ARMA GRABS BIRMINGHAM BY THE HORNS€¦ · dr simon kerridge chair of the board of directors. Association of Research Managers and Administrators. CONTENTS. editor Rosemary Peters

SENSE OF SUPPORTCHANGE IS COMING John Rogers, ARMA’s Deputy

Chair, reflects on recent

changes to the UK’s

research landscape

INTRODUCING VISTAS ARMA's new journal

providing hard evidence to

help you optimise your RMA

decision making

SNOWBALL METRICS Creating a common set

of definitions everyone

can use

ISSUE 3 Spring 2016

AR M A GR ABS B I R M INGHA M BY THE HORNSANNUAL CONFERENCE TO TAKE PLACE IN THE WORKSHOP OF THE WORLD

The

PR

OTA

GO

NIS

T A

proponent for or advocate of the profession ISSN

2397-1665Issue 3 Spring 2016

w w w. a r m a . a c . u k

ww

w.arm

a.ac.uk £7.50

Protagonist_Issue_3_Cover_Spine.indd 2 25/02/2016 17:07

IS YOUR PROJECT PART OF THE CONVERSATION?

From brochures and posters to infographics, video and website development, Research Media offers all the services needed to tell your project’s story with clarity.

95% of projects featured* said they would recommend Research Media to:

• Communicate project impacts and fi ndings to a broad audience

• Reach global stakeholders and funding agencies

• Fulfi l project dissemination requirements

• Increase project visibility

• Serve project partner and stakeholder needs

For information, contact Research Media now quoting reference: ARMA

+44 117 911 3477

[email protected]

www.researchmedia.com

@ResearchMedia

www.inorms2016.org

11th -15th September 2016

Come and visit us at our booth at ARMA

Interna5onal Network of Research Management Socie5es Interna5onal Conference International Network of Research Management Societies International Conference

Come and visit us at our ARMA exhibition stand

www.inorms2016.org

11-15 September 2016


No 1

T H E P R O TA G O N I S T

T O T H E T H I R D E D I T I O N O F T H E P R O TA G O N I S T

IT has been a turbulent few months in the UK research sector. From the Higher

Education Green Paper to the Spending Review, the country has been inundated with governmental reviews and reports, and across the research landscape, debates are raging regarding how best to shape its future.

In this edition of The Protagonist, we look forward to hearing from John Rogers, Director of Research at Stirling University and Deputy Chair of ARMA, who will examine these recent policy developments and discuss what the future might bring.

We will also hear from Cancer Research UK about its projects and funding opportunities, in addition to what it is like being a research manager and administrator in one of the UK’s most popular museums. Moreover, Dr Alison Hay, Research Developer at Glasgow School of Art, will reflect on the transition from research management and administration for scientific research to arts and humanities.

ARMA’s bi-annual professional magazine for research managers and administrators

Looking deeper into the 2016 calendar, this issue of The Protagonist will also provide you with information about the upcoming INORMS International Conference, which is taking place in Melbourne 11-15 September, as well as ARMA’s Annual Conference, which is taking place in Birmingham on 6-8 June.

I hope you enjoy reading this issue and remember, if there is anything you want to see included in the next issue, just let us know!

W E L COM E

dr simon kerri dgec hai r of th e board of di rectorsAssociation of Research Managers and Administrators

C O N T E N T SeditorRosemary Peters

commission i ng editorJayne Black

[email protected]

contri butorsAlicen NicksonDr Alison HayAmy FirthCasper Hitchins David CoombeDr David ScottGary Attle Harriet FranklandJennifer StergiouJoanna Zapisek Dr John Rogers Lily BullLouise EvansDr Lucy WheelerMichelle DuryeaNicola FroggattPam JacksonPaula GouldRichard BondTamsin MannTina DonnellyDr Simon Kerridge Dr Steven HillVicky Williams

designClaire HatchLaurie AtkinsMark EvansMike HillMyles SkinnerOrlagh MurphyPaul MartinSuzie ElandTom Sydenham

editorialKatherine MacInnesKatie Lewis Stephanie Spurr

V I S T A S

A J O U R N E Y I N T O T H E U N K N O W N ?

K E E P I N G T H E ‘ S N O W B A L L ’ R O L L I N G

ARMA is launching a professional journal to help you optimise your RMA decision making

Dr John Rogers, ARMA’s Deputy Chair, reflects on recent changes to the UK’s research landscape

What is Snowball Metrics and how can it help you?

F E A T U R E S

22

24

40

No 2


R E G U L A R S

4The bulletin

4 9In touch

5 0Dates for the diary

5 2The final note: Vicky Williams

B I R M I N G H A M C O N F E R E N C E

6ARMA Annual Conference 2016

A R M A

11Michelle Duryea introduces the 2016 INORMS conference

14What can ARMA membership offer you?

16Breaking down myths surrounding our qualifications

18Nicola Froggatt on how museums and universities can collaborate

2 0How five members plan to use their Joan Hughes Bursary

P O L I C Y

2 8Dr Steven Hill discusses how to build a successful research culture

3 2Tina Donnelly explains the importance of Athena SWAN

F U N D I N G A N D M A N A G E M E N T

3 4Be a part of a cancer research revolution

3 6Dr Lucy Wheeler highlights the Royal Academy of Engineering study tour

3 8UWE’s Richard Bond on the past two decades of research and funding

4 2How to work with arts and humanities researchers, using Glasgow School of Art as inspiration

4 4Solicitor Gary Attle outlines legal issues surrounding universities and research

I N D U S T R Y

4 6Tamsin Mann and Amy Firth analyse PraxisUnico’s survey on knowledge exchange and commercialisation

Produced byresearc h mediaIn association with arma

Printed byc harlesworth presswww.charlesworth.com

Extracts may only be reproduced with the permission of Jayne Black in her capacity as ARMA Policy and Communications Officer

No 3



No 4

Following a comprehensive review of the ARMA Mentoring Scheme, ARMA is pleased to announce that it is now open for applications.

ARMA’s Mentoring Scheme facilitates one-to-one relationships that enable more experienced members to share their knowledge with colleagues who are new to the profession or who require support in a particular area. Mentors and mentees can select from a range of development areas, including how to manage people, advice on career progression, addressing risk management, time management and more.

Mentoring provides an opportunity to ask questions, share new ideas and develop knowledge and understanding in a dedicated, supportive environment. A mentoring relationship is based upon encouragement, challenge, openness, mutual trust, respect and a willingness to share knowledge and learn.

The call for participants takes place annually between January and April. The scheme is now open and will close on 15 April 2016. You will then be paired with a mentor/mentee and notified by Monday, 9 May.

For more information visit the website (www.arma.ac.uk/mentoring-scheme) or email Harriet Frankland at [email protected].

Nominations are in for the upcoming ARMA Board of Directors election, and there are four spots to fill: Chair, Director, Treasurer and Director of Conference Planning.

ARMA accepted statements from candidates in support of their candidature up until 2 March, and these statements will soon be circulated to voters with ballot papers.

ARMA's Directors will be appointed through a membership vote that will be ratified by the Returning Officer and approved at the 2016 ARMA Annual Conference. This will take place at 8:15-9:00 on Tuesday, 7 June at the Hilton Birmingham Metropole.

T H E B U L L E T I N

MENTORING REVISITEDELECTIONS TO THE ARMA

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

No 5

TM


ARM A AWARDSNow in its second year, the ARMA Awards celebrate innovation and success within the research management and administration profession. Nominations are now closed and the judges are making their decisions. Finalists will be announced Monday, 18 April and winners will be announced at the Awards Dinner on 7 June, Birmingham Hilton Metropole.

The ARMA Awards are proudly sponsored by Research Media.

RCUK BECOMES AN ORCID MEMBERIn December 2015, Research Councils UK (RCUK) joined ORCID, and it is starting to capture identifiers.

Following a report earlier this year by Jisc, with contributions from ARMA members, RCUK has identified the ORCID ID as the leading standard for a researcher identifier. The uptake of ORCID across the sector will help reduce administrative burden and improve the management of research, particularly the drive towards the interoperability of systems.

ARMA looks forward to continuing its work with Jisc, RCUK and ORCID in the future to improve research management and administration in this area.

INTERESTED IN WRIT ING FOR THE PROTAGONIST?ARMA is always keen to share different perspectives and issues in research management and administration. If you have an idea or some expertise that you want to share with fellow members, why not write an article for issue 4 of The Protagonist? To find out more just email [email protected].

ARMA welcomes letters and comments on any of its news items or articles for a future discussion page.

PROFESSIONAL AND CAREER DEVELOPMENT LOAN AVAILABLE Research managers can now apply for a UK Government Professional and Career Development Loan to complete the Certificate in Research Management.

The Certificate in Research Management, developed by ARMA and accredited by the ATHE, is a part-time qualification suitable for professionals with at least four years’ experience. It gives students the opportunity to gain recognition and accreditation of their skills and knowledge at a strategic operational level.

The Professional and Career Development Loan enables students to pay back the cost of studying for the Certificate over time. Moreover, whilst you are studying, the Government will pay back the interest on the loan.

Visit http://bit.ly/PCDLoan to find more information about how you can apply.

No 6


A R M A A N N U A L C O N F E R E N C E 2 0 1 6H I L T O N B I R M I N G H A M M E T R O P O L E , 6 - 8 J U N E

No 7


THERE has never been a more important and exciting time to attend ARMA’s

Annual Conference, as this year’s event promises to deliver something special.

The huge changes to the sector signalled by the Green Paper – in addition to those in the Nurse Review of the research councils and those in the Stern Review of the Research Excellence Framework (REF) – and how they might affect you, would have themselves been more than enough reason to entice you to this year’s conference.

While it is true that this year’s conference promises to be at the epicentre of the most pressing research policy issues facing the UK today – those of far greater importance than the locus of funding or the nature of the selectivity exercise – here at ARMA we are concerned that none of these measures will address the real elephant in the room: the continuing and unsustainable underfunding of the research base across the UK, notwithstanding the general delight with which the science and research settlement in the Comprehensive Spending Review was received.

ARMA AWARDS The 2016 ARMA Awards celebrates innovation and success in research management and administration. Supporting pioneering, world-class research requires innovative and effective research management and administration. Winners will be announced at our 2016 Annual Conference Awards Dinner on Tuesday, 7 June at Hilton Birmingham Metropole.

TM


No 8

LET’S GET SOCIAL There is a host of social and networking activities on the agenda to provide opportunities to meet fellow colleagues and to ensure that you get the most out of your 2016 ARMA Annual Conference experience. Networking is an important aspect of the conference and the flagship event brings together professionals from across the sector to gain experience of new areas of research management and administration, in addition to invigorating the community by sharing experience and good practice.

Please note, all aspects of conference are provisional and the final agenda is yet to be confirmed.

For this reason we are working with Nick Hillman, Director of the Higher Education Policy Institute, to undertake a review into research funding as a whole. We are delighted to announce that Nick has agreed to launch his report at the ARMA Annual Conference 2016 – a conference that also marks the culmination of our Silver Anniversary year.

We are immensely grateful that Madeleine Atkins has agreed to join us on the second day of the conference to provide a considered reflection on the report and its recommendations, and to place them in the wider context of UK research policy.

If that were not enough, with your help and input, we have put together another comprehensive range of special seminars from a variety of speakers from within the

university system as well as external experts and international representatives. As ever, ARMA’s Annual Conference aims to promote excellence in research management and administration by sharing best practice through workshops, plenary sessions and networking opportunities. It is the perfect opportunity to learn from colleagues and experts and to share your knowledge.

This year, we have tried harder than ever to provide a balanced programme pitched at every level, and more clearly marked as such – from sessions designed both for those new to research administration and for specialists, to ‘research into research administration’ sessions for those who want to delve more deeply into their interests. We are indebted to a number of important speakers for agreeing to offer us master classes and debates, including Phil Baty, James Wilsdon and many representatives from across our funding bodies.

In addition to these sessions, the 2016 ARMA Annual Conference will showcase a poster competition, a commercial exhibition and our second ARMA Awards, a social programme to break the ice

and help you develop networks, Special Interest Group meetings, good practice exchanges, and the usual opportunities to meet funders and others over informal drinks and talks. Moreover, to make the conference – which has doubled in recent years – easier to navigate, we are providing pathways through the programme to help you, whether you choose to focus on your core areas of interest or to expand your horizons into unchartered territory.

Join us for the launch of a major new report into research funding in the UK


No 9

SELECT SESSION HIGHLIGHTS

IMPLEMENTING AN ONLINE ETHICS APPLICATION AND REVIEW SYSTEM AT BRUNEL UNIVERSITY LONDONSpeakers: Jo Lakey (College Research Manager, Brunel University London); Jac Aldous (College Research Manager, Brunel University London)

As with many institutions, the process of Ethics Approval at Brunel University involves multiple stakeholders and departments, each requiring different information from applicants. Ethics at Brunel is managed through three College Research Offices – Health and Life Sciences, Business Arts and Social Sciences and Engineering Design and Physical Sciences.

Over the past year, Brunel has streamlined the approval and review process by implementing one central system, which is used by all Colleges for all applications. Infonetica’s online ethics management software Ethics Review Manager was chosen for this purpose. Brunel’s College Research Managers worked closely with the Governance, Information and Legal Office and Infonetica to configure and test the software before it launched in July 2015.

The session will focus on the experience of implementing the system from the College perspective, sharing the lessons learned in applying a standardised procedure to the very diverse academic disciplines within the University. There will be an opportunity for participants to view Brunel’s Ethics Review Manager system and understand the processes the University has put in place. The session will also provide a forum to discuss best practice for ethics review approval more generally.

INVESTING FOR IMPACT: DEVELOPMENT OF A TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH PIPEL INE IN A UNIVERSITY/NHS PARTNERSHIP Speakers: Dr Paul Craven (Head of Clinical Research Operations, Imperial College London); Dr Sarah Wagstaffe (Head of Research Strategy, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London)

Demonstrating and measuring the impact of research beyond academia is an ever increasing requirement of all institutions; driving innovation and the translation of research findings into clinical benefits for patients being a key measure of impact of basic biomedical research. Imperial has created an environment where biomedical innovation can thrive across the College and the Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust. This environment enables its researchers to translate their findings from the laboratory into improvements for patients and impact on health outcomes.

Craven and Wagstaffe will detail the unique translational research strategy that has been developed with emphasis on the strategic deployment of both funder-devolved and College funding streams, key partnerships and initiatives and the crucial infrastructure of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Imperial Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) that have allowed a step-change in the culture of translation research. They will also describe how Imperial’s operational functions around clinical research delivery have evolved in the light of national NIHR performance metrics and the shift of emphasis from clinical research governance to feasibility, capacity and capability. Finally, they will examine how the strategic and operational functions dovetail.

RESEARCH AND THE GLOBAL UNIVERSITY Speakers: Dr Vaughan Shilton (Research Funding Executive, Coventry University); Keith Goodall (Head of Research Funding, Coventry University)

As UK universities increasingly develop their physical and virtual presence overseas, the need for alignment of research and internalisation strategies becomes ever more apparent. Internationalisation, though, is often driven or heavily influenced by undergraduate and postgraduate student recruitment. Target territories for such recruitment may not always be the most obvious ones for developing institutional research links.

This session looks at the potential tensions between the drivers for internationalisation of teaching and those for research, with particular reference to the Coventry University experience, where both internationalisation and research growth are key strategic priorities. It discusses both the challenges and opportunities associated with the alignment of international and research agendas, particularly from a modern university viewpoint, and it offers pointers on how research support staff can become integral to helping shape the priorities for the internationalisation of research at their institution. No prior knowledge is assumed for participants, though those with relevant experience will be invited to share their observations and reflections.

ENHANCING PASTORAL CARE AT DOCTORAL LEVEL Speakers: Aline Giordano (Doctoral College Manager, University of Southampton); Jayne Calvert (Enabling Services Manager, University of Southampton)

There is evidence that the number of doctoral researchers reporting mental health issues is on the increase. The language employed is changing – from ‘stress-buster workshop’ to ‘build your own resilience’. In effect, this approach places the onus on the individual student to recognise that the going will be tough and to toughen themselves up to deal with it. The reality is that pressures of PhD study itself can drain candidates of their emotional capacity.

The University of Southampton Doctoral College and Enabling Services are leading a project that aims to review the pastoral care needs of its postgraduate researchers and the effectiveness of non-academic support to formulate a set of recommendations for implementation. It will also investigate supervisors’ perceptions of non-academic support. Insight will be gained through desktop research, surveys, focus groups, case studies and visits to other universities. The session will present initial findings and act as a platform for discussing key complex problems around pastoral care needs and non-academic support for postgraduate researchers.

No 10


TA K E A T O U R O F O U R N E W W E B S I T E S

A R M A AWA R D SVisit our new ARMA Awards website to celebrate innovation and success in research management and administration.

A R M A A N N U A L C O N F E R E N C EVisit our dedicated ARMA Annual Conference website to view this year’s full programme, take a look at this year's plenary speakers and get regular updates on conference news.

www.armaconference.com

www.armaawards.com

I N T E R E S T I N G T I M E S C A L L F O R

I N T E R N AT I O N A L I N N O VAT I O NIs your head spinning as you try to keep up with the megatrends impacting research management and administration, from keeping your international researchers connected to diving through a downpour of metrics and data? Michelle Duryea notes that you are not alone and explains why the 2016 INORMS conference is the place for you

No 11


No 12


THERE is an old saying that goes: ‘May you live in interesting times’. In the

ever-evolving global research landscape, the poignancy of this saying is increasingly appropriate for the research management profession, although I must also admit to pondering whether it was intended as a blessing or a curse!

I’ve not long returned home from the most recent annual Australasian Research Management Society (ARMS) conference, which was held for the first time in Singapore, the youngest of our chapters. We discussed much, as is often the case at these forums, about the ‘interesting times’ in which we live and the increasing need for us, as research managers and administrators, to remain flexible, adaptive and responsive in this ever-changing world (see #arms2015 on Twitter).

RESEARCH AND ITS M ANAGEMENT KNOWS NO BORDERS The theme of this ARMS conference was ‘Research Management in a Global Context’ – extremely relevant given the registration profile. It was exciting to participate and engage with attendees from across the globe, with 40% of registrants being first-timers. Countries represented included Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, China, Denmark, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Philippines, South Africa, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, West Africa, the US and the UK.

What became apparent to me during the course of the conference is that, although we may all hail from a diverse range of countries and geographic regions, the emerging ‘megatrends’ shaping the research horizon are unsurprisingly similar, as are the associated research management challenges that accompany them.

Similar research priority themes have emerged and are often espoused by governments and funding councils the world over. The most consistent global

MICHELLE DURYEA is the Australasian Research Management Society (ARMS) Treasurer and an ARMS Accreditation Program Training Fellow. For her day job at Edith Cowan University, Michelle is responsible for the University’s research management systems, policy development, performance evaluation, reward and reporting. Previously, Michelle was an Associate Director at the Australian Research Council and, before working for the Government, she occupied the position of Senior Policy Officer for the Australian Technology Network of Universities (ATN).

concerns currently include climate change, the digital economy, global food security, health/wellbeing, ageing and energy/resources. Tackling these areas will require both an interdisciplinary and internationally collaborative response.

Research is a global endeavour. There are now more than 7 million researchers around the globe, and the changing pattern of the worldwide research effort shows the continuing increase of international collaborations.

One of the keynote speakers at the ARMS conference, from Singapore’s Nanyang Technological University, quoted research published by Dr Jonathan Adams in Nature (May 2013), which refers to international research collaborations/networks as ‘The Fourth Age of Research’. Adams found that the best science comes from international collaborations. I would like to believe that the best research management also comes from tapping into the collective wisdom inherent within our international networks.

2016 INORMS CONGRESS The International Network of Research Management Societies (INORMS) provides an ideal mechanism for forging these all-important international connections. ARMS is honoured and pleased to be hosting the 6th INORMS Congress in 2016 (check out inorms2016.org). These biennial events are a unique opportunity for members of research management sister societies to come together to establish and maintain such networks.

Research managers play a critical role in establishing the frameworks that support and enable researchers to collaborate internationally. How best to do that requires colleagues from across the globe to meet together and fulfill the INORMS objectives, being: to internationalise the body of knowledge on research management; exchange best practice; and develop

profi le

No 13


international approaches to supporting the research enterprise.

Two of the platform themes of the 2016 Congress are ‘Collaboration and Partnerships’ and ‘Global Research Management’. These will provide an opportunity to explore new and recent models and innovations that encourage collaboration and partnering. The role of the research manager in supporting these relationships is critical. Research across borders and geographies is exciting and has the potential for significant advances in fundamental and applied research, but it is not without its own peculiarities and challenges. We need to continue the conversation on how we can enable such research, both strategically and practically.

INTERCONNECTED AND DECKED OUT IN METRICS The main theme for the 2016 INORMS Congress is ‘Research Management in a Connected World’. The exponential growth in computing power, device connectivity, data volumes, internet users and technological capabilities are unavoidable realities for all of us. This creates many challenges but also innumerable possibilities for how we enable and support the research of the future needed to address the global research priorities. Indeed, such ‘eResearch’ developments are crucial to support the data sharing, management and communications needed to facilitate international research collaborations.

Another area particularly close to my heart is the growth of research performance metrics, rankings and the assessment of quality and impact against world benchmarks. As research increasingly occurs on the collective world stage, so does the requirement to assess its performance against world standards.

One of our Japanese colleagues presented on research data analytics at the ARMS conference – I noted that he had a PhD in Mathematics, and I was only half joking

when I suggested that this may become the minimum qualifications required for research managers in this field in the future! Researchers increasingly have to manage big data, but so do research managers.

Another platform theme, and area of growth in research management, is crowdsourced funding or ‘Citizen Science’. Community-based research is becoming increasingly more common, as are new funding models. Such approaches to community engagement in research did not exist that long ago, nor did the need to be able to articulate clearly the impact of research and its public benefits. This includes the need to capitalise on the use of alternative and social media channels to communicate research and research findings.

JO IN THE MEET ING OF MINDS IN MELBOURNE Often research and innovation are referred to interchangeably; research can and should lead to innovation, but innovation is a much broader and pervasive concept.

When an organisation wants to improve something about the way it manages its operations, this is innovation. Attending international conferences, such as INORMS, affords us a unique opportunity to hear about and share the innovative approaches in research management being developed and implemented.

I encourage you to consider joining us in Melbourne at the 2016 INORMS Congress. The ‘interesting times’ in which we live and work are increasingly requiring us to take advantage of all that we can glean from events such as these, which should be considered an imperative as opposed to a luxury. Hopefully, we can collectively begin to view the challenges we face as more of an opportunistic blessing and less of a curse.

m ic h e l l e du r y e a Manager, Research Quality and Policy, Edith Cowan University, Western Australia

Treasurer, Australasian Research Management Society (ARMS)

emai l: [email protected]

twitter: @MishDuryea

i norms twitter: @INORMS2016

arms twitter: @ARMSoa

CONNECTION CORNER

No 14


W H AT C A N A R M A M E M B E R S H I PO F F E R Y O U ?With your ARMA membership, you are not only part of an expert group of research managers and administrators, you also have access to a range of opportunities designed to help you exchange information, knowledge, expertise and good practice and to keep up to date with developments in your field

Access up to 30 TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT workshops around the country

Gain the support of ARMA’s Professional Community with 3000 MEMBERS ACROSS 250 ORGANISATIONS

ARMA AWARDS , celebrating success in research management and administration

Access the support of your profession through MENTORING OPPORTUNITIES

No 15


Join over 250 students in Europe the UK and Canada studying for PROFESSIONAL QUALIF ICATIONS in research management and administration

Receive THE PROTAGONIST , an exclusive membership magazine that interrogates new policies, showcases funding opportunities and shares best practices relevant to every research manager and administrator

Gain access to member-only ONLINE RESOURCES , an evolving repository of tools and information for the sector and from the membership community.

Gain access to a wide range of collaboration opportunities through PIIRUS MEMBERSHIP

Hear from funders about how they work and what they fund on our STUDY TOURS

Access the flagship ANNUAL CONFERENCE with 60 sessions on offer for 600+ delegates from over 22 countries

CONTRIBUTE TO ADVOCACY on behalf of the profession

Share good practices and be a part of a network that has colleagues from 13 SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS

Contribute to VISTAS , THE JOURNAL of Research Management and Administration

Reap financial support for professional development, travel or innovative projects through the Joan Hughes BURSARY SCHEME

No 16


MYTH NO.1I won’t be able to find the qualification most relevant to me

We offer four distinct professional qualification routes, each of which is recognised by Ofqual and registered on the UK’s Qualifications and Credit Framework:

• The Certificate in Research Administration is aimed at research administrators working in an operational role and looking to expand their knowledge and expertise across the research project lifecycle

• The Certificate in Research Management is designed for colleagues with at least four years of experience in research management and administration, who are looking to expand their knowledge, skills and expertise across the strategic management of the broader research portfolio. There is also a route within this qualification designed specifically for those working in funding organisations.

• The Certificate and Diploma in Leadership of Research Management are designed for senior research managers and heads of teams, sections or offices who have recently taken on new leadership responsibilities or are aspiring to take on new responsibilities at a leadership level in the near future. You can also take the Funding Organisation route for these two qualifications.

MYTH NO. 2I’ve already missed my window of opportunity to register

ARMA realises you need flexibility in your schedule, which is why we open registration for the qualifications twice a year, in January (for 1 April start date) and July (for 1 October start date). With this type of flexibility, there is another qualification cohort right around the corner, ready for you.

MYTH NO. 3I don’t have the time

We know you are busy – that’s why we want to work with you towards the completion of your qualification. You may count one ARMA workshop attended in the 12 months prior to registering on the qualification. So if you register for our upcoming cohort, you will be able to count any workshop you have attended since July 2015. The qualifications routes in research management and administration are all part-time courses, with work based assignments.

MYTH NO. 4I can’t afford to pay for it up-front

Research managers can now apply for a Government Professional and Career Development Loan to complete the Certificate in Research Management. The loan enables students to pay back the cost of their study over time whilst the Government pays back the interest on the loan for the duration of study.

Marie Garnett, Head of Professional Development, commented: “ARMA is thrilled to have secured the opportunity for students to spread the cost of pursuing the Certificate in Research Management with the support of a Government loan. The quality and integrity of this qualification has been recognised through the accreditation of ATHE, which is recognised by Ofqual, and now through ARMA’s registration on the Professional and Career Development Loan Learning Provider List”. You can find details about this loan on by visiting: http://bit.ly/CareerLoan.

There is also the option of cost-sharing with your employer. This option allows flexibility for students and employers to share the cost of the qualification.

MYTHBUSTERS: BREAKING DOWN BARRIERS BETWEEN YOU AND YOUR QUALIFICATION

Are you ready to take the next step in your career as a research manager or administrator? ARMA’s qualifications – which are ATHE accredited and Ofqual recognised – are designed to help you get to the next level

No 17


“I’ll shortly be moving to a promoted post within the university and whilst I can’t know for sure if completing half of the Certificate in Research Administration helped my application, what it certainly did do was give me the confidence to apply for the post in the first place. By completing the assignments I have so far and receiving such positive feedback, it’s highlighted the knowledge I have and given me confidence in my abilities.”

QUALIF ICATIONS IN NUMBERS

n early 250 students are studyi ng th e professional

quali fications i n researc h management an d

admi n istration i n th e uk, europe an d canada

27 assessors

13 cohorts of students currently studyi ng

11 routes avai lable,

i nc ludi ng th e fun di ng organ isations an d european

an d canadian routes.

2 n ew cohorts i n eac h

route start every year i n apri l an d october

jan et blac k , un iversity of edi n burgh c erti ficate i n researc h admi n istration

No 18


R E S E A R C H M A N A G E M E N T F R O M A MUSEUM PERSPECT IVE

No 19


HAVING jumped ship some years ago from university research

administration to join one of the UK’s national museums, I’ve joined a small but growing group of research managers at cultural heritage organisations.

Museums and universities have many things in common. Museums work to collect, protect and share their collections with the aim of helping people to learn, enjoy and be inspired. Just like their university counterparts, curators, conservators and researchers are constantly undertaking new research that ranges across the arts and sciences. Their research provides new insights for university research – and vice versa.

There are also, however, differences in how universities and museums (particularly non-university museums) tend to

‘do’ research management, and being aware of them helps to make for more successful collaborations.

A STORY OF COLLABORATION AND INDEPENDENCE In 2005, the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) created the designation of Independent Research Organisation, or IRO. This was an important moment for research management at many of the UK’s national museums.

IROs are organisations that are known to be able to do and lead programmes of research that materially extend and enhance the national research base. This designation helps our researchers to do more research (as we can submit grants to AHRC in the same way that universities do), and it helps our research managers to work more closely with our counterparts at other IROs.

As a newcomer to the Victoria and Albert Museum (V&A), I was also pleasantly surprised by the extent of collaborative work being done with universities, from codelivering postgraduate taught programmes and cosupervising PhDs to coleading research projects. A lot of our most rewarding research work has in fact been developed in collaboration with universities, including last year‘s exhibition, Alexander McQueen: Savage Beauty, the result of a partnership with the London College of Fashion.

LESSONS WORTH SHARING My experience has taught me that there are many items that universities need to be aware of when they collaborate with museums. The first is that our structural and funding models are very

different. Museums don’t receive quality-related research funding for one thing, so encouraging museum researchers to seek grant funding often requires different motivators.

Moreover, due to differences in institutional structure and scale, museum research managers generally cover a range of roles in the project lifecycle that universities break down into specialist teams. At the V&A, we don’t have distinct pre- and post-award or specialist EU funding divisions – something that is both challenging and rewarding!

Museums are also important players not only in doing research but in helping to engage the wider public with research findings, something that is a core reason for their existance! The Research Excellence Framework (REF)’s ‘impact agenda’ is also encouraging museums and universities to work together still further. However, inviting museum colleagues to be part of a research project solely so they can arrange to host the project leader‘s exhibition concept or other ‘vehicle for impact‘ at the end is unlikely to be met with much enthusiasm! This approach risks ignoring the intellectual contribution that museum staff can make to a programme of research, as well as dramatically underestimating the complexities involved in programming exhibitions. Genuine codevelopment of project ideas is a must.

Finally, the museum sector is incredibly diverse, and whilst larger organisations will have dedicated research management staff and be up to speed about things like the REF and costing mechanisms, other museums may not be. Be prepared to explain concepts like full economic costing!

NICOLA FROGGATT is Research Grants Manager at the Victoria and Albert Museum, which is the world's largest museum of decorative arts and design. Before moving to the museum sector she

worked in research support at the University of Oxford and, before that, in grants administration for the UK Research Councils.

profi le

WWW.VAM.AC.UK

When universities and museums collaborate, everybody wins – so long as the collaboration is done properly. Nicola Froggatt, Research Grants Manager at the Victoria and Albert Museum, shares some of the lessons she has learned about the best ways to develop this relationship

ARMA is proud to announce the results of its most recent Joan Hughes Bursary Scheme! Here is how five of our recent winners are planning on using their bursary to develop their skills and investigate new ideas

No 20


What do you hope to achieve, learn or gain from this activity?

It will help me to broaden my knowledge about the management and forecasting of existing projects. I want to learn how to better advise researchers about funding opportunities to guarantee a sustainable income for the future. I would like to know how to recognise and deal with risks across the funding portfolio. By attending the workshop, I will have a great opportunity to exchange knowledge and good practice with colleagues from other universities and institutes in the UK.

What impact will this activity have on your day-to-day role?

I have been working for the University of Oxford for seven years, the last two in a post relevant to research management. I interact on a regular basis with researchers, departments, University's administrative offices, funders and collaborators. By taking part in this workshop, I will gain knowledge that will help me manage research projects, prepare forecasts and identify risks. Additionally, the information will allow me to support researchers through the management of existing grants, help me shape the research group's strategy and enable me to secure a future balanced research portfolio.


I hope to build skills and knowledge about how to help academic researchers from disparate disciplines across the University of Sheffield develop innovative research proposals that could form the basis of competitive grant applications.


I am involved in a growing number of multidisciplinary research grant applications that require collaboration between clinical and/or biomedical researchers and physical scientists/engineers. There is growing interest in these schemes and hence a need for skills to help move away from the ‘same old’ ideas that might be suitable for conventional project or programme grants. My attendance at this event will thus have an immediate, direct impact in terms of improving support to academics who I work with and in raising the quality of the bids that are being prepared.

S U P P O R T I N GT H E A R M A C O M M U N I T Y

project manager, university of oxford

bursary: Professional Development Bursary

awarded: £270

activity: ARMA Technical Knowledge Workshop: Financial Planning and Reporting

research development manager, university of sheffield

bursary: UK Travel Bursary

awarded: £160

activity: ARMA Skills Workshop: Practical Facilitation Skills for Developing Collaborative Proposals

JOANNA ZAPISEK

PAULA GOULD

No 21


The application deadline for the next round of Joan Hughes Bursaries is coming up quickly!

Visit http://bit.ly/JoanHughesBursary for more information on how to apply.


My primary goal is to understand what excellent measurement looks like and discover the latest news in measuring research performance. It is important to me to network with other institutions and understand their approaches to a difficult and sometimes controversial issue.


Much in line with the aims of the workshop, this activity will assist me in prioritising the measures for research performance, ensuring that we are reporting and recording the right and most relevant data.


I anticipate achievements at both sector and personal levels. At the sector level, it will enable me to enhance opportunities for international collaboration for NRIIs in both the UK and US; broaden funding sources and opportunities for UK-US partners by linking internationally and diversifying funding streams; and strengthen institutional links through research management collaborations (not relying on academic-only links). I also think it will help me enhance the collaborative links I need to support international outputs for a stronger REF submission. In terms of personal gains, this activity will help me establish myself as a key broker in research management for non-research intensive institutions in UK and US; strengthen my intelligence on funding sources, strategies and associated capabilities; and expand my capabilities and profile in international collaboration.


As a funding consultant, this activity will offer me insight into how to diversify our funding portfolio and will allow me to establish and apply international best practice. It will also enable me to operate on a more strategic level, actively contributing to the drive for international collaboration. Presenting at the conference will secure my profile and support future progression.


I am excited by the opportunity to network at an international event and to hear from such a wide range of speakers about how to be successful in the international research arena. I see my attendance at the conference as a fact finding mission from which I will learn many lessons. I will then translate this learning into information I can disseminate to colleagues and, hopefully, across the ARMA network.


I think attendance at this event will broaden my horizons in terms of international funding and collaboration. Following the conference, I will look to develop new networks that could continue to be useful and, as a minimum, have some new contacts that I could go to for advice and information.

research administrator, university of glasgow


awarded: £270

activity: Measuring Institutional Research Performance

research funding consultant, coventry university

bursary: Innovation Bursary

awarded: £625

activity: Establishing a UK-US research management collaborative network for Modern Universities (UK) and Predominantly Undergraduate Institutions (US).

research and enterprise manager, university of hull


awarded: £270

activity: Attendance at the conference ‘Funding strategies and sources for international research cooperation’ organised by the European Academy for Taxes, Economics and Law.

CASPER HITCHINS

PAM JACKSON

LOUISE EVANS

No 22


Wouldn’t it be helpful to have evidence to hand that could help you optimise your decision making as a research manager? Vistas – ARMA’s Professional Journal of Research Management and Administration – is set to become this much needed resource

V I S TA S : O P E N I N G T H E D O O R T O R M A B E S T P R A C T I C E S

No 23


DO you want to know ‘what works’? Research management and

administration (RMA) has undergone considerable development and professionalisation over recent years. As we better understand what RMA entails – and are better skilled to deliver it – we now need examples of best practice that are not anecdotal, but derived from a robust evidence base.

Vistas has been relaunched by ARMA as a Professional Journal of Research Management and Administration to help give us that insight. The goal is to bring research findings directly to the RMA community. These findings might come from research undertaken by RMA managers themselves or from researchers working in aligned fields.

Vistas also provides a vehicle for those undertaking higher level training through ARMA qualifications, or other postgraduate schemes, to publish their work and raise their profile within the sector both in the UK and internationally.

PAINTING THE B IGGER PICTURE Vistas is an open access journal that comprises articles covering all aspects of RMA where there is an evidence base. Articles on the full range of RMA related topics are welcomed. However, priority is given to articles that are based on original research and that provide high quality analysis of issues that can be used to inform RMA practice.

Authors accepted for publication will work with a member of the Editorial Board to develop their article, and this includes peer review by at least two experienced professionals within the sector to help ensure that articles are of the highest quality possible.

JOIN US Are you interested in writing an article for Vistas? If so, you can submit an abstract at any time at: http://bit.ly/VistasAbstracts.

The first edition of the new Vistas will be published in Autumn 2016.

DR LOUISE MAYTHORNE bath spa University

TAMSIN BURLAND JISC

DR PAUL ROSEN university of york

DR KIERAN FENBY-HULSE coventry university

ALICEN NICKSON brunel university london

DR IAN CARTER university of sussex

DR LOUISE SHELLEY independent

DR SIMON KERRIDGE university of kent

vistas editorial board

Alicen Nickson is the Editor of Vistas. She is a member of the ARMA Membership Services Committee and champions the Research into RMA Special Interest Group. Alicen is currently Deputy Director, Research Support and Development at Brunel University London.

A J O U R N E Y I N TO T H E U N K N O W N ?No 24


Deputy Chair of ARMA, Dr John Rogers, reflects on the Higher Education Green Paper, which was published in November 2015. He talks about the changes on the horizon and how they could impact research managers and administrators all over the UK

No 25


IT'S a raw, cold morning in January as I wait for the train at a quaint old

Victorian station in a quiet corner of rural Scotland. The prospect of a long rail journey with time to think and write this article is enticing, while both the setting and the journey are perfect as stimuli for the creative process. I'll be crossing the border into England later: one of many borders that seem inexorably to be gaining in significance as regional, national and international policy frameworks diverge. And yet this is a world we are told is

getting smaller and more connected all the time.

The Victorian heritage of the station can't help but call to mind the leather armchairs and port decanters of an establishment hierarchy that so often seems to dominate debate about higher education (HE). And yet I'm off to speak to a new generation of HE leaders about innovation, enterprise, dynamism and change. And the weather – is it bleak and dreary? Or does the sparkle in the

No 26


largest part of the cost of the 2014 REF was the cost to institutions of participating (£232 million of a total £246 million) and the Green Paper makes clear the Government’s view that much of this is unnecessarily incurred by universities as a consequence of the way in which we organise our participation.

Champions of institutional autonomy will protest that how we arrange our affairs is not a matter for government, but any guardian of the public purse will continue to baulk at £42 million a year being wasted on bureaucracy instead of funding more research. Whatever Stern recommends, we should expect this concern with reducing administrative cost and moderating behavioural consequences to feature prominently.

RESEARCH EXCELLENCE FRA MEWORKBeyond that, what the next Research Excellence Framework (REF) might look like is difficult to predict. Lord Stern has been firmly placed in the ‘REF-sceptic’ camp by the media, with some justification it would seem on the basis of his previous comments questioning whether the REF works against long-term research advances. His companions on the review board have something of a feel of ‘the usual suspects’ about them, the omission of representatives from many parts of the HE sector (and from the research management profession!) having attracted comment from a number of quarters. Whether they can imagine a bold new assessment design remains to be seen.

We should anticipate metrics, at least, featuring much more prominently in the next REF. The very considered and

well-evidenced work by James Wilsdon and his colleagues presented in The Metric Tide is summarily dismissed in the Green Paper as ‘an independent report’, which the UK Government might remember to reference briefly as the review of future REF arrangements proceeds.

Our anxiety, of course, must be that the rather spurious ‘scientific accuracy’ and lower cost of a metric-heavy assessment proves attractive, notwithstanding the many profound concerns about effective measurement of research quality by citation across the breadth and diversity of the research base. The Green Paper does, at least, commit to another peer reviewed REF by 2021. What information the peer reviewers will be examining and what scope they will have to exercise their expert judgement are as yet unanswered questions.

THE DUAL SUPPORT SYSTEMAnother Green Paper commitment is to maintain the dual support system, which has been a cornerstone of the success and productivity of UK research funding over a very considerable period. What makes dual support work, however, is clear separation and balance between its two elements of underpinning support for research capacity and fundamental enquiry-based and priority-driven project work. Placing responsibility for both arms of dual support under a single organisation must call into question the long-term preservation of both separation and balance. If for no other reason, the continuing scrutiny of assessment costs will surely lead some, in time, to muse on the efficiency gain to be found in replacing two peer review processes with one.

melting snow hold the promise of brighter, warmer things ahead? A new year. A time for optimism, reflection, predictions, resolutions and perhaps a small measure of trepidation.

WHAT M AY THE FUTURE HOLD?The original timetable for the next national research assessment would have seen us spending the first part of 2016 feverishly poring over the details of a consultation on the rules and regulations. Instead, we have what is intended to be a more fundamental review led by Lord Stern – the outcomes of which are unlikely to be known until the autumn.

The purposes of the review are interesting: “to ensure that future university research

funding is allocated more efficiently, offers greater rewards for excellent research and reduces the administrative burden on institutions”. This primary concern with efficiency and reducing the administrative load echoes precisely the language of the Higher Education Green Paper published in November 2015. “Our ambition is to reduce bureaucracy and release our scientific and research leaders from administrative burdens … These talented and expert leaders should be free to focus on the strategic leadership of their research communities.”

Such an objective is not new. The history of UK research assessment is littered with concern over the cost of the exercise and the diversion of time and money away from the core research endeavour. This Green Paper seems to me, however, more explicit in the attention it pays to the way in which the HE sector behaves in engaging with the exercise. By far the

No 27


JOHN ROGERS is Deputy Chair of ARMA. He has worked in higher education management and administration for over 20 years. He is currently Director of Research and Enterprise at the University of Stirling, where he has responsibility for an integrated portfolio covering strategy and policy, grant and contract funding, research assessment, researcher development, research governance and integrity, knowledge exchange, intellectual property and commercialisation. He is writing here in a personal capacity.

profi leAn increase in the overhead rate applied to project funding – 100% full economic costs (FEC), for example – could remove the requirement for a separate allocation of quality-related research (QR) funding with all the attendant REF apparatus. This may, indeed, enable additional projects to be funded; a proposition that would be difficult to resist. Any that objections based on the value of REF in benchmarking institutions would be easily overcome: league tables can readily be produced using bibliometrics.

Of course, there is the slight problem that HEFCE only allocates QR funding in England. The volume of funding and the formulae for its distribution in other parts of the UK are the responsibility of political administrations determined through separate democratic processes. Much has been made of this in submissions to the consultation on the Green Paper at least from institutions in the devolved nations. In the last analysis, however, this is unlikely to be a defining argument. Research UK, if that organisation is what emerges, could simply offer a system into which the devolved administrations could choose to opt in or not, with the cross-border flows of revenue adjusted accordingly.

But all of this is mere speculation. Rumours of the imminent demise of research assessment and dual support have frequently proved unfounded in the past. We have more immediate concerns, not least the prospect of a UK exit from the EU. As anyone casting an eye over the research landscape from north of the border will attest, regardless of your political preferences, referenda on separation

are a cause of great uncertainty. In a competitive global research environment such uncertainty can only be disruptive and distracting.

CLOSING THOUGHTSAs a final thought on the Green Paper, the re-emergence of language that positions administration and bureaucracy as the antithesis of scientific progress and excellence should perhaps set some of our professional nerves on edge. Partnership, coproduction and collaborative endeavours between academic and professional colleagues are much more our daily reality in universities and increasingly recognised as the key to successful institutions. There is a risk of an entirely unhelpful return to the bad old days of academic rage against the bureaucratic machine.

Travel well. Travel hopefully. And remember, as with any journey getting there is half the fun!

B U I L D I N G A S U C C E S S F U L R E S E A R C H C U LT U R E

No 28


Dr Steven Hill, Head of Research Policy at the Higher Education Funding Council for England, explains how research excellence grows out of efforts to foster the right culture

STRIKING from the outside, and strangely calm and peaceful within,

the new Medical Research Council (MRC) Laboratory of Molecular Biology (LMB) building has the feel of a futuristic temple to a new religion. In the world of research, this is indeed a special place. Some of the most important breakthroughs in biomedical science have been made here, recognised by an astounding 10 Nobel prizes awarded between 1958 and 2013. It has been called a ‘Nobel prize factory’.

But beyond the undoubted scientific success there is also impressive delivery of broader benefit. The new building was, in part, financed from income from technology developed from the institute’s research. When visiting in 2014, I asked the Director, Professor Hugh Pelham, about the secret of LMB’s success. His answer was deceptively simple – it’s all about getting the culture right. CULTURE IS CRUCIAL The answer begs a question – what makes a successful research culture? From national policymaking to the operation of departments and units within

universities, getting the culture right is a central concern. At the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), we recently commissioned the Policy Institute at King’s College London and RAND Europe to explore the factors that lead to a successful research culture. They focussed on those departments that were in the top 1.5% of performance in the 2014 Research Excellence Framework (REF), across a range of disciplines and institution types. The findings stress the importance of talented people – their recruitment, retention and autonomy – alongside appropriately balanced leadership and a living and shared sense of strategic direction. These high performing units also shared a set of common values: a sense of research that makes a difference, and a focus on achieving the highest standards of excellence and integrity. And there was a strong sense of research as a collaborative endeavour. These findings mirror those of an earlier study that focused on the UK’s most research intensive institutions. A rather different picture is painted by a study carried out by the Nuffield Council

No 29


on Bioethics during 2014. Based on a survey and discussions, mainly with researchers from the life sciences, this work identified some areas of common ground, especially around the values that motivate researchers. But the study paints a picture of an excessively competitive research culture, focussed on individualism. According to this view the intense competition for funding, and the conditions imposed by national policy structures, like the REF, are pushing researchers too hard. The Nuffield Council says this is leading to some of the best researchers leaving, with particular concerns for the diversity of the research workforce. In the most extreme cases, the report speculates, the pressures result in misconduct and even fabrication of research results. CULTURE, COLLABORATION AND COMPETIT ION Threaded through these different understandings of how our research culture operates is an inherent tension: the balance between collaboration and competition. And there is a clear message taking the studies together. The Nuffield Council work suggests that, across the sector, researchers

feel the balance is too strong towards competition, but in the places that are most successful that balance is different. While the outside environment is the same, the highest performing units appear to have more of a focus on a supportive collaborative environment. This balance between collaboration and competition is even reflected in the REF submissions themselves. Despite the REF being set up to compare performance of institutions, analysis in HEFCE showed that around a quarter of journal articles submitted as research outputs involved researchers from two or more UK institutions. If there is a variation in culture across the research landscape, how can good practice be spread? This is not an easy question. The culture of any organisation is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon, which is influenced in many ways. Debates about culture, and culture change, tend to focus on the policy environment. The REF and the processes for obtaining project funding are often blamed for perceived problems. But these policy conditions are themselves influenced by other factors, not least academic culture itself.

NAVIGATING A CLASH OF CULTURES Institutions have their own cultural norms, too, and that can lead to very different interpretations and responses to the external environment. For example, some institutions responded to the REF by focussing their strategy on performance in the exercise, while others concentrated on research performance itself, arguing that success in the REF will follow. As well as their institutional culture, researchers find themselves embedded in disciplinary culture and norms that transcend the boundaries of institutions and even nations. It could be argued that researchers are most sensitive to these pressures; meeting disciplinary norms is essential in building individual research reputation and drives career success. Faced with this complex milieu, influencing a positive research culture through policy change is a daunting task. At one level, minimising the barriers to positive behaviours has a role to play. At national and institutional levels, we need to ensure that collaboration, across institutions and disciplines, for example, can happen.

No 30


DR STEVEN HILL is Head of Research Policy at the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). Prior to joining HEFCE, Steven was Head of the Strategy Unit at Research Councils UK, covering a range of research policy issues, and he had several roles in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, working on evidence-based policymaking. Earlier in his career Steven was a university lecturer at the University of Oxford where his research focussed on plant physiology and biotechnology.

profi leBut providing incentives to actively encourage activities needs to happen in a sensitive way that respects – goes with the grain of – existing practices and norms. We shouldn’t expect too much of these interventions, though. As is emphasised by the King’s College/RAND study, leadership is central. Although it is perhaps unfashionable to focus on research leaders in this way, leaders have the potential to interpret, filter and make sense of the diverse pressures that come to bear on the researchers they lead. The management guru Peter Drucker reportedly said that: "culture eats strategy for breakfast". He was probably right, but a research strategy that focusses on positive culture change may well be the way to go.

No 31


No 32


ATHENA SWAN, the UK-wide initiative encouraging and

recognising commitment to addressing gender inequality in academia, has been on the go since 2005. It’s not even a teenager; if you work in research, you’d have to have spent some time in a dark room not to have heard of it. This is principally, one could argue, down to Professor Dame Sally Davies, Chief Medical Office for England and Director of National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), and the connection she made between attaining an Athena SWAN award and attaining NIHR research grant funding.

Research Councils UK (RCUK) followed her lead, expecting those in receipt of RCUK funding to provide evidence of commitment to equality and diversity, with participation in Athena SWAN given

Heriot-Watt colleagues Tina Donnelly and Dr Tony Weir won the 2015 ARMA poster exhibition with their ‘Are you a Swan or a Duck?’ poster. Here, Tina Donnelly outlines her journey from being an Athena SWAN novice to an advocate for its importance

areas for improvement. As with all Athena SWAN applications, the first step was to collate and scrutinise (and ultimately submit as part of an application) a range of quantitative and qualitative data that captured key gender trends. From there, we drew up a detailed action plan that aimed to address any gender inequalities. We also needed to consider specifically how we would promote a culture of inclusivity and assist women at key career points. “But why do women need special help?” we all tried to figure out. “Surely academia is a meritocracy?”

What I learned along the way surprised me. It turns out that success is, in large part, down to what information, people and opportunities you have access to and that this is dependent on you having time, energy, the right face, the right

F R O M C YG N E T T O S WA N :

G R O W I N G U P W I T H

as example of such evidence. In connecting research funding to progression of equality of opportunity, the scene was set for universities to prick up their ears.

SHOCKING REAL ISAT IONS I first heard of Athena SWAN in 2013. I was working at King’s College London’s Institute of Psychiatry when a letter from Dame Sally informed us that we could write off the opportunity to renew £53 million of NIHR funding if we didn’t get an Athena SWAN Silver award. Regardless of whether this was ‘the right thing to do’ (e.g. whilst 45% of academics are female, only 22% are professors) it became a strategic imperative. And so we set out to get it.

This required us to carry out a thorough assessment of how well we promoted equality of opportunity and to identify

AT H E N A S WA N

No 33


T INA DONNELLY is Athena SWAN Officer at Heriot-Watt, where she oversees delivery of the University’s Athena SWAN programme. She is a member of the Athena SWAN Scotland Group and acts as an Athena SWAN panellist and chair. You can contact her at [email protected].

profi le

rank, the right sponsor … the list goes on. Stereotypes get in the way and even if you’re fabulous, you still might not get the job/opportunity if you happen not to fit the mould. Sometimes people who can influence your career are acting against you without even realising it.

Whilst I knew that caring is a highly gendered role in our society, I didn’t realise that whoever does it – male or female – that person has less time, is more likely to work part-time and/or fixed-term (and then less likely to have a performance and development review), is more geographically fixed in their career choices, finds it harder to attend career-enhancing conferences or meetings and is more likely to compromise their career for their partner’s. All of this is back up by peer-reviewed evidence.

DOING TH INGS D IFFERENTLY Rest assured, this situation is fixable. But what seems originally to be a straightforward plan of reviewing hard data and running a few training sessions becomes something a little more complex. How do we persuade our leaders that the culture, practices and processes that supported them in their success are holding others back? How do we change long-held beliefs that have been reinforced in all of us since birth, regardless of our gender? What does good practice look like and how can we make it happen? Since I joined Heriot-Watt two years ago these are exactly the questions we have been grappling with.

Whilst it will happen in time, Athena SWAN is not primarily focused on improving the numbers; rather it demands a nuts and bolts review of how we work. Computer Scientist Rear Admiral Grace Hopper, said: "The most dangerous words in the English language are 'We’ve always done it this way'". Heriot-Watt’s Athena SWAN communications approach takes this on board and, with our 'Doing Things Differently' campaign, we are aiming to challenge our traditional ways of working, create a space for open and honest dialogue and be robust in holding ourselves to account. Culture change of this scale needs all of us to play our part. We need to ask questions, recognise and challenge unhelpful behaviours or practices and be prepared to try something new.

• Embed gender data in management reports

• Succession planning: run an observer programme for research committees

• Ensure profiles and images on webpages are not gender-biased or stereotyped

• Use this gender decoder before advertising a job: gender-decoder.katmatfield.com

• Ensure gender diversity as standard on appointment committees

• Have key decision makers participate in unconscious bias training. Start by directing them to this test: projectimplicit.com

GOOD PRACTICE MAKES BEST PRACTICE

We asked colleagues from across ARMA for good practices that research managers and administrators should keep in mind. Here are some of the best ones:

Follow Heriot-Watt University’s Athena SWAN Team on twitter: @HWUAthenaSWAN

Changes like these have been initiated at Heriot-Watt and at research institutions across the UK, and will ensure that participating organisations recruit and retain the best people, impacting positively on their research and other outputs.

• Establish a targeted Early Career Researcher award (to offset ‘the Matilda effect’)

• Establish a research staff network

• When implementing seminar series, ensure every speaker nominated from one gender is matched with a nomination from the other gender

• Ring-fence kick-start funds for staff returning from a career break

• Actively support flexible working (e.g. visible case studies)

• Embed family friendliness into work activities (e.g. holding key meetings within core hours)

No 34


To see more about funding opportunities go to:

cruk.org/funding-for-researchers

COULD technological innovations and the people you support in creating

them as a research manager transform how we study tumours? Could the physicists you work with provide cures for cancer? Could that mathematician you help as a research administrator change our understanding of malignancy?

Our ambition at Cancer Research UK is to accelerate progress and see three-quarters of patients surviving cancer within the next 20 years. To achieve this, we will need to call on fresh perspectives, develop new techniques and remove the barriers between disciplines to revolutionise our ability to tackle complex challenges in cancer.

To support this interdisciplinary approach, we are investing an additional £50 million each year into funding schemes that support novel, diverse collaborations. At the forefront of this ambition are three new funding schemes that every research manager and administrator should know about.

Cancer Research UK is calling out for fresh perspectives to revolutionise cancer research, and Dr David Scott, Director of Discovery Research and Centres, explains how you can be at the heart of this societally important uprising

L E T ’ S S TA R T A R E VO LU T I O N

No 35


DR DAVID SCOTT is Director of Discovery Research and Centres. He oversees a portfolio of £350 million of cutting-edge research grants annually, including the core funding provided to Cancer Research UK’s 15 centres, four institutes and investment in the Francis Crick Institute.

profi le

MULT ID ISC IPL INARY PROJECT AWARDDriving collaboration to beat cancer sooner

Our multidisciplinary award looks to discover new ways of tackling problems in cancer by supporting the development of new methodologies and technologies. We are therefore awarding these grants to principle investigators from engineering or physical science disciplines and those from cancer research to create the teams needed to take on these challenges.

We’ve already funded 10 exciting, new multidisciplinary projects from superb teams across the country, and we’ll be looking for more this spring.

amount: up to £500,000

duration: up to four years

fi eld: all deadli n e: march 2016

contact: dr richard muscat


website: cruk.org.uk/multidisciplinaryaward

GRAND CHALLENGE £20 million global awards to accelerate progress

This international, multidisciplinary funding opportunity really is one of a kind. We have brought together some of the best minds to set seven Grand Challenges that together encompass several of the most important unanswered questions in cancer research today. This high-risk, high-reward funding scheme could change the face of cancer research, and we will be looking for teams of scientists from any discipline and from anywhere around the world to join us.

amount: up to £20,000,000

duration: up to five years

fi eld: all

deadli n e: early 2017

contact: dr joanna owens


website: cruk.org.uk/grandchallenge

THIS ISN’T ALL WE DO We support researchers at all career levels and fund all stages of the research pipeline. Our broad portfolio spans basic, translational and clinical research through response mode funding, infrastructure in our Cancer Research UK Centres and through our five core-funded institutes. For the majority of our schemes, we encourage multidisciplinary applications; if we hear about a good idea, we can help find the right route for funding.

WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOUIf you’re not sure how the research at your organisation fits into our funding schemes or you would like to discuss our opportunities further then please call us on 0203 469 5452 or email us at [email protected].

PIONEER AWARDFunding revolutionary ideas, faster

We know that a good idea can come from anywhere, so we are offering £200,000 awards to researchers in any discipline with an innovative idea that could break ground in tackling cancer. We are looking for ideas that have the potential to open new fields and change the way we approach seemingly intractable challenges. It is easy to apply – we only ask for a two-page proposal that summarises an idea’s potential. Our world-class panel of innovators will then judge these anonymously and if an idea impresses them, teams will be invited to pitch the idea Dragons’ Den style.

amount: up to £200,000

duration: up to two years

fi eld: all

deadli n e: three times annually

contact: dr marjolein schaap


website: cruk.org.uk/pioneeraward

Recently, we opened our doors to host our first ever ARMA study tour to give research managers and administrators a chance to meet our programme managers and ask questions. It was a great experience for us and we’ve received positive feedback from attendees, as well as invitations to visit their organisations and speak to potential applicants.

We also made the most of this opportunity to meet the people at the coal face of the application process and get feedback on our recently introduced online grant management system. Some of the questions that asked were: What areas of engineering do you cover?

Engineering is defined in its broadest sense, encompassing a wide range of diverse fields, including computer science and materials science.

No 36


THE Royal Academy of Engineering was set up in 1976 to champion

excellence in all fields of engineering. It aims to provide leadership and promote excellence across all fields of engineering for the benefit of society. Our activities are shaped, led and delivered by our exceptional Fellowship, which represents the nation’s best practising engineers, innovators and entrepreneurs, often in leading roles across business and academia.

We believe that engineering is at the heart of our nation and our future. Engineers transform ideas and materials into global infrastructure, products and services that in turn increase the wealth and health of our economy and society.

Through practical actions, most often with partners, we are:

• Increasing the quantity and quality of engineering skills in the UK

• Supporting engineering innovation and entrepreneurship

• Bringing real awareness of the value of engineering to society and the rewards of engineering jobs

• Advising policy makers on issues with an engineering dimension

We feel we can best support sustainable economic growth by investing in research and creating a climate in which research, innovation, entrepreneurship and investment flourish.

ENGINEER ING, EXCELLENCE AND AR M A

WELCOMING ARMA

STAY IN TOUCH

When sending in an application, if you are unsure about anything in the guidance notes or rules then just contact the Academy’s research team – it’s what we are here for.

You can contact us via email at [email protected] and keep up to date on our activities by visiting our website: www.raeng.org.uk.

What career levels do you support?

We provide a wide range of schemes for applicants ranging from undergraduates to professors, and including entrepreneurs, start-ups and SMEs.

Will you be introducing a university approval step in your application process?

Not currently, but we are having internal discussions to see how feasible this would be.

How do you select successful applications?

Each scheme has a different review process but typically applications are reviewed by members of the Academy Fellowship or experts in the field of the application. The reviews are mediated by a panel of experts, primarily consisting of Academy Fellows. Some schemes will also have an interview stage.

What makes a successful application?

We make awards based on excellence – this applies to the quality of the proposal, the applicant and any other partners involved in the proposal, including the host institution. Successful applications will be well-written, clearly articulated proposals that fit the remit of the specific scheme. Letters of support should be specific in the levels of support they are prepared to make, and they must be dated and signed.

What makes an unsuccessful application?

Candidates may be unsuccessful if they demonstrate a weak track record, a lack of ambition, unclear objectives or unidentified routes by which to achieve their objectives. Poorly articulated research ideas or lack of clear support in accompanying letters will also hinder an application. However, sometimes we recieve strong applications that we are still unable to fund simply because we do not have unlimited funding. Therefore, applicants should always ask for feedback and use it to refine their ideas for the next application.

Any other hints and tips?

Always make sure your proposal has been proof read and that a non-specialist would be able to understand the abstract. Be sure to check your spelling and grammar. If there is an interview stage, have at least one mock interview with people who will challenge you.

No 37


DR LUC Y WHEELER has been a Programme Manager of Research and University Programmes at the Royal Academy of Engineering since February 2015. Prior to this position, she

spent four years working in universities across London, both within departments and central research offices. Originally a researcher at University of Southampton, Lucy is committed to building university/industry partnerships and supporting engineering excellence.

profi le

Dr Lucy Wheeler, Programme Manager of Research and University Programmes, talks about Royal Academy of Engineering's growing relationship with ARMA and shares highlights of its most recent study tour

No 38


IN 1995, I made a presentation to ARMA’s forerunner, RAGnet, on ‘the changing

nature of research and research funding’. Revisiting the presentation 21 years later, it’s interesting to see how much – or how little in some cases – things have changed for research managers and administrators (RMAs).

It didn’t take any great foresight on my part to identify some of the key trends in research, and maybe it is not surprising that those trends continue, perhaps more gradually than I might have anticipated back then, but inexorably nonetheless. For example, the move towards supporting complex, multidisciplinary, multi-institutional research projects, the growing importance of active monitoring and

Change is inevitable, and no one can tell you that better than a research manager and administrator. Richard Bond of the University of the West of England reminisces about how research and its funding have changed in the past two decades

the funding environment have resulted in greater demands for specialised support and underpinned the rise of professional research managers. The tide of professionalisation was already evident – and continues, led by ARMA in the UK.

TOUCHING ON TRENDS However, other trends are less evident now than they were then. Had I predicted where I would be in 2016, I might have said working as a consultant for a number of institutions, both public and private, and in the UK and abroad, providing specialised RMA services. The outsourcing and privatisation of university services, as well as the development of shared services, have not moved on as rapidly as predicted. Likewise, neither has the expectation that private sources of funds would increase in significance at the expense of public sources, partly through the privatisation of quangos, nor that major research institutions and facilities would become private entities operating in global markets.

By 1995, we had had 16 years of Conservative Government, and the climate was rife for a more open and diverse market for researchers inside and outside universities to compete for

C H A N G I N G W I T H T H E T I M E S

proactive management of research, the use of metrics and key performance indicators, the need to demonstrate economic benefits and value for money, and the closer scrutiny of proposals for a range of non-academic purposes – all these things continue to challenge us in terms of support.

Similarly, the growing culture of accountability has impacted on both academics and RMAs. We are under increasing scrutiny to justify ourselves as funds remain scarce while costs – of both research and research management

– have grown. We share the pressure to win grants, generate income and diversify funding sources. The intensity of competition and the complexity of

No 39


RICHARD BOND is Head of Research Administration at the University of the West of England, Bristol. Richard is a long serving member of ARMA, and RAGNet before it, and has presented

profi le

resources driven by economic imperatives. The Research Councils reported within the Department of Trade & Industry as Government science policy and funding became more closely linked to industrial rather than educational policy. While political structures have not changed markedly in 21 years, the Haldane Principle (the idea that decisions about what to spend research funds on should be made by researchers rather than politicians) only just about remains intact following the Nurse Review, the most recent of a series of reviews questioning the organisation and accountability of the Research Councils.

FROM PAPER TO D IG ITAL TECHNOLOGY The one area that has changed beyond recognition is in the impact of IT on the lives of RMAs. In 1995, funding opportunities were identified from publications that arrived through the post, typed up in the office and photocopied for dissemination to staff through the internal post, even stuck on notice boards. Grant

applications were typed directly and carefully onto forms, hand signed by a

range of staff, photocopied numerous times and posted to the funder in

large jiffy bags. Hand delivery of Research Council applications

to Polaris House in Swindon was common. On

one occasion, a

increased its research income by a factor of 10 in one unit of assessment thanks to a mistyped extra zero. The only way to source publication details was to get hold of a hard copy, usually from the author, and manually add the required information. Bottles of Tippex were indispensable.

Communication for RMAs was based on the movement of bits of paper and endless telephone conversations, and information carefully catalogued and stored in filing cabinets. Research data was published in thick reports. Presentations, like the one I gave at RAGnet, were given using transparencies (slides printed on transparent plastic, viewed using an overhead projector). Sticky notes seemed like an exciting, if expensive, innovation. Little did we know that something called the World Wide Web was about to revolutionise our lives.

Interestingly, the complexity of the demands on RMAs in terms of the data and information we are required to collect and process now is only possible because of the revolution in IT over the last 21 years. Does that mean the desire for such data emanates from a new and different need or from the fact that we have the capability to provide it? If there’s one lesson I’ve learnt during my time as an RMA it’s that making things complex is not difficult – keeping things simple is the true mark of professionalism.

colleague flew to Brussels to ensure safe delivery of an EU application. Submissions to the 1992 Research Assessment Exercise were also typed, data entered by hand from spreadsheets. My own institution

LOOKING TO THE FUTURE But what of the future? Reflecting on the last 25 years, it seems the way in which we work may change more rapidly than the policy context in which we work. As we enter another review of research assessment, the reality is that the RAE/REF has evolved in complexity over the years but changed little in purpose, or outcome. Similarly, the proposed Research UK appears little more than a combination of Research Councils UK and the research part of Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE).

Meanwhile, technically speaking, the virtual research office and the intelligent RMA avatar available to anybody, anytime, anywhere via ubiquitous digital devices are not far away. It has been suggested that intelligent systems will increasingly bring fundamental changes to the way that the expertise of specialists is accessed, going as far as questioning the need for armies of professionals bound together by their common knowledge and practices. If such expertise can be codified by professional bodies such as ARMA, why can’t it be replicated through artificial intelligence?

But, are universities too wedded to physical spaces and bespoke services to adopt this technology and this way of working in the foreseeable future? Those who were reluctant to give up their Tippex and typewriters, their jiffy bags and filing cabinets, probably aren’t around anymore.As John Wooden said: "failure is not fatal, but failure to change might be".

at a number of ARMA and Association of University Administrators (AUA) conferences. He has a particular interest in the professional identify of research managers and is a regular contributor to the Leadership Foundation Programme for Research Managers.

No 40


HOW do you define a researcher? Or an academic discipline? Or research

grant application success rates?

Perhaps you have definitions for these items, but are they the same as the definition used by the faculty in the office next door or the institution down the road? I’ll bet it isn’t the same definition used by your peers in the US, or Australia.

If we don’t have a common set of definitions, how can we hope to understand our place in the national or global marketplace of research? How can research managers ‘manage’ what we can’t measure?

I’m not talking here about performance management of individual academic staff – I don’t think that’s our role. But what about helping our institutions to make informed, evidence-based decisions to establish and monitor strategic objectives? Or understanding our market share of research funding, or whether the investments or interventions we are making (haven’t we all had a ‘new’ internal peer review scheme within our departments at some point?) are having the impact we expected?

I think that these things are very much within the remit of research management, and although there are data and metrics everywhere, a lack of common definitions and understanding is hindering our ability to make use of them.

WELCOME TO SNOWBALL METRICS Snowball Metrics is a sector-led initiative that recognised this problem and has been working to address it. Its ambition is that its resulting conclusions and approaches will ‘infect’ international research management through a ‘snowball effect’ – hence the name.

Created by the sector and for the sector, Snowball Metrics is a set of definitions and metric ‘recipes’ that can facilitate a common understanding of institutional performance across different funder types and academic disciplines. This enables ‘apples to apples’ benchmarking, which can complement expert opinion, contextual knowledge and peer review to give a fuller understanding of strengths and weaknesses within an organisation. You don’t need to use all of the metrics – pick and choose whichever ones add value to your decision making in any particular situation, but please don’t just choose one on its own. A ‘basket’ of metrics combined

with qualitative information is surely always better.

The recipes are freely available online (http://bit.ly/SnowballRecipes) and the soon-to-be-published third edition of the recipe book will cover some tricky definitions such as success rates. It also expands on work that has been done with international working groups in the US, Australia and New Zealand to agree definitions and recipes that work in their countries as well as in the UK. For example, the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) cost centres used in the UK have been mapped to the Higher Education R&D (HERD) classification used in the US to enable like-for-like benchmarking between academic disciplines on both sides of the Atlantic.

A PEER-TO-PEER PLATFORM You may also have heard about the recently launched Snowball Metrics Exchange platform – a free service that makes it easy to share your Snowball Metrics with peer institutions. The idea is to calculate your Snowball Metrics (using your research management systems, a spreadsheet or whatever means you prefer), and then to share the metrics (only the metrics, never

KEEP ING THE ‘SNOWBAL L’ ROLL ING

No 41


your underlying data) with peer institutions via the Snowball Metrics Exchange.

The Exchange makes it easy to determine those metrics you want to share, and the principal of Snowball Metrics is that it should work on a strictly mutual basis – “I’ll show you mine if you show me yours”. We’ve given a lot of thought to security and fairness, and we've also said that commercial providers can enter metrics into the system for universities to access (for example, Elsevier could, potentially, provide the Scholarly Output metric), but they can’t see the metrics that universities upload themselves.

I won’t pretend that it’s been easy to get to this point – agreeing to these definitions across eight universities (not to mention taking huge steps towards international comparability) has been a challenge, but I think the publication of the third recipe book and the launch of the Snowball Metrics Exchange are real triumphs of collaboration.

THE FUTURE OF METRICS Now that we have started the ball rolling, I really hope that the benefits of the common definitions and recipes that make up Snowball Metrics can be felt across the

sector, both nationally and internationally. And on that point, if we’re going to keep the snowball rolling, it’s over to all of you to review the definitions and recipes and continue the collaborative effort by sharing your Snowball Metrics. Watch this space for ARMA training and development opportunities to help you do just that.

JENNIFER STERGIOU is Head of Research Operations and Reporting at the University of Leeds and a member of the Snowball Metrics Steering and Expert Groups. Alongside colleagues

from the other Snowball project partners, she has contributed her knowledge and experience of research management to create the Snowball approach and define Snowball Metrics' metrics. Jennifer is an active member of ARMA and has 12 years of experience in the higher education sector.

profi le

KEEP ING THE ‘SNOWBAL L’ ROLL ING

UK PROJECT PARTNERS

• University College London

• University of Oxford

• University of Cambridge

• Imperial College London

• University of Bristol

• University of Leeds

• Queen’s University Belfast

• University of St Andrews

• Elsevier

You can contact Snowball Metrics using the contact form at snowballmetrics.com/contact-form

Jennifer Stergiou introduces Snowball Metrics – a sector-led initiative that is working to unify the definitions of words and concepts common to researchers across the globe

No 42


MANY of our staff, and I suspect this to be true across other arts institutions,

have a non-traditional route into academia: the linear undergraduate-PhD-postdoc-first academic position route isn’t really the path many arts researchers go down. They’ve pursued – and very often excelled in – career paths outside of higher education and later been drawn back in once more.

At our institution we have a diverse cohort of staff, some of whom have followed that traditional researcher career path and some who have not. In the latter category, we are lucky enough to have architects who have designed iconic buildings globally but re-

As a research developer at the Glasgow School of Art, Dr Alison Hay has a unique perspective on how best to work with arts and humanities researchers, as well as non-traditional researchers more broadly, to draw out their highly valuable skills

N O N -T R A D I T I O N A L , B U T E X T R E M E LY P O W E R F U L

entered academia to give something back; designers with a track record in industry and impressive client lists; award-winning fine art practitioners … incredibly talented people, held in high esteem professionally, now looking to find their way in an environment totally alien to them.

And it’s alien to them in many ways, not least of which is negotiating the research landscape. The acronyms alone are baffling to many: AHRC, REF, JoR, SFC – the list is endless.

The switch from working for clients to working in the public sector, where research

councils and charities become the clients, is a massive change. Learning what counts as quality in the context of research rather than in the professional world can often be very disheartening to those with esteemed reputations gained elsewhere. However, I have found that there are some approaches that research managers and administrators can take to help our non-traditional researchers not only navigate the change, but shine in their new roles.

No 43


often on permanent but fractional contracts – portfolio careers, if you will. This makes sense for teaching: keeping their hand in the professional world or continuing to undertake practice-based commissions keeps their teaching fresh and relevant. However, it means time for research, and for engaging with our research office, is extremely limited and precious. Glasgow School of Art previously had part-time research developers embedded in its Schools, but this structure did not work for the high degree of fractional staff: income and outputs were low, and not always of the required quality. Now, my colleagues and I are centrally based and full time, meaning we are flexible and responsive to their schedules. Moreover, their income has increased, and we have assisted many fractional researchers in mapping out their research trajectories.

PEOPLE- CENTRED M ANAGEMENT Whilst I have focused on three key elements applicable to the management of arts and humanities researchers, I imagine these principles would also hold in fields such as social work, medicine or law, where such researchers may also have a foothold in both professional and academic worlds.

Key to successful research management of such researchers, regardless of academic discipline, is playing to their strengths, increasing their confidence and providing a smooth path for transitioning into their new career path where possible. Initially, it’s not about making them learn all the funders’ rules for grant making or the high-ranking journal titles they should be targeting: it’s more multifaceted – it’s about truly knowing your researchers as people and what makes them tick and where their place in research lies. The rest can come later.

But a good glossary of acronyms is helpful in the meantime!

DR AL ISON HAY is a research developer at the Glasgow School of Art. She has eight years of experience in research management in the Scottish higher education sector and has experience in

researcher training, grant development, research ethics, contract negotiation and much more. She holds a PhD in Medicinal Chemistry – and no arts qualifications.

profi le

3 KEY ELEMENTS FOR M ANAGING NON-TRADIT IONAL RESEARCHERS A good research management team needs to come up with strategies and tools that can capitalise on existing strengths:

Don’t throw the baby away with the bath water Many staff joining us from outside of the academy often feel their previous

experience doesn’t count. It does, and in one area especially: impact. Whilst traditional academics have struggled to find ways of engaging the outside world, here are a breed of researchers with readymade networks and knowledge that can be harnessed to great effect. That architect who just redesigned half of Moscow’s city centre? He can make a huge contribution to priority research areas such as urban living, bringing not just his expertise but international networks and collaborators to UK research projects. A traditional researcher would need to invest significant time in building up that network for routes to impact: your non-traditional researcher very often has this readymade, but its value goes unrealised. Which neatly gives rise to…

Translation A major area my colleagues and I address is translating the world of research – explaining what

research in a practice-based context looks like and finding common ground between what researchers want to pursue with what the institution and funding councils are looking for. One technique we have used successfully is our annual two-day research bootcamp, which seeks to take staff away from everyday distractions and focus solely on research. We start by focusing on the individual – the skills they have and the pressures they may be under. From that emerges a research idea that meets their skill set, connections and motivations whilst still being in keeping with what research in an academic context is and who it is for. This has been one of our most useful tools for this group of researchers.

Time, time, time Another significant factor in our research environment is our staff is very

No 44


From well-known obligations, such as maintaining freedom of information, to recently acquired ones – including the prevention of staff and students from being drawn into terrorism – Gary Attle discusses the legal issues facing universities and academic research, and explains how knowledge is the best method for confronting these issues

T H E L AW O F K N O W L E D G E

No 45


GARY AT TLE is a solicitor and partner in the law firm Mills & Reeve LLP where he leads the firm’s work in the higher education sector. He has been involved in significant legal issues for universities

on a wide range of issues and has advised on liability and governance matters throughout his 25 years at Mills & Reeve. Gary is recognised as a leading individual in the Chambers Guide to the Legal Profession and in Legal 500, and he was invited to contribute to the Higher Education Policy Institute’s response to the Government’s Green Paper on Higher Education, which was published on 7 January 2016.

profi le

INFORM ATION AND DATA ARE KEY I am sure that many would agree that freedom of information has been a challenging issue for those involved in academic research. New guidance was issued recently by the Information Commissioner, which picked up the exemption that took effect in October 2014 for research information held by a public authority relating to an ongoing research programme.

IT has been my tremendous privilege over the last 25 years to work with

many universities, education bodies and research organisations across the UK on their domestic and international activities. Recently, my experiences in these areas has led me to think about some of the legal issues connected to the Westminster Government's Green Paper on Higher Education: Fulfilling our Potential: Teaching Excellence, Social Mobility and Student Choice (November 2015).

While some of my thoughts on the increasing focus on consumer law in the realm of undergraduate teaching can be found in an article for the Higher Education Policy Institute's response to the Green Paper, I would like to take this opportunity to examine the question: what are some of the knotty legal issues in the field of academic research?

the exercise of their functions to ‘have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism’.

Known as the Prevent Duty, this legislation requires compliance with extensive statutory guidance and will inevitably involve a consideration of the behaviour of individuals at institutions, including activities that fall within the concept of ‘non-violent extremism’ (as defined in the guidance). During the passage of the legislation through Parliament, specific provisions were included late in the day to recognise the statutory duties under other legislation for universities that seek to ensure freedom of speech and academic freedom within the law.

KNOWLEDGE IS POWER These are all significant issues that have to be worked through, but the 'spirit of hope' in this Pandora's Box of legal issues is the demonstrable good for society arising from the creation and dissemination of knowledge. It is something worth striving for and as Lord Tennyson said in his 1842 poem The Two Voices: "And let they feet, millenniums hence, be set in midst of knowledge".

The Government review about the future scope of this legislation is pertinent at this point because, at the time of writing, it was indicated that charities not already included may become subject to this legislation. The Government has also expressed concern in the Higher Education Green Paper that some educational bodies are not subject to the legislation; however, it also seems to recognise the financial burden of including them: “the cost to [HE] providers of being within the scope of the Freedom of Information Act is estimated at £10 million per year”. An area to keep an eye on in 2016.

Often going hand-in-hand with considerations of freedom of information is the need to protect personal data given the legitimate interest in the privacy of information about individuals in appropriate circumstances. Is the right balance being struck so that society is simultaneously benefitting from the use of technology in this ‘age of information’ while also appropriately and robustly safeguarding the dignity of individuals? We will all be spending a lot of time this year getting to grips with the incoming EU General Data Protection Regulation following agreement at the end of 2015 in the trilogue discussions between the European Commission, Council and Parliament.

AN EYE ON INTEGRIT Y AND JURISD ICT ION Some of the most difficult matters that go to the heart of the research endeavour are cases raising issues of research integrity. These can give rise to a panoply of legal issues: information law, public law, employment law, defamation and more besides. How do these issues play out when there is a cross-jurisdictional element to the research involving several institutions and the laws and customs of various countries?

Questions about jurisdictional issues lead one to have to think about the prospect of a Brexit given that a referendum is a possibility this year. Putting aside the policy arguments for and against Brexit for the academic community specifically and for society generally, the untangling of our legal framework from those laws that have a basis in EU law is almost too significant to contemplate.

COMPET ING POL IC I ES AND PREVENTING TERRORISM We are also seeing a major tension between competing policies on some fundamental issues for society that impact on research organisations. This is perhaps illustrated most starkly in the Counter-Terrorism & Security Act 2015. This legislation now puts a statutory duty on ‘specified authorities’ (including universities and hospitals) in

No 46


From knowledge transfer to research commercialisation, knowledge exchange and commercialisation professionals do it all. Tamsin Mann and Amy Firth discuss a survey PraxisUnico completed to build a better understanding of the activities these professionals are involved in, and they describe how the survey's results and key outcomes directly relate to research managers and administrators

W H AT T H E H E C K I S K E C ?

K NOWLEDGE Exchange and Commercialisation (KEC) refers to

activities variously known as knowledge transfer, knowledge exchange, technology transfer, research commercialisation – all of which have the aim of delivering economic and social benefits from the research base. It is the term used by Research Councils UK, and PraxisUnico has now adopted the term KEC across its activities to maintain consistency, consolidate usage and hopefully increase understanding of this important function.

We know what it is, but what about the people doing it? How are they organised? What skills do they have? What kinds of activities fill their day? What are the key challenges? Such questions have led PraxisUnico to commission research into our university members at both the individual and institutional level.

SOLVING THE DAY-TO-DAY MYSTERY PraxisUnico is the UK’s association for professionals working in KEC, a range of activities that has broadened since Higher Education Innovation Funding (HEIF) was introduced to formalise and stimulate external research collaboration activity around 15 years ago. KEC covers a spectrum of activities; it might start with networking and business development, pass through collaborative research and end at licensing or spin-outs. It rarely operates in a straight line, and the job titles by which KEC roles are known vary considerably: Business Development Managers, Innovation Officers, Knowledge Transfer Partnership Managers and Technology Associates all have a hand in KEC.

In surveying our members, we are trying to understand better what individuals do on a day-to-day basis and where the focus of their activity lies. We are interested in the extent to which individuals identify themselves as ‘professionals’ and the extent to which this is encouraged at an institutional level through professional development activities such as training and Registered Technology Transfer Professional (RTTP) accreditation, which recognises the global professional standards awarded by the Alliance of Technology Transfer Professionals, of which PraxisUnico is a founder member.

PraxisUnico campaigns for the sharing of best practice in the sector and is working towards increasing the professionalisation of the KEC function. While it’s true that there is a great deal of academic literature and analysis in this area, this doesn’t quite capture the essence of the KEC community or what it is doing on a day-to-day basis. Moreover, while the annual Higher Education Business and Community Interaction survey focused on transactions and income, it didn't capture non-monetary values or ‘value added’ – though Public and Corporate Economic Consultants (PACEC)’s recent report for Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) does provide new data on this count. We hope that our survey outputs will enable us to complement these kind of metrics and ultimately present an informed and rounded view of KEC in practice to stakeholders.

We also expect to see more evidence of the crossover of research management and administration and KEC, represented by ARMA and PraxisUnico, respectively. Clearly,

No 47


TAMSIN MANN joined PraxisUnico in 2014, having previously worked in knowledge exchange and research administration at the University of Cambridge. As a Policy Officer at PraxisUnico, her role is to inform, support and stimulate the organisation’s advocacy activities. She works with the Advocacy Committee specifically, but also across the wider PraxisUnico membership.

AMY F IRTH joined PraxisUnico in 2014, having previously worked in corporate communications in the public sector. As a Marketing Manager at PraxisUnico, Amy is responsible for the marketing activity within the organisation. She also promotes the advocacy agenda of PraxisUnico and its members.

profi lethere are mutual interests both in terms of shared skills and responsibilities, but there are also shared interests in terms of current macro issues in funding and the stakeholder landscape (specifically, the future of HEFCE and Research Councils UK).

Dialogue and sharing of data are helpful to unpick this overlap and define skills, roles and development needs. These types of information also help us to respond to Green Papers, consultation outcomes and internal pressures in an informed way: to make an impact we need an evidence-base with the power to persuade.

READING INTO THE RESULTS What our survey has already confirmed is the truth on the ground – professionals working in KEC undertake a very diverse set of activities and responsibilities, with diverse external partners. This diversity is underpinned by common practices, processes, professional skills and knowledge; these enable the right approach with the right tools to fit individual circumstances. Diversity on the organisational front includes size of teams, location within wider university administration and legal status (some commercialisation units operate at ‘arm’s length’ from the central Research Office, for example).

Although still sometimes referred to with the blanket term ‘Technology Transfer Office’ (as in the recent Dowling Review) many PraxisUnico members sit in a Research/Research and Enterprise Office and work within extensive internal, as well as external, networks. Since the introduction of HEIF, many offices and teams have been restructured as universities respond to the challenge of how to arrange activities to suit internal and external customers and relationships. They have been moving from a centralised team organisation to more distributed teams working in academic departments or research centres.

At the same time, the language of collaboration, commercialisation and research administration is being tuned increasingly towards the concept of ‘impact’. Understanding KEC professionals’ involvement in the impact case studies

in the Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2014 is important, and we will be contributing to the REF consultation on this front when it is announced. We have also noted that reviews tend to paint one picture of engagement by, typically, asking only academics and their external partners about successes and issues, meaning that the activity is rarely placed within the context of wider university administrative functions. Part of our work is to make those functions’ contributions more visible.

UNITED WE STAND It is important for associations like ARMA and PraxisUnico to work together, providing joint training and advocacy activities where issues affect both our memberships, in order to speak with one voice when it comes to the best interests of the sector. This may be more important than ever as we enter 2016 with the recommendations from the HE Green Paper and Nurse Review – as well as the announcements made in the Comprehensive Spending Review – ringing in our ears. HEFCE is to be restructured and our concern here, of course, is the fate of HEIF and HEFCE’s research/KEC experts. Moreover, Innovate UK (and its merger into what will be Research UK) could impact on KEC funding and will undoubtedly change how our members work with one of their key stakeholders. There is no doubt – post Productivity Plan – that the expectations of what research can deliver are higher than ever, and so expectations of KEC professionals are also increasing.

KEC is an important activity that not only adds value to research and scholarship activities by supporting, advising and connecting academic colleagues and stakeholders, but also by identifying and facilitating opportunities and impacting pathways. It is a successful area that has seen a 47% growth in income to universities between 2003 and 2014. PraxisUnico is raising awareness of this important function, and working to develop, promote and connect the KEC profession to enable it to meet the high demands required of it.

We look forward to continuing to work with ARMA colleagues and our other sector stakeholders to achieve these aims.

No 48


The last six months have seen a series of reports, reviews and evaluations, and ARMA has been there through it all, helping the community navigate these changes. Here are some conversations about these latest news in the UK’s research landscape as captured on ARMA’s Twitter account

No 49


I N T O U C H

Research Fortnight @ResFortnight 26 Jan 2016

There is little concrete evidence on the benefit of moving block-grant funding to Research UK, says @chrishaleuk #UUKGP

TimesHigherEducation @timeshighered 25 Jan 2016

Metrics aren't the answer to REF reform, says @jameswilsdon http://pco.lt/1K6udaQ

ARMA (UK) @arma_uk 15 Dec 2015

HE Bill in doubt as nervous Tories consider other options for Green Paper http://bit.ly/ToriesGP … via timeshighered

Research Fortnight @ResFortnight 25 Nov 2015

BIS: 17% cut; science budget protected in real terms to £4.7bn; increased Catapult funding; Nurse implemented; 165m grants to loans #SR2015

HM Treasury @hmtreasury 25 Nov 2015

Protecting the science budget in real terms so it rises to £4.7bn

James Wilsdon @jameswilsdon 24 Nov 2015

"By any meaningful test, these changes to the Research Councils constitute a merger": my take on the #NurseReview http://bit.ly/NurseReviewWonkhe

Phil Baty @Phil_Baty 23 Nov 2015

Why I had to quit the research excellence framework panel http://bit.ly/REFPanel … via @timeshighered

LSE Impact Blog @LSEImpactBlog 12 Nov 2015

The impact debate should encourage us to reflect on how we produce research not just how we communicate its findings http://bit.ly/1ejsRYo

TimesHigherEducation @timeshighered 6 Nov 2015

Hefce and Office for Fair Access would be merged into new body under government proposals powl.li/Uk5n4

Tessa Marshall @ImpactUoB 6 Nov 2015

Only two pages on research in the #HEgreenpaper. Here's @jameswilsdon on what they say https://t.co/tvFO9dxNiE via @wonkhe #research #HE

ON REPORTS AND REVIEWS

No 50


6 APRIL – THE NOVOTEL , BRISTOL Public Engagement with Research

Securing public engagement with research is one strategy to facilitate research impact and many research offices are drawing on the ideas generated by local and national initiatives to engage the public with research. How can research administrators support researchers to effectively engage the public with their research and what specialist skills are needed? This event will help answer these questions.

27 APRIL – THE NOVOTEL , M ANCHESTER Systems for Ethical Approval

This one-day event enables delegates to hear from a recognised expert in the area of systems for ethical approval and listen to good practice case studies from a range of institutions that have developed approaches in this area. It will provide a chance to share experiences and expertise with colleagues in structured, small group discussions. The workshop is interactive and open to 30-35 delegates.

28-29 APRIL – SC ARM AN HOUSE , UNIVERSIT Y OF WARWICK Leading Research Management and Administration

The aim of this residential workshop is to help new or aspiring senior research managers develop their strategic planning and thinking skills in relation to the leadership of research management and administration, positioning research management and administration at their organisation within broader local, national and international contexts.

D AT E S F O R T H E D I A RY

17 M AY – SENATE HOUSE , LONDON Digital Preservation Workshop

This Technical Knowledge Workshop focuses on helping delegates to acquire the knowledge and behaviours required to undertake particular digital preservation aspects of their role. The workshop includes individual and group activities and discussion and is open to 35-45 delegates.

18 M AY – WEBINAR Complying with the H2020 Open Data Project

This session will introduce participants from the research office to the European Commission’s Open Data Pilot. It will explore who will be expected to participate in the pilot; what information will be required for data management plans (DMPs) generated for the pilot; and timeframes for when DMPs need to be completed. The session will introduce participants to the DCC’s DMP Online tool, which includes a specific H2020 template to allow researchers to complete, store and export data management plans.

31 M AY – COLLEGE OF MEDIC AL SC IENCE , UNIVERSIT Y OF B IRMINGHA M Application, Award And After: Financial and Contractual Management for Research in the NHS

In an increasingly pressurised and rapidly evolving national funding and governance landscape, the teams tasked with supporting new applications and the management of ongoing research portfolios within NHS organisations – as well as the university partners they often interact with – can often be challenged to come up with effective

Follow us on Twitter: @ARMA_UK

Optical Jukebox @OpticalJukebox 28 Nov 2015

What a great night at #THEawards. Thank you to CEO Andrew Chamberlain and the team at ARMA @arma_uk!!

ARMA (UK) @arma_uk 26 Nov 2015

Congratulations to the University of East Anglia, the winner of research project of the year #THEawards

ON THE #THEAWARDS

No 51


and innovative approaches to deliver. This one-day workshop is aimed at staff within NHS organisations and university staff who engage with the NHS who support research and will be particularly beneficial to those new in position, but will also benefit those who are more established in post who wish to network with colleagues and discuss/share solutions to common and new challenges in the NHS research environment.

6 JUNE – THE H I LTON METROPOLE , B IRMINGHA M Induction

The aim of the workshop is to provide research administrators who are new to role with a broad overview of key aspects of the research administration role.

6-8 JUNE – THE H I LTON METROPOLE , B IRMINGHA M ARMA Annual Conference

The aim of our Annual Conference is to promote excellence in research management and administration by sharing best practice through a mix of workshops, plenary sessions and networking opportunities. This year’s conference is the zenith of our Silver Anniversary and will showcase a review into research funding presented by Director of the Higher Education Policy Institute Nick Hillman, Chief Executive of the Higher Education Funding Council for England Madeleine Atkins, Editor of the Times Higher Education World University Rankings Phil Baty, and Director of Policy, Impact and Engagement at the University of Sheffield, James Wilsdon, amongst others.

19-22 JUNE – LULEÅ , SWEDEN EARMA Annual Conference 2016

The European Association of Research Managers and Administrators (EARMA) will be holding its annual conference in cooperation with Luleå University of Technology on the theme of ‘New Horizons in Research Management’. The theme was chosen to reflect EARMA’s desire to encourage new ideas as well as welcoming core topics of interest to all research managers and administrators.

11-15 SEPTEMBER – MELBOURNE , AUSTRAL IA International Network of Research Management Societies (INORMS) International Conference

Australasian Research Management Society (ARMS) is holding the sixth INORMS conference in September 2016 in Melbourne, Australia. The theme of the conference is ‘Research Management in a Connected World’. It is aimed at those involved in research management and administration in all its guises from senior management through to those new to the profession. Attendees from universities, research institutes, government agencies and the private and not-for-profit sectors will share best practice and learnings. The conference will facilitate connections on a personal, collegial and institutional level.

Visit www.arma.ac.uk/events to book your places today!

Melbourne Convention & Exhibition Centre

The Hilton Metrople

Senate House, London

No 52


A couple of posts last year on The Scholarly

Kitchen struck a chord, both in the context of ARMA and communities of practice as a whole. They spoke to both the ongoing value of membership

organisations, as well as the need for evolution in an ever-changing, socially networked world.

Communities of practice theory has of course been around for decades, first proposed by Lave and Wegner in 1991. It is based on the simple principle that a group of people who share a craft or profession have shared knowledge and interests, and thus naturally form a nucleus of expertise with a strong social dimension.

When conceived, the theory applied largely to the physical world – it was before the internet boom, where communities of practice largely met through physical forums such as conferences, seminars and events. The landscape has shifted, however, and the tools available in more recent years, particularly through social media, have marked a shift in communities of practice. Networks have become more visible, they have been extended and new connections have been made. This has facilitated interdisciplinarity not just in research, but in professions, too.

AS COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE EVOLVE, SO MUST MEMBERSHIP ORGANISATIONSA membership organisation must reflect its community of practice; its membership. However, it must also have an eye on the members of the future – and there is

Do membership organisations still provide value? Vicky Williams, CEO of the research communications agency Research Media, argues that membership organisations that focus on the wants and needs of customers actually offer more value now than ever before

evidence to suggest that many membership organisations are struggling to recruit and retain younger members.

A focus on the customer is key. When faced with a large and diverse population such as the ARMA membership for example, it is only through understanding the parts that make up the sum that you can have relevance and meaning. As Harington notes in his Scholarly Kitchen post, it’s not about just providing more ‘stuff’. Providing both physical and virtual spaces to network is important, as is supporting members with knowledge and skill development. Membership organisations must also be seen at the forefront of a profession, guiding its development and providing a platform for new ideas.

IS IT A SOCIAL WORLD? Okay, so not everyone is a Facebook fan (myself included) and not everyone extolls the virtues of Twitter (I only embraced it last year … but there’s no stopping me now!). The critical thing is to find out where your community hangs out – you can lurk on these forums, or you can contribute; you can ask for advice, or you can provide it. Increasingly, though, it is impossible to escape the fact that communities are virtual.

What I see in the ARMA community is a rich and varied set of knowledge and skills; a community that is changing and evolving rapidly, embracing challenges and developing its footprint. The key to success is surely capitalising on this community spirit, working together rather than in institutional siloes.

T H E F I N A L N O T E

VICKY WILL IA MS is CEO of Research Media, a communications agency that provides integrated creative services for the research sector. Vicky came to this position after spending more than a decade at Emerald Group Publishing Limited in a variety of roles spanning editorial and business development.

profi le

Not a member yet? Simply visitwww.arma.ac.uk/membership to join the community

IS YOUR PROJECT PART OF THE CONVERSATION?

From brochures and posters to infographics, video and website development, Research Media offers all the services needed to tell your project’s story with clarity.

95% of projects featured* said they would recommend Research Media to:

• Communicate project impacts and fi ndings to a broad audience

• Reach global stakeholders and funding agencies

• Fulfi l project dissemination requirements

• Increase project visibility

• Serve project partner and stakeholder needs

For information, contact Research Media now quoting reference: ARMA

+44 117 911 3477

[email protected]

www.researchmedia.com

@ResearchMedia

www.inorms2016.org

11th -15th September 2016

Come and visit us at our booth at ARMA

Interna5onal Network of Research Management Socie5es Interna5onal Conference International Network of Research Management Societies International Conference

Come and visit us at our ARMA exhibition stand

www.inorms2016.org

11-15 September 2016


SENSE OF SUPPORTCHANGE IS COMING John Rogers, ARMA’s Deputy

Chair, reflects on recent

changes to the UK’s

research landscape

INTRODUCING VISTAS ARMA's new journal

providing hard evidence to

help you optimise your RMA

decision making

SNOWBALL METRICS Creating a common set

of definitions everyone

can use

ISSUE 3 Spring 2016

AR M A GR ABS B I R M INGHA M BY THE HORNSANNUAL CONFERENCE TO TAKE PLACE IN THE WORKSHOP OF THE WORLD

The

PR

OTA

GO

NIS

T A

proponent for or advocate of the profession ISSN

2397-1665Issue 3 Spring 2016

w w w. a r m a . a c . u k

ww

w.arm

a.ac.uk £7.50


Documents

ARMA GRABS BIRMINGHAM BY THE HORNS€¦ · dr simon kerridge chair of the board of directors. Association of Research Managers and Administrators. CONTENTS. editor Rosemary Peters