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

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.

By Anna Wallace, Claire Parnall and Alice Ferns, Bristol Doctoral College

This is the first of a series looking at research culture stories within the postgraduate community.

While many postgraduate research (PGR) students at the university thrive as part of their research environment, sometimes at the Bristol Doctoral College we encounter PGRs who struggle to connect with the broader community. This can be for a range of reasons, as every PGR journey is different, but common factors can include: the solitary nature of some research; lack of an identifiable cohort; the intensity of work demands or the ongoing impacts of Covid-19 on collective working.

In 2023, the Postgraduate Research Excellence survey revealed that only 54% of postgraduate researchers (PGRs) at the University of Bristol knew about chances to get involved in the wider research community outside their department.

To inspire staff across the university to address this, we have collected some examples of where schools and faculties have made a positive impact for PGRs.

The individuals showcased in these cases have used their initiative, creativity and community spirit to develop activities or events help PGRs connect with the broader research community at Bristol, and enhance their wellbeing, research and student experience.

We hope you are inspired by these examples to think about the ways we can all make a difference for the PGRs who work at Bristol.

This blog series was curated by the team in the Bristol Doctoral College as part of work on enhancing research culture.

Reconnecting after Covid: A conference of postgraduate research in Civil Engineering

In July 2023, Dr Tingfa Liu, a lecturer in Geotechnical testing and Shahin Huseynli, a 2nd-year PhD student from the School of Civil, Aerospace and Design Engineering (CADE) felt there was a need to organise an in-person event for researchers and PGRs to reconnect with their wider research community, after the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Faculty of Engineering PGR Cohort Fund (which supports cohort-building activities) was used to fund the event, which was the first big post-COVID research and social event for the Earthquake and Geotechnical Engineering Research group (EGE) in Civil Engineering. Four sessions were held throughout the day, each beginning with a mini seminar from an academic staff member. These offered the PGRs advice and academic insights, on subjects like “10 suggestions for a novel PHD thesis” (Professor Anastasios Sextos) and “Social media usage reveals recovery of small businesses after natural hazard events” (Professor Flavia De Luca).

Professor Flavia De Luca, an attendee and speaker at the conference explains:

“The conference of postgraduate research in Civil Engineering was a fantastic event to reconnect the community. The students had the opportunity to present their research in an “away day” environment, creating the space for personal and professional development and connecting the community across all levels through the participation of postdoctoral researchers and staff members. The focus on the presentations was about research results, but also on disciplinary cross-pollination of skills at peer level for the civil engineering PGR community”

Benefitting the broader Civil Engineering research culture

The conference was a great chance for researchers from across the School of Civil, Aerospace and Design Engineering to share knowledge, learn about different projects, spread their ideas, expertise and reconnect with other researchers who had also missed in-person interactions due to the pandemic, helping to build a stronger research culture.

Numan Aloko, a graduate teacher in Civil Engineering and attendee at the conference highlighted:

“Events like this conference are helpful and crucial for maintaining a lively and connected research community. They offer a platform for students and faculty to share their work and make personal and professional connections that are very important for long-term academic and research success.”

The conference successfully brought the Civil Engineering research community closer together. Dr Tingfa Liu summarised:

“For me it is important that we celebrate the successes of our postgraduate researchers as a community of colleagues and friends. Our PGR students work so hard, often behind the scenes. The conference was a chance to shine a light on all their efforts and ensure they can share their research with the broader community, which benefits our own research too.”

What’s next?

Building on the success of the July 2023 conference, Dr Tingfa Liu and his team have invited PGRs to present their research projects and findings during their monthly Research Group meetings. This new initiative started in September 2023 and has proven successful, with plans to continue.

 

Shahin shared;

“The PGR presentations at our monthly meetings have really boosted the research, professional, and personal growth of the PGRs, helping them get ready for wider recognition and impact.”

Tingfa has been both, impressed and inspired by the PGR projects and noted that the support from the School and Faculties has been crucial in making this event, and any future ones, a success.

If you’re looking for advice on setting up something similar for your PGRs, feel free to reach out to doctoral-college@bristol.ac.uk with the subject line ‘PGR research culture case study’.

---

 

Dr. Tingfa Liu
Lecturer in Geotechnical TestingSchool of Civil, Aerospace and Design Engineering

 

---

 

Mr Shahin Huseynli
2nd-year PhD student
School of Civil, Aerospace and Design Engineering (CADE)

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.

 

Over the years, the University of Bristol (like many institutions) has worked hard to address staff concerns about fixed term and hourly paid contracts. As a signatory of the Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers, it has made significant progress in moving many of its researchers onto open-ended contracts with fixed funding, going from a peak of 62% of researchers on fixed-term contracts in 2014-2015 to 20% in 2023-2024.

Making further progress has required innovative thinking with a range of initiatives employed to reduce the uncertainty inherent in the academic career path, including career development support and promotion for Research Associates and Senior Research Associates, support for career transition to independence beyond early career through initiatives like Bristol Clear, exploring new ideas for retaining and developing research talent, as well as targeted use of University fund (e.g., piloting a career development fund for researchers), reviewing and improving the institution’s academic promotions framework at all stages in the academic career path, and focusing on providing researchers with the skills and development opportunities they need to transfer to core roles, to enable them to make sustainable employment choices.

Institutions also encounter distinct yet comparable challenges in supporting their teaching staff. Since 2019, the University of Bristol has decreased its reliance on hourly-paid teaching staff (Teaching Support Roles) in favour of more secure fixed-term contracts. Clearly progress has been made. But no one institution has been wholly successful in addressing the challenges that uncertainty of employment brings for academic colleagues and their institutions. In many ways Bristol is ahead of the majority of the sector, but we need to go further to challenge the underlying causes of this problem and find the innovative solutions that can help ensure that academic careers are increasingly secure and rewarding for future generations.

It was in that spirit that we held an event in July on “understanding precarity”, intended to foster an honest and constructive debate to identify potential solutions to a range of challenges collectively described as precarity. As noted, the word “precarity” cannot capture the subtle but important distinctions between, for example, contract status (zero hours, fixed term, open ended) and source of funding (core, external), and the event began with a discussion of what these terms mean and why they matter.

Whilst an open ended contract with external funding offers important benefits over a fixed term contract, it still brings the fundamental problem of a burning fuse – the funding will run out on a specified date, bringing a redundancy process. This issue is harder for universities to address because the problem is baked into how funding is awarded (primarily for research) and how it is used (on a specific project that then ends). This is distinct from core funding (e.g., income from students, REF-related funding, etc.), which is more predictable.

What can we do? Longer grants, and therefore longer periods of external funding, do not change the fundamental problem of a burning fuse (i.e., a fixed end date to funding) and also – given a fixed amount of available funding – would mean fewer grants and positions. The discussion was intended to generate proposals that could either be considered internally by the University, or proposed to organisations such as UKRI and other research funders. The goal was to co-produce potential solutions with those directly affected by precarity. The discussion, whilst often robust, was always constructive and positive.

Below are brief summaries of some of the themes and proposed solutions that emerged from the discussions. It is important to note that these are preliminary ideas intended to stimulate discussion and the further exploration of any ideas that may be tractable. In all cases, the pros and cons of each proposal will need to be considered, including any potential EDI impacts (positive and negative). In some cases, the proposal is not entirely within the gift of the University and may require discussion with, for example, funders to explore whether it could be workable.

It’s important to note that fixed term contracts will never be eliminated completely simply because in some cases (such as maternity cover) these are entirely necessary. Consequently, all of the proposals outlined below offer some scope to mitigate precarity further but none of them, alone or in combination, will ever remove it entirely.

Use funding for teaching to extend the funded period

One broad topic of discussion centred around teaching, and how this can be used to support Pathway 2 staff. Whilst funding available for teaching cannot be used to provide additional pay to those on full time contracts, it could in principle be used to extend the funded period. Funders typically have relatively generous terms that allow for a certain amount of teaching by those employed on a grant. However, this would require teaching opportunities to be advertised and allocated fairly, and for teaching to be captured on a workload model (meaning that Pathway 2 staff should be included on those models). Our Teaching Policy for Pathway 2 staff captures some of this, but requires comprehensive workload models at the School level and effective, proactive line management.

Include costs on grants to support a bridging fund

In some Schools and Faculties, “Pool Technician” costs are included on grants, proportionate to the total value, to support technician and other roles critical to the smooth running of facilities and other research infrastructure. Including specific costs for bridging funding could in principle be used to allow Schools or Faculties to have ring-fenced funds to extend the funded period for Pathway 2 grants, for example if they are waiting for a decision on a grant or fellowship. One challenge would be that the funding requested would probably not be used to support staff on that particular grant, but rather other staff whose contracts are coming to an end on other grants. Perhaps more of a challenge is that this would require funder approval and may require discussion with them to be workable, as this isn’t something that is allowed under most funder rules currently. There has been a lot of work ensuring the technician costs (via directly allocated costs) are fully TRAC (Transparent Approach to Costing) compliant, and this would need to happen for this proposal to be viable.

Create a new family of core funded roles

At the micro-level, grant funding is unpredictable – some grants get funded, some don’t. However, at a macro-level our grant income is reasonably stable. In principle, this could be used to underwrite core-funded Pathway 2 roles in specific areas – for example, data science – where the skills can be applied to range of grants across a range of disciplines. Individuals in these roles could be redeployed across Schools and even Faculties to support grants as they were awarded. Discussions indicated that this might be an attractive option for those Pathway 2 researchers who would like to continue to work within a University environment, but do not aspire to being a PI or Professor. In this way, it could complement the “conversion to core” model.

Offer more opportunities for “conversion to core”

Bristol Medical School has been offering a scheme whereby early career researchers can apply for conversion to core – moving to core funding and a Pathway 1 position. This is typically predicated on securing a major personal fellowship, as evidence of longer-term ability to secure grant funding (effectively under-writing part of their own salary). The process is highly competitive and best suited to those aspiring to research independence and an eventual Professorship, but creating mechanisms that allow for this transition could represent an attractive option among a wider mix of possibilities. However, the extent to which this model will work across Schools of varying size and research intensity will need to be explored fully.

Review the existing Pathway structure

The existing Pathway structure was created to offer opportunities for promotion to Professor across teaching-only and research-only careers, as well as the more traditional academic career (i.e., mixed teaching and research). However, currently the mix of open ended and fixed term contracts, and core and external funding, is strongly patterned by Pathway (e.g., Pathway 1 staff are typically core funded on open ended contracts, Pathway 2 externally funded on open ended contracts, and Pathway 3 core funded with a mix of open ended and fixed term contracts). Discussions included creating more flexibility to move across research and teaching roles, and breaking down the hierarchy that implicitly places Pathway 1 at the pinnacle.

Increase the precarity of Pathway 1 staff

Perhaps the most challenging discussion centred on the implicit differences in esteem (and explicit differences in job security) between Pathway 1 and Pathway 2 staff. It is not uncommon – rightly or wrongly – for Pathway 2 staff to feel that they are performing at a higher level than a Pathway 1 colleague next door, but their Pathway 1 colleague has the golden ticket of an open ended, core funded position that effectively means they have a job for life. The lack of movement of Pathway 1 staff created by this (excessive?) job security means that relatively few Pathway 1 positions open up for Pathway 2 staff to apply for. Of course, job security and stability is critical for genuine scholarship, but have we got the balance right? Exploring this will require bravery and trust, but again there are examples of good practice across the University, such as clearly articulating the expectations on Pathway 1 staff, and effective (and supportive) line management.

By Yasmine Rhoseyn

Yasmine is Research Culture Strategy Manager at the University of Bristol. She supports the Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor for Research Culture, Marcus Munafo 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.

The people that are involved in research activity at Bristol, and the environment that they work in, are critical to our success.  

The University of Bristol’s vision and strategy for research, enterprise and innovation can only be successfully delivered if it can support the people involved in the research process and create an enabling and supportive research environment. The commitment to fostering a positive research culture is reflected in the creation of the position of Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor for Research Culture, Research Culture Team members and the establishment of a Research Culture Committee, a formal sub-committee of University Research Committee. 

Pictured: Attendees gather at the Working Well Together event in October 2024 (an initiative funded through our research culture programme).

Here we set out our aspirational, medium term vision for research culture at the University of Bristol – the end state we hope to reach by 2030. We also describe our work to date, much of it supported by our Research England Enhancing Research Culture allocation. 

Read the vision 

To move us forward towards realising our vision, we are publishing an annual implementation plan that will include specific areas of focus for that year, and how success will be measured against pre-defined criteria. This annual plan will be overseen by Research Culture Commitee, which will review progress against these objectives at the end of the year, and approve the plan for the next year. This will allow us to constantly refine our approach and update our objectives and indicators of success as we as an institution progress and the sector evolves. 

Read the implementation plan  

The process to put together this vision and implementation plan was very much a collaborative effort – we spoke to hundreds of staff and students in research relevant roles across the University on what ‘good’ research culture looks like, the barriers to achieving it and how we can move towards a more positive culture at Bristol. I would like to thank all the staff and students involved in this process for their valuable time, perspectives and insight, it was truly an eye-opening experience.

Future Research Leaders and stakeholders gather at Bristol SU – Future Research Leaders is a joint initiative with Bristol SU funded through our research culture programme 24-25). Read more on Bristol SU’s blog.

Get in touch

If you have any feedback on the vision and implementation plan, and how this is relevant to your area of work, please get in touch – y.rhoseyn@bristol.ac.uk

By Liam Taylor

Liam is Head of Resourcing at the University of Bristol and is responsible for hiring strategy and delivery across the institution.

Liam has previously worked in the energy sector for both the big 6 and the energy regulator, Ofgem in a range of talent focused roles.

 

The University is committed to the delivery of research and education of the highest quality. Continuity of employment is an important element in achieving this.

Effective reallocation of work and/or redeployment retains valuable skills and knowledge within the University, contributes to the creation of a positive work environment and meets the University’s moral and legal obligations. It should also provide the University with means to achieve a broader skills base and a more flexible workforce in the longer term, whilst accepting the need to create/recruit new skills and talent where appropriate.

What is redeployment?

Redeployment gives employees whose jobs are at risk the chance to find a new job at the University. All organisations have a statutory obligation to provide priority access to new vacancies for employees at risk of redundancy.

Who it applies to and when;

Redeployment applies to employees who are either:

• at risk of redundancy
• needing to be redeployed for a non-redundancy reason

The University Redeployment Pool (URP)

When you’ve been formally notified that your job is at risk, you’ll be added to the university redeployment pool. The pool permits access to our redeployment job board, and visibility of all new job openings before they are advertised more widely.

Changes to the redeployment process

We launched a new process for redeployment at the end of January this year, with two main drivers for this change.

Firstly, feedback from staff told us that the experience of being a redeployee was falling short of our own expectations. Some key themes covered limited access to vacancies, poor support during redeployment and a clinical feel to the redeployment journey.

Operational efficiency was the second factor. The resources required to deliver the pre-31^st January process were too great when compared to the number of individuals who submitted applications. A helpful way to highlight this is the pre-existing matching process, where redeployees would be sent roles deemed relevant to their existing skill set. This generated an application rate of just 3.3% – a figure far too low considering the amount of effort required.

We’re an organisation that takes its responsibilities towards redeployment seriously. The experience of redundancy can be a highly personal and anxiety-inducing experience, often impacting individuals who stay with the University as much as those who leave. In either circumstance, we strive for the experience of redeployment to authentically embody our commitment to mitigating redundancies, rather than an exercise in simply meeting an obligation.

Armed with this goal, the re-designed process has:

• Increased visibility of all new vacancies across the organisation through a new redeployment jobs board, restricted to redeployees. This aims to give individuals a greater degree of control over their redeployment journey through an ability to pursue opportunities outside of their current domain. A wider cross-pollination of skills is valuable for the University and the volume of opportunities for redeployment is increased.
• New dedicated support for staff in the redeployment pool. Our Resourcing Business Partners play an active role in supporting staff to find a new role. This involves providing guidance on policy and individual circumstances and advice on application writing, transferability of skills and interviewing. Our aim is to craft a more human-centred experience for redeployees that fully considers individual needs at each touchpoint and reduces uncertainty wherever possible.
• Improved guidance for redeployment, including information targeted at recruiting managers, outlining their responsibilities in considering applicants from the redeployment pool, the use of trial periods and the assessment of training needs for redeployees to transition successfully into new roles. This information can be found here.

So, have the changes had any impact in the first 6 months? In short, yes. The number of applications through the redeployment process which resulted in successful outcomes has increased to 28%, an increase from 18%. However, it’s still too early to make a full assessment – this will take place with one year’s data in hand, during February 2025. We will look at the core rate of redeployment – the total number of individuals successfully redeployed as a proportion of those put at risk of redundancy, as well as a breakdown by certain staff populations, including Pathway 2.

Redeployment as a process will continue to evolve, and we’ll use our improved data and user experience feedback as the evidence base for future change. We hope that a more iterative approach to change will help us in fine-tuning a process that has great impact on the individual, as much as the institution.

By Professor 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.

 

Last month we welcomed colleagues from across the University to the Bristol Beacon’s Lantern Hall to learn more about the Working Well Together resource, as part of this year’s Enhancing Research Culture event series.

So, what is Working Well Together?

The Working Well Together (WWT) resource is designed to support teams, and the people within them, who work effectively in an HE context and enhance their team culture. It helps to create an environment in which everyone can thrive, and which enables high quality, reproducible research. The approach is inquisitive, starting with where teams are, identifying approaches which are right for them, and continuing to ask questions along the way.

The resource is designed to help teams do more of what they are doing well, and to support them in areas that are more challenging. It focuses on identifying some quick wins, but offers no quick fixes. The aim of the resource is to offer groups the tools and expertise to develop a culture that can help its members respond to the evolving challenges of their work.

Groups that have used the resource have found it an enjoyable way to take stock of how things are going, and start some of the harder conversations they need to have. They say it’s given insights into challenges they weren’t aware of, and helped remind them of what is going well and how to do more of the things that have a positive impact. Others have found it has equipped them with the skills needed to work well together, and started the process of making time to reflect and review as a group.

Teams / groups are invited to pilot the resource until the end of January 2025. When we talk about teams / groups this can include anyone who is part of, and supports, research activity, so may include academic staff, technical staff, professional services staff and research students. If you are interested in learning more about a pilot, please complete this form.

The WWT resource is about building stronger, more supportive teams in order to work more effectively together and create a more inclusive working environment.

From the Enhancing Research Culture allocated we receive from Research England, to the new People, Culture and Environment (PCE) assessment category in the next Research Excellence Framework (REF) assessment, it is clear that the organisations that shape the higher education system are emphasising the importance of a robust, equitable and inclusive research process from start to finish, rather than focusing solely the outputs of our research.

Panel discussion and Q+A: Looking ahead to REF 2029

To delve into this new REF category and what it means for the research landscape, I was joined by Dr Helen Young (Associate Director of Research Excellence, University of Bristol), Dr Caroline Jarrett (Faculty of Science and Engineering Technical Manager, University of Bristol) and Dr Faith Uwadiae (Research Culture and Communities Specialist, Wellcome Trust).

Over the course of an hour’s discussion we covered a lot, but some key points and highlights are summarised below;

• There was recognition from both academic and technical colleagues in attendance that the culture within research is improving, but there is still a long way to go
• Funders are already considering, and in some cases requiring, grant applications to consider people, the environment they work within, and the culture they create.
• The REF measures research outputs, which are naturally downstream from the work involved in setting up research or project teams, and carrying out the work.
• Positive changes to how we approach project setup and delivery therefore have an impact on our research outputs.
• Investing time and energy in building strong groups and ways of working pays dividends down the line, but currently this time and focus is often not prioritised.

The move to include People, Culture and Environment in REF2029 highlights the importance of the work that we have been doing both at an institutional level and within our own professional circles and teams to improve our research culture, and I thank all of you who have been involved over the years.

I’m reminded of a quote from one of our first ever Research Culture events, the talk on The Joy of Failure with Annie Vernon, who won Olympic silver in the Women’s Quadruple Sculls at Beijing 2008. Success doesn’t mean we did everything right, and failure doesn’t mean we did everything wrong. Together, we can continue to build on our success whilst recognising there are still areas to improve.

By Professor 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.

 

Two major themes in our research culture vision and strategy are to empower staff and students through effective leadership and management at all levels, and to provide a range of stable career opportunities for those involved in research. Linked to both of these themes are new recommendations on continuing professional development (CPD) link to both of these, developed by a Task and Finish Group reporting to Research Culture Committee, and approved by University Research Committee.

The Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers – to which the University of Bristol – requires us to “[p]rovide opportunities, structured support, encouragement and time for researchers to engage in a minimum of 10 days of professional development pro rata per year, recognising that researchers will pursue careers across a wide range of employment sectors”. In fact, the University has gone beyond this and extends this commitment (or the equivalent of 70 hours) to all academic staff at Grade I and above, and all staff at Grade J and above.

CPD refers to the ongoing development of technical and transferable skills throughout ones career. Although early career researchers are often the focus of CPD in academia, in principle it should apply across one’s career, and extent to those in technical and professional roles. Indeed, many colleagues in professional services have CPD requirements linked to their professional registration (e.g., in relation to qualifications in accountancy and the like).

CPD can take many forms: ‘experiential learning’ on the job, supported through effective development conversations, ‘social learning’ through supportive relationships such as mentoring and peer networks, and ‘formal learning’ through specific workshops and training. In particular, identifying an individual’s training needs is a key function of line management, and CPD discussions should begin with line managers, with both line managers and direct reports responsible for ensuring these conversations take place.

The recommendations highlight the responsibility of the University to support CPD. To support this, the People Development Team will be liaising with Faculties, Schools, Divisions and Institutes to determine what mechanisms are currently in place for this (e.g., to record CPD activity among staff), in order to identify what further support may be needed, and to share good practice across the University. Finance teams will ensure that PIs consider CPD and training costs wherever grant terms allow this.

At the same time, senior management teams within Faculties, Schools, Divisions and Institutes will need to ensure that the importance of conversations around CPD is understood by line managers at all levels, and embedded into regular conversations and annual reviews. The University People Development team will be considering the inclusion of these recommendations as part of the wider university academic line management project.

These recommendations do not change existing University policy. Rather, they are intended to ensure that mechanisms are in place to support researchers, technicians and research professionals in developing their skills – both technical and transferable – throughout their careers. The goal is to achieve equity of experience across the University, so that the support available to you is broadly the same regardless of your Faculty, School, Division or Institute.

Ultimately, however, CPD is the responsibility of individuals (first and foremost) and their line managers. Appropriate support, and effective line management, provides the necessary conditions, but the onus should be on all of us to continue our own professional development. Of course, this isn’t always easy, with competing demands and workload challenges. Hopefully, these recommendations are a step in the right direction, and will help conversations to take place about how to protect time for CPD.

By Matthew Brown, Ingeborg Hers, Liam McKervey, Adam Taylor 

The University Ethics of Research Committee ensures that research is conducted according to appropriate ethical and research integrity frameworks. It facilitates, encourages and teaches best practice across the University and has strategic oversight over ethics committees and processes embedded within UOB. The UERC is an advisory committee to the University Research Committee, the Senate and the Board of Trustees, charged with sustaining a University-wide awareness of research ethics and integrity issues.   

This year we are introducing a new way of facilitating the ethics review of research at the University of Bristol. The Research Ethics Committee (REC) structure has evolved over the past fifteen or so years, led by the massive expansion of research involving human participants and/or their data. This has resulted in researchers sometimes experiencing too much bureaucracy, with complex forms going back and forth, excessive workload for committee members, and a focus on detailed critique of individual projects at the expense of training and best practice guidelines to support researchers.  

Our existing structure (below) is based around the structure of the six Faculties (with Science and Life Sciences combined). There are five Faculty RECs – most of which have sub-committees; for schools with an unusually high number of student applications, or to manage applications relating to specific areas or projects. 

The past twelve years, in particular, has seen an enormous increase in the number of REC reviews tracked within our systems. Some of this is because of better tracking of reviews that were already happening, but it is largely due to increased student numbers and academic activity in areas involving human participant research, and an increase in compliance with ethical requirements.

To deal with the year-on-year expansion in applications (from around 1,000 per year in 2012 to over 5,000 in 2023, see below), the University has been creating new committees at Faculty and School level – there are currently 18 RECs in operation, with 179 members in total.

Only the dedication, commitment, and hard work of these colleagues and the many expert independent committee members from outside the University has prevented these pressures from falling into total crisis and collapse.

What have we done?

During 2023-24 we undertook an extensive consultation amongst researchers, REC members and other universities to develop an improved ethics model. We aimed for it to encourage and facilitate best practice in the ethical conduct of research, to ensure that research ethics policies and guidelines are implemented effectively and with consistency, and to comply with UKRI guidance on good practice in research ethics governance.

We proposed simplifying our committees into one cross-institutional arrangement for research ethics, and this was approved by Senate in July 2024.

We believe that common standards for ethical research apply across all our disciplines, at the same time as recognizing that disciplines can have diverse ways of doing things. As the Chair and Deputy Chair of University Ethics of Research Committee, the Head of Research Governance, and the Research Ethics and Integrity Manager, we collectively draw on a wide range of experience and training in history, pharmacology, archaeology, creative writing, languages as well as research governance. Our objective, in our everyday work and in co-authoring this blog, is to embody this philosophy in our ways of working together.

We will be implementing the new model this year for academic staff and postgraduate researchers (due to their educational remit, the ethical review of undergraduate and Masters student projects will remain the responsibility of Schools).

We expect that the new model will bring a range of benefits, including:

1. Sharing best practice across the University in a practical sense through everyday working together in a horizontal fashion, rather than the current vertical silos which has often led to the duplication of work and decision-making.
2. Using existing expertise to produce more cross-institutional guidelines on difficult areas that will be useful across faculties, such as those we developed last year on working with illegal drugs.

3. Reduce delays by better managing the peaks in applications across the year.
4. Remove single points of failure from our processes.

Reduce the amount of workload hours dedicated to reviews in the medium-term, as a result of better training and more effective guidelines earlier in the process.

What will the new system look like?

The new structure of ethics review is shown below. All applications for ethics review will still be made through the (OREMS), and researchers will answer a few questions to make sure their application reaches the correct review group.

The standard route, which we are calling Workstream 1 and will deal with the majority (95%+) of applications, will have review groups with representation from each of the three faculties, a chair and an Independent Member from outside the University. Workstream 2 will coordinate the work of Schools reviewing their undergraduate and Masters projects. Workstream 3 will be our secondary data analysis panels. Workstream 4 will coordinate bespoke panels of experts to look at unusual and emerging fields where the standard panels may not have the expertise to provide effective review.

We see this as an opportunity for a ground-up systematic restructure of our systems, in order to address current strains on the system and imbalances of workload allocation, and to strive for greater adherence with UKRIO’s Core Principles for research ethics reviews.

• Independence – RECs will no longer be comprised solely of members of the applicant’s own Faculty.
• Competence – REC members will gain experience of a wider range of research areas and types, benefiting from the knowledge and expertise of other colleagues.
• Facilitation – Applicants will no longer need to wait for a specific committee’s next meeting, their project will simply be assigned to the next committee with capacity.
• Transparency and Accountability – We will retain and build upon our unified online application process and an oversight structure managed by the .

Although there are always teething problems with new processes no matter how much you test them, we trust that dialogue between our researchers and committee members means that we will find out about them quickly and will be able to act to remedy them. We have designed the process so that researchers will be getting feedback on their applications quicker than in the past.

A new culture that emphasises guidance and dialogue

Although the new structures and processes might grab the headlines, we see them as just the visible part of a wider change that we have been developing.

Research ethics is about dialogue and guidance rather than prohibition. In the new system, Faculty and School Research Ethics Officers are moving away from chairing committees and approving projects and expanding the guiding and mentoring aspects of their role. They will have the time to develop and share best practice in their disciplines.

During our consultations we heard from many researchers, especially at postgraduate level, that they wanted more training and guidance about Research Ethics before they got to the stage of completing the application. We organised BREW24 (our new annual Bristol Research Ethics Workshop) to record new online training materials that show the human faces behind committee review.

---

Images from our consultations and BREW24

---

One of our priorities for the next couple of years, as the new system beds in, is to develop clearer, subject-specific guidelines on areas that have challenged our reviewers. We are currently drawing up guidelines on how to conduct research ethically with Schools (e.g., the ethics of paying research participants – when is it ok to pay cash, or vouchers?). We will always draw up guidelines like this in dialogue with the people involved (teachers and researchers, in the case of the Schools guidelines).

If there are areas where you think it would be useful to develop some guidelines, please let us know by completing the Ethics Guidance Request Form!

Working in research ethics

Research ethics is one of the most rewarding parts of university research. You are often dealing with pioneering, complex research that is seeking to make a difference. People who serve on our committees often do so for a long time, and we seldom struggle to find replacements when they do. However, we are always looking for people who would like to be more involved. If you are passionate about research being conducted in an ethical manner, or your experience of our processes has made you want to improve them, then please get in touch and express an interest at research-ethics@bristol.ac.uk

We are excited to be leading this new way of thinking about research ethics, and we would like the University of Bristol to become a beacon for clear guidance and effective processes. During this year we will be working with Schools and Faculties to manage the transition, and will be out and about talking to researchers and committee members. If you have any ideas or concerns, let us know and we will be delighted to listen and talk.