Discover Elsevier

Research management

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


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?No one agrees on what research leadership is, let alone how to do it wellWe 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 knowledge

An 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

Research impact is an important indicator of the reputation of academics and their institutions. As director of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University (PolyU) Academy for Interdisciplinary Research (PAIR), a research platform dedicated to impactful interdisciplinary research, here are my thoughts on how universities can develop impactful research and make meaningful, society-changing findings.

Making research practical and influential

While theoretical research focuses on delving into the origins of the universe and human existence out of pure curiosity, applied research examines practical matters and seeks to generate solutions to real-world problems. It aims to bring direct, positive impact to society, across individuals, industries and communities.


	Driving change through knowledge: how to increase policy impact
	It’s high time we rethought policy impact
	Advice for effective cross-team collaboration for research


Research findings need to be translated into real-world solutions to have extensive practical impact. We need technologies, services and interventions that are accessible for adoption and use by society. This involves collaboration both within and beyond the university. 

PAIR collaborates closely with other key PolyU units, including the Research and Innovation Office and the Knowledge Transfer and Entrepreneurship Office, for the patenting and licensing of our solutions. We also collaborate with industry and end users so that innovations are designed to be fit for purpose. In this way, proprietary technologies can be adopted by government and industry, and related products powered by these cutting-edge technologies can be made available for purchase in the market.

An example of impactful research from a PAIR constituent unit is Liverscan. A palm-sized real-time brightness (B)-mode ultrasound imaging guided system, it was developed for liver fibrosis assessment, marking a major step in promoting a precise, effective and non-invasive method for diagnosing liver diseases in China. To manufacture and market the system, the research team founded Eieling Technology Limited, enabling the use of this patented innovation in a number of hospitals and medical examination centres in Hong Kong and mainland China. It will soon be introduced to the mainland Chinese consumer market. The start-up was listed on Forbes Asia 100 To Watch 2023.

The success of Liverscan is just one example of how applied research can achieve extensive impact through different interlocking processes, from research and development, assessment, patenting and licensing to marketing, and through collaborations at local, national and international levels.

Identifying research priorities

A clear, well-defined, appropriate research scope is another prerequisite for impactful research. But tackling complex societal challenges requires interdisciplinary expertise.

At PAIR, we have established 18 constituent research units, each comprising PolyU researchers from different schools and departments. Each unit focuses on applied research in a frontier area that falls under three key themes: advanced technologies and manufacturing, good health and well-being, and smart, sustainable cities. Responding to local development needs and the United Nations’ sustainable development goals, they provide innovative, cost-effective solutions that facilitate land, city and infrastructure development, promote physical and mental health, and support high-end, high value-added manufacturing and technologies.

As I noted previously, collaboration is key to impactful applied research. It should be embraced at various levels and include: interdisciplinary collaboration within and between research units and between these and other academic units; inter-institutional collaboration between the university and academic/research institutions worldwide; and cross-sectoral collaboration with industry and government.

On this, PAIR constituent research units have contributed to the university’s collaboration with industries, businesses, professional associations and government bodies in Hong Kong and worldwide. We have set up joint research projects, institutes, centres and laboratories dedicated to developing new technologies in diverse areas, including sports, advanced manufacturing, land development, human health and many more. &nbsp;

Overcoming barriers to interdisciplinary research

Collaboration is crucial in helping overcome obstacles when pursuing large-scale interdisciplinary research. It can help with enhancing cross-disciplinary communication among researchers so that team members with different expertise are aligned towards achieving a common goal. Sharing laboratories and equipment with other academic units can allow physical assets to be used effectively. Collaborating can also engage industries and top institutions worldwide, creating emergent research and funding opportunities.

Here are three examples to show how to provide this support:


	PAIR Researchers’ Corner is a regular activity, bringing together PolyU researchers from across disciplines for research exchange in a casual setting. 
	Institutions can hold regular research salons, allowing for cross-sectional exchange between researchers and industry representatives. 
	Encourage researchers to visit government and enterprise representatives frequently to explore the potential for joint projects and establish potential joint research units in frontier areas.


University research can – and should – take many different directions and forms. Achieve the end-goal of research impact through applied, interdisciplinary research that has a clear focus and generates practical, accessible solutions. The success of interdisciplinary research lies in collaboration – both internal collaboration within a university and external collaboration with industry and governments. It should be embraced at all levels within the university. 

Qingyan Chen is director of PolyU Academy for Interdisciplinary Research at the 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.

Maximise your research impact through collaboration

What’s the best way to achieve research impact? Qingyan Chen makes the case for an interdisciplinary approach

Maximise your research impact through interdisciplinary collaboration

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 practices

One 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 evidence

Rather 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-dependence

It’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 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 Thinkers

When 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 media
	Amplifying research: five features of successful impact generation
	Research excellence: what is it and how can universities achieve it?


How we recruit our workshop leaders

Thinkers 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 topics

These 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 writing
	Writing 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 workshop
	Creating an identity
	Giving a great interview
	Creating engaging, meaningful images
	Building confidence through coaching


Individual coaching is essential. For OpenThink it involves:


	Reviewing all blogs students submit for the first two months and providing individual feedback on their writing 
	Offering individual feedback on articles to submit to The Conversation Canada 
	Providing extra editing help to students whose first language is not English.&nbsp; 


Building comradeship 

Thinkers 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 meetings
	Encouraging Thinkers to read and repost each other’s X (formerly Twitter) posts
	Having Thinkers share their work in workshops and learn from each other as well as from experts
	Creating 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 beginning
	There must be one central resource person (a director) who provides year-long contact for Thinkers
	Institutions 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 reach

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 goals

First, 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 collaborations
	How to change research cultures to support the well-being of PhD students
	No one agrees on what research leadership is, let alone how to do it well


Across 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 context

It 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 robot

Being 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 workloads

For 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 impact

Effective 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. Audience

Before 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 sustainable

Many 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 equipment

You 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 brief

Often, 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 success

So 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 ways
	Devolved research funding in universities – a counter-narrative
	Love and money: why the search for funding is like romance


It 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 vision 

Look 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 questions

You 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 place

One 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 future 

If 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

“Plant a field of daffodils, one bulb at a time”: this was how a friend who had just submitted her dissertation described what it was like doing a PhD. It was when I was starting mine, almost 20 years ago. 

Now, having supervised 14 students myself, I find that students face two main challenges inherent in the process. First, when they start a law PhD, most students expect to find a revolutionary new way of solving law problems and are perhaps surprised, and disappointed, to find that most successful PhDs are about endless incremental steps, not one revolutionary insight. 

Second, with rising living costs, PhD students find it increasingly difficult to fund their PhD. It has always been my ambition to make a difference in supporting students who undertake a PhD. One aspect of this is helping students to find funding, looking out for funding opportunities through a variety of sources and tailoring the funding to each student’s circumstances. 


	Five steps to finding effective mentors in academia
	THE podcast: how to be a good mentor and mentee
	A vision for graduate supervision


Another aspect of this is to link your research opportunities to those of your supervisee and find synergies with your own research activities to promote their early career as a researcher. Networking is key – using your network to create opportunities for PhD students. One of my PhD students has recently spent a year working as a research assistant in Parliament, an experience that added depth of experience to the PhD. Two of my PhD students organised a seminar series, inviting high-profile speakers and participants, which created networking opportunities over the course of an academic year.

Understand your supervisees’ goals and ambitions

Another important aspect is to be ambitious for your PhD researchers. What is the purpose of their PhD? Beyond in-depth research resulting in excellent scholarly work, a doctorate might have many functions, and so it is important to discuss with the student at the outset what they are trying to achieve and to help them individually to reach that goal.

While part of our role is to realistically assess the feasibility of the project within the time and resources available, equally important is to pitch the project to the individual’s capability and appetite for hard work. 

While I am proud to say that about half my PhD students have produced brilliant dissertations that were published as books after completion, for some students, that has not been the goal. A PhD may be a route to career change, opening doors through expertise gained through a PhD. For others, it may simply be a lifelong dream to achieve a sustained piece of writing. 

For all of them, it is a process of learning how to build a high-quality research method, collect and analyse large amounts of information, and assemble this in a structured piece of writing, communicating the insights to others. This arduous learning process equips them with an important skill that is transferable to many careers. 

Use your own network to support candidates through challenges

With a PhD being three to four years of in-depth research, many students will hit a crisis point at some stage. It might be that life intervenes in ways that can be happy (for example, the birth of a child) or unhappy (bereavement). Or the research itself may not go as envisaged. Another of our main roles, I believe, is to support the student through times of crisis. This sometimes requires cajoling or insistence or patience and encouragement. 

Whatever the catalyst, it can help for PhD supervisors to involve their own colleagues in this process, especially if the student requires input from a person who is more distant from the research project. Our directors of graduate studies have always been helpful in giving advice and looking at a problem with a fresh pair of eyes. My recommendation to new supervisors is not to hesitate to reach out if they feel they need support in solving a PhD crisis.

Understand the difficulties of interdisciplinary research

Finally, in law, two types of PhD are challenging to do very well: interdisciplinary PhDs and PhDs involving comparative law. The challenge is mainly a question of access, namely accessing foreign laws or accessing the methods of a different discipline without having been trained in it. 

My personal experience is that only the most determined and talented PhD candidates are successful in carrying out comparative or interdisciplinary law PhDs, which, if methodologically sound, are an enormous amount of work. Access to foreign law frequently requires a local research stay, funding and language capabilities or translation. For interdisciplinary PhDs, this requires a supervisor in each discipline, good coordination between these supervisors and a willingness to learn, at least in a rudimentary way, the methods of the unfamiliar discipline. 

I have had great experiences with both comparative law and interdisciplinary PhDs, which have resulted in solid research and original insights, and believe they are definitively worth the extra effort.

Julia Hörnle is a professor of internet law at Queen Mary, University of London.

Julia&nbsp;has been shortlisted in the Outstanding Research Supervisor of the Year category in the&nbsp;Times Higher Education&nbsp;Awards 2023. A full list of nominees can be found&nbsp;here. The awards will be presented at a ceremony in Liverpool on 7 December.

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 directly to your inbox each week,&nbsp;sign up for the Campus newsletter.

How can PhD supervisors help early career researchers blossom? Support them with finding funding opportunities, understand each doctoral candidate’s motivations and reach out to your own network, suggests Julia Hörnle

How to foster PhD excellence

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

Being shortlisted for the Outstanding Research Supervisor of the Year award has made me look back at both a role I have undertaken for more than 20 years and my own experience as a PhD student. Most importantly, it has made me look at what it means to be a research supervisor.

One of the things I remember reading as a student is that a PhD is a journey. However, while you know where you want to end up, you might not fully appreciate what the journey will involve. There will be detours, delays, blind alleys and hills (or perhaps mountains) to climb. However, there will also be learning, new relationships, times when the journey is smooth and new paths to explore or perhaps even create. 


	How to help postdocs take a holistic look at career choices
	Giving and receiving doctoral writing feedback
	Spotlight:&nbsp;THE Awards 2022


Over and above this there is “life”, which continues despite the fact that you are doing a PhD, and this means that the whole range of events can (and often do) happen. What does this mean for the PhD supervisor who is a companion on this journey?

Preparing for and navigating the PhD journey

Looking at definitions of “supervisor”, most seem to include elements of overseeing the work of others and making sure that it is done in line with the required policies and procedures. While these are certainly part of the research supervisor’s role, they only tell part of the story. Going back to the journey metaphor, perhaps “tour guide” offers a broader understanding.

Tour guides often have experience of undertaking similar journeys themselves and can provide useful advice about both preparing for what is coming and how to deal with things that might be encountered en route. In terms of preparation, then, the key decisions are: what will the journey focus on? And where do you want to travel? 

As a research supervisor, I often find myself spending a lot of time with the student in the early stages of supporting a PhD journey working out exactly what the research question(s) are. Sometimes they will say they want to do a survey, but without a clear research question there is no way of knowing whether a survey is the right method. It’s like saying you want to travel by train to a destination where there are no trains. You might catch a train, but it will not get you where you want to be.

When to intervene and when to let students explore on their own

Tour guides understand the direction of travel and can make sure that the journey keeps on track. However, as a good tour guide understands, all travellers are different and all have their own needs. The guide needs to know when to intervene and when to step back, when to provide directions and when to leave the traveller to explore independently. They might also need to tell the traveller to slow down, speed up or even stop for a while. Research supervision requires all these actions, too.

Most importantly, good tour guides are good communicators and can develop effective relationships with those they are travelling with. Imagine undertaking a journey alongside someone who didn’t communicate with you, who didn’t explain things or who didn’t challenge you to look at things in a different way. A good guide will not only suggest the next stage of the journey but will also tell you why this stage is important and how it will help you to reach your destination.

One thing I have found important when supervising is to make sure I explain why I am suggesting a certain course of action and, when doing so, to say how this helps the candidate to arrive at their desired destination (the PhD). For example, when supporting students to write their methods chapter, I will try to show how providing a clear, well-reasoned argument for methodological choices will assist the reader (examiner) to understand why a particular approach was chosen. Later in the journey (the examination), this will assist them in defending why they did what they did.

Why PhD students should journal about their journey

Some travellers find that keeping a journal of their journey is helpful because it helps them to recall what they did and why they did it. I always recommend that students I am supporting keep a reflexive journal in which they can document key decisions, feelings, emerging insights and their personal progress. I always find looking back at the reflexive journal I kept as a student interesting, particularly where I have needed to rethink my approach. Without keeping track of this, I would not have remembered why such changes were necessary.

So, if the PhD is a journey, then perhaps “supervisor” doesn’t cover everything that is needed when taking on this responsibility. I am not suggesting that we be renamed tour guides, but I do advocate thinking about this metaphor when reflecting on our role and how we develop it. As a research supervisor, it has been a privilege to be a travel companion for several students and I have learned so much in this process. 

At the beginning of my supervisory journey, I don’t think I fully appreciated all it would entail. However, looking back, it has certainly been an enjoyable journey. Whether you are an experienced supervisor or just starting out, I hope that the journey metaphor helps you as it has helped me.

Ruth Northway is professor emerita of learning disability&nbsp;nursing in the Faculty of Life Sciences and&nbsp;Education at the University of&nbsp;South Wales.

Ruth has been shortlisted in the Outstanding Research Supervisor of the Year category in the&nbsp;Times Higher Education&nbsp;Awards 2023&nbsp;#THEAwards. A full list of nominees can be found&nbsp;here. The awards will be presented at a ceremony in Liverpool on 7 December.

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.

Reflecting on her own PhD journey as a supervisor and student, Ruth Northway offers her key signposts and mapping techniques to help candidates reach their destinations

Research supervisor or tour guide?

Doctoral researchers (DRs) report higher levels of stress and are at an elevated risk of mental ill health compared with undergraduates and the wider population. This is due not to pre-existing mental health problems, but rather to factors specifically associated with doctoral research programmes.

Yet this group is frequently left out of discourse around well-being support at higher education institutions. In fact, they need tailored attention. It is critical that those responsible for DRs’ pastoral care understand the elements that contribute to this issue to enable them to foster a healthy sense of well-being. 


	How to nurture socio-emotional intelligence in doctoral students
	How to combat the mental health crisis on campus
	Campus webinar: Student support and wellness strategies for a new term


The UK Council for Graduate Education (UKCGE) acknowledges the need for support in its&nbsp;Good Supervisory Practice Framework. Here, supervisors are informed that they should be aware of the personal issues that their supervisees might be experiencing and be able to refer them to the appropriate services. They are also encouraged to acknowledge that they can be role models (especially in the maintenance of a work-life balance). 

However, when this advice is applied to a cohort who rarely have personal tutors and are often absent from the dialogue about “student experience” in higher education, it can leave supervisors feeling a heavy weight of responsibility. 

Below are five ways in which universities can support supervisors to support their supervisees’ well-being.

1. Acknowledge that doctoral researchers are different

DRs’ stress levels might be exacerbated by (or can be attributed in part to) factors specific to the doctoral education environment (for example, isolation, role conflict and supervisory relationships). Doctorates are less structured than taught programmes; they aim to generate new knowledge, with each DR focusing on a tailored research question. DRs work exclusively with a small team of supervisors, over several years, and the relationship with this group is core. 

Their status within the university is unusual – somewhere between student and staff (for instance, DRs might support teaching, so they might have a contract as a tutor). By the nature of the entry requirements, they are likely to be older than typical undergraduate students, which often means that they have additional financial and caring responsibilities. They are frequently located in doctoral schools, with programmes governed by research rather than learning and teaching regulations. As such they sit outside the usual structures, yet are expected to seek support from centralised services that more regularly deal with undergraduates.

2. Have people dedicated to advocating for doctoral researchers

Universities need to have people who understand and can advocate for DRs. This might be a well-being officer within the graduate school to liaise with and support central well-being services. Regular communication between services is essential. Those delivering well-being support within the university need to be aware of the structures and nuances of the doctoral journey. University well-being policies and plans should highlight this.

Ideally, well-being should be part of the skills delivered within graduate school training programmes. This properly acknowledges their bespoke requirements and puts them centre stage (making it more likely that DRs will attend). Writing retreats, and time-management and psycho-education courses, have all been shown to enhance DR well-being. 

3. Train and support supervisors

Supervisors need support, too. Well-being should be part of supervisor training. In addition to raising awareness of DRs’ requirements, guidance in this area should also include supervisory roles and responsibilities. Equally important is setting out boundaries around what is not&nbsp;a supervisor’s role. No one is suggesting that they be required to become counsellors for their supervisees – in fact, this would be an inappropriate conflict of interest. Such training sessions offer supervisors a forum to share experiences and/or raise concerns and questions. Training can also enhance their confidence.

4. The importance of mental health literacy

The terms “well-being” and “mental health” are often used interchangeably. It is outside the scope of this article to distinguish between the two – however, some DRs will experience mental ill health. Many universities offer staff-development training in mental health literacy. These courses allow supervisors to be aware of the range of issues that can occur. They provide excellent grounding in what to do if a supervisor suspects a student is presenting with mental ill health, as well as appropriate boundary setting and when to refer them on. For DR supervisors, this helps ease the worry of thinking it is your sole responsibility to deal with such issues, which it is not. Supervisors need to be familiar with the referral processes and&nbsp;those who support doctoral well-being,&nbsp;and be able to signpost resources for their DRs.

5. Make well-being an integral part of the PhD experience

Being well should be an integral part of the doctoral journey. When our candidates are not well, it is likely to impede their experience and progression. It is also a potential stressor for the supervisor, which can affect their own well-being. Implementing these recommendations can help to make well-being support an integral element of the programme – rather than an uncomfortable extra burden for supervisors.

Jenny Mercer is a reader in qualitative approaches to applied psychology, principal lecturer and graduate studies co-ordinator in the School of Sport and Health Sciences at Cardiff Metropolitan University. 

Jenny has been shortlisted in the Outstanding Research Supervisor of the Year category in the&nbsp;Times Higher Education&nbsp;Awards 2023&nbsp;#THEAwards. A full list of nominees can be found&nbsp;here. The awards will be presented at a ceremony in Liverpool on 7 December.

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.

Doctoral researchers are often absent from university discussions around well-being support, writes Jenny Mercer. Here, she argues that their situation requires bespoke attention and sets out ways this might be achieved

Five ways to support PhD students’ well-being

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 ways
	Devolved research funding in universities – a counter-narrative
	A guide to writing grant proposals


Perhaps 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 funding

So, 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 for

To 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 honestly

The 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 alone

Sometimes 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 time

The 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 matters

Before 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 impact

1. 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 impact

Once 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 funders

If 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-narrative
	A guide to writing grant proposals
	All together now: how to write an interdisciplinary research proposal


2. Listen to your fear of rejection

Whenever 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 modest

It’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 needy

Funders 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-minded

Make 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 competition

Although 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-promise

Your 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. Procrastinate

Whipping 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 stuff

The 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  

Institutions are keen that their staff engage directly or indirectly with the public to improve knowledge transfer and provide informed viewpoints across topics of interest. The Covid-19 pandemic, for example, required continuous input and presentation of research findings from experts across a range of disciplines. 

However, with contributions to public commentary comes the risk of abuse. This can be through replies to social media posts, emails to the individual’s inbox or in-person contact. Numerous experts have reported abuse when commenting on the pandemic, with regular commentators receiving the most abuse as their profile has increased. 

We are three academics with a public profile, and a social media manager, at the University of Southampton, all with experience of receiving or dealing with cases of abuse or trolling. We organised an internal webinar in September 2023 to present to colleagues, and hear their views on this area, with the aim of improving awareness of support available and tips for dealing with unwarranted criticism (see Table 1).


	Five ways universities can protect faculty from online harassment
	How to prevent cyberbullying from rearing its ugly head in universities
	You’re not alone: tips to help academics avoid social isolation


The anti-vaccine lobby have long contributed streams of misinformation, along with abuse&nbsp;of and about individuals who aim to provide good-quality content about immunisation. Michael Head (a co-author of this article) is a regular writer on vaccine misinformation and has a regular stream of contact from “anti-vaxxers”, some of which is polite but wrong, and some of which is vile and abusive. Content can be racist, with references to vaccinations being equivalent to the Holocaust, and there are frequent accusations of genocide (their suggestion being that vaccines are killing people in large numbers – this is, of course, not remotely true).

In the past few years, discussions about the ethics of researcher safety – inclusive of mental and emotional health, and privacy and security online – have been increasing. This includes the mental and emotional well-being and self-care of researchers studying violent online phenomena, and the potential harms when disseminating findings publicly online. It is essential to consider the ethical responsibility of institutions, in both ensuring ethical conduct of research, and researcher safety. 

When researchers are targeted with abuse and harassment

Researchers can be specifically targeted with strategic forms of abuse and harassment – often because of their identity (ethnicity, religion, gender or sexual identity, for example). These tactics are used to silence researchers who attackers may disagree with or who have been identified as “enemies”. Ashton Kingdon (co-author) has researched online extremism, radicalisation and terrorism for almost a decade. The nature of this work includes infiltrating white and male supremacist online communities, leaving her open to targeted attacks by bad actors, including networked harassment, doxing, violent personal threats (including rape and death threats) and offline abuse as a result of individuals turning up at speaking engagements she has advertised online. 

Such campaigns can force researchers to stop using online platforms. Although the resulting disengagement is intended to be a solution to harm, it can have negative effects on researchers’ careers, given the increasingly important role of social media in connection to multiple audiences, developing collegial networks and building collaborations, as well as seeking funding and employment. &nbsp;

Female academics tend to receive offensive and condescending comments more frequently than their male counterparts from the same field. Larisa Yarovaya (co-author) is a regular commentator on cryptocurrency markets and has created a barometer that reflects our perspectives of where abuse is highest and lowest (see Figure 2). The crypto industry relies heavily on its media presence, with social media platforms such as X (formerly Twitter) often serving as the primary communication channel with investors and the community. Consequently, public criticism is not always well received. Factors such as gender, and even physical disabilities, can be used in trolling, making these comments particularly hurtful. 



  
      
  
    Image
                



          

  

Figure 2: Social media abuse barometer,
created by Larisa Yarovaya, University of Southampton



Institutional awareness of these issues can be limited, in large part because of the relatively recent advent of online research, and the quickly changing pace of online phenomena and practices. Occupational supports, essentially workplace accommodations, that are needed to address the impacts of such research include institutionally provided access to specialised trauma counselling, specific hardware and software to support safe research online, legal support in cases of networked harassment and online threats, and mechanisms to request extensions to research time frames or career milestones.


	
		
			
			Work on building your confidence through your expertise and knowledge – this may make it a little easier to ignore non-constructive criticism.
			
		
		
			
			Ignore and/or block those users. Remember – you don’t owe them anything, so don’t be afraid to block those who are not arguing reasonably or in good faith.
			
		
		
			
			Typically, don’t reply directly to the troll (their views are entrenched, they’ll happily lie/move the goalposts). If you have the energy and enthusiasm, you can counter their viewpoints for the benefit of the silent majority.
			
		
		
			
			Build a supportive, positive network of fellow experts and colleagues, who can help&nbsp;counter any unfair negativity.
			
		
		
			
			Step away from social media, and mute notifications (especially if there’s a “pile-on” from conspiracy theory-fuelled accounts).
			
		
		
			
			Comment instead on a different platform (for example,&nbsp;LinkedIn instead of X/Twitter).
			
		
		
			
			Reach out to your institutional social media or media relations colleagues, line manager or HR. And if you feel genuinely threatened, consider whether you need to seek legal advice through your institution or report to the police. 
			
		
		
			
			Consider which platforms you wish to communicate with. For example, if commenting on extreme individuals, being named on mainstream news (which significantly raises your profile) may not be beneficial. Also, consider being anonymous in news articles. 
			
		
		
			
			Ultimately, look after yourself. Develop self-care approaches that help you&nbsp;relax and clear your mind. There is no shame in seeking support from mental health professionals if the experience of bullying becomes overwhelming.
			
		
	


Table 1: Tips for&nbsp;managing or pre-empting abuse

How individual academics can respond to online trolling

At an individual level, if you find yourself on the receiving end of excessive negativity and are facing online trolling, here are key actions to consider.


	First, remember that trolls aren’t interested in honest debate and they’re not looking to be converted.&nbsp;Ignoring them can be effective, so try not to feed their attention-seeking behaviour by engaging. 
	If notifications become overwhelming, turning off app alerts is a sensible choice. For persistent trolls, immediate blocking prevents further contact or mentions. If you feel overwhelmed, temporarily tightening your privacy settings can provide respite. 
	In cases of defamatory or criminal content, record it with screenshots and report it directly on the platform. However, if a comment is a&nbsp;potential criminal issue, seek guidance on reporting to the police or consult your university’s legal team.
	Don’t forget that you’re not alone. Reach out to your line manager or your university’s media and social media teams for support. They should be able to help navigate these challenges and ensure that academics can continue to share their research and expertise with a wider audience.&nbsp;


Universities do have a duty of care towards their staff. However, staff may lack awareness of any institutional advice or guidance around managing content in the media or on social media. The guidance may be inaccessible or hard to find. It can also be out of date, with social media platforms evolving, and thus the risks of abuse changing rapidly, for example, on X (formerly known as Twitter). 

University assessment exercises, such as the Research Excellence Framework, and the thirst for expert knowledge around issues such as climate change or pandemics, show an ongoing need for university staff to speak out. Our efforts provide a starting point for raising this awareness, highlighting examples of good practice, and giving university staff tools and confidence to deal with adverse consequences when engaging in public commentary. 

Michael Head is senior research fellow in global health in the Faculty of Medicine; Larisa Yarovaya is associate professor of finance and director of the Centre for Digital Finance at Southampton Business School; Ashton Kingdon is lecturer in criminology; and Millie Downer is social media and engagement manager. All are 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.

Tips for public scientists on dealing with abuse

Communicating to the public can result in abuse of academics. Here, University of Southampton staff describe their experiences and provide tips on anticipating and dealing with trolling 

Dealing with abuse after public commentary 

The Silicon Valley ecosystem is permeated by an intoxicating mindset of optimism, risk-taking and seemingly limitless ambition, which underpins the proliferation of world-defining start-ups it produces.

But when you’re in a lab far removed from its rarified culture, the question of launching a Silicon Valley start-up can seem out of reach. Without privileged opportunity, how would you make the leap from pursuing your research to building a business that changes the world?

The opportunity to launch a start-up has never been more accessible than it is now, however. Covid and the rise of artificial intelligence have upended myriad business norms, and, historically, times of financial turmoil, like we are experiencing today, have seen many of the best start-ups get off the ground.


	Three big ideas to ensure research helps shape the future of business
	Dragon’s zen: how to handle the jump from HE to a commercial venture
	Spotlight:&nbsp;Why knowledge exchange is important for universities


But where do you start?

Here are eight actionable steps you can take now, whatever university you’re based in, to begin your own start-up journey.

1. Develop a mindset of “why not?”

Unless you’ve been there and experienced Silicon Valley first-hand, it’s difficult to grasp what’s so different and special about the place. It replaces “surely not” with “why not?”, creating what can feel like an alternative reality in which anything is possible – and that mindset drives vast opportunity.

Perhaps you cannot reach Silicon Valley, but you can choose who you spend time with. There’s insight in the well-worn phrase: “You’re the average of the five people you spend the most time with.” If you want to launch a start-up, seek out people with a similar goal and those who have done it before; spend time with them and digest their content online.

2. Ask yourself: what problem can I&nbsp;solve?

Too often, people drift with a pipe dream of becoming a start-up founder or get stuck with a particular technology or idea but forget to look outwards to find a problem they can solve. All great start-ups solve a relevant problem; the best start-up founders start with the problem and work back to the solution.

3. How big can it be?

Silicon Valley is built around the pursuit of enormous outcomes and accepting high failure rates – because when successes happen, they happen on a vast scale. For that to hold true, the problem being solved must be big, exceptionally big. Does your identified problem affect millions of people? Could it become a multibillion-dollar market? If the answer is “no”, can you reimagine what you’re doing to find a bigger context? If not, it’s unlikely to fit with Silicon Valley start-up expectations (no matter how interesting it is for you to pursue). You must think big.

4. Who cares?

With a positive mindset and a clear problem, now you need to sense-check whether anyone else cares about the problem. What do people do today because your solution doesn’t exist? Is there a pressing unmet need for this product (or service or app or technology), or is it peripheral? Look at The Mom Test, by Rob Fitzpatrick, for how to validate an idea. But also ask yourself: “Do I&nbsp;really care about this?” And be honest with yourself. Launching a start-up is all-consuming, so you need to be passionate about what you’re doing to sustain your effort in the tough times.

5. Start

So, you’ve ticked all the boxes above? What are you waiting for? Get going, start! The greatest cause of start-up failure is failure to start. Too many people count themselves out before they’ve even begun. What’s holding you back?

6. Embrace risk

One of the biggest barriers people face is their own fear of failure. In my experience, this is especially true in universities because you and your peers are typically high achievers in an academic context but have almost no commercial experience. It’s normal to fear failure, but, drawing on Silicon Valley’s example, you must first accept the reality that launching a start-up is inherently high risk and yet still replace “surely not” with “why not?” Surround yourself with others who share and encourage that appetite for risk.

7. Experiment and make friends with momentum

The good news is there’s far more that’s transferable from research to launching a start-up than you might imagine. Specifically, a start-up is an experiment. It’s about being a good investigator, then defining a hypothesis and a method to test it. What’s the quickest, cheapest, most effective way of testing your hypothesis? Take confidence from the skills you’ve developed as a researcher and transfer them to testing your start-up ideas. But more than that, switch your mindset around success and failure. You succeed if you run a good experiment that produces robust results, whether those results prove or disprove your initial hypothesis. The same is true in start-ups; when you run your experiment, you may not get the results you wanted. It may feel like failure, but it’s not; you’ve gained valuable data. Learn from it and move forward. The quicker you cycle through the experiments, the better. Momentum is key.

8. Get support

Finally, seek out support. Launching a start-up is hard, especially when you’re doing it for the first time. You need all the help you can get. Most universities offer support, so ask around internally, find out what help is on offer and get involved. Join local clubs and societies. If they don’t exist, start one.

Launching a start-up is a roller coaster; the highs and lows come with a lot of hard work but also many unexpected treasures and life-changing opportunities along the way. So, buckle up and enjoy the journey!

Ben Clark is the director of Future Worlds, the on-campus start-up accelerator at the University of Southampton. He has previously held leadership roles in multiple start-ups in the UK and Silicon Valley, both venture funded and bootstrapped.

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.

Eight actions to launch your university start-up

The good news is that times of turmoil are ideal for innovation – and far more skills are transferable from bench to IPO than you might imagine. Here are eight actions that will get your start-up off the ground

How do you leap from research lab to Silicon Valley start-up?

Find out how engaging non-academics in research can uncover and disperse new knowledge and ways of thinking that help shape solutions to seemingly intractable problems

THE podcast: unlocking people power through citizen science

Research that academics conduct without a grant from a funding council can be symbolically, culturally and even financially beneficial to universities, yet this unfunded research doesn’t seem to be valued institutionally. Research in the sector often appears to be as much about revenue generation as it is about generating knowledge. In Britain, unfunded research has even been termed a “budget deficit” for universities’ research income streams, and it can lack prestige when it comes to institutional systems of assessment and promotion.

Success rates are not distributed equally, either, not institutionally nor among academics. Analyses show disadvantages in research and development funding among regions and institutions, and also that UK&nbsp;Research and Innovation (UKRI) research funds are disproportionately granted to white, male, non-disabled academics. There are calls to remedy this situation; the question is&nbsp;how.


	A model for maximising the impact of small research units
	The secret to ‘levelling up’ is in cross-sector, community-based research
	To improve research culture, we must change the way we measure performance


Below, I consider two, linked, potential ways forward – valuing unfunded research; and devolving research funding, in the context of the UK’s planned 2021-27 Research Excellence Framework (REF), with its proposed shift of emphasis from individual outputs on to the contributions of institutions and from disciplines towards dynamic and inclusive research environments.

The value of unfunded research

Academics can undertake research without external funding. Recently, I&nbsp;set out to find out why they do this and to consider if it really is of little value to institutions.

Academics viewed conducting unfunded research not as potential income loss for their institution, but as a fundamental part of being an academic who was doing their contracted job – where a 20&nbsp;per cent to 40&nbsp;per cent research allocation may be built into employment conditions. Some did not need much in the way of financing for their unfunded work, especially where it involved secondary statistical analyses, existing lab equipment or online archival investigation. For others, the research was self-funded (rather than being unfunded). They met the costs of travel, overnight accommodation and other expenses themselves. In whichever case, considerable time was invested outside working hours. From this perspective, rather than income lost to university budgets, unfunded research could be seen as a drain on personal resources of time and money.

Overwhelmingly, the academics felt that the research needed doing and that research was an intrinsic element of being an academic. Their commitment to being an intellectually driven scholar who was making a contribution to knowledge was often combined with an aim to identify research priorities that were socially useful and unconstrained by some external agenda. Unfunded research might be the only way of testing theoretical and methodological boundaries, or seeing through projects that would benefit communities where no funder would be interested. On a more self-interested level, conducting unfunded research also boosted research profiles and produced outputs that their institution could submit to the UK’s REF.

Indeed, the processes and products of unfunded research are also of potential benefit to universities. Such efforts contribute to their national and international standing and reputation for scholarship, for example, and culturally they can contribute to the institutional research environment as well as feeding through into teaching and one-off courses.

There are financial returns to the university, too. Research motivated by the thrill of knowledge can result in original, significant, rigorous and peer-reviewed research publications for REF submission. Likewise, the commitment to making a social difference through unfunded research can result in impact case studies for submission to the REF. These can reap returns for the institution in REF-allocated funding.

Yet unfunded research remains subject to the drawbacks of lack of prestige and resources. Rather than calculating how much unfunded research costs institutions, higher education could work out and acknowledge how much value (in all senses of the word) it brings. Some initiatives regarding devolved research funding seek to do this.

Devolving research funding

Devolvement and redistribution of research funding is championed at regional and place-based levels to level up economic activity and productivity, keyed into local networks and founded on innovations and long-term orientations tailored to an area. But other proposals for devolvement place faith in trajectories of knowledge and motivations such as those pursued by academics who invest their own time and money in unfunded research. They focus on academics with the intrinsic impetus to pursue intellectual scholarship and community benefit.

The Dutch Royal Academy of Arts and Sciences has proposed a model of university-administered “unfettered” rolling grants that go directly to academics to pursue their own research priorities, operating alongside competitive funding. Allocations would be linked into institutional assessment systems and provided on a sliding scale depending on career stage, with the aim of stimulating continuous lines of groundbreaking research.

In another vein, rather than an institutionally assessed allocation, the University of Ghent recently agreed an internal model of basic research funding, in balance with a competitive system, where research-active academics receive an annual amount. Academics can use their allocation individually, merge their allocations and pursue imaginative and experimental joint research or fund a doctoral researcher. A universal basic research grant that enables risky, unconventional and curiosity-driven work is important in stimulating diversity of both coverage and researchers.

Devolved funding initiatives do not necessarily rule out competitive funding for projects, especially for large-scale, international or lab-based initiatives. But they do offer a way to way forward in the face of often fruitless costs of writing, reviewing and evaluating project applications, and administering the funding system. There also is a paucity of evidence that competitive funding guarantees greater innovation and impact. This is especially pertinent considering grant receipt inequalities for marginalised researchers, and that academics are putting their own time and money into unfunded initiatives that benefit their institutions.

Paradoxically, such a focus on secure funding for individual academics could contribute to the proposed upcoming REF focus on institutional investments in people, culture and environment, as well as output contributions to knowledge, and engagement and impact.

Rosalind Edwards is a professor of sociology 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.

Unfunded research could paradoxically add value to an institution’s output, profile and impact. Rosalind Edwards asks what lessons European initiatives can offer

Devolved research funding in universities – a counter-narrative

“Who is this guy? So he makes a study. I&nbsp;couldn’t care less.” Although retired Boston Celtics coach Red Auerbach was commenting specifically on Thomas Gilovich, Robert Vallone and Amos Tversky’s now famous study on “cognitive illusion”, his opinion could arguably (and that’s what we’re here for) be applied to any of us and our research.

So we do some research. Or some teaching. So what? As a careers consultant for researcher staff, I&nbsp;spend a lot of time with researchers exploring their research impact, for a lot of reasons: career progression, applying for academic roles, applying for fellowships, making grant applications, changing careers and more. I&nbsp;also notice that people are terrible at talking about the impact of their research, their teaching, their public engagement or their knowledge exchange.

They list tasks. Or responsibilities. Or technical skills. They use these lists to talk around their impact as if it’s a skeleton in a closet rather than something to be proud of.

Why it’s important to talk about our impact

The introduction of narrative CVs is making it more important than ever for researchers to be able to bring their impact into the light of day. Wider reasons that it’s important for us to succinctly and confidently state the impact of our academic activities include:


	It boosts our well-being and confidence to spend time reflecting on how our activities are making a difference
	It improves our feelings of personal agency and self-efficacy, enabling us to identify ways we can improve
	It provides us with direction and motivation – or motivation to change direction.


Start with the ‘So what?’ test

In careers work, we often encourage clients to adopt an employer’s perspective by applying the “So what?” test to CVs, cover letters and personal statements. “So, you did this thing. So&nbsp;what?”

“I lectured 280 students on archaeology and heritage crime.” So&nbsp;what? Who cares? Scrutinise your activities – what, when, where and how are you making a difference?

Questions you should be asking yourself include: where’s your impact? Is it in the topic? The number of students you lectured? Is it in your pedagogy and teaching style? Can you find evidence in the feedback? Is it in the assessment outcomes? Or was it in the engagement during your lecture?

A wise person once said to me regarding my own impact: “The things that are most important to you are not necessarily the most important things to an employer.” The same would be true for a funding body or a government policymaker or a member of the public wondering what value for money they’re getting. While an industry employer might not be particularly interested in your research, they will be interested in how you use your experience to give evidence of your competencies in, for example, budget management, project management or creative problem-solving.


	Resource collection:&nbsp;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


Think about your audience

Always consider who you are speaking to. What are their interests, their needs and the issues that are keeping them awake at night? What can you choose to say that will be of most interest to them? For example, has your modelling work in engineering had an impact on design? Has it reduced construction costs? Exactly how has your research contributed to advances in drug discovery? Have you explained clearly and succinctly how your research into inequality influenced local government policy?

When applying for academic jobs, PhD graduates and early career researchers often make the mistake of framing their impact solely in terms of the research they have done in the past. Yes, your track record is important as proof of your potential, but in recruitment and selection processes, you will be evaluated on having realistic plans: what impact will your future research have? Where will the funding come from? Who will be your collaborators?

When explaining your impact, remember that not everyone on an academic interview panel will be an expert in your topic or even a researcher in your discipline. Are you sure that your impact is understandable and interesting to a non-expert academic audience?

Find your fellowship

Speaking of narratives, the wisest hero/ines in any story rarely try to go it alone. They assemble a diverse team of companions to support their quest. While there are tools to help you identify and understand what meaningful impact is in your discipline on your own, these are only a useful starting point. Enlist the help of others to reflect on your activities. Find people you trust within and outside your discipline (and outside academia, even) to ask you the questions “So&nbsp;what?” and “Who cares?”

People unfamiliar with your work can see the forest and the trees; they can ask canny questions to make you reflect and, most importantly, aren’t hobbled by modesty – or disciplinary jargon. If owning your impact feels like bragging (although it isn’t), delegate to friends and colleagues until you get comfortable with doing it yourself.

Our impact belongs to us – and freedom to craft a narrative that will be appealing to our audiences belongs to us, too. Let me be honest with you here: you have the power to make people care about what you do, if you choose to use it.

Darcey Gillie is a careers consultant for research staff at the Institute for Academic Development at the University of Edinburgh. She also runs her own consultancy, The Career Doctor Online, specialising in career guidance, and leadership and management coaching. 

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.

Darcey Gillie explains the importance of talking about impact in higher education and offers practical steps on how to do it

So what? Who cares? The skill of talking about impact

The alternative format PhD, which is made up of a series of peer-reviewed research papers, is growing in popularity internationally. However, in the UK, universities have been slower to adopt the format. Policies, guidance and support on this alternative approach are patchy at best, recent research reviewing policies from 135 institutions revealed.

There is a lack of consistent guidance between universities, as well as between disciplines and supervisory teams. This is likely to widen existing inequalities in the experience of PhD researchers, both between and within universities. In this article, we explore how universities can support PhD researchers who are interested in the alternative format thesis.

Benefits and challenges of the alternative format

The alternative PhD format has various benefits. It can help candidates to learn about the peer-review process. The format can support researchers to develop strong international networks of collaborators. Publications are of growing importance in securing future employment in an increasingly metric-driven academic sector.


	Resource collection:&nbsp;what I wish I’d known about academia
	THE podcast: how to be a good mentor and mentee
	Giving and receiving doctoral writing feedback


However, there are also challenges associated. A focus on publishing can affect how candidates prioritise time and effort. This is often at the expense of other useful activities, including networking or contributing to wider research culture. The format is less suited to certain subject areas where traditional research papers are less common, or slower to publish. It can be complex to negotiate authorship with the supervisor. Pressure to publish can also be damaging for student mental health and can occasionally promote questionable research practices.

Supporting PhD candidates with the alternative format PhD

For those who are interested, there are several ways that universities can help PhD researchers decide whether the format is suitable, and to make sure that they are supported throughout the process. Here are seven recommendations:

Address unevenness in support for the alternative format across institutions. Only a third of universities sampled had guidelines about the alternative PhD thesis format, rising to 58&nbsp;per cent of research-intensive Russell Group universities. It is important to avoid differentiation between the experiences and opportunities that PhD researchers receive at different institutions, including the opportunity to submit an alternative format thesis.&nbsp;

Support candidates to make informed decisions about the alternative format. Perhaps most importantly, the format isn’t for everyone. It will be more appropriate for some researchers, disciplines and projects. University policies should provide guidance about the potential benefits and drawbacks, and prompt early conversations with supervisors, so that candidates can make an informed decision.

Adopt a common terminology across institutions. This seems quite a simple recommendation, but the alternative format has 14 different names depending on the university. Adopting a common terminology would help to facilitate comparison and shared understanding for candidates, supervisors and examiners across institutions.

Clearly define the role of the supervisor in the process. Supervisors play an important role in the publication of papers, but we know that quality of supervision varies. PhD researchers should not feel pressured by supervisors to publish. Universities need to provide clear guidance for how co-author arrangements are agreed.

Ensure appropriate recognition of the contribution of the PhD candidate. There have long been concerns about certain researchers not being properly recognised in collaborative research, based on seniority, race, gender and other forms of social difference. Most institutions that facilitate the alternative format thesis ask that candidates provide a statement describing their contribution to each paper. But they must also provide advice on navigating the authorship process and properly recognise the candidate’s contribution.

Offer flexibility in publication expectations. The number of publications expected varies widely, but most universities do not require a specific number. This flexibility is important. It allows students to overcome a major hurdle to the alternative format thesis by reducing the potential for the publication process to slow down PhD submission. It also accounts for different publication practices between disciplines.

Provide coherent guidance to potential examiners. Presenting a thesis where the majority of research has already undergone peer review is likely to change the examination process. But few universities make recommendations for what the exam should look like. It is important that universities emphasise that even if papers have undergone peer review and been published, they are not beyond examination. Sitting alone, a peer-reviewed paper is unlikely to constitute the body of original research necessary for a PhD qualification.

Caitlin Robinson is an academic fellow and proleptic lecturer at the University of Bristol. 

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 universities can best support PhD researchers who wish to produce alternative format theses, based on a review of institutional policies

How can PhD researchers be supported to complete an alternative format thesis?

As a practitioner-turned-academic, I have a predisposition towards academic research that betters the lot of humanity and/or our world. That is, advances in medical practice, environmental improvement or similar, where the evidence of improvement to people or the planet is tangible and not some strange proxy of “impact” according to the grading of an academic journal.

However, this hard line has rather adjusted over the past few weeks. And it was partly the doing of Jim Al-Khalili and one of his Life Scientific guests on BBC Radio 4. The detail evades me (I am 65!), but the overall thread was that a scientist had been beavering away for years on what appeared to be an arcane bit of biomedical research. Then, along came 2020 and Covid-19. Suddenly, he and his work were thrust to the forefront of combatting a pandemic through development of vaccines.


	How to publish responsible reproducible research
	Why learning to listen will help you avoid ‘helicopter research’
	How to succeed at policy engagement, part one: define your purpose


The point is that what may appear in the immediate term “academic”, without apparent practical application, can – at some future point – turn out to be groundbreaking, of great practical benefit and breach barriers through paradigm shift. In 1939, Abraham Flexner, director of the American Institute for Advanced Study, authored an essay called The Usefulness of Useless Knowledge. In it, he strongly argued for endeavour to make a better and fairer world, otherwise “millions will continue to go to their graves silent, saddened and embittered”. 

But he also argued that, in tandem, “unobstructed pursuit of useless knowledge will prove to have consequences in the future as in the past”. In other words, what you see is not always what you get. Instant gratification is fine and dandy, but there has to be room for the slowly unfurling value and impact of research. 

Einstein’s work on relativity, for example, underpinned development of atomic clock technology that enables global positioning systems (GPS). Flexner went on to cite the work of Clerk Maxwell (who?), whose 1865 experiments in the field of magnetism and electricity led to equations published in 1873. Years later, the well-known inventor Guglielmo Marconi was able to apply Maxwell’s formulae and thus radio was born. Flexner argued that Maxwell was a genius “without thought of use. Marconi was a clever inventor with no thought but use.” The relationship was symbiotic, whereby each needed the other, in the same way that a conceptual artist has ideas that more hands-on artists craft into form and being.

Similarly, in my own small town – best known for the arrival of the Winchcombe Meteorite in 2020 – there is a blue plaque in a side street celebrating Christopher Merrett (who?). It was Merrett, a founding fellow of the Royal Society, who first described the distinctive méthode champenoise, years before the French monk Dom Pérignon began his experiments. In 1662, Merrett presented a paper in which he described how to make sparkling wine: “Our wine-coopers of latter times use vast quantities of sugar and melosses [molasses] to all sorts of wines, to make them drink brisk [frothy] and sparkling.” Merrett had the idea; his Gallic colleague made it happen.

In a direct confrontation with market-driven teaching and research, Flexner asserts that institutions of learning “should be devoted to the cultivation of curiosity, and the less they are deflected by considerations of immediacy of application, the more likely they are to contribute not only to human welfare but to the equally important satisfaction of intellectual interest”. He also used a wonderful and graphic analogy: “Science, like the Mississippi, begins in a tiny rivulet in the distant forest. Gradually other streams swell its volume. And the roaring river that bursts the dikes is formed from countless sources.”

The mere fact that research can “bring satisfaction to an individual soul bent upon its own purification and elevation is all the justification that they need”. The process is the product (and the vehicle for unsought practical advancement).

American cancer specialist Anees Chagpar argues that there can be “wisdom contained within statistically non-significant or negative studies. These are not failures but rather insights upon which we can build future studies. In baseball, no one expects every hit to be a home run. In business, products continually need refinement and rarely resemble the initial prototype…As one of my mentors once said: ‘That’s why we call it RE-search.’”

So, what do I think the lesson is for universities in 2023? First off, academic managers can promote a balance between instant gratification and the pursuit of “pure” longer-term research. In other words, allow room for a diversity of inputs and outcomes. Clearly, the world is in a parlous state, given soaring summer temperatures, mass migration, poverty and war, so applied research with short-term gains is essential. But equally, as I have argued, knowledge acquisition is also a valid end in itself that – in due time – can be harnessed to practical effect. Rather like a relay race, the academic can provide research breakthroughs so that the baton, at some future point, can be passed to the implementer.

Looking at it dispassionately, even research-intensive institutions gain minority funding from research (as opposed to tuition fee income), so to an extent releasing some academics from chasing research funding to pursue their own interests can broaden knowledge acquisition away from the narrow channel of funder-driven priorities and short-termism.

Universities and academics also need to draw back from the headlong publication mill, whereby research of doubtful quality is published in equally doubtful journals – some of which charge for the privilege and appear years after the research was undertaken. Furthermore, journal editors can ensure that research is made available through open sourcing so that it finds its way into the public domain and there is increased chance of findings influencing policies and implementation.

Academics preach that students should question and then work toward their own evidenced conclusions. Shouldn’t academic researchers follow the same path, probing for ways forward, rather than reinforcing orthodoxy? Paradigm shift comes from such scrutiny – and thinking the unthinkable.

James Derounian is a national teaching fellow who lectures on the community governance courses run in partnership between the Society of Local Council Clerks and De Montfort 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.

The academic race for short-term results and practical applications must be balanced with research that can, in due time, become incredibly useful, writes James Derounian

Universities and academics need to make space for ‘useless’ research 

Academics have a special and fundamental role as the “critics and conscience” of society, which in Aotearoa New Zealand is protected by the Education Act. Academics have the right to explore controversial topics freely; however, this right comes with responsibilities. Engaging in controversy, even under the protections of academic freedom, means we should be careful in our attitude and approach to examining and sharing our expertise in topics that might raise an eyebrow. 


	How universities can help rebuild trust in science
	A vision for graduate supervision
	What’s your scholarly ‘next big thing’, and how should you choose it?


While I haven’t purposefully looked for controversy, I have been known to engage in difficult conversations and address topics that others might not feel comfortable discussing. I’m drawn to the areas of marketing that we need to talk about but often don’t. This includes researching, teaching and supervising students engaging with issues such as mental well-being, race, sexual assault, trolling, online hate groups and other difficult topics. 

Where to begin when dealing with sensitive topics

If you’re thinking of researching, supervising or teaching controversial topics, start with your institution’s policies on sensitive research. Let the norms of your institution guide you and, if in doubt, ask for support. 

Consider, too, the following points before engaging in a topic that might be considered controversial, especially if you are supervising research students or mentoring early career researchers. 


	Why do you want to work in this area? A sordid fascination with the macabre may be enough motivation for you, but is it the right motivation? Do you have the skills, knowledge, experience, access and insight to do justice to the topic? If you’re unsure, seek guidance from someone with known academic experience and expertise in the field you’re entering. 
	How will this affect your own reputation in the field? For better or worse, there will be people who treat you differently if you start working on controversial topics. Early in my career I was naive about how others’ perceptions of my work would affect their perceptions of me personally. I still receive hate mail from people who have been offended by my actions – I stand by the rigour and rationale of what I’ve done, but the work is not without consequence. 
	What support do you have before getting involved? And what support networks will you have in place while doing the work? Even the most resilient person will need help. If you are supervising a student carrying out research in a controversial area, support the person as much as you support the research. Check in on your team and make sure they check in on you. Seek support early and often. It is almost impossible to separate yourself from your work. When it comes to teaching these topics, be ready to provide health and well-being support, especially if there are triggers in your work. 


Sharing controversial research and its findings

How will you disseminate this work in a respectful and meaningful manner? Be aware that some research outlets might be wary of publishing controversial topics. There is no way to know what will happen until you start trying to get your findings out. 

How to engage with controversial topics in research and teaching

If, after critically considering the above points, you still want to engage with unconventional or controversial topics, keep in mind the following points. This list is not exhaustive but it is one I return to year after year. 


	How do I show respect for this topic? If you do not feel you can authentically engage with a topic and share it with the world in a respectful way, my advice is to turn back now. This is particularly true when engaging with people who might face stigma or intersectional prejudice. They do not need you and your work adding to their challenges. 
	Stay reflexive in your supervision and teaching of this topic. Keep thinking about how this topic affects you and others. And be mindful of the impact you have. Honour the topic but also those around you. I get excited about my work and sometimes will passionately talk about topics that others are not ready or willing to engage with. You don’t need to shy away from the work you’re doing, but remember that we are all on different journeys and we need to ensure everyone is comfortable taking that journey with you. I remember one year I was presenting research findings on furry culture and one of my research students walked out. He said he “just wasn’t prepared for this discussion today”. That has stuck with me, and I reflect on ensuring I don’t flippantly take for granted how a conversation affects others.
	Do no harm. It’s a phrase bandied around all too often but it’s important, and this includes doing no harm to yourself. I have extracted myself from difficult situations when I realised I couldn’t personally cope. I have wasted time, money and energy on topics that have not landed because I was not strong enough to continue that work. Do not force your students to carry out work they cannot cope with. Do not harm your participants by probing beyond what they’re ready to do. 
	Avoid unethical research practices. This should go without saying, but ensure there is rigour and transparency in your approach to these topics. One person’s unethical approach can further stigmatise the field of enquiry and make it difficult for future studies in this area. 


Why radical research has value 

Without controversy we all play in the mainstream. There’s nothing wrong with that, but we need the radicals to explore all aspects of our world, not just the mainstream ones. Exploring all our society has on offer means embedding ourselves in the spaces and places that some don’t feel comfortable exploring. An academic lens not only allows us to take a rigorous approach to enquiry, but carries a level of respect that can help destigmatise these “controversial topics”. It’s not for everyone, but those who want to play on the margins should do so in a mindful manner, fully aware of both the rewards and costs involved. 

Ekant Veer is professor of marketing in the department of management, marketing and tourism and associate dean of postgraduate research at&nbsp;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 newsletter.

Sensitive subjects such as trolling and sexual assault require a careful approach at all points – from examining your motivation before you begin and setting up support to sharing findings, writes Ekant Veer 

Engaging in controversial topics in teaching and research

Income and wealth inequality, rising living costs and environmental decline are impacting livelihoods across the UK and the globe. For decades, governments and policymakers have prioritised economic growth models with the aim of increasing gross domestic product, productivity and gross value added. However, critical to tackling inequalities within and across regions is social innovation, new thinking and cross-sector collaborations that benefit us all. At the heart of social innovation is the aim of providing secure livelihoods in more sustainable and habitable environments and driving social value that in turn generates economic value. A diverse pool of voices, beliefs and knowledge is key to achieving social innovation that meets the needs of everyone. 

For levelling up to truly succeed, the UK government’s approach to devolution needs to go beyond “trailblazer deals”&nbsp;with metro mayors and mayoral combined authorities. Decision-making needs to be shared with communities at the local level. 

Universities can play a key role in working with communities to create and share transformative knowledge. Citizen science is one way of working to unlock knowledge and value that exist in our local areas and communities but it is underused.


	The secret to ‘levelling up’ is in cross-sector, community-based research
	How universities can ensure they have a positive impact on local communities
	Changing lives through community engagement and outreach


Citizen science: an inclusive approach to learning and knowledge creation

Citizen science is the practice of involving members of the public in research that contributes to scientific knowledge. Examples of citizen science projects include the Big Butterfly Count and the Nasa Landslide Reporter.

A more nuanced and emerging area of citizen science is “citizen social science”&nbsp;– involving people in research projects focused on complex questions about human behaviour, how societies are organised, and our relationship to the environment. Citizens play a different role in these projects, from working with scientists to determine the problem and design research questions all the way to finding the solutions to the problems that we share.

By using citizen social science, championed by the Institute for Global Prosperity (IGP) at UCL, universities can draw on the research findings of citizen social scientists, offering richer insights into people’s lived experiences. This enables us to explore deeper meanings of prosperity at a local level, to develop more sustainable paths to well-being and build inclusive communities.

Embedding citizen science within institutions requires three key ingredients. First, a rigorous training programme in research methods and competencies in social science for community members, preferably in a non-academic setting. Second, establishing partnerships with other organisations such as local authorities, developers, businesses and community organisations to help with recruitment and the formulating of research questions and projects after training is concluded. Finally, a commitment to collaboration with citizen social scientists.

Our new UCL Citizen Science Academy certifies citizens to lead community-based research that can bring about policy change and social action. By joining the academy, community members, who do not require prior knowledge nor need to come from a research or academic background, will be trained in qualitative and quantitative research methods by the IGP. The bespoke training is linked to real-world projects offered by our partners where the citizen social scientists apply the research and knowledge equipped in practice. 

Once they collect their data or research, IGP researchers work with them through a process of co-design and co-production to translate their findings into outputs such as small visual and textual publications that reflect their lived experience, through presentations to policymakers and community organisations, or even as walking tours of particular areas with councillors and developers.

Championing transdisciplinary and place-based research 

Often termed “anchor institutions”, universities have the capacity to partner with organisations spanning academia, local and national government, business, the third sector and industry. This unique transdisciplinary and cross-sector partnership role is crucial for 21st-century universities and their interaction with places. 

As institutions with civic responsibilities, universities can help curate multi-stakeholder relationships in specific contexts, facilitating engagement with new thinking and enabling place-based research – with citizen scientists acting as the bridge with local communities. 

In the UK we work with government organisations such as the London Legacy Development Corporation, the Greater London Authority and local authorities such as the Olympic Growth Boroughs of Hackney, Newham, Tower Hamlets and Waltham Forest, alongside developers such as Lendlease and voluntary sector organisations such as Compost London and Hackney Quest, which recruit and employ the citizen social scientists as well as provide support throughout their training.

Diversity of perspectives and knowledge

Bringing people&nbsp;who may not normally get a say, despite being the ones impacted by such policies, into policymaking and decision-making processes creates significant benefits. 

First, a diverse set of citizen voices, values and knowledge leads to social innovation, which levelling up requires. Second, it means we proactively address the democratic deficit and, finally, it helps repair fractured trust between citizens and governments, building up social solidarity and social cohesion within communities.

Universities can do this by creating new social institutions such as the Citizen Science Academy and embedding practices such as citizen social science to challenge and expand on conventional ideas about what constitutes scientific and policy-relevant knowledge. They should co-develop place-based research with people in the places where they live to bridge the gap between lived experiences of residents and public service users, and the professionals who are in charge of formulating and putting policies into place. 

As civic institutions, universities need to continue working with others, including policymakers, charities and private organisations, to create opportunities to co-design research. The way universities conduct and undertake research requires transformation to take proper account of the realities of the 21st century, if levelling up is to succeed. 

Henrietta L. Moore is founder and director of the Institute for Global Prosperity, University College London.

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

Unlocking knowledge within local communities

With ‘levelling up‘ and regional prosperity now central to the UK government’s thinking, universities need to transform the way they conduct research to respond to emerging needs and provide solutions to today’s social, economic and environmental issues

Unlocking knowledge within local communities as part of ‘levelling up’

Few countries in Africa have achieved as much attention from global researchers, particularly from Europe and North America, as Rwanda, much of it pertaining to the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi, its origins and its consequences.

In conducting field research in Rwanda over many years, I have often heard Rwandans reflect their disappointment at the number of academic researchers who come to their country, make temporary connections to local people necessary for their work, and then leave with little follow-up and care for the individuals and communities with whom they have engaged. 

To be sure, this is not true of all researchers, perhaps not even of a majority, but it has been clearly and repeatedly expressed to me that it is frustrating to Rwandans on several levels. It is likely my experiences reflect a dynamic that is not unique to Rwanda nor Africa, but that typifies fundamental aspects of academic field research and knowledge production and dissemination, wherever they take place.


	How universities can help rebuild trust in science
	Five tips for building healthy academic collaborations
	When refuge isn’t safe: uncovering real-life stories to shape policy


However, it has particular relevance to researchers working in the Global South, where the gap between their economic and social resources and those of locals may be particularly great, creating asymmetries in discursive, political and economic power.

The value of friendship in research fieldwork

In this reflection, I want to suggest that bonds of friendship are bulwarks against the objectification and instrumentalisation that are all too common in fieldwork centred on individuals and communities outside a researcher’s own country or community of origin.

Friendship adds ethical and emotional dimensions that can make research – in process and product – more ethically and socially responsible, equitable, sensitive, responsive and consequential to locals generally and, in this case study, to Rwandan genocide survivors in particular.

Like journalists, humanitarian aid workers and diplomats, academics tend to “fly in and fly out”. Their end goals are often defined not by the relationships they develop with locals but by a product they are creating, which may be a doctorate, academic article or book.

This effort tends to orient their field experience, even if they make repeated visits or stay as long as a year. Friendships of differing qualities and degrees of closeness and significance that emerge from it are often incidental and short-lived (or sometimes do not develop at all) due to the nature of research, the gaps between visitors and locals, and the process and goals of academic knowledge production.

I argue that academics would benefit from greater reflection on and commitment to friendship. And here I mean friendship not in the sense of being more agreeable or social (though those are certainly positive) but in the ethically and emotionally substantive sense of a practice of caring, commitment and reciprocity. It’s friendship that should influence both the how of their research and the subjects to which it attends.

I want, in particular, to invite researchers in Rwanda – whether their field is development, humanitarianism, history, sociology, anthropology, political science or any other – to strive to make meaningful connections with survivors of the genocide against the Tutsi and forge friendships with them.

The bulk of research undertaken in Rwanda today and in the past decade not only does not centre genocide survivors, it minimally acknowledges them. This lack of attention to the perspectives, rights and welfare of survivors contributes to their marginalisation and further entrenches it.

A seed that can grow into deeper gratitude

Academic research needs to be more mindful of the types of relationships it privileges, and whether it allows for and encourages more genuinely dialogical, empathetic, and mutual and ethically sound ones of friendship and care that respect and promote human dignity and human rights and that are mindful of social justice.

Friendship is obviously not something that can be made a requirement of research, nor should it be. It emerges organically from patterns of connection, communication and engaging with communities as well as from relationships with a particular place, such as a town, neighbourhood or village, or an institution, such as a school or university. It can also happen most naturally on the individual interpersonal level. But the value of friendship needs highlighting because so often academic research happens outside the context of these bonds of affection and reciprocity, and mutual care and concern.

Friendship can also be offered as much as it can grow organically. Academic researchers should be mindful that much of our work can only emerge from the choices individuals make to act towards us in ways that are neither instrumental nor self-serving but stem more from the openness and magnanimity that characterise friendship.

Anyone coming from abroad to an unfamiliar country, where they do not speak the language and lack knowledge of the country’s history, culture and society, will require the assistance of many local people. Acknowledgement of both the range and depth of that assistance is a seed that can grow into deeper gratitude and long-lasting friendship.

While it is entirely legitimate for academic research to focus on a particular area or community, it is also important that researchers be mindful of how focusing exclusively on one such community – particularly genocide perpetrators – will exclude the most marginalised and disadvantaged. It will also privilege men and exclude women, because the overwhelming majority of Rwanda’s genocide perpetrators were men and its survivors mostly women.

In the case of Rwanda, academic researchers should consider how whatever one studies impacts survivors and how it could potentially help, harm or be indifferent to them, their human rights and their human dignity.

If researchers have spent months or years studying genocide perpetrators, for example – centring them in their research and publications, centring their speech and experiences, and centring their perspectives – researchers need to be mindful of the way this can contribute to the erasure of survivors in research, publications and public discourse.

French journalist Jean Hatzfeld, for example – author of Machete Season: The Killers in Rwanda Speak – shows tremendous sensitivity towards genocide survivors in Life Laid Bare: The Survivors in Rwanda Speak. He illustrates how it is possible to turn one’s attention as a researcher to survivors and their rights, welfare, narratives and experiences even if one also pursues parallel research on the perpetrators.

New paradigm of care and reciprocity

It is time for a paradigm shift that brings an ethics of friendship and care to academic research. This is particularly a challenge in my fields of international studies, international development and political science, but it cuts across academic fields.&nbsp;Reciprocity should characterise the relationships of researchers with locals, and locals should be asked to define what a meaningful reciprocity would look like for them.

A sincere and intentional ethic of friendship would go a long way to beginning to address structural injustices in academic research that marginalise genocide survivors and to advancing their human dignity and human rights. It amplifies survivors’ perspectives and voices, and efforts to secure justice and equity for them as individuals and as a community.

Noam Schimmel is a lecturer in international and area studies at the University of California, Berkeley.

This is an edited version of a blog “Towards an ethic of friendship in academic research: a reflection on Rwanda and survivors of the genocide against the Tutsi” first published on the Berkeley Blog. 

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.

Bringing ethics of friendship and care to academic research

Friendship adds ethical and emotional dimensions that can make research equitable, sensitive, responsive and consequential to local communities, writes Noam Schimmel, based on his experiences in Rwanda  

A case for bringing ethics of friendship and care to academic research

Academics face numerous pressures on their time even before managing the process of, for example, a five-year research project that needs to deliver real-world benefits.

Such a project at the University of Sheffield’s School of Law – titled Fortitude and funded by the European Research Council – aims to improve the “legal capability” of children in the UK. The project’s ultimate goal is to create gamified learning for children aged from three to 15 that will help them deal with legal issues they encounter in their everyday lives. For example, how does a child engage with a shop assistant who gives them incorrect change?


	A model for maximising the impact of small research units
	Five tips for building healthy academic collaborations
	How to change research cultures to support the well-being of PhD students


It is crucial – and difficult – for an academic team to ensure that a project like this is managed effectively and delivers its objectives. Managing research involves responsibility for other academics who, while accustomed to working independently, may be less familiar with delivering the outputs a project needs – and within a specific deadline. Plus, there may be a requirement to translate theoretical materials into something meaningful in the “real world” – in our case, devising gamified learning that children will use.

Adopting a project management approach in an academic setting – such as the PRINCE2 method, originally devised by the UK government to improve public sector project success and now used worldwide – can address the challenges of running a multi-year research project and avoid overwhelming academic teams.

Project management: the right discipline for managing research projects

A project – according to the PRINCE2 project management method – is defined as ‘‘a&nbsp;temporary organisation that is created for the purpose of delivering one or more business products according to an agreed business case’’.

Having a method to manage this entity means you have a safe and robust framework to operate in. It also helps ensure creativity and effective communication between team members. This is important because, without it, people tend to work in isolation. With a project management structure – including regular team meetings where people discuss problems and identify solutions – a team collaborates and tasks become actions and outputs.

The value of using a best practice method

Best practice project management methods such as PRINCE2 are the result of experts combining knowledge, experience and proven techniques gained from running various projects around the world.

Therefore, by either hiring a qualified project manager to run an academic research project, or training a relevant team member in the method, your project will be run according to clear principles:

− Defined project roles and responsibilities, which means people have clarity and there is less risk of just muddling through.

− A focus on deliverables (products or outputs), which ensures that everyone knows what the project aims to deliver.

− A business case to ensure that the project remains viable during its lifetime.

− Assurance, troubleshooting and audits to keep things on track.

− Learning and continuous improvement to avoid repeating mistakes and enhance quality.

− The ability to work with both an “agile” delivery approach (an evolving way of working involving regular testing and feedback) and a traditional “waterfall” project approach (linear and based on a plan agreed up front). For example, while our overall project approach is waterfall, briefing gaming companies to develop digital games for children is better handled with agile. But in either case, project management provides structure and control.

The key elements in PRINCE2 that help the research management process

There are numerous ways of working outlined in PRINCE2 that can support the management of a research project. These include:

1. The project plan

Having a project plan from the outset helps identify what a long-term project will look like, but with flexibility, as things might change. It also means that everyone involved can see the key milestones throughout the project.

2. Business case 

Developing and revisiting a business case ensures that the project either remains viable or otherwise closes. In our project, this involved completing the European Research Council Grant Agreement: a document that brings together all the information necessary to obtain funding for the research project. On an annual basis, we also need to provide financial and scientific reports that outline what’s been spent, what’s been achieved and what’s planned.

3. Project benefits

Identifying benefits acknowledges that a successful project should change something for the better. In a research management context, that could mean discovering something groundbreaking.

4. Specifying business requirements

Identifies what the project requires for success and helps when tendering for suppliers. In our case, we’re now going out to tender with gaming companies to produce digital or physical games for children based on our research. Therefore, we have produced a specification document for the requirements.

5. Identifying risks 

Pinpointing risks means anticipating what could impede the project and allows a project manager to find ways of minimising the risks and keeping stakeholders informed. For our project, we have a risk log that captures factors such as teachers’ strikes, which might mean school participants are unavailable at a crucial point. This helps us to replan an activity and keep the project on schedule.

6. Engaging stakeholders

Knowing who the project stakeholders are, mapping them according to their importance and agreeing how to interact with them ensures that they remain engaged throughout. For us, that can include internal stakeholders, such as the head of department in the university and external stakeholders, such as schools, who can support the project – and knowing how often we need to engage with them.

7. Developing a communication plan 

Having different methods and channels to communicate with stakeholders is vital to demonstrate the work you’re doing and to share results and learnings. For example, we’ve communicated research findings and successes of the project periodically when attending external conferences and academic events at the university.

8. Regular, formal reporting

Delivering regular reports to a research project’s funding body might cover the latest research findings and how you are managing the budget. Without such reports, your funding could be at risk.

9. Documenting lessons learned 

This helps the project team to reflect on different activities and how they could be improved next time. Questioning and capturing what’s gone well, what hasn’t and what you would do differently is also important for future projects.

How a project management method improves project outcomes

A project’s purpose is to deliver something new that will benefit an organisation or department. In other words, provide a positive outcome. In our case, having a project management method in place has helped us to deliver:

− An ethics approach for the project that meets both the University of Sheffield’s and the European Research Council’s requirements.

− A child-centred framework to measure legal capability, developed through research with children from a number of our partner schools.

− A GDPR approach that meets the requirements of the university and ensures the security of all personal data.

− A project website, which we have used as our key channel of communication for both project participants and stakeholders.

Replicating the value of project management in your institution

By including a project manager at the bid stage of a research project, the academic team can get dedicated support for the development of a project plan, which could then accompany their funding bid. And by sharing lessons learned and experiences gained across an institution, this can become the basis for developing and embedding best practice project management within any future projects.

Jon Gunnell is project manager at the University of Sheffield School of Law, 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.

Jon Gunnell explains how to adopt the PRINCE2 project management method to help overcome the many challenges of running a multi-year research project

How to use a project management approach to help run research projects

The Covid-19 pandemic has illustrated both the need for timely public communications from academics and high public interest in expert comment. The print, radio and TV media required continuous and urgent input from academics (among other stakeholders) who could provide pragmatic and informed comment on the evolving public health emergency. 

The UK-based Science Media Centre (SMC) was set up in 2002 to act as a bridge between journalists and academics, predominantly on the back of scientific scandals that were the result of poor journalism and lack of engagement from the scientific community. The misinformation of Andrew Wakefield and the false “MMR vaccine causes autism” claims is one example from that time. 

How Covid changed the role of university media teams&nbsp;

The pandemic led the SMC to compile a 2022 report, describing the changing role of university press and media teams and providing recommendations for addressing staff and knowledge gaps. The headline conclusion was that the role of science press officers has changed. It is more professional, with a broader remit and responsibilities, and it requires a much wider skill set. The report also concluded that often university researchers do not have the training or confidence to carry out media engagement, and that universities should prioritise research communications. 


	Tips for sharing research findings with diverse audiences
	How universities can help rebuild trust in science
	Don’t touch that dial: how to pitch and write for broadcast


In essence, a university communications team needs support and content from its academics, and vice versa. Topics of public interest – whether that be pandemics, dinosaurs, the kings and queens of England or nuclear physics – need informed comment and expert voices. But for press officers or comms teams, it can feel like crossing the divide to fully engage with academics. After all, what’s in it for the researcher to put their head above the parapet and speak to the media or the general public? It can be a hard sell.

Why academics should engage with the media

My background is in infectious disease epidemiology; when the pandemic came along, so did the journalists, to my inbox. I did end up being in the glare of the local, national and international media. I’ve been interviewed on BBC Breakfast, CNN and Al Jazeera, and appeared on television in South Korea, Ghana and Sri Lanka, among others. The overall TV audience will total hundreds of millions of people. About 2.6 million people have read my articles in The Conversation (a far greater number than will ever read my journal papers). Overall, it has been an overwhelmingly positive experience. The media were very professional with their experts and are skilled at their jobs; having dealt with hundreds of journalists, I could count the number of bad ones on the fingers of one hand. 

It was this media engagement that triggered a new, innovative role within the University of Southampton. I now have a one-day-a-week post as advocacy manager. The aim is for me to act as the bridge between comms staff and academics. This means I need to reflect the needs of the communications units, including university strategy, to my fellow academics. I also bring both the concerns and enthusiasm from the academic side of the fence over to the communications directorate. 

There are many reasons an academic may not do public or media engagement. They can include simply not knowing how to take the first step, a lack of confidence that they are the right person, perception that the public would not be interested in their work or concerns about abuse on social media. 

We have found that even if a comms person says: “It’s fine, honest”, there may be little engagement. If a fellow academic reinforces the messaging and says: “It’s fine. Here are the pros and cons from my experience”, that can be a little more convincing.

Training to develop a media-ready skill set

Though my advocacy manager role, we have been carrying out training sessions for University of Southampton academics, along with informal one-to-one sessions. This has included tips and tricks for engaging with the media, highlighting the support services available, answering the “how to” questions, and modelling successful approaches to writing in the public domain for places such as The Conversation or Campus. For example, we carried out a writers’ retreat – typically these have been used for academics to shut off their emails for a day and write a journal paper or grant application. Here, our approach was to systematically take people through the pitching and writing of an article to develop their lay summary-writing skills. 

The media team receive requests from journalists and sometimes search our user profiles to find the right expert. Thus, we’ve highlighted the importance of an updated institutional profile. We’ve also encouraged our staff to sign up to the SMC mailing lists, under their area of expertise. 

I’ve been using my experience to highlight the positives and occasional negatives of doing media work. One of my research areas is anti-vaccine activism and countering the misinformation from those communities. Therefore, for me, the negatives would typically be the antivax or Covid conspiracy theory crowd getting in touch. That inevitably results in some “fun” emails in my inbox, and it is important to highlight that this can happen. Where there is public interest, there is public criticism.

However, media engagement has been an overwhelmingly positive experience for me. You get the satisfaction of a job well done in providing timely expert comment. Bonuses include an increased public profile, a university that is pleased to have you in the public eye, admiring glances from friends or relatives, and also (importantly) increased impact and outputs from your research. 

The link between public communications, impact and the REF

Ah yes, that dirty word, “impact”. The draft guidance is now out for the next UK Research Excellent Framework (REF) review. For those who don’t know, this is how universities are assessed, and the results influence aspects such as levels of government funding, attractiveness to students and funders, and university rankings. 

It appears the next REF will decrease the previous focus on journal papers and citations, with new references to “the broader contributions to research and research processes”, and a suggested change from measures of “impact” to “engagement and impact”. The fine detail will follow in due course, but it seems clear the next REF is flagging an intention to assess how institutions and researchers go beyond their latest scientific manuscript, to showcase what else we do. 

Therefore, we return to the SMC’s point around prioritising public communications, and the need for universities to evolve their thinking to create and harness enthusiasm from their staff. We feel that, with an academic like me “bridging the gap”, this can result in improved and sustained enthusiasm from like-minded colleagues across the university. 

Michael Head is a senior research fellow in global health in the Faculty of Medicine and advocacy manager 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.

Science communication in a post-Covid world calls for a new way to span the gap between researchers and university comms teams – and a new skill set, as Michael Head explains 

A bridge between academics and communications staff

Many scientists in small research units face the same problem: they generate much impactful research yet find it difficult to find the extra time and resources needed to promote their projects to the public. Additionally, handling event logistics and marketing campaigns can be challenging and will distract researchers from focusing on their research. However, recruiting a dedicated person to manage these administrative tasks in a small research unit is costly and inefficient. 

Thus, an effective administrative team operating across various research units can help to reduce those coordination and logistical issues, streamlining the administrative work of constituent research units and helping to facilitate successful research initiatives. Most importantly, this allows researchers to concentrate on generating larger-scale and more impactful projects. The Hong Kong Polytechnic University (PolyU), where I work, has established just such a quasi-centralised research resource, and here I present advice for others who are interested in doing the same. 

Quasi-centralisation in research management

First, when undertaking quasi-centralisation the managerial independence of constituent research units should be largely retained. However, alongside this, centralised administrative support is provided by the new quasi-centralised unit, because this affords a third way between the two traditional organisational models – centralised and decentralised – each with their respective strengths and shortcomings.

&nbsp;


	Five tips for building healthy academic collaborations
	Questions to foster open and engaging research communication
	Why learning to listen will help you avoid ‘helicopter research’ and make you a better science communicator


A centralised approach involves a single leadership team conducting strategic planning, goal setting, budgeting and talent deployment tasks. This can bring benefits that include: economies of scale; standardisation of procedures and adoption of best practice; increased collaboration among research and academic units; easier external stakeholder engagement.

However, it is worth bearing in mind that a centralised approach might not enable some potential features of a decentralised mode, which include: encouragement of innovation; research talent empowerment; swift decision-making.

Implementing a quasi-centralised model 

A quasi-centralised approach leverages the strengths of centralised models while trying to avoid the impact of some of their limitations.

Take our university as an example: each research institute or research centre is led by a dedicated management team, which determines specific research directions, projects to be undertaken and planned development, as well as steering the unit’s day-to-day operation. This enables administrative independence. 

Before establishing the quasi-centralised unit, several research institutes already operated on a standalone basis as administratively independent units. Despite remarkable success in securing grants and successful research initiatives, these units often needed help in their day-to-day operations, and coverage of their impactful research projects relied totally on the university’s communications and public affairs office.

While the research institutes and centres still retain very considerable autonomy, the overall utilisation of resources is now overseen by the quasi-centralised unit, which provides comprehensive administrative support, including human resources and financial management, marketing, editorial assistance, event organisation, IT support, and website development and maintenance.

With this quasi-centralised model, duplication of administrative resources can be avoided. In addition, researchers can be provided with the expertise and experience (for example, in organising events and marketing campaigns) that are outside their academic remits but are essential for amplifying their research impacts and reducing potentially distracting coordination and logistical issues. Most importantly, while providing centralised administrative support, quasi-centralisation better enables research units to focus on innovation, collaboration and the generation of larger-scale impact. 

Leveraging the unit to develop a research brand strategy

Among the various functions of the quasi-centralised unit, one is to help narrow the divide between research and the commercial world by explicitly and effectively developing the university’s branding. Branding helps to give a university a more precise research identity, one that is not simply defined by research achievements. The marketing of that brand determines how its research achievements and values are communicated to attract funding, talents, partnerships, knowledge transfer and commercialisation opportunities. 

By adopting a collective brand strategy, the research units under that joint brand can have a more significant positive influence on the marketing productivity of the university as well as on its societal impact. The collective brand projects a clear, consistent and accessible vision of interdisciplinary collaboration, achieved through effective management of events, social media channels, fellowship schemes and publications. This increases brand exposure, expands the institution’s network with local and overseas universities and industries, attracts competitive talents, helps disseminate research findings and reflects research excellence. 

An approach to success

It is critically important to effectively and efficiently manage institutional research to bring together individual research talents within a university and thus maximise their impact on the institution, the community and the wider world. A practical approach is required to provide a quasi-centralised management framework within which individual research initiatives can be nurtured to success and research outcomes translated into real-world impact.

Qingyan Chen is director of the PolyU Academy for Interdisciplinary Research at The 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&nbsp;THE Campus&nbsp;newsletter. 

Qingyan Chen explains how adopting a quasi-centralised management approach can help stimulate large-scale research

A model for maximising the impact of small research units

Effectiveness and success in academia rely on collaboration. From academics teaching courses in teams of two or more, to working on institutional accreditation projects with colleagues or engaging in collaborative research with co-authors. To generate the high-quality outcomes and outputs institutions crave, academics are encouraged, even expected, to collaborate, underpinned by an assumption that people know how to work well together.


	Take care over sharing: guiding student teams on collaboration
	Clear communication as the key to international collaboration
	Make a difference: collaboration and participation in arts-led research


Unfortunately, we’re not taught how to do it. We learn on the job, sometimes through challenging situations, resulting in damaged relationships and hurt egos.

Collaboration is a key skill that shouldn’t be overlooked. Here are five tips for building healthy academic collaborations.

1. Be clear about the content of the collaboration and everyone’s roles within it 

We sometimes get involved in a collaborative project because it triggers our enthusiasm and passion, or perhaps because we are invited by a colleague we like or admire. But sometimes we don’t think about the implications of saying “yes” before committing. It’s important to find out exactly what is expected of us, and everybody else, in order to avoid expectations not matching up to reality.

Risks: If responsibilities, roles and deadlines aren’t clear, it’s likely that one or more collaborators will get confused and frustrated, that important tasks aren’t completed on time – or at all – and that the team ultimately will not want to continue working together beyond this project.

Discuss: What will the project involve? What are the responsibilities of each collaborator? What deadlines can you expect? What is the scope for negotiating tasks and deadlines if things don’t go according to the plan?

2. Treat collaborators (and expect to be treated) equitably

Individuals will hold different roles in a collaborative project. Very often, your colleagues will be people at different career stages with varying levels of experience, expertise and academic acumen. Bringing together everyone’s competences and ensuring that all collaborators can fulfil their role in the project can be challenging enough, but introducing unnecessary hierarchies among collaborators is not only unhelpful, it can jeopardise the team’s efforts.

Risks: A lack of equitable treatment poses the danger of engendering a sense of disrespect, unfairness and exploitation among the collaborators, creating a negative atmosphere and destroying goodwill. In addition to this, unnecessary hierarchies can become an obstacle to leveraging the potential of all members, particularly those who are less senior and experienced, to fully contribute to the project.

Discuss: Is there a shared understanding that everyone’s contribution, regardless of their formal rank, is important to the project’s success? How are team members going to address situations where someone feels they aren’t treated equitably?

3. Remember: it isn’t (just) about you

Because performance evaluations in academia usually take place at an individual level, when engaging in collaborations we might be thinking about a project primarily through the lens of our own priorities and benefit. While this is understandable, it’s helpful to consider and collectively work towards everyone’s interests, not just one’s own.

Risks: Without an understanding of the importance of the project to one another, there is a risk that team members will lack empathy and will prioritise their individual benefit rather than that of all collaborators – and the project itself. When the project’s success is of a higher priority for some team members than others, a risk of free-riding and exploitation emerges.

Discuss: How important is the project to everyone and are all collaborators committed to working towards its success? Are project tasks equitably and appropriately distributed, without a disproportionate reliance on those for whom the project is of a higher priority?

4. Be respectful of all collaborators’ external commitments and well-being

People often juggle different work-related projects simultaneously and in parallel with personal commitments. For example, one collaborator might have a busy schedule of family caring responsibilities, whereas another might decide to focus primarily on the project even beyond normal working hours. Or, in a research collaboration, one person might be working on the project during their research leave without major distractions, whereas another might be balancing their project work with a heavy teaching load and/or health issues.

Risks: A lack of respect towards one another’s commitments and well-being needs can give rise to tensions and unhelpful mutual perceptions in the team, leading to resentment and conflict. For example, one team member might be perceived as “pushy” and “insensitive” in their expectations of others’ productivity levels, while another might view other team members as not working hard enough.

Discuss: Is everyone able to fulfil their tasks as agreed at the outset of the project? Are the practical arrangements within the collaboration (dates/times of meetings, ways of communicating, etc) designed and agreed with everyone’s circumstances in mind? Is a team member’s right to disconnect respected within the collaboration (for example, as a general principle, no evening/weekend/holiday time emails and meetings)?

5. Practise kind, clear and transparent communication

When working on a project it’s possible to become so focused on its objectives and deadlines that one forgets about paying attention to the collaborative process, and especially to ensuring effective communication. Remember: the tone, content and transparency of communication aren’t additional features in a collaboration but, to a large extent, they constitute it.

Risks: Inappropriate communications – for example, using an overly familiar or exaggeratedly emotional tone – can give rise to anxiety and discomfort in the recipient and, eventually, cause them to withdraw from communicating within the team or perhaps from the entire collaboration. A lack of clarity and transparency in communications – for example, including only some members in discussions that are relevant to everyone – can feed mistrust and create further communication barriers.

Discuss: Are all team members committed to communicating in a professional manner? Is everyone conveying their messages clearly, sticking to the point, and without dominating communication through excessive verbosity or emotional exaggeration? Is the tone kind and comfortable for everyone? Is everyone included in communication that is relevant to their involvement in the project?

While we academics must take responsibility for our actions and decisions when it comes to building healthy collaborations, crucially, universities also have a responsibility to provide collaboration-related support and training to graduate students and staff at all careers stages in order to help them develop the necessary skills.

At the very least, failing to help facilitate positive working partnerships or support staff who are struggling under the weight of a problematic project will result in disengaged, discouraged team members who may be unlikely (or unable) to take on future collaborative opportunities. At worst, institutions may find themselves becoming less competitive, with academic reputations, rightly or wrongly, called into question.

When conducted skilfully, harmonious collaborations do not only benefit the individuals and teams involved, they also underpin the success of academic institutions in developing educational and research excellence internally and actively sharing it for the benefit of all in society – exactly the principles a university is supposed to stand for.

Martyna Śliwa is professor of business ethics and organisation studies at Durham University Business School, UK, and vice-chair for equality, diversity, inclusivity and respect at the British Academy of Management.

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.

Collaboration is a key skill in academia, but nobody is ever taught how to do it effectively. Martyna Śliwa gives advice on how to work well with others

Five tips for building healthy academic collaborations

On 28 February 2023, the League of European Research Universities (LERU) launched its report on holistic doctoral supervision. The report provides an outline of practices that enable “productive supervision”, with numerous examples from member institutions.

The document calls for mandatory supervision training. This is an issue we have researched extensively in South Africa. While our context varies considerably from that of LERU, we believe that some of our findings will be of wider interest to any institution intending to introduce such training. 

1. Supervision training must be offered by credible experts

Universities increasingly have units tasked with providing staff training. There is also an entire industry of higher education consultants for hire. Our research suggests that neither of these groups make suitable supervision training facilitators. Those courses that were offered by established researchers with significant supervision experience were far more likely to be evaluated by participants as having offered meaningful engagement. This is important because, as the LERU report notes, training needs to “provide tangible benefit” and participants need to perceive it as an “effective and efficient use of their time”. 


	Co-creation: how to find the ‘super’ in supervision
	Setting up right is crucial for supervision success – here’s how
	Giving and receiving doctoral writing feedback


2. Supervision training must take context seriously into account

There was resistance to supervisor training that worked off a premise of generic best practice. Supervision of a funded team in a chemistry laboratory requires a very different approach from the supervision of a self-funded English literature candidate studying part-time. Participants became disengaged if the training failed to acknowledge such differences. 

3. Supervision training cannot be a one-off endeavour

While the LERU document calls for “short, modular” training opportunities, it also points out that development opportunities need to be available over a range of formats and across time. Our research suggests that it is much easier for universities to offer one-off workshops than to ensure ongoing informal opportunities for supervisors to obtain the support they might need, when they need it. Thus, targeted efforts to provide ongoing support are needed.

4. Supervision training must go together with enhancing institutional research environments and processes

If a university offers a supervision training course, it should not be under the misapprehension that it has done all that is needed to enhance doctoral education. As the LERU report points out, a full range of research-oriented services can support supervisors and doctoral candidates. It might be that LERU’s member institutions, by virtue of being research universities, already have multiple opportunities for supervisors and doctoral candidates to share their research and to learn from each other. But this was certainly not the case for our participants, many of whom work in institutions where the offering of doctorates is a new phenomenon and where research seminars and the like are rarely available. Such universities might mistakenly believe that, if only the supervisor was properly trained, doctoral retention and completion would be addressed. Our research suggests that the structure and culture of the institutional environment in offering opportunities for broadening research knowledge and personal development is every bit as important in the doctoral candidate’s experience as the quality of the supervision they receive.

5. Supervision training needs to be about development of practices and not compliance with processes

If the supervision training is understood as a set of generic skills to be transmitted to a course participant, it is doomed to failure. Our research indicates that where supervisor development opportunities were crafted as spaces of collegiality and connection in which to discuss the complexities of doctoral education with experienced doctoral supervisors, they were far more likely to be evaluated as offering a meaningful engagement.

Mandatory or voluntary?

The LERU report argues for mandatory supervisor training. Our participants had mixed views on this issue. Many did argue that training needed to be mandatory because well-regarded researchers did not always make the best supervisors, yet they were the least likely to attend training voluntarily. The LERU report suggests that there could be a case for some “talented researchers without sufficient people skills” being permitted to pursue their research goals without being compelled to supervise. 

On the other hand, some participants suggested that making training mandatory could position it as required by management and thus less likely to be seen as a space for genuine engagement and personal development. If the training is perceived to be another compliance requirement in a managerialist environment, this could result in what we described as “passive attendance”. It also means that the facilitators of such courses need to expend a great deal more energy in ensuring that participants understand the space to be educational, collegial and developmental rather than managerial and focused on monitoring and compliance.

Doctoral education is increasingly complex, and supervisors need developmental support. But training courses will prove effective only if they are appropriately designed and implemented.

This advice draws on the following research by Puleng Motshoane and Sioux McKenna:

Crossing the border from candidate to supervisor: the need for appropriate development 

“More than agency: the multiple mechanisms affecting postgraduate education” Pushing boundaries in postgraduate supervision

The mechanisms conditioning doctoral supervision development in public universities across South Africa 

Sioux McKenna is director of the Centre for Postgraduate Studies at Rhodes University; Puleng Motshoane is an academic developer and senior manager in the Centre for Academic Technologies at the University of Johannesburg.&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.

What constitutes effective training to ensure research supervisors are well equipped to work with doctoral students? Sioux McKenna and Puleng Motshoane share advice based on their research in South Africa

Five characteristics of effective supervisor training

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