Could research culture reform help us solve global challenges?

Posted on by University of Bristol

By Daniel Black

Complex global challenges require large-scale, impact-oriented, transdisciplinary research, yet their successful design and operationalisation is far from straight-forward. As the TRUUD research programme concludes, Co-Director Daniel Black reflects on lessons learned and provides insight into how consideration of research culture could help to mitigate common operational challenges.

Daniel Black is Founder Director of Daniel Black + Associates (db+a) and is currently co-leading TRUUD from the University of Bristol. 

The project

From 2019 to 2025 – through Covid lockdowns – TRUUD (Tackling the Root Causes of Unhealthy Urban Development) brought together 63 researchers, six universities and 11 collaborating partners with a wide range of external stakeholders. Our mission was to transform how health is valued at root-cause decision-points in the UK’s urban planning and development sectors. Our funders, the UK Prevention Research Partnership, wanted to see solutions-focused approaches to population (and planetary) health research that embraced complexity and intervened upstream. The project generated a great deal of interest, not least due to the step-change in health valuation in urban development, yet arguably the greatest achievements are hidden from view: the challenges overcome in its operationalisation.

A hidden challenge

Whilst we complete the programme in surprisingly good shape, we’ve had to weather relationship breakdowns, researcher burnout, staff churn, all at their worst during the unavoidable “storming stage”. Anecdotally, we hear this is common, especially for large ambitious research projects, so it is clearly not unique to us. In fact, the Wellcome 2020 review of the UK’s research culture found that “Current practice prioritises outputs at all costs (which is) damaging people’s wellbeing and undermining the quality of the research.” One can’t help but wonder: how much of the strain we experienced was avoidable, and what role might research culture might play in this?

Bid development and delivery

The proposal was conceptualised initially by non-academic research leads before being co-developed and re-framed with a growing group of academics in consultation with multiple external stakeholders. The consortium was co-led from within Population Health with the majority of funding distributed across a dozen cost centres, mainly external, and across diverse disciplines, from economics and engineering to real estate and public health ethics.

After two years of large group interview and workshop analysis, we identified 50 areas of potential intervention, then identified seven priority areas for development and evaluation that we restructured around. A primary innovation of the original design was that these new and now largely autonomous sub-teams were: a) newly formed around identified problem areas, b) made up of new disciplinary relationships, and c) all had multiple overlapping areas of focus.

Picture of four practitioners talking during a panel at an event.
Transport panel at final TRUUD event.

Issues arising

Understandings around research leadership was a major issue, and specifically how much autonomy was appropriate in Phase 1. In hindsight, we had not made sufficiently clear that we were one single project (rather than a programme of six separate autonomous projects), or what that meant in terms of leadership expectations. The research leads were also all over-worked and time-poor, with most expecting to have almost complete autonomy over their work streams, whereas the research design required coherence to a single vision. Ultimately, it’s still unclear now how possible it would have been to balance autonomy with coherence given current expectations.

Additional challenges, mainly around communication and budget control, included:

  1. Project scale and challenges of communicating across large, dispersed groups
  2. Mid-project restructure, budget control issues and impact on mission-orientation
  3. Lack of time, limiting discussion and communication
  4. Lack of in-house communications staff, limiting ability to communicate effectively

Lessons learned

The overarching lesson for future projects is around expectations: of researchers, of managers, of funders, of researchers about funders, and of researchers about other researchers. The major challenges were not just with our own project and team, but with many wider, structural and institutional factors: not just the epistemological, linguistic, methodological and associated managerial differences between disciplines, but expectations around academic autonomy/independence, management and reporting, research and investment, even government policy and priorities.

The project team posing for a photo in a conference room.
Team TRUUD at the final conference in Bristol, Summer 2025.

Recommendations

Mid-way through, we reflected on what we’d learned. In short, we suggest the following is needed:

  1.     Embracing of uncertainty
  2.     Sophisticated coordination and communication
  3.     Adequate resource (for additional time and communication required)
  4.     Psychological safety
  5.     Valued critical reflection and research-on-research
  6.     Funders supportive of the above

We also explored in far more depth several key areas as they arose:

  1.    How we collectively understand, plan for and evaluate ‘societal impact’
  2.    What “good” co-production looks like in our context
  3.    How we identify and involve critical stakeholders, including the public
  4.    How team understandings changed over time (in production)

In addition, we now prioritise in our recruitment open-mindedness and flexibility as essential characteristics, and we continue to consider how to overcome hierarchies and power imbalances based on seniority, gender, discipline, age and academic/non-academic relations. We also seek to embrace tension, which is inevitable and arguably fundamental to innovation, but we also plan to ensure it can be resolved in a healthy way.

Conclusion

According to the Royal Society “Research culture determines the way that research is conducted and communicated.” We expected TRUUD to be challenging to operationalise. We’d experienced and reflected upon similar challenges when undertaking comparable projects, albeit on a smaller scale. As expected therefore, not all the challenges we experienced on this project could we anticipate. The term “herding cats” is an over-used, but apt description that belies a serious challenge: how can we do truly innovative, mission-oriented, large-scale, transdisciplinary research when approaches to research management and oversight is so entrenched, and time in academia is in such short supply? Research culture has a clear role to play in terms of expectations, and the good news is that it’s determined by all of us.

Daniel would like to thank Ben Hicks and Julia Walton for their reviews of this piece. You can read about TRUUD’s interventions, the tools and guidance we’ve generated and the teams behind them in our final Impact Report, the Phase 1 Report and the website: www.truud.ac.uk. TRUUD has been supported by the UK Prevention Research Partnership (UKPRP), an initiative funded by UK Research and Innovation Councils, the Department of Health and Social Care (England) and the UK devolved administrations, and leading health research charities.

A new way of thinking about Research Ethics at Bristol

Posted on by University of Bristol

By Matthew Brown and Liam McKervey

Matthew Brown is Professor in Latin American History in the Faculty of Arts, Law and Social Sciences and chair of the University Ethics of Research Committee.  

 

Liam McKervey is Research Ethics and Integrity Manager in DREI.

 

 

“Research Ethics” can often be thought of as a form to be filled in, a committee to appease, an obstacle to be surmounted before “research” can be begun. Three changes introduced this summer will make these processes part of our everyday institutional conversation about what we do, who we do it with, and how we do it.

1. More consistency across our Research Ethics Committees

In June 2025 we launched our newly restructured committee review system, after two years of planning, consultation and preparation. To rounds of applause from participants at the annual Bristol Research Ethics Workshop (BREW25), Liam McKervey (Research Ethics and Integrity Manager) pressed a button on the Online Research Ethics Management System (OREMS) and the new system was live. From now on all staff and postgraduate research applications for Research Ethics review will go to a single, university-wide committee staffed with representatives from across all three faculties, rather than specific disciplinary, School or Faculty committees. The expectation is that this will produce better and more consistent decision-making, avoid system-gaming, and reduce delays, workloads and frustration. We will be monitoring the new system through the summer and 2025/26 so please send any feedback, questions or recommendations to us at research-ethics@bristol.ac.uk.

Attendees at BREW24 – photography by Telling Video

2. Sharing best practice

Every School and Faculty will have a Research Ethics Officer as part of the new system, whose role is to identify best practice and share it with colleagues whether through conversation or training provision. Rather than reviewing projects or sharing committees, School and Faculty Research Ethics Officers will be there for informal guidance and dialogue, enabling us to see the bigger ethical picture around their research, whether it involves human participants or not. Dr. Anita Mangan, the new Research Ethics Officer for the Faculty of Arts, Law and Social Sciences, spoke at BREW25 about how she sees her new role and how it might help researchers in her faculty.  Anita’s equivalent in the Faculty of Health and Life Sciences is Dr Lindsay Nicholson. Recruitment in the Faculty of Science and Engineering is in progress and a list of School Research Ethics Officers will be available to view in September.

3. Developing consistent guidance and principles

One of the most exciting elements of the new system is the way it will make it much easier for us to identify grey areas around particular ethical issues where the development of some guidance for researchers would be helpful. This will remove the current situation where researchers try to second guess what a committee would or would not like, sometimes misinterpreting committee opinions and having to redesign their methodology. The new university-wide committees are encountering areas of existing divergent practice, which they need to review. For example, some Schools have encouraged paying participants in cash, others in vouchers, and others have thought that paying participants is unethical. Clearly some guidance as to what the Research Ethics Committees will consider appropriate, or not, will be very useful, and there are many areas where we foresee the development of guidance in the short-term, for example around Artificial Intelligence, which was the theme of a stimulating round-table at BREW25 led by Dr Panos Maghsoudlou, Chair of the ALSPAC Law and Ethics Committee. The guidance on ethical research with AI will sit alongside existing guidance notes on working with participants who take illegal drugs, and working with schools, for example. The aim in all of these is not to be prohibitive or proscriptive, but rather to acknowledge the range of ways of doing ethical research and making best practice available to researchers at an early stage.

Liam McKervey presenting at BREW24 – photography by Telling Video

All in all, 2024/25 has been a packed and transformative year in the life of Research Ethics at Bristol. We thank Clare McDonnell and Peter Whittall, two of our independent committee members who have come to the end of long terms of service, and who have been integral to supporting the changes we have introduced. We are also tremendously grateful to all of the Research Ethics committee members whose work in this area means that the University of Bristol has a Research Ethics review system of which it can be proud, and where continual reflection and improvement are central to our mission.

If you would like to get more involved in Research Ethics space, or if you have an idea for new guidance or ways of working, do get in touch with Liam McKervey at research-ethics@bristol.ac.uk or the chair of the University Ethics of Research Committee, Matthew Brown at matthew.brown@bristol.ac.uk.

Credit where credit is due – Recognising the contributions of our people in research outputs

Posted on by University of Bristol

By Fred Hale 

Fred is a Technical Business Partner and the Technician Commitment lead at the University of Bristol. Fred also spent 3 years seconded to the role of Strategic Technical Lead. He has long championed the University’s Technical Staff and Services. 

 

The University’s Research Culture Committee has updated the guidance for ensuring we recognise the contributions of both technical and professional services staff in our research outputs.

The University aspires to ensure that the contributions of all our staff in research outputs are fairly and appropriately recognised. Traditionally, contributions made by technical and other professional services staff have been omitted in research outputs. These guidelines support our shared vision of fair recognition and attribution.

The University of Bristol remains committed to developing and supporting our technical and professional services staff community, to the benefit of our research and teaching excellence. Championed by organisations such as RCUK, The Institute for Technical Skills and Strategy and GW4, the sector is promoting a ‘team science’ approach to research by proactively focusing on research culture improvements.

Our Technical and Professional Services Staff

At Bristol we have long recognised that research excellence is a real team effort, requiring collaboration and access to the best knowledge, skills and infrastructure.  We have outstanding facilities and services here, staffed by people who are exceptionally talented in what they do.  These are clearly critical to achieving quality results.

Technical and professional services staff often play a crucial part in enabling our research outputs to be achieved, whether that is through the running of samples, operating specialist equipment; design, manufacturing and building bespoke systems, adapting the environment, developing new techniques, recording and analysing data, providing intellectual input and offering solutions based upon knowledge, experience and information.

Research is often interdisciplinary in nature.  Our staff are well connected and are often able to find solutions to problems, both internally and externally.

Two such groups are our Research Technical Professionals group and our Research Professionals group.

Technical Staff Conference 2024 Organising Committee.
Technical Manager Greg Kemble presenting GW4 X-Cited project for Research Technical Professionals at the Technical Staff Conference 2024.

Haven’t we always recognised contributions?

Yes and no.  While Academic colleagues often include professional services staff in acknowledgments or as co-authors, much of the guidance around research outputs is academically focussed. It hasn’t been particularly clear or understood who should be included and for what. Our guidance seeks to clarify the criteria and complies with the rules such as the CRediT Contributor Roles Taxonomy.

Why is this important?

This is vital because:

  • It is important on a personal level, where someone has played a significant role in achieving outputs it is only right and proper that this is recognised.
  • An accurate record of achievements is important for people’s own career and progression.
  • We should be striving for a research culture that values our people, and recognises and celebrates the hard work of each person involved in the research process
  • As an institution we are expected to be able to demonstrate our excellence in our people, culture and environment to our funders such as in our REF submissions. Our research funders are increasingly looking at the whole research infrastructure and culture within institutions.
  • As an organisation we need to know the impact of our technical and professional services staff to ensure we are developing and maintaining our research capability appropriately.

We believe that the new guidance provides clarity and look forward to seeing an increase in the volume of research professionals being appropriately recognised for their contributions in papers, publications and other research outputs.

Read the updated guidance.

If you have any questions regarding this guidance, feel free to email Greg Kemble at Greg.Kemble@bristol.ac.uk.

 

The University of Bristol is proud to support the Researcher Development Concordat—find out why it matters and how you can get involved

Posted on by University of Bristol

By Lydia Klimecki

Lydia Klimecki is a People Development Partner in the People Development Team where she manages Bristol Clear, Bristol’s Researcher Development Hub and leads on Bristol’s Researcher Concordat implementation. A qualified coach, Lydia is passionate about supporting strategic career advancement and culture change initiatives.

The Researcher Development Concordat is a national framework that sets clear expectations and directly impacts how researchers in the UK are employed and managed, outlining what they can expect from their employer, manager, and funder. It also provides guidelines for conducting research and personal development.

The University of Bristol has been a committed advocate of the Researcher Development Concordat since its early days, standing among the first institutions to endorse it at its launch in 2008 and reaffirming that commitment by signing the 2019 revision. This dedication is reflected in the way Concordat principles are embedded across the institution, through governance structures, policies, training, and regular progress monitoring. Bristol remains firmly focused on cultivating a positive, inclusive research culture that empowers its researchers and strengthens the future of research.

Bristol’s Researcher Development Concordat video explains the key principles of the Concordat and why they are essential to your work, whether you’re a Researcher or a PI, preparing a grant or fellowship proposal, managing a research team, or looking ahead to REF 2029. You’ll hear why embedding the Concordat’s values benefits individuals, teams, and institutions alike, what is already happening at Bristol and how you can get involved, including finding out who your local Concordat Champion is and connecting with them.

Robbie Mackenzie, Senior Research Associate in the Interface Analysis Centre as well as Researcher Rep for School of Physics, recently successfully applied and costed for a grant using the Concordat principles as a guide: “I knew the funder valued the development of early career researchers as a legitimate grant outcome. So, when hiring for the project, I included time for both development and contingency: I built in three months at the project end for the researcher to write papers, job hunt, and benefit from their experience, not just to finish project tasks.”

Another example of the Concordat in action is the inclusion of researchers in recruitment decision-making processes within the Faculty of Health and Life Sciences: Many schools now actively encourage the participation of Pathway 2 Representatives in recruitment panels for grant-funded research positions.

Why should you engage with the Concordat?

For Researchers:

  • Understand your rights, responsibilities, and development opportunities.
  • Advocate for your professional needs and participate in shaping the research culture.
  • Use it as a benchmark to guide your career planning and progression.

For Line Managers and PIs:

  • Clarifies your role in supporting researchers’ development and wellbeing.
  • Encourages inclusive leadership and best practice in management.
  • Helps you meet institutional and funder expectations as well as REF 2029 requirements.

For Professional Services and Leadership:

  • Informs strategic planning around researcher support and development.
  • Enables coordinated institutional efforts to improve research culture.
  • Supports initiatives like Athena Swan and broader EDI strategies.

Get involved and act!

Together, we can build a more supportive, enabling research culture where people—and their ideas—can thrive.

Research to Reward: funding for commercialisation and culture

Posted on by University of Bristol

By Dr. Xiyue Zhang, Dr. Isabelle Cuthbert and Kit Bartlett

Dr. Xiyue Zhang is a Lecturer in the School of Computer Science at the University of Bristol, previously a Research Associate at the University of Oxford. Her research focuses on trustworthy deep learning, integrating formal certification and practical testing. She advocates for equity, diversity, and fostering a supportive and inclusive environment in higher education.

 

Dr. Isabelle Cuthbert is a Research Associate in the School of Physiology, Pharmacology and Neuroscience. Trained as a biochemist, she works on developing tools for use in neuroscience research. She hopes to inspire, support and empower other researchers to pursue impactful and innovative research in the life sciences.

 

Kit Bartlett is a Research Commercialisation Associate in DREI. They work with researchers to help identify, translate and commercialise innovative ideas, tools and inventions to deliver social, economic and environmental impact. They are an EDI advocate and co-creator and co-organiser of Research to Reward (alongside Olivia Champion).

 

Research to Reward (RtoR) is a new commercialisation-focussed funding scheme for female and non-binary University of Bristol researchers, made possible through Research England Research Culture funding 2024/25. Our aim was to celebrate and showcase fantastic researchers, to build a more inclusive innovation culture and tangibly helping advance projects towards commercialisation.

The scheme invited entrepreneurially minded researchers to apply for a chance to pitch to a judging panel and voting audience for one of two £20,000 prizes. Along the way, the finalists received communication and pitch training as a cohort and were supported to advance their knowledge of and skills in commercialisation and innovation, culminating a 5 minute pitch to 150 people.

The two exceptional winners of RtoR, Xiyue Zhang and Isabelle Cuthbert, talk about their experiences taking part in the scheme:

Dr Xiyue Zhang

Xiyue Zhang holding her trophy at the Research to Reward event 2024/25

“It created a rare and empowering space where female researchers could see what was possible and see it in one another”

“It showed me how powerful it can be to build a research culture where everyone feels seen, supported, and valued”

 

Xiyue Zhang won £20,000 for her tool that ensures AI-driven financial models aren’t discriminatory.

Embarking on the RtoR journey has been nothing short of transformative. My journey with RtoR began on 26 November 2024 at the Enterprise Roadshow. From that very first event, I was introduced to a vibrant, diverse, and inclusive research culture. Through this journey, I was deeply inspired by the stories of brilliant female entrepreneurs and had the opportunity to connect with researchers from various disciplines, all driven by a shared passion and sense of purpose.

In January, I became part of the first RtoR cohort and began participating in training workshops, which demystified entrepreneurship and commercialisation – areas that once felt so distant from my academic world. These sessions provided an environment where every voice was heard, and every innovative idea was encouraged, guided and refined. It was impossible not to feel energised by fellow researchers’ enthusiasm and creativity. It created a rare and empowering space where female researchers could see what was possible and see it in one another.

At the final event, watching each presenter shine and share their ideas with such clarity and confidence highlighted the magic of empowerment. What struck me most wasn’t just the quality of the ideas, but the spark and culture behind them.

This journey showed me that research culture is not just about achieving one-after-another professional milestones. What made RtoR exceptional was its commitment to building a supportive and inclusive research culture – one that celebrates diversity and empowers researchers to explore innovative ideas. By centring women and bringing together voices across disciplines, the scheme encouraged diversity, nurtured innovation, and empowered them to envision and achieve impactful outcomes. Personally, it vividly showed me how powerful it can be to build a research culture where everyone feels seen, supported, and valued.

Being through this journey has not only broadened my horizon of what’s possible in my own career – it’s inspired me to cultivate a similar culture within my own research team. A culture where diverse perspectives are welcomed, and every member feels empowered to grow.

Dr Isabelle Cuthbert

“The encouragement from the audience and the sense of community from my fellow finalists left me feeling empowered”

“Commercialisation no longer feels like the distant, abstract concept it did before I applied, but something I can achieve”

 

Isabelle Cuthbert won £20,000 to advance microscope techniques to help fight diseases like Alzheimer’s and cancer.

I applied for RtoR in December 2024, excited by the opportunity to explore commercialisation but unsure as to where it may lead. I have always been interested in bringing research out of universities and into the real world, but actually doing it seemed really daunting. The training offered to finalists from SETsquared seemed like a great way to gain insight into the realities of commercialising an idea.

It came as a real shock to be selected as finalist! I was initially nervous to attend the first pitch training day, but the other finalists were so friendly and there was so much to take away from the experience. I felt inspired by the diverse range of ideas and innovations the finalists pitched. Everyone was so passionate about their project, and the trainers were fantastic at fine-tuning the delivery of our visions. It was clear we all grew a lot throughout the process.

The night of the event was both nerve-wracking and exciting. It was so great to see the hard work of the other finalists come to life, and it was a great opportunity to present to those outside my field. The audience’s genuine interest and warm reception made it clear that there was and is a real desire to bridge the gap between research and real-world application. The encouragement from the audience and the sense of community from my fellow finalists left me feeling empowered. This space was ours to advance.

Whilst winning the award was incredible, I have gained so much more from the experience as a whole. RtoR has completely changed how I view what I do. I feel like I belong in the entrepreneurial space now. Commercialisation no longer feels like the distant, abstract concept it did before I applied, but something I can achieve. Connecting with others who have successfully navigated this journey has been incredibly motivating and reaffirmed the value of collaboration in research commercialisation. The funding and continued support from the program will undoubtedly help me take the next steps in producing and commercialising my innovation.

The researchers who pitched for the £40,000 funding pot, alongside organisers Kit Bartlett and Olivia Champion from the University’s Commercialisation team.

Many thanks to Research England Research Culture funding for making Research to Reward a reality. We hope will continue to positively contribute to the University’s Research Culture through Research to Reward and similar initiatives for years to come.

Read the press release below for more information about the event:

March: Research to Reward | News and features | University of Bristol

Developing a positive research culture at Bristol – our programme of work in 2024/25

Posted on by University of Bristol

By Yasmine Rhoseyn and Eirini Triantafyllou

Yasmine is Research Culture Strategy Manager at the University of Bristol. She supports the Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor for Research Culture, Marcus Munafò in leading research culture activity across the university, and monitors the implementation of the research culture strategy. She also sits on the committee for the Research Culture Enablers Network based at Warwick, which is a solutions focused group dedicated to exchanging and challenging ideas to improve research culture and drive meaningful change.

 

Eirini is a Project Officer at the University of Bristol. She oversees the process of funding allocation to the Research Culture projects, monitors spending and offers support and guidance for all finance-related matters. Eirini also supports the Policy Support funded projects and Participatory Research projects in the same capacity.

 

 

Over the last couple of years, our research culture programme of work has been led by many talented colleagues and students from across the university, as well as partners and stakeholders beyond.

This academic year, we have a varied programme of different projects, aligned with our research culture vision and strategy that aims to support a positive research environment and culture here at the University of Bristol.

You can find a summary of the projects, and who is leading these below. More detail on project aims, outputs and impact can be found in this PDF or on our research culture sharepoint.

Promoting openness and transparency in how we work

In 2024, we funded the creation of an Open Research Community Manager role at the University to support open research training, work collaboratively with the UK Reproducibility Network and improve open research practices at the university. You can find out more about Lavinia Gambelli’s role and work in her recent blog.

Along the themes of openness and open research, a few of our funded projects focus on research ethics and these important processes and practices. Work has been undertaken to improve signposting to existing tools and practices, as well as co-design collaborative solutions when it comes to the ethics of public engagement (Dee Smart and team).

Another important facet is teaching research ethics , which Jo Rose and team have been exploring at the PGT level, including how change in teaching practice happens at a local level and lessons to be learned.

In terms of the research ethics process itself, Patricia Neville and team have been investigating where sustainability in research considerations could be made and incorporated into our online Research Ethics Management System, and what this would look like, which feeds into the wider UoB research strategy and its commitment to sustainability.

Empowering staff and students through effective leadership and management at all levels

We believe leadership can and should be encouraged at all levels (regardless of role title); to support this the Leadership Ethos framework has been developed. This framework is being embedded into leadership programmes and resources curated by the Staff Development teams, and this work is led by Izzy Frazer-Veli, Bethan Turner and developed by Nadia Soliman.

Relevant to the framework is the concept of transformative leadership – this has been a focus of Alf Coles and team who have developed resources and run workshops over the last couple of years. They are now focusing on adding this programme to the training offered by the Staff Development team, which includes development of a workshop accessible via Develop.

Leadership at postgraduate research level is crucial for developing skills and equipping our future leaders for success. Maya Al-Khouja and team at Bristol Students’ Union have developed a student research leaders programme looking at developing innovative solutions to local challenges and working with local mental health charity Changes Bristol.

To support postgraduate research culture, PGR supervisors play a critical role. At the heart of this is ensuring training and support for PGR supervisors is adequate and practical (Ros O’Leary and team) and that guidance exists to help supervisors navigate supporting their PGR students (Stephanie King and team).

Bristol Students’ Union staff and UoB students gather for launch of student research leaders programme

Providing a range of stable career opportunities for those involved in research

PEER LEAD aims to empower PGR students as trainers equipping them with new skills (coding and research ethics) themselves but enabling them to learn how to teach and support their peers in these areas, developing valuable skills for future employment (Harry Mellor and team). Similarly, Alice Ferns and team have been focusing on careers support for PGRs including development of An Insider’s Guide to Academia available via LinkedIn Learning and a video series about applying for a PhD.

In the Faculty of Science and Engineering, Emma stone and colleagues are establishing a community of Early Career Researchers, which includes connecting with Research Concordat Champions, and equipping ECRs with the skills and connections needed for career transitions through working with external partners. On the Researcher Development Concordat, Lydia Klimecki is putting together an engaging film to make the concordat accessible to staff across the university.

Ros O’Leary and team are providing more support to staff to engage in pedagogic research through training and a central hub of resources, which will in turn help this research culture to thrive and develop and retain staff talent. Staff and students are also being provided with retreats to help develop key skills necessary for their careers, with Claire Wrixon running retreats for black female academics participating in WHEN100 and early career researchers.

Embedding diversity in research and those involved in research

Several projects within this programme of work are looking at diversity and inclusivity across the university and beyond. Caroline McKinnon and Claudia Gumm are further developing and launching the inclusive research toolkit on external platforms to be accessed by the HE sector.

Inclusive Research Toolkit poster

Daniella Jenkins and team are investigating the lived experiences of people of colour among the PGRs and non-academic staff populations, with the view to develop actions to improve the research culture for these groups.

Winfred Gatua, Amanda Chappell, Lawrence Osei Owusu and Helen Natukunda are developing a PGR network for students of Black and White/Black dual heritage to foster community, develop links with Black alumni, showcase examples of academic innovation, enhance career relevant skills and address career trajectory inequities.

Research to Reward, led by Kit Bartlett and colleagues aims to improve commercialisation support for female and non-binary researchers and promote diversity in research innovation by providing funding and recognition for innovative ideas led by these underrepresented researchers.

Professional services staff contribute significantly to research, and Helen Curtis, Charlotte Verney and their colleagues are continuing their work to understand the research activities of these staff at Bristol, implementing some of the recommendations from their prior report to help professional services navigate and feel supported in conducting research.

Antonia Tzemanaki and team build upon the work of Jenny Crane and Erika Hanna to embrace parenthood in research and higher education, looking at three distinct strands 1) community, 2) implementation of positive change and 3) research collaboration.

Helen Thomas Hughes continues her work on the experiences of mature PGRs by developing and implementing a comprehensive suite of resources to address challenges faced by this group and foster a more inclusive research environment. Stephen Gray also leads work on improving the experience of postgraduate students through implementing interactive 3D tours of key spaces on campus, supporting accessibility and the needs of neurodivergent students.

Encouraging internal and external collaboration and fostering innovative approaches

Collaborative and innovative ways of working are key to a thriving and positive research culture. Work is underway to develop and launch an action-focused, reflective framework – the Working Well Together resource – which has been co-produced with over 700 members of staff at the university and led by Sarah Campbell and team. Expanding on this, Alice Beck has been exploring utilising the developed resources among PGR communities and building upon these to develop resources to cultivate a positive research culture.

Attendees at Working Well Together launch, October 2024

Networks and research groups at the university play an important role in contributing to the wider institutional research culture as these create their own ways of working and positive practices. Pau Erola and team have been focused on developing a Health Data Research Network to drive innovation through collaboration by holding best practice workshops, events and sustaining a steering committee. Oscar De Mello and team have been focused on research culture in ‘The Sheds’, working with Artists in Residence and creative practitioners to inform operation of The Sheds so they are an open and collaborative space for relevant communities, and establishing working and business models that could be best practice exemplars for wider University hubs.

Creative thinking, idea generation and innovative practice is a key area of focus. Giovanni Biglino, Bec Gee and team have been building upon their previous work ‘The Department of Imagination’ and are developing research culture and imagination labs for early- and mid-career researchers, supporting them to explore innovative and imaginative approaches to research and the benefits this can have for collaboration. The Exploratory Facility Fund, led by Olivia Gaitonde and Anne Westcott provides access to Science and Engineering TRAC facilities to researchers facing barriers (ECRs, those returning from research breaks and those exploring new research areas) to help bring new and innovative ideas to life that wouldn’t have otherwise been possible due to a financial gap.

Working in partnership and developing collaborative links is fundamental to sustaining a positive research culture. Anthony Manyara and team have been exploring a more equitable partnership with Global South research partners and are creating pragmatic interventions to address visa and passport inequities, as well as promoting equitable budget spends and allocations for Global South research projects.

Focused on community engagement and community researchers, Sabi Redwood, Mari-Rose Kennedy and team have been supporting these researchers to build a community of practice to aid in co-produced research. They are developing training and support for community-based researchers and university-based researchers to facilitate more equitable and effective collaboration during research projects. Ruth Badru and team have also focused their efforts on community research, with their work focused on engaging the community and promoting interdisciplinary collaboration, through the lens of understanding the impact of transport disparities on socio-economic opportunities. They are working with local authorities, transport providers and community organisations to co-produce actionable solutions that can be enacted in Bristol.

Find out more and get in touch

As demonstrated above, there is a varied programme of ongoing work comprising of many different projects that are working to enhance the research culture here at Bristol and within the HE sector. This work is led by passionate and talented colleagues and students and we are excited to share more of their work, including outputs when these are developed over the coming months.

You can find more detail on project aims, outputs and anticipated impact on our research culture sharepoint site. If you have any questions about the projects, please do get in touch via researchculture-projects@bristol.ac.uk so we can support and link you up with the relevant leads.

So Long, and Thanks for All the Researchfish…

Posted on by University of Bristol

By Marcus Munafò

Marcus is Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor of Research Culture at the University of Bristol and incoming Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Provost at the University of Bath. He leads on research culture activity across the university, providing direction and vision, working across the institutional landscape, and identifying key challenges and opportunities. He is also institutional lead for the UK Reproducibility Network. 

 

According to MyERP, I officially started working at the University of Bristol on the 1st March 2005 – although I remember coming in a day early because 1st March was a Tuesday and what else was a young lecturer going to do with a Monday…? Not exactly the best role modelling by someone who would – many years later – devote much of his working week to improving research culture. 

And now, after almost exactly 20 years I will be leaving the University of Bristol. On the 1st May I’ll start a new adventure as Deputy Vice Chancellor and Provost at the University of Bath. It’s been an incredible two decades – I wrote grants (a few of which were funded!) and papers, built collaborations, made plenty of mistakes (and tried to learn from them), helped build a research group, and completed my fair share of Researchfish submissions… 

Most importantly, I made many friends. There are far too many to name them all, but my co-directors of the Tobacco and Alcohol Research Group (TARG) – Angela Attwood, Olivia Maynard and Ian Penton-Voak – have been the most important, simultaneously keeping my feet on the ground and keeping me sane. When we started to build TARG it was clear that it shouldn’t be critically dependent on one person. When I leave, it will barely miss a beat – the culture and structure we’ve developed will ensure that. 

Tobacco and Alcohol Research Group, University of Bristol

Which brings me to my role as APVC for Research Culture.

Back in 2019 I set up the informal Research Improvement Group, which brought together academic, technical and professional voices with an interest in reflecting on our research practices and identifying ways to improve these. This was partly in support of Bristol’s membership of the UK Reproducibility Network (which we currently host), but more broadly in response to growing sectoral interest in how academia can ensure the quality of the work it produces, and the health and vibrancy of the environment it creates to support that.

In 2021, our then PVC for Research and Innovation, Phil Taylor, was creating APVC roles to create a similar structure to the one that existed for education and give him more capacity to deliver against key agendas. One of these was research culture – and, given the natural proximity to my research improvement role, I applied. I formally began in the role in early 2022, and almost immediately we learned that we would receive an Enhancing Research Culture allocation from Research England (as did all English institutions that received REF funding).

That funding allowed us to constitute a research culture team, led by Yasmine Rhoseyn, with support from (variously – as people have moved in and out of roles) Sean Gilligan, Pat Humphries, Leah Jones, Gurjeet Kaur, Lumina Kemp and Eirini Triantafyllou. With that team in place, we got to work… Research Improvement Group became Research Culture Committee, eventually a formal sub-committee with delegated authorities in key areas such as open research, and we developed plans to spend our allocation.

Attendees gather at the Festival of Research Culture, 2024

Our early strategy had to be developed rapidly given that the funding had to be spent by the end of the University financial year in July. We identified some major areas of focus – such as open research and leadership – but a large proportion of the budget went into an open call to provide seedcorn funding for grassroots projects. We were struck by not just the number but also the quality of applications we received, and – as intended – this gave us a picture of what was already happening across the University.

Over the years we have continued this scheme, adding a separate call for continuation funding, helping to grow projects and support them either to completion or to the point where they can become self-sustaining. This also helped us to build a community that we bring together at an annual Festival of Research Culture. And this community was also central to the next phase of our activity – the development of a research culture vision and strategic plan to take us to 2030.

This vision and strategic plan is now in place, supported by an annual implementation plan that brings a tactical element – outlining what we will do this year that will move us in the right direction (and how we will know). It is the result of extensive development and consultation, and – I think – something we can collectively be proud of. The next step will be to bring this to life on the ground, by engaging the research and research-enabling community.

Front page of the Research Culture Vision and Strategy document

But why do we do this in the first place? Why does research culture matter? In my view, there are moral, pragmatic and selfish reasons. It is right to create an environment where people feel supported and are able to develop and thrive. But by creating that environment we will also create the conditions where people can do their best work. And in turn that environment will allow us to recruit and retain the best talent in a way that will ensure the long-term health of the University.

Bristol is rightly world-recognised for its teaching and research, but we should always be looking to reflect and improve. By maintaining a positive research culture, and an environment that supports this, we can become known for something else – the ways in which we support people at all career stages, across all career pathways, and from all backgrounds to excel in ways that are meaningful to them. In other words, we can be known not just for what research we do, but how we do it.

Making the most of the micro: distilling research culture through interactions and behaviours

Posted on by University of Bristol

By Dr Jess Pilgrim-Brown

Dr Jess Pilgrim-Brown is a Senior Research Associate and Lecturer at the University of Bristol and a Postdoctoral Researcher at the University of Oxford. She previously worked in professional services, in elite sports coaching, and as a consultant researcher. She focuses predominantly on the relationships between working-class professional services staff and administrative staff in UK higher education although her interests also include equalities agendas, cultures and behaviours in higher education, and expanding access to higher education for people from traditionally marginalised backgrounds. She fervently advocates for collaborative, supportive research cultures in higher education and university spaces.

Research culture in the UK

The notion of research culture and the relationship between research culture and higher education has become increasingly important over the course of the past twenty to thirty years. We often conceptualise research culture in a variety of different ways; the mechanisms, frameworks and administrative systems which are in place to either support or prevent positive research cultures; the volume, nature and standard of research outputs as being reflective of positive research cultures and environments; the formal behaviours, values and expectations that are often encapsulated through university legislation, concordats and agreements.

These kinds of manifestations of research culture might be considered ‘macro’, large scale actions and activities which are focused on the institutional or organisational level. Reporting research culture and research environment through these kinds of activities can be supported (as in the case of the Research Excellence Framework) through additional data collection activities including focus groups and surveys on research careers, staff satisfaction, mentorship practices and evidence and the presence and proliferation of policies around work-life balance as an exemplification of positive research environments. However, and what this blog argues, is that the manifestation of research culture can be examined directly and powerfully through the microscopic lens of personal interactions and behaviours; behaviours which not only magnify the status of hierarchy and position in the institution but that directly reflect the nature of research culture within an institution.

Research culture, relationships and different actors in the academy

From 2021-2023 I conducted research which focused specifically on the experiences of professional services staff and administrative staff in Russell Group universities in the UK. One of the key findings from this research was concerned with the nature of interactions between professional services or ‘non-academic’ staff and their counterparts working on academic trajectories. In this small-scale research project, the professional services group largely referred to their relationships with other professional services colleagues and management as supportive, whilst often referred to interactions with academics as ‘the worst part of my job’. In other instances, they explained that they were treated ‘like scum’, exemplifying examples of negative and demeaning behaviours, shouting, and an over-exaggeration of academic hierarchy in relation to their own career positions and career ambitions. Focusing on such relationships helps us to understand how negative policies, frameworks, legislation and formal practice collaborate with one another, resulting in the manifestation of such behaviours which go unchecked, uncontested and without retribution. At present, in some institutions and environments these kind of behaviours continue to persist (as they might have done some decades ago) despite changes to formal process and practice across the landscape of higher education in the UK (Pilgrim-Brown 20\24).

Moving forwards: addressing relationships at the heart of research culture

Attendees at the University of Bristol’s annual Festival of Research Culture, which is open to academic, technical, and professional services staff

It might be pertinent to suggest that often, in pursuit of completing statements on research culture and research environments, that universities largely conduct isolated, small-scale data (particularly concerning qualitative experiences) which fails to capture the extent, expanse, and full tapestry of phenomenon that exist within the university, faculty, department, or unit more specifically.  Collecting systematic data of this nature within our institutions on these kinds of interactions can serve to help us understand what the impact of policies and procedures, legislation and concordats really is on the people who work within research environments on a day-to-day basis.

To be effective, this needs to be ‘joined-up’, complimentary, and harmonised within the institution, across units and faculties; and to be analysed whilst considering the cross-tabulations between demographics, disciplines and career stages. In magnifying the micro in this way, the proliferation of research cultures and their impact, may be both easier to discern, to identify, and to resolve.  As such, a call for university management to create systematic, rigorous evaluations of the research culture as evidenced through such micro actions and initiatives is highly recommended.

Building an Open Research Community at the University of Bristol

Posted on by University of Bristol

By Lavinia Gambelli

Lavinia is the Open Research Community Manager at the University of Bristol, supporting trainers at UKRN Open Research workshops. She has ten years of research experience in microbiology across various countries.

 

 

 

In the summer of 2024, the University of Bristol introduced an updated suite of open research policies designed to make open research practices more accessible and actionable. These policies aim to provide a clear, practical guide for researchers and research enablers, while also emphasising the University’s role in supporting the adoption of these practices. Key to this support is the commitment to providing the necessary infrastructure, funding, and training to embed open research skills into the professional development of staff and students, ensuring these practices become an integral part of academic life.

In March 2024, my position as Open Research Community Manager was created to help share these practices and policies through building a community of Open Research trainers. Being part of the Research Support Team within Library Services and serving on the Open Research Working Group, I have a unique vantage point. I’m involved in strategic conversations shaping open research and research culture at the University, while also staying connected to the grassroots efforts led by our trainers. This dual perspective highlights the importance of aligning top-down institutional strategies with the on-the-ground realities faced by researchers and trainers alike.

UKRN Open Research Programme

As the Open Research Community Manager, one of my key responsibilities is to recruit staff for open research workshops and support them throughout the process, from their initial training to the delivery of their own sessions. As part of the Open Research Programme, an initiative led by the UK Reproducibility Network (UKRN), we offer training on a variety of open research topics.

This programme follows a train-the-trainer model: staff who attend a UKRN workshop become open research trainers themselves, enabling them to deliver similar workshops at the University. This approach not only amplifies skill-sharing but also fosters a culture of collaboration and continuous learning. Upcoming workshops delivered by our open research trainers are shared on the Open Research Training SharePoint site and on the dedicated Develop page.

Once they have attended one or more UKRN workshops, trainers join the University’s Open Research Trainers group. This network offers ongoing peer support, particularly during the development and delivery of their workshops. Trainers and all University’s staff and students have access to resources such as slides and materials developed by previous trainers (accessible through the Open Research Training SharePoint site), fostering a sense of collaboration and continuity.

Now in its third iteration, the training programme has been met with interest and engagement from across the University community. By integrating open research practices into daily work, participants not only enhance their professional workflows but also unlock valuable opportunities for career development. Trainers can improve their training skills, gain recognition for their contributions to the development of colleagues, and bolster their promotion applications with tangible evidence of their impact on research culture.

Carlos Ayala who attended the UKRN workshop titled “Data Management for Reproducibility”, said:

“[The training is] very interesting and valuable for research projects in terms of implementation, impact and dissemination”

“This workshop has supported my role as Data Manager within the research project I am currently coordinating.”

Become an Open Research Trainer

Since the first series of workshops in spring 2024, 25 staff members have joined the Trainers group, delivering six sessions across the University so far. If you’re keen to join this training but missed the latest recruitment round, don’t worry! We’ll soon be seeking new trainers for another series of workshops this summer. Be sure to keep an eye on the SharePoint site for the latest announcements and updates, or contact me if you’d like to receive an email when the registrations open – we’d love to have you on board!

This sunburst chart illustrates the uptake of UKRN Open Research workshops in 2024 at the University of Bristol. Inner circle: represents Faculties, Professional Services, and Research Institutes. Outer circle: represents Schools, Professional Services, and Research Institutes within these groups. Numbers in brackets: indicate the number of workshops attended by each group.

Other opportunities for you to get involved

The UKRN open research workshops are just one part of the open research training opportunities available to you at Bristol. A variety of sessions – independent of the train-the-trainer model – are offered throughout the year by professional services teams (such as the Library, People Development, and the Division of Research, Enterprise and Innovation) and academic departments (including the Bristol Medical School and the Jean Golding Institute). Whether you’re a beginner or looking to deepen your expertise, there’s plenty to explore to expand your knowledge of open research.

To further strengthen this growing community of open research practitioners, we hosted our first in-person lunch with the inaugural cohort of open research trainers in autumn 2024. This was an opportunity to exchange ideas, reflect on experiences, and build connections within the group. As the trainers’ network expands, there is significant overlap with the Bristol Reproducibility Network – the local network of UKRN – which shares a similar ethos of fostering open and transparent research.

Back in February, we took part in the first-ever “Open Research Community Event”, bringing together members from both groups. It was a fantastic turnout, sparking plenty of insightful conversations. One of the highlights was the session in which our guest speakers shared real-life examples of how embracing open research practices has boosted their careers. We also explored ways to strengthen open research at Bristol, gathering valuable feedback and fresh ideas. Have a look at Richard’s event highlights if you’d like to read more about it.

Picture taken at the Open Research Community Event in February 2025.

As we look to the future, our focus remains on expanding the open research community, fostering collaboration, and ensuring that open research practices are accessible and beneficial to all. By building these connections and investing in skills development, we’re not just promoting open research—we’re creating a culture where it can truly thrive. What role will you play in advancing open research at the University? With so many training and collaboration opportunities available, now is the perfect time to get involved and help us make a difference.

Listening – and hopefully learning…

Posted on by University of Bristol

By Marcus Munafò

Marcus is Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor of Research Culture at the University of Bristol. He leads on research culture activity across the university, providing direction and vision, working across the institutional landscape, and identifying key challenges and opportunities. He is also institutional lead for the UK Reproducibility Network.

 

For the last two years we have asked colleagues to provide us with suggestions on how we can improve research culture, through a “dropbox” – an online form where any comment, large or small, can be submitted (anonymously, if preferred). Since our internal review of research bureaucracy, we have also had a second dropbox focused on issues of research bureaucracy. These have fundamentally been an exercise in listening, and in providing better connectivity between different parts of our institution.

The comments we have received have highlighted challenges and frustrations related to research support, university bureaucracy, and resource allocation. The issues raised include practical challenges (research support staffing, HR processes, research infrastructure) as well as cultural challenges (leadership, recognition of technical staff). Of course, the nature of the dropboxes means that we are more likely to receive negative comments than positive ones. But this is important. We cannot improve if we shy away from these challenges.

One difficulty is that, understandably, those who submit comments want to know what is being done to address the issues they have raised. Where a name was provided, we have tried to respond – in many cases connecting the person with someone able to discuss the issue they raised (and perhaps help solve it, although that isn’t always possible). But we do read all the comments. They are discussed at Research Culture Committee and, where appropriate, picked up by the appropriate person and explored further.

Our annual Festival of Research Culture provides another opportunity to engage with research culture at the University

Change can be slow, but having a better understanding of the reality on the ground, and the challenges being faced, ultimately helps foster better situational awareness and a culture of continual improvement. We are keen to maintain this. However, in order to simplify the process we have now reverted to a single suggestions dropbox. The hope is that we will continue to receive concerns and complaints but also, where possible, potential solutions. Often those directly affected by an issue are best placed to suggest a solution.

Our culture programme (and my role) is approaching the end of its third year. I think we have made progress – we have supported a range of exciting projects, large and small, and launched our vision for 2030, together with a strategic plan for achieving this. But I have always believed that our research culture is, fundamentally, a reflection of ourselves. It is not something imposed on us, but created by us. That includes being able to offer (and hear) constructive challenge. Please keep the comments coming! Get in touch.