of course, let us not forget that many research funders require patients and the public to be involved in the research that they fund.But at the Agora Digital Centre, we include another rationale for involving patients and the public in research: building trust. When we talk about trust, we aren’t talking about the patients and public deferring to the “greater expertise” of professionals and just accepting every decision they make. Those days, thankfully, are long gone. Patients and the public should question and challenge experts – and vice versa! We are talking about developing relationships between all the stakeholders involved in research. We are talking about professionals, patients and the public collaborating and listening to each other to improve research questions, instruments, recruitment techniques and dissemination. And, of course, the involvement of the public needs to be meaningful rather than tokenistic. They need to have a real voice that influences decision-making on the research. But how does developing trusting relationships work in patient and public involvement? Anyone can put a couple of patients on a steering committee and then claim the public are “involved”. Much harder is creating spaces, building capacity, providing support and findings ways for people to have their voices heard. I suggest reaching out to people and community organisations and asking them what issues matter to them. Nominate someone, often a member of staff, who has responsibility for being the key point of contact for the public involvement in your research and addressing any issues. Always have more than one member of the public as part of your team or sitting on the steering committee – a lone public member can feel isolated – but make sure you budget for this. You should also give them clear roles and responsibilities, which can include appointing them as chairs or co-chairs of committees. And make sure you provide the public with the necessary support and training so that they can provide effective contributions and succeed in their roles.Constantly reflect on and evaluate how things are working and whether or not the arrangements you have in place enable people to feel heard and valued. I am working on a National Institute for Health and Care Research-funded study, Pathways to Implementation for Public Engagement in Research, which is exploring the role of patients and the public in the implementation of research evidence. We have regular reflective sessions with the patients and the public with whom we – researchers – work, where we talk about what we are doing well and how we can improve. These reflective sessions, led jointly by me and a member of the public, provide an opportunity to build rapport and the trust that underpins successful patient and public involvement. Involving patients and the public in research will not be a panacea to restoring trust, but it is a key step on the way.&nbsp; Gary Hickey is head of Agora Digital Centre in the School of Healthcare Enterprise and Innovation at the University of Southampton.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week,&nbsp;sign up for the Campus&nbsp;newsletter.

How patient and public involvement builds trust in research

Involving patients and the public in research results in more relevant outcomes and gathers insight into what issues affect and are of importance to them and their communities, writes Gary Hickey

Building trust in research: how effective patient and public involvement can help

The Tree of Hope activity is an evaluation and monitoring tool we use as faculty members of the journalism department at Siam University to analyse participants’ reactions to projects. It involves writing down suggestions and aspirations and using them to identify follow-up activities and goals for projects that we reflect on as a group. The Tree of Hope activity encourages participants who are hesitant to express their opinions to engage in the feedback process. 

When participants belong to the same community, it can also strengthen bonds. Such was the case for our recent project which involved gathering insights from members of a senior citizens’ club about the production and distribution of traditional clothing to boost the economy of their small Bangkok community. 

Here’s how to use the Tree of Hope activity for post-project evaluation and monitoring:

1. Prepare your equipment: you’ll need paper or card, pens or markers and decorating tools such as coloured paper, scissors and glue.

2. Clarify objectives: explain the purpose of the activity to give participants a focus. In our case, we wanted the club members to analyse their resources to understand how to develop their community.

3. Begin the activity: split participants into small groups and have them draw a tree and fill it in with goals, hopes and insights relevant to the project. They can decorate it as they wish.

4. Reflect on the content of the trees: encourage participants to reflect collectively on what they have written down. Pose questions such as:


	What is the likelihood of realising these aspirations?
	What actions should the project organisers/participants take to achieve these goals?
	What factors might influence the future of the project?


Here are some trees our participants created:


  
      
  
    Image
                



          

  



	Resource collection: Skills every research manager needs
	Lessons from completing an award-winning knowledge transfer project
	How to use a project management approach to help run research projects


The key benefits of the Tree of Hope activity

1. It builds trust: the activity is primarily designed to allow participants to articulate individual and collective aspirations. By sharing these, they gain clarity on common goals, transparency and trust.

2. It promotes mutual understanding: discussing different perspectives facilitates deeper understanding and respect among group members and helps to bridge any gaps in knowledge.

3. It drives positive change: by discussing hopes and aspirations collectively, the group can identify new initiatives and pathways for the project.

4. It increases engagement: this activity creates a tangible and visual representation of aspirations that can be more engaging than just verbal or written feedback and can serve as a constant reminder of collective goals.

5. It prompts detailed feedback: in our experience, tools like these help participants take their time to organise their thoughts, leading to more detailed and useful responses than those gained via other data collection methods.

The Tree of Hope activity is an effective post-project evaluation tool used in the journalism department at Siam University. It encourages participant engagement and feedback through a creative process. Particularly effective in community settings like the Mon community in Bangkok, this method builds trust and mutual understanding and drives positive change.

Suthawan Thummasungwan and Prakit Arsa are faculty members of the journalism department at Siam University.

If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week,&nbsp;sign up for the Campus&nbsp;newsletter.

&nbsp;

Using the Tree of Hope activity for post-project evaluation

Post-project evaluation tools that generate useful participant feedback drive positive, enduring change, write Suthawan Thummasungwan and Prakit Arsa

Empower communities using the Tree of Hope activity for post-project evaluation

Launching a podcast isn’t necessarily difficult. Sustaining it, on the other hand, is difficult. You’re entering a crowded market – it’s estimated that there are more than 4 million of them – and audience share is far from equal. An alarmingly high number fail to make it past their third episode before being scrapped, and the vast majority put out fewer than 20 episodes. Despite these challenges, podcasts can be an astonishingly effective tool to promote research or academic knowledge. If you avoid the many pitfalls, you have a communication tool with full control of the message; a tool that exists in perpetuity, drawing attention to the work that you do. 
	Podcast starter kit: what you need to get recording and posting now
	Tips for sharing your research and professional expertise with consumer media
	Fake news, educated views and how-tos: social media for teaching and research
Here, a highly experienced podcast producer and associate lecturer at the University of the West of Scotland and an award-winning former broadcast journalist draw on their experiences to share advice on how to successfully launch a research podcast. Audience. Audience. AudienceBefore you even begin planning that first episode and how it might sound, carefully consider who your audience is. Are you looking to target an academic audience or a lay person? Is this a podcast aimed at the higher education sector or a wider audience? The answer to these questions should dictate everything from the content to the podcast’s title. An overly complicated or nebulous title is off-putting and veering into jargon – easy to do when you’re immersed in a field of study – will limit your audience. It may be helpful to record a pilot episode before the full launch to identify this.Make sure your chosen format is sustainableMany podcasts are short-lived and a contributing factor to this is that the production process can be extremely time-consuming. Non-fiction storytelling – a format deployed by most documentary podcasts – can be compelling to listen to, but takes more time than you may have to produce.When we launched the Research Matters podcast this year, we opted for a conversational interview – a format that allows for a quick turnaround, but produces compelling content. However, it requires extra vigilance when it comes to avoiding jargon and may limit your pool of guests, as not everyone thrives in an interview setting. There is no one-size-fits-all approach, but there is a correct approach for you. Carefully consider what that might be. It’s also worth thinking about episode frequency. Are you looking to release episodes weekly? Monthly? A complete series as a one-off? If your podcast is not time sensitive, it may be worth considering recording several episodes before the debut launches, allowing for a degree of flexibility with your subsequent recording schedule. &nbsp;Invest in the right equipmentYou don’t necessarily need a podcast studio to record – although if you have access to one, by all means use it. However, podcast mics aren’t as expensive as you might think, and if you’re serious about your podcast, it’s worth investing in one. Recording via Zoom or Teams using a podcast mic is a viable option. Even if you don’t have a podcast mic, various AI tools exist that allow you to clean up your audio, significantly boosting its quality. If you’re recording your podcast remotely, it’s sensible to have your guest record their side of the conversation too. You can then stitch together an episode that is of the highest possible sound quality. In an environment where many podcasts fight for attention, sound quality matters. Keep it briefOften, when your potential listener is scouring their podcast app for something new, their choice is made based on how much time they have available. This makes shorter episodes more appealing.Think about when people listen to podcasts – during a commute, when going for a run, while doing housework. Anything up to half an hour is generally the ideal length while you’re still building a loyal audience. In the longer term, it is more likely that an individual will binge-listen to a catalogue of shorter, rather than longer, episodes. This potentially means you will have to make some difficult editing choices, cutting content that you like. But it’s worth doing this. Your listeners will never consider what isn’t there. Don’t expect instant successSo you’ve finished your first episode and you’re ready to publish it? Don’t expect to have an instant hit on your hands. People often give up on their podcasts early as listener numbers don’t meet their expectations, but it takes time to build an audience. Word of mouth is key, so give people the opportunity to discover and discuss your podcast by maintaining a regular release schedule. Keep in mind that podcasts are a “pull” medium – your audience has to find you. It’s not like television, where your show might be discovered through channel hopping. Social media will probably be your main promotional tool, so encourage your guests and other academics, particularly those with high social media followings, to share your episodes online. LinkedIn is often overlooked as a promotional tool for podcasts, but it’s very effective, and will help episodes reach people who have an interest in the subject matter. It may take time to build your audience, but don’t give up before you do. &nbsp;David Allan is an associate lecturer and Andrew Murray is communications and marketing officer at the University of the West of Scotland.If you’d like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week,&nbsp;sign up for the Campus newsletter.

Five things to know before you launch a research podcast

Starting a podcast can open up your research to a new audience. David Allan and Andrew Murray show how

The University of East London’s Hospital &amp; Primary Care Training Hub is a European first in end-to-end simulated health and social care practice.Offering virtual reality and responsive mannequins, the simulation technology creates realistic scenarios to boost students’ confidence in mock intensive care units, A&amp;E and general wards.How to lose a grant in 10 waysDevolved research funding in universities – a counter-narrativeLove and money: why the search for funding is like romanceIt was developed thanks to a grant of £8.3 million awarded by the Office for Students, plus a further £2 million in University of East London funds.Here’s what we did to make the bid effective.Have a clear visionLook at what you want to achieve by creating a thorough business case and vision statement. You need a strategic plan for success, and this means starting at the end goal and working backwards to see how to achieve your vision. For us, that vision was addressing health inequalities in our local community and responding to the needs of the NHS workforce through the expansion of our Stratford Health Campus. Equality, diversity and inclusion are incredibly important to our mission and were&nbsp;key considerations in our application from the start.We wrote that our vision was to create a world-class simulated learning hub, due to the shortage of placement opportunities in clinical settings as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. We wanted to create an end-to-end hub to give students from all backgrounds more learning opportunities than they had pre-pandemic. Intensive care units were crucial in the Covid era, so the creation of this type of simulated learning environment was key.To better reflect our locale’s rich diversity, simulation mannequins with different skin tones, reflecting the population the students would serve, were necessary. This would allow students to recognise conditions on different skin colours. Venepuncture arms from different ethnic backgrounds are used for cannulation and injections.Ask yourself the important questionsYou must identify the expertise you need and recognise that this can be different from a research grant bid. Do you have experience in-house, such as an architect? Consider bringing in an external adviser.During the design phase, collaborate with key partners to investigate what is and isn’t current. Enhance your relationships with industry partners and garner their expert knowledge. For us, this was with Health Education England and local NHS partners such as the North East London NHS Foundation Trust and Homerton Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, which use similar tools so there is a joined-up way of working.Our NHS and social care partnerships were vital in deciding and agreeing upon a vision. We very much operated it as a business bid, which made it different from other bids.If you will be delivering partnerships as part of the project, what do you need them to deliver? What will good (and bad) student and staff engagement look like?Consider what return on investment means to you. Use data to show how funding will affect research output, student numbers, educational outcomes, the student experience and staff retention. Define how you’ll measure improvements.What does your internal funding look like – will you need further external capital? Don’t be cash tight when budgeting costs to achieve your vision.And be open-minded – your vision might change. The operational side of our Hospital &amp; Primary Care Training Hub has changed a lot since our bid, and building costs have also dramatically increased, so looking ahead as far as possible is key, particularly when tech such as VR and AI is evolving all the time. You must ensure what you are developing is fit for change and adaptable for continual changes in the market.The university match-funded the bid, and the original budget did stretch far enough to accommodate rising costs.Put a strong hierarchy in placeOne strong leader is needed to be a decision maker. Ensure it is someone who can ensure that sign-offs are achieved and timelines are met.In the core working group for bid writing and successful project execution, have one to two key academic colleagues, one to two colleagues from estates, one finance lead and one from strategic planning to help on the data side. A distinct team writing the bid in one clear voice is also recommended. Make sure there are fresh eyes during the process, too. Have a critical friend read it over well before the deadline.Look to the futureIf successful with your bid, and you are considering further development, look at the lessons learned and what you can build on in terms of the success of the school.Engage your stakeholders early when thinking of going for a further bid.We used the Continuous Quality Improvement model that we teach and practise – Plan, Do, Study, Act – to shape and plan the bid, and later to enact the project development.Initially, we bid for £2.5 million for phase one, so we used the same formula again to bid for funding for phase two – and were awarded £5.8 million in a highly competitive process.Our hub is a showcase for the university’s commitment to innovating educational technologies and interprofessional practice and tackling health inequalities in a tech-driven world.Through our engagement with the NHS and local communities, we can review what alternative models of training can be established to support the NHS Long Term Workforce Plan. We are also carrying out a portfolio review and considering ways to further tackle health inequalities through our teaching.Rob Waterson is dean of the School&nbsp;of Health, Sport &amp; Bioscience at the University of East London.The university’s Hospital and Primary Care Training Hub has been shortlisted for Technological or Digital Innovation of the Year at the&nbsp;Times Higher Education&nbsp;Awards 2023 #THEAwards.&nbsp;See the full list of shortlisted candidates. Winners will be announced at a ceremony on 7 December in Liverpool.Academics and university leaders from across the UK and Ireland will come together on 6-7 December at&nbsp;THE&nbsp;Campus Live UK&amp;IE&nbsp;to talk about institutional strategies, teaching and learning, the student experience and more.&nbsp;Join us&nbsp;for this two-day event in Liverpool.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week,&nbsp;sign up for the Campus newsletter.

The four key steps to writing a successful funding bid

The art to writing successful funding bids lies in your vision – and assembling a crack team to enact it. Rob Waterson offers his tips

Implementing change in an academic research group requires a deep understanding of the components that change can affect. I covered this in part one of my miniseries on driving change in a research group.

Here, I propose a more practical step-by-step approach to driving change using The 8 Steps for Leading Change&nbsp;methodology by John Kotter.

Business leaders have applied these for decades to understand where transformational efforts might fail. Academic research group leaders can also use this framework as a recipe for implementing change (or, at least, for understanding where one might fail when doing so) in a research group.

Create a sense of urgency 

The fact that students only have a limited amount of time to produce results in an academic research group already creates a sense of urgency. However, this might not be enough. In a business context, deadlines for project reports help. But in the context of a research group, you need a higher goal such as to make an impact on society through the contribution of scientific knowledge. A research group leader can create urgency by articulating the potential impact of participants’ work. 

Build a guiding coalition

Colleagues in the same department, research collaborators and administrators can all form a support system to ensure smooth operations. However, it is even more important to create a guiding coalition: a group of people directly involved in your research who can help drive change. It should contain key individuals who are deeply involved in the lab activities and who can accurately understand its philosophy and broad targets. Identifying the right students to form this coalition is never easy, but always worth the effort. This could involve assigning leadership tasks to certain students and observing their teamwork skills and drive.


	Resource collection:&nbsp;Skills every research manager needs
	Resource collection:&nbsp;Research excellence: what is it and how can universities achieve it?
	How to publish responsible reproducible research


Form a strategic vision

If a research group leader does not create a compelling vision and strategy, then there is no hope for change. Where possible, tailor the definition of this vision and strategy according to students’ levels of research experience, as some will just be starting their journeys, while others will already be used to established methods. For new students, it’s better to break down the strategy into short-term action points that can be tackled more quickly. For more experienced students, asking for their input on strategy is a good way of keeping them focused on the long-term targets.

Enlist a volunteer ‘army’

A research group leader must use powerful, convincing and motivational methods of communication to consistently explain the change vision. The most impactful method, in my opinion, is to lead by example, by taking actions that you want your students to take, such as carrying out a preliminary experiment yourself before asking students to do it. Beyond this, ensure that you reflect passion, consideration and insight in your message and refine it continuously. This way, people will voluntarily support the vision.

Enable action by removing barriers 

Failure is common in a research lab, especially at the early stages of research. Micromanagement is not the right way to deal with it. In the face of failure, leaders must demonstrate trust and empathy to facilitate learning. Clarify that you are not looking for people to blame but for the origin of the failure. In an ideal situation, students should feel empowered to take action and equipped with the right tools, frameworks and support systems. They should also feel that they can take corrective actions to any failures, independently or with advice, without fear of repercussions and without any barriers.

Generate short-term wins

Celebrate any success, be it the completion of an experiment, a well-delivered presentation or an award at a conference. These short-term wins help build momentum, inspiring lab members to achieve the group’s goals. Remember that a win can only be understood as such if you set clear milestones and communicate them effectively.

Sustain acceleration

This stage involves gathering the short-term wins into a consolidated output, such as a presentation for an international conference or a journal publication. For a research group, this requires arranging the pieces of the puzzle in a logical and consistent way that is in line with the long-term vision, strategy and research target. Without dedicating enough effort to consolidating the short-term wins, they might become dispersed and wasted, affecting the students’ enthusiasm. Consolidating gains also allows the group leader to define and enter a new stage of change.

Institute change 

To help solidify the change, announce your new culture in a memorable way, such as during a milestone-celebrating gathering or by publishing it on the group’s website. Then, it will finally be time to enjoy it. Research groups can pass down this culture to the next generations of students under light supervision from the leader. 

At first, change might come as a shock. Those affected will only embrace it when they perceive it as meaningful. For this to happen, a leader needs to communicate effectively and provide adequate support. Ultimately, this can offer students a great learning experience and benefit society overall.

Daniel Moraru is an associate professor at the Research Institute of Electronics at Shizuok&nbsp;University, Japan.

If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered directly to your inbox each week,&nbsp;sign up for the Campus newsletter.

How to drive change in a research group, part two

Research group leaders can use business frameworks to implement change effectively, argues Daniel Moraru. Here's how

How to drive change in a research group, part two: a step-by-step guide

What is best practice for universities’ public engagement? How do you enlist the public in your research? And how do you keep them interested in the long term? Two 2022 THE Awards winners share their insights – from their experiences tracking Covid and decoding Dickens

THE podcast: how to do public engagement

Searching for research funding is a hideous process – as defined universally – from which you’re unlikely to emerge with all your hopes, dreams and self-esteem fully intact. In fact, it is not a million miles away from searching for a perfect partner.&nbsp;&nbsp;People you know will have their stories. But instead of talking about that time you sat through dinner with lipstick on your teeth, you’ll talk about that time you attached the wrong version of your budget to your otherwise carefully crafted proposal.How to lose a grant in 10 waysDevolved research funding in universities – a counter-narrativeA guide to writing grant proposalsPerhaps the comparison isn’t surprising. After all, funding is a relationship of sorts. Whoever you find to fund you, you will enter into a symbiosis with them. You’ll need them, and they’ll need you for a period of time. They’ll expect things from you, and vice versa. It’s a joyful, exciting, uncomfortable and occasionally scary co-dependency.&nbsp;&nbsp;Taking the sting out of looking for fundingSo, what can you learn from the search for love to make the search for funding less awful?&nbsp;Get real about what you’re looking forTo start, perhaps reset the scope of your search. Try to base your parameters on what you want out of the funding and funding relationship; don’t just go for the funders who look like your type on paper.&nbsp;You may think you want funding solely from industry, but have you properly considered government grants? If you have only applied for funding from discipline-specific sources, would something cross-disciplinary suit you? Does it matter where your tiny travel grant is from as long as it gets you where you’re going?Communicate honestlyThe search for funding goes best when you’re honest and realistic in your communication from the start. Picture this – you’ve met someone you think you really like and together you’ve hastily signed a six-month lease on a flat. A week later, you discover you’re entirely incompatible. They hadn’t mentioned that they love going for a run at 5am and will expect you to go with them; your ideas about “sharing the cooking” are in stark contrast; and they’re not too hot on your almost daily habit of losing your keys and wallet. If you had communicated earlier about yourselves, your expectations and your capabilities, none of this would have been a shock. Instead, you’re stuck gritting your teeth and growing steadily more frustrated with one another until you can legally leave without causing yourselves too much financial harm.&nbsp;The same goes for funding. Make sure you know what a funder expects from you, and what you expect from them before you start. What will both of you realistically be able to offer? What would you each be like to “live with”?&nbsp;&nbsp;Don’t suffer through rejection aloneSometimes you think things are going well, but then, out the blue, you’ll get a rejection. When this happens, try to remember that no one on either side of the funding fence enjoys this part of the process. As in a break-up, it’s awkward and unpleasant for the person doing the dumping. If you seek feedback, do it professionally. Your contact point will rarely be the sole decision-maker, and telling them you think they’ve made a stupid choice will just make the relationship sticky going forward. You never know when things may circle back, so it’s best not to burn too many bridges on your way out.&nbsp;&nbsp;If in doubt, call your friends. Just as your best friend will meet you over a glass of wine to gossip and share advice about that person you’ve been messaging, your research office will gladly catch you for a coffee and talk about where best to focus your efforts. You’re not in this on your own, and there’s a whole team of people as invested in your success as you are.&nbsp;&nbsp;Each courtship leaves a lesson for next timeThe funding “courtship” is ultimately about keeping your balance, your vision and your sense of humour. Every successful career includes many, many unsuccessful bids. Try to let it build you up rather than drag you down; with each rejection, you can learn something for next time, find something new to explore. You just have to look for it. You will inevitably fail, but you will also eventually see success. Whatever happens, your work is valuable. Whatever happens – however many frogs you have to kiss – there will be more chances.&nbsp;&nbsp;Laura Berrisford is a research funding adviser in Research &amp; Innovation at Te Whare Wānanga o Waitaha | University of Canterbury, New Zealand.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered directly to your inbox each week,&nbsp;sign up for the Campus newsletter.

Why the search for research funding is like romance

Funding is a relationship of sorts. You and your research project funder will enter into a finite symbiosis. It’s a joyful, exciting, uncomfortable and occasionally scary co-dependency, writes Laura Berrisford  

Love and money: why the search for funding is like romance

In academia, research is the bedrock upon which to build knowledge and drive innovation. However, the impact of research is not just in the discovery itself but in how it is communicated and shared with the world. Here enters research communication: the art of conveying findings, insights and ideas to various audiences. In essence, it bridges the gap between your academic work and its intended audience. For newly minted academics, mastering research communication is not just a valuable skill, but is also a key driver of university research impact.&nbsp;Why research communication mattersBefore diving into strategies, let us explore why research communication is important.It amplifies&nbsp;impact: research that remains confined to academic circles has limited impact. Communicating your work extends its reach to policymakers, industry professionals and the public, magnifying its influence.It fosters collaboration: clear and engaging communication encourages other researchers to build upon your work, enriching academic discourse. One prime example of this is the&nbsp;Global Ocean Sampling Expedition (GOS), which involved the collection and analysis of ocean water samples by researchers around the world. The GOS data led to the creation of a comprehensive map of ocean microbial life, informing ocean biology and climate change research.It informs decision-making: your research might hold the key to solving real-world problems, such as the&nbsp;Tanzania Essential Health Interventions Project (TEHIP), during which household disease surveys informed health services, particularly for mothers and young children.How to effectively communicate your research impact1. Know your audience: understand who you are communicating with and tailor your message to match their knowledge level, interests and needs. For instance, a research paper will use technical terminology to communicate with an academic audience; however, a public presentation might require plain language and real-life stories.2. Choose the right medium: consider diversifying your communication channels. Use academic journals for scholarly recognition and publish blogs, infographics or social media posts to engage a wider audience.3. Craft a compelling narrative: follow storytelling techniques commonly used in literature and journalism to create narratives that captivate your audience, making your research more engaging and memorable. One example of this approach involves 12 researchers from the&nbsp;University of Sheffield&nbsp;who underwent a three-month training process to learn how to shape their research experiences into accessible, ten-minute, spoken stories for public engagement.&nbsp;4. Visualise your data: learn data-visualisation techniques and use software tools such as Tableau or Adobe Illustrator to create compelling visuals that complement your research. Mike Cisneros’&nbsp;#MakeoverMonday submission&nbsp;effectively visualises conflict areas in Africa, the Middle East, India and Southeast Asia, offering key insights into the impact on the population.5. Engage with the public: actively seek opportunities to engage with non-expert audiences. Translate your research into layman’s terms, use relatable examples and participate in public outreach activities. A good example of this is&nbsp;Abbie Richards, an academic TikTok content producer, who posts videos to communicate climate science and combat misinformation. Her goal is to make research easily communicable and more relatable.
	Campus resource: The business of bright ideas, research and IP
	Defining impact: a shift in thinking, acting and being
	So what? Who cares? The skill of talking about impact
Use traditional and non traditional methods to measure your impactOnce you have implemented these strategies, it’s crucial to evaluate your research impact. Traditional metrics such as citation counts, social media engagement and the practical application of your research can offer insights into the reach and influence of your work. Tools such as the h-index and Altmetric provide quantitative data to gauge your impact within academia.Do not limit your assessment to traditional metrics alone. For a more comprehensive understanding of your public engagement efforts, consider tracking non-traditional metrics. These might include the number of views, likes, shares and followers your content gains you and comments on your blog posts or YouTube videos. These metrics reflect the public’s interest and engagement with your work.When it comes to public talks and engagements, collect testimonials from participants. Encourage them to share their new-found knowledge and passion for your field via social media or to local news outlets. Personal stories and testimonials help demonstrate the real-world impact of your efforts.Additionally, assessing the impact of your storytelling can be enlightening. Collect feedback and testimonials from your audience to understand how your narratives resonate with them. This enables you to track the ripple effect of your engagement activities within the community.Last, pay attention to the re-use and distribution of your visual content. Count the number of times your infographics are shared by other organisations, websites or individuals. This indicates the value of your visual content in spreading your research and amplifying its reach. To monitor the reach of your infographics, use social media analytics, track backlinks with tools such as Google Analytics, employ URL shorteners for click metrics, set up Google Alerts and use social listening tools to track online visibility and engagement. To overcome the challenge of tracking offline sharing, consider including QR codes or specific URLs on printed materials and employ unique tracking mechanisms for offline distribution channels.&nbsp;See research communication as the compass that guides your academic journey towards meaningful impact. By knowing your audience, choosing the right medium, telling compelling stories, engaging with the public, networking and utilising social media, you can enhance your research’s reach and relevance.&nbsp;Lyn R. Keith is a programme officer at the University of the West Indies.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week,&nbsp;sign up for the Campus&nbsp;newsletter.&nbsp;

Tips for effectively communicating your research’s impact

Finding ways to communicate the impact of your research can sometimes be a hurdle. Here, Lyn R. Keith outlines effective ways to overcome it and extend the reach of your work

HARKing is hypothesising after results are known. In principle, HARKing is wrong. This is the consensus. Leading academics have called for it to be banned. But what if scholars were allowed, even encouraged, to practise HARKing or PARKing (proposing after results are known) under specific circumstances when such practices could be justified academically and morally? 

HARKing or PARKing that leads to scientific discoveries should surely be applauded. That is why here I will argue for accepting, even recommending, that a researcher HARKs or PARKs as long as the scholar is being transparent about it and properly reports it.

HARKing occurs when authors write, rewrite or revise their hypotheses after results are known. Basically, it means acting against scientific principles (cheating, in common parlance). For example, the authors develop original hypotheses, either in line with the extant theory and literature or to challenge it, deviate from it or suggest rethinking it. They predict findings, but the results contradict the expectation, so the authors change their original set of hypotheses to fit the findings. 


	How universities can help rebuild trust in science
	Spotlight:&nbsp;Understanding and protecting academic integrity
	How open knowledge strengthens democracies


Through HARKing, then, scholars are concealing the truth. The edited manuscript presents findings that support the rewritten hypotheses, apparently as anticipated according to the literature. In extreme cases, HARKing might also take place when the authors do not develop any hypotheses until they have the results; they then develop hypotheses that will each gain support from the (now known) results. A related type of HARKing is failing to report hypotheses that were rejected, either because no relationships were identified or, worse, if the relationships identified were in the opposite direction to those posited by the hypotheses.

Strong indications are that researchers are increasingly engaging in HARKing rather than a priori theory testing, and this practice is largely condemned. Although HARKing is widespread, it is under-reported, destructive and harmful for scientific enquiry as well as damaging for the credibility of individual scholars and their fields of research. As it stands, HARKing is considered an unacceptable and unethical practice that, in principle, should be avoided in the scientific realm. It acts against academic logic, integrity and ethical guidelines. 

HARKing can be found in quantitative studies employing the positivist approach. A comparable case can take place in qualitative work, employing the interpretivist approach. While qualitative papers do not offer a development of hypotheses, they do start with research question(s) and defining the aims. Similarly, as in HARKing, authors might decide to amend their research questions, add new ones or redefine their aims once their data opens avenues to provide answers to different questions or point towards different directions that were not anticipated a priori. Proposing different or amended research questions or aims can be labelled PARKing.

Yet HARKing is not necessarily fraud, though it can be compared to cherry-picking, when data is “picked” to support preferred directions, like a type of “question trolling”.

The argument for HARKing und PARKing

I argue for the use of HARKing, as long as such a use is restricted to certain circumstances, pointing out under what (limited) conditions HARKing should be acceptable, even encouraged. It should be clear, though, that I am absolutely against opportunistic HARKing and PARKing, when scholars run an analysis, see what the results are and then develop a set of hypotheses or propositions to match the findings. It would be like an archer shooting an arrow, then running to draw the target around where the arrow hit in order to win the competition.

Yet academic enquiry is not competition. Science is more important – its role is to develop and create knowledge. Under positivism, scholarship aims to reveal the truth (assuming an absolute truth can be found). Under interpretivism, the need is to faithfully represent the participants’ opinions and be transparent about the interpretation process. Science is about creating knowledge, making discoveries, not necessarily following basic logic of linear predictions based on existing theories. Returning to the archer metaphor, if a hunter shot an arrow towards the bushes and hit game that was only assumed to be there, no one should care if the aim of finding food was achieved.

From the scientific realism perspective, our aim as scientists is to reveal the truth, to generate and test theories, and to establish knowledge that is valid and reliable.Yet the publication convention is that the introduction and results sections must be consistent with one another. If a scholar develops a logic that leads to specific hypotheses based on certain literature, the data and analysis will be limited to examine only this line of enquiry. However, this might mean that possible avenues for knowledge creation are blocked.

Moreover, playing strictly by the rules could lead to a competitive disadvantage because it can lead to missed opportunities to generate unpredictable findings. It neutralises the prospects of gaining from serendipity (which is a proven critical factor in scientific enquiry – the discovery of penicillin being a case in point).

Banning HARKing could hinder scientific enquiry

On many occasions, HARKing is logical, an enabler in the search for truth, and thus may be applied under certain circumstances. Insistence on a rigid ban pushes scholars to be less than truthful in reporting the realities of their research processes and outcomes. Scholarship should not ignore reality nor avoid finding true knowledge.

Ethically and morally, confining scholars to a practice that blocks them from new discoveries is wrong. Full stop. After all, an outright ban on HARKing could mean discarding new knowledge that could be published. The current “solution” to this is misreporting or concealing elements of the process. Following the rule to the letter also poses a barrier to knowledge development. In terms of academic careers, publishing is a critical factor for academic progress, and banning HARKing might hinder promotions. It is, therefore, tempting to bypass or ignore the rule that the academic community cannot practically adhere to.

Unless the system can change to accept HARKing and PARKing under specific circumstances, these practices will continue to take place in a hidden form. This would be unfortunate because such an approach means bending academic moral guidance. Honest and transparent reporting is a key factor – for example, indicating what the original hypotheses were, what new or revised hypotheses (post-hoc) were added and why that was done.

Let us do that when (and only when) it is justified and appropriate.

Yehuda Baruch is a professor of management at Southampton Business School at the University of Southampton.

If you’d like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week,&nbsp;sign up for the Campus newsletter.

An argument for HARKing in research

Hypothesising (or proposing) after results are known is seen as going against scientific principles. Here, however, Yehuda Barach argues for its use in the name of unhindered enquiry and discovery when the scholarship is transparent and properly reported 

HARKing forward: an argument for a polarising research practice

The journey to securing research funding does not always run smooth. Here, members of a funding advisory team take a light-hearted look at 10 of the most common mistakes and how to avoid them.1. Court uninterested fundersIf you’re not eligible for funding, or if your research doesn’t align with the funder’s goals, don’t apply – you can’t make a square peg fit a round hole. Don’t hope that, with a great project, the funder might let you slip through the net. A square peg won’t go into a round hole, unless the hole is bigger, and the funding pot is never bigger. Funders have a clear remit and are reading more applications than they can fund. Likewise, you might have a fantastic idea that aligns perfectly with the fund, but if your team doesn’t have the necessary expertise and experience to deliver the outputs, you won’t be funded.Devolved research funding in universities – a counter-narrativeA guide to writing grant proposalsAll together now: how to write an interdisciplinary research proposal2. Listen to your fear of rejectionWhenever you feel as if you shouldn’t bother applying because the chances of success are low, look at the most successful peers in your field and remember that they will have endured many failures along the way. In academic institutions, it’s a rule of thumb that the biggest winners are also the biggest losers. When doubt creeps in, remember that there’s zero stigma attached to submitting an excellent, unsuccessful bid.3. Ignore the signals&nbsp;The assessment criteria let you know what funders are looking for and the things that will make or break your application. Aligning your proposal with these criteria increases your chances of securing funding. It’s akin to speaking the funder’s language, making your case more compelling and relevant. So, dive into the assessment criteria – they’re the path to a well-targeted and successful funding application.&nbsp;4. Be too modestIt’s easy to succumb to modesty and undersell yourself. While you definitely don’t want to come across as having an over-inflated ego, you need to make sure that assessors know you possess the talent and experience required to get that world-leading work done. When the blushes start coming to your cheeks, remind yourself that you’re putting yourself at the service of your research. If you care enough about your project, blowing your own horn seems much more tuneful.5. Be too needyFunders set rules about eligible budget items. Your organisation also has expectations about including costs where allowable. Understanding both expectations and walking the line between them creates a budget that works. Trying to be clever usually ends in problems and might cost your organisation. So, if they don’t fund international conference travel, don’t ask for it and don’t just do it anyway when the funding is awarded.6. Be one-track-mindedMake sure your research has room to flow and minimise any points where your project might get held up if earlier stages don’t work out. Hold-ups are risky to funders. Imagine you’re a boat sailing on a river, not a train running on a track – think about adjusting your sails to find a new way around an unexpected current instead of coming to a grinding halt when there are a few wet leaves on the line.&nbsp;7. Ignore the competitionAlthough you might think you’ve come up with a groundbreaking idea, it’s important to make sure you’ve done a thorough search of previous work in the field. If you assert that your approach is novel, but a reviewer knows otherwise, you automatically rule yourself out. Being realistic about the novelty and demonstrating how your work fits within the research landscape will impress a reviewer more than exaggerated claims of innovation and impact.8. Over-promiseYour project might have the potential to build 10-minute neighbourhoods that are resilient to climate change, but for the $100,000 funding available, you are only going to be able to investigate the synchronising of traffic lights. So say this – state the big picture, then say exactly what piece of that puzzle the funding will allow. A project that looks too big will be instantly dismissed. If you know you can do it, but it looks ambitious, state why you can get it done so efficiently and use the timetable to show your time frames.9. ProcrastinateWhipping up a grant application is like cooking a gourmet meal. Starting early ensures you can gather the finest ingredients: data, methods and connections. Nobody likes a last-minute invitation, right? Treat potential collaborators and stakeholders with respect. Just as a well-marinated dish tastes better, an early start lets your proposal mature, refining its flavours with feedback. With the luxury of time, your application will be a delectable success.&nbsp;10. Don’t sweat the small stuffThe guideline pages about formatting that you skip over...are important. You might think that they’ll never notice Times New Roman 11.5pt versus 12pt or tweaked margins and line spacing allowing more text. But when you are looking at multiple applications this can be spotted from 50 paces. Don’t give an assessor any reason to reject your application, and don’t annoy them before they even start reading.&nbsp;If you can avoid all these pitfalls, you might just find your perfect (funding) match!Grant Barrie, Laura Berrisford, Jennifer Crowther, Kathryn Mackinven, Sarah Molyneux and Tamsin Sheen are all members of the research funding team in Research &amp; Innovation at Te Whare Wānanga o Waitaha | University of Canterbury, New Zealand.If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week,&nbsp;sign up for the Campus&nbsp;newsletter.

Want your funding application to be rejected? Have we got some advice for you. But, seriously, don’t do these things and you might just find your perfect grant match

How to lose a grant in 10 ways

In research settings, we are often called upon to collaborate with others. When teams collaborate, the result can be greater than the sum of its parts, producing outcomes that no one team could complete alone. In this area, the research environment can turn to business strategists and organisational psychologists for generally agreed principles for cross-team collaboration that are required for success.

Seek common understanding 

We all tend to work with blinders on, immersed in our own reality of a situation. Too often, we assume that we know where others are coming from, and that they know what we think. Even within a research setting, where broad goals (such as translating research into practice or increasing sponsored funding) drive much of what we do, it can be illuminating to understand how other teams approach such goals. 


	Five tips for building healthy academic collaborations
	Building blocks of university-industry partnerships for positive change
	The challenges of creating a multidisciplinary research centre


For example, when a team of faculty works on a proposal to the US National Science Foundation (NSF), their approach and goals are likely to be distinct from those of a team that traditionally writes proposals for the Department of Energy. However, federal dollars are now flowing from agencies such as the US Economic Development Administration and NSF’s Technology, Innovation and Partnerships directorate, and these funders seek to combine, for example, foundational scientific research with applications in public settings that can have an impact on public health in local communities. Proposals for such grants require faculty teams that may not usually work together to collaborate. 

Without an understanding of how other teams work through their processes, putting together a collaborative proposal can be an exercise in frustration. Even something as seemingly simple as nomenclature can differ; for example, the NSF tends to use the term “objectives” in the same way that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) uses “aims”. (And reviewers are often put off when a proposal substitutes one term for the other.) In project meetings, the teams end up talking past each other, and confused team members feel embarrassed to ask for clarification. 

Cross-team collaboration should start with each team giving an overview of its mission, services and vision for the project, and no one should be made to feel incapable for not understanding processes and terminology outside their purview. 

Lay clear ground rules 

This may come as a shock, but many researchers do not automatically know how to work as a team. We can be driven by ego, lack active listening skills, be dismissive of those whose educational level or specialty we consider uninformed or prioritise the team’s tasks differently from other team members. 

Examining our own perspectives and those of others (see common understanding, above) can drive how we interact with others. Ground rules formalise what we understand about others and how we plan to work as a team. How often will the team meet? What is each team member’s responsibility if they cannot make a meeting? How will we give feedback that is constructive and moves the project forward? What are our expectations for how soon to respond to emails? How will we resolve differences of opinion? Who makes final decisions? 

Establishing ground rules that address such issues at the outset of the team’s work will help to avoid common problems and to address other problems when they inevitably arise.

Define and operationalise project goals and scope 

When research teams collaborate on a project, one of the most common pitfalls is scope-creep – that is, the scope of the project becoming larger to incorporate the diverse perspectives and objectives of the teams. Establish specific goals at the outset of the process and operationalise them. 

For example, if the teams’ goal is to design a space for interdisciplinary research in how people interact with technological augmentations (prosthetics, for example), their early work should focus on explaining what the space will be used for and what it will not be used for. The temptation with cross-collaborating teams is often for the project – in this case, the research space – to become all things to all people. Staying focused on well-defined goals is a cornerstone of project success. 

Address institutional leadership needs 

Cross-team collaboration in research can also be driven by a directive from the institution’s leadership. Consider projects such as strategic planning, writing or revising policies, addressing capital planning and the management of research space. Each requires teams to collaborate, not just among faculty but with staff and administration as well. When given a task or an established goal for the project, guidance on and updates to those outcomes should be driven by the needs of leadership. 

I like to think in terms of the client-consultant relationship. Teams should consider the leader of the project – the person(s) who has given them their charge – a “client” of their expertise and consulting. Teams should feel enabled to ask the leader (the client): what do you need from us? What do you need us to deliver by the end of this project? How much time do we have? What resources can we draw upon? And so on. 

These questions should be reconsidered over the life of the project, too, with regular check-ins with the leader. Forces outside the project may require the team to shift focus or methods over time. It is not uncommon for collaborative teams to dive into a project without clear guidance throughout, ultimately delivering something that isn’t useful to the client leader. 

Ensure communication has space for vulnerability and uncertainty 

Communication is likely the first principle that we think of when talking about collaboration, but it can be dumbfounding how often project teams fail because of a lack of it. So, let’s be absolutely clear: teams that do not communicate effectively will fail in all four of the above areas. 

A central aspect of communication across teams with different perspectives – and I know that this term is on the verge of being overused – is vulnerability (that is, having the courage to admit to our shortcomings and ask for help and understanding). Such actions are often disdained in higher education; after all, we scholars are supposed to have all the answers. Vulnerability means briefly putting aside what we think is best for the team and the project and communicating to our teams that we don’t have all the answers. That is likely the great driver for creating a cross-collaborative research team in the first place: none of us has all the answers. Asking others what they think, and keeping those lines of communication open, is paramount for successful team cooperation.

Collaboration among teams is increasingly required in the inter- and transdisciplinary evolution of academic research. Combining teams that don’t ordinarily work together has inherent risks. But the rewards, when the teams proactively consider principles such as those above, can be extraordinary. 

Rob Kadel is a senior research scientist and senior director of research programme administration in the Office of the Vice President for Interdisciplinary Research at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week,&nbsp;sign up for the Campus newsletter.

Research teams that might not usually work together are increasingly required to collaborate. Here, Rob Kadel offers five principles that underpin effective project delivery

Advice for effective cross-team collaboration for research

Any organisation that wants to make progress needs to embrace change. The same goes for academic research groups that aim to make a contribution to science. Often, change is needed not because things are not working well but because they could work even better. But change takes time. In an academic research group, most of the participants are students who will spend only a few years in the lab, so there is less time to change mentalities,&nbsp;attitudes and culture.

Change also requires self-motivation. With an academic research group, often the remuneration factor is missing, leaving the leader of such a group to develop other incentives for students. In a way, this is a welcome challenge since it allows professors to design a motivational pathway in which personal financial gain can be put aside, leaving a purer goal of “research for the sake of research” (or “for the sake of society”). Or to become the best one can be in a particular research niche.&nbsp;

So how can we implement change efficiently in an academic research group? In the first of a two-part series, I’ll use McKinsey’s 7-S framework,&nbsp;typically used to analyse businesses, to explore this.&nbsp;

Understanding the pieces of the puzzle&nbsp;

One prerequisite for change is a better understanding of the components of an organisation, whether it is a large company or a small research group. Change may occur in different aspects of an organisation, so it is important to be aware of the components that change affects and the interplay between them. This is where one of my favourite business frameworks comes in handy: McKinsey’s 7-S framework. The seven s’s in this model of organisational effectiveness stand for strategy, systems and structure (the so-called hard s’s), while the soft s’s are staff, skills and style. The remaining s stands for shared values and acts as the glue holding the soft s’s and hard s’s together.&nbsp;

I will discuss the hard ones first. It is critical&nbsp;to first&nbsp;define a clear strategy for yourself as a researcher and for your research group or, in other words, a set of answers to the questions:


	Who are we addressing?&nbsp;&nbsp;
	What is our value proposition (or&nbsp;research target)?&nbsp;&nbsp;
	How are we going to carry out the research?&nbsp;&nbsp;
	And, quite importantly, why?&nbsp;&nbsp;


We need systems to provide stability and coherence, and they need to be in place, even if roughly at the beginning, for recruiting and training new students, reporting and giving feedback and supporting other administrative tasks.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Structure helps everyone understand their responsibilities. In my group, I task the students with planning and executing the projects and the staff with supporting the administrative aspects. The professor’s role is to provide the broader vision, strategy, funding and constructive feedback as well as (when possible) providing hands-on support to students. &nbsp;


	Resource collection:&nbsp;How to promote your research for greater impact
	No one agrees on what research leadership is, let alone how to do it well
	To improve research culture, we must change the way we measure performance


The interesting thing about the hard s’s is that they are easy to change. You can easily alter your strategy, add or remove a certain system and even modify the structure of a research group.&nbsp;

The soft s’s (staff, skills and style) are by nature harder to change. Staff, in the case of an academic research group, consists of students who usually voluntarily join the research line promoted by the lab. It is often the students who select the lab and not the other way around. Therefore, attracting self-motivated students does require a bit of effort. To do this it is important to emphasise the attractiveness of the research. Ways to do this include maintaining an exciting website for your lab, sharing your research in seminars and lectures and preparing informative brochures to distribute to students. A social media presence can also be an advantage if properly managed.&nbsp;&nbsp;

Skills are also difficult to change because research skills cannot be absorbed in a short time. It takes long cycles of challenges and failures to properly embed them in students’ toolboxes. Developing skills also depends on the students’ drive for self-improvement and continuous learning.&nbsp;

Finally, the style of a research group –&nbsp;the attitude and decision-making approach of senior members of the group –&nbsp;is difficult to define, suggesting implicitly that it is also difficult to control. It is easy to lose track of an ideal style in times of challenge, but a good motto and solid philosophy can help keep the entire group on track.&nbsp;

Gluing everything together with shared values&nbsp;

Even if we optimise components of the two categories in this framework (the hard s’s and soft s’s) a research group may contain people focused more on structure and systems or skills and style. And that is OK, as long as there is coherence throughout the system. How can you ensure this? By having the same shared values. This is truly the hardest part of building any great organisation and it is even more challenging in an academic research group with a quick turnaround.&nbsp;&nbsp;

It is hard enough to identify our own personal values, let alone those of a whole group. Listing them is not enough, they must be communicated well, too. In my lab, we have a list of about 20 rules that can be summarised as values, emphasising teamwork, respect, creativity and honesty, and many others. We display this&nbsp;set of rules around the lab and discuss it often so that we gradually reach a common ground of solid values that we all share. It is important to embed these values in every action we take in the lab.

The next part of this mini series will explore another framework that research group leaders can implement in an academic setting. Let’s enjoy building change for ourselves and our research environment in an efficient and impactful way. After all, as Heraclitus noticed 2,500 years ago: “The only constant in life is change.”&nbsp;

Daniel Moraru is an associate professor at the Research Institute of Electronics at Shizuoka University, Japan.

If you would like advice and insight from academics and university staff delivered direct to your inbox each week,&nbsp;sign up for Campus&nbsp;newsletter.

Driving change in a research group

Embracing change is vital for research groups that want to make an impact, writes Daniel Moraru. Here, he outlines ways to do this while aligning with shared values that ensure consistency 

How to drive change in a research group, part one: Using McKinsey’s 7-S framework  

Peer-to-peer professional advice for academic research leaders, managers and administrators from universities around the world

Research management

Peer-to-peer professional advice for academic research leaders, managers and administrators from universities around the world

Latest resources

Elsevier helps researchers and healthcare professionals advance science and improve health outcomes for the benefit of society.

Discover Elsevier

Discover

More from THE

Sign up

Collaborate with THE

About

Legal stuff