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).
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.
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 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.
Total number of applications submitted in each calendar year and reviewed by RECs at the University of Bristol.
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:
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.
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.
Reduce delays by better managing the peaks in applications across the year.
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 new structure of ethics review at the University of Bristol.
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.
By Professor Tansy Jessop (PVC Education and Students (biography available online) and Paula Coonerty (Executive Director for Education and Students)
Introduction
In 2023, the APVC for Research Culture, Professor Marcus Munafo, initiated an internal review into teaching bureaucracy, following on from the internal review into research bureaucracy.
Within an organisation as large and complex as the University, a certain level of bureaucracy is necessary to ensure that we have timetables that don’t clash, students are registered on the right units, and well-qualified academics deliver teaching. In contrast to ‘necessary’ bureaucracy, this review focused on staff views of excessive, overly complicated, and hierarchical systems and processes.
Listening
Between February and March 2023, external consultants ran discussion sessions that were open to all staff (academic and professional services) involved in teaching activity. The purpose was to understand their experiences, identify pain points and see what works well. The sessions were advertised in the Staff Bulletin and the Education Bulletin. A total of 55 staff attended small focus group sessions (ten in total). Most participants (87%) were Pathway 1 or 3 teaching staff, and all three faculties were represented.
In analysing the results from the sessions, the consultants commended the ‘passion and dedication that the participants had for their teaching’, which is something we don’t take for granted. Our recent Silver award in TEF 2023 would not have been possible without incredibly dedicated staff delivering inspiring teaching and an outstanding student experience. So, what is getting in the way that we can improve?
Learning
The findings from the review are based on a small sample size, but many of the common themes replicate feedback provided via other routes (e.g. the research bureaucracy review, the Staff Voice workshops held in 2023, network forums, and anecdotal reports about staff experience).
Pain points
General process and system inefficiencies. An increase over the years in bureaucracy, complex processes, and inefficient, outdated systems.
Standardisation and the ‘one size fits all’ perception. Participants felt that standardization was stifling creativity and ignoring local context.
Culture of compliance. More emphasis placed on compliance and less on local innovation and autonomy.
Challenges when processes operate at scale. Processes and IT systems are no longer fit-for-purpose in a context of growing student numbers.
Volume of change. The volume of change adds to workload and detracts from the core business of teaching and enhancing the student experience. Plus staff feel disconnected from large change programmes and the drivers for change are often unclear.
Changing nature of the student body. Increasing numbers of international students and students with additional support entails workload challenges.
Teaching standards and high-quality teaching. Staff feel there is more focus on metrics (such as the NSS) than on high-quality teaching. Alongside this, Bristol is seen as valuing research over teaching.
Examples of good practice
Expert support provided by highly skilled, knowledgeable professional services staff who are eager to help.
Individual roles and teams dedicated to supporting innovation.
Transformational system and process changes delivered by the Education Administration Enhancement project.
The full report is available on SharePoint (UoB staff access only).
Acting
Systems
Here are some of the changes we are making:
Qwickly has been decommissioned and replaced with a new Check-In app and system for monitoring student attendance.
The Education Administration Enhancement (EAE) project focuses on continuous improvements to systems relating to finance, education, admissions and recruitment (e.g. eVision). For example, from 2023/24 live information about Study Support Plans (SSPs) is available in eVision for personal tutors and unit directors to review.
UPMS was identified as a pain point in the review, but there are currently no plans to change this system as a new curriculum management system would require significant investment, integration costs, and large-scale institutional change.
Workload
There are several initiatives in train that in the long-term will help manage workload, but in the short-term require staff time and effort to make changes.
The new Structure of the Academic Year (SAY) is designed to help contain workloads and support student and staff wellbeing. However, we know that in the short-term, SAY changes are time costly and entail extra work for many staff.
TB1 assessments will take place before Christmas with a dedicated marking week before the start of TB2, and staff will be able to start teaching in TB2 without marking hanging over them. Students should receive their feedback before they start their new units too.
Reassessment activity has been brought forward to create more space during the summer for staff to concentrate on research and take annual leave. This will also ensure the period at the end of the summer vacation is less intense. As part of the new SAY, we are also introducing streamlined Examination Boards, thereby reducing duplication and multiple touchpoints.
High assessment loads (and associated high workload for staff) go against the integrated and inclusive principles of our Assessment and Feedback Strategy. In 2023 we held workshops with schools to support reductions in summative assessment load, balanced by more engaging formative assessment and feedback.
In some larger schools, different personal tutoring models are being piloted (e.g. placing some of the student support functions provided by personal tutors with professional services staff) and the results are feeding into the Professional Services Transformation Programme (PSTP) (see ‘next steps’).
We heard from the Teaching Bureaucracy Review that we need to be better at communicating when work is paused, or only limited progress is being made. When there is a communications vacuum this creates space for uncertainty and staff feel they are being kept out of the loop. We will learn from this and share this finding with teams leading education-related projects.
Consultation and engagement
We are continuing to listen to staff and introducing new ways for you to provide feedback.
Since 2020 we have introduced networks to provide space for staff in similar roles to connect, discuss common challenges and share good practice. We now have networks for School Education Directors, Senior Tutors, Academic Integrity Officers, Student Disability Coordinators, Student Administration Managers and Graduate Administration Managers. In January 2024 we launched a new Student Academic Representation Network which brings together staff and students involved in Student Staff Liaison Committees (SSLCs).
From spring 2024 a new Admissions and Recruitment Committee has been convened to connect Faculty Admissions Officers with central staff in Admissions.
As part of upgrading to Blackboard Ultra, we are establishing a project advisory group. We will be seeking members from across the University, to ensure your voices are feeding into the implementation plan.
At the time of writing this, the 2024 Staff Experience Survey has just closed and we look forward to reviewing any feedback from that survey which relates to your experience of teaching and education.
Next steps
While this blog provides a flavour of some of the changes we are currently making, the detailed findings of the teaching bureaucracy report have been passed onto relevant teams and leaders to consider.
We welcome the time staff took to attend the discussion sessions and the final report is a fantastic source of evidence for the PSTP. The PSTP launched in 2023 and its purpose is to review and transform how we deliver services, reducing bureaucracy and improving ways of working. Education and student support services has been identified as a priority focus for the PSTP, with areas such as assessment processes, provision of information, and student wellbeing support identified as important. This work picks up on pain points raised via the teaching bureaucracy review).
You can find more information online about the PSTP.
‘Change’ seems to be the word of the day, every day – change is part of everyday life and work. Humans must adapt to survive, and so must universities. But that doesn’t mean it’s easy. The dream is to manage change so well that it becomes part of the day job, and we’re so comfortable with it that we don’t even notice that change is happening. But how realistic is that? The familiar sense of ‘change fatigue’ comes not always from too much change, but from change that isn’t done well.
What does the University do to manage change?
Aiming to ensure that change is done well is the University’s Change Management Team. The team comprises professionally-accredited Change Managers working to support change across the University by preparing people to deliver the University’s ambitions. The team has developed its own model for managing change, with the intention of getting it used across the University by everyone leading and managing change, whether it be a relatively small local change or a large strategic initiative. The framework, which is simply called ‘5 Steps to Successful Change’, puts the University ahead of most within the Higher Education sector.
By following the ‘5 steps’ we take the impact on people into account, and adequately plan for change, thereby ensuring that people retain a sense of control over what is happening and can play their part in long term successful change. It necessitates those leading change to really interrogate the reasons for change, so that they can speak about change honestly and consistently, and in a way that is meaningful to those impacted. The ‘5 Steps’ also helps to ensure as much as possible that people can maintain their day-to-day work during times of change.
5 steps to successful change – University of Bristol Change Team
To facilitate successful use of the ‘5 step’ model, the Change Team operates as business partners. Whilst a consistent approach to change is essential, it also needs to be contextualized, and by working as partners with each Faculty and Division, the Change Managers can tailor the approach to change to consider what is unique about each part of the University and advise on planning for change accordingly.
Why is change so difficult?
If there is a team dedicated to managing change, and it has a sector leading approach, why then does change appear to be so hard to do well? To a certain extent, change will always be difficult, particularly in an organisation the size of the University, with multiple cultures at play, and concurrent initiatives requiring many people to play a part in change. Most significantly, change is difficult because of the factor of human emotion. Remaining in our comfort zones is a safer place to be, requiring less energy and threat, meaning that it is normal to desire to move away from change.
The reality of change either posing threat or reward is something that the Change Team talk about in change management workshops, which run regularly for academic and professional services colleagues. If we consider a change that we have felt uncomfortable with, it’s likely that it has posed some threat to us. David Rock’s SCARF model identifies five key factors that impact the extent to which we feel threatened or rewarded by a change. It provides interesting insights into why we may feel differently about certain changes than others, and how these manifest in our reactions to change.
SCARF model – David Rock, 2009
Change fatigued?
To return to the notion of ‘change fatigue’, change is tiring, and it impacts people differently from one individual to the next depending on their history of change, what else is going on for them at the same time, and the extent to which they are either threatened or rewarded by it. Change requires us to psychologically process the change before we can fully move with it, and this alone is tiring, even without having to continue with our day jobs and personal lives at the same time. The extent to which we feel a sense of influence or control over the change is also a key factor. Whilst we may not have ultimate control over whether a change happens, if we can feel a sense of control by understanding the true reasons for change, feeling well informed and understanding what’s expected of us (the first step in the 5 Steps to Successful Change), then that all helps to lessen the sense of fatigue and equip people with the energy to change.
So, whilst we must accept that we must adapt to survive and that change will usually be difficult, by following the ‘5 Steps to Successful Change’, we can set ourselves up to manage change in a way which stands the greatest chance of success with minimal negative impact on people.
Contact the Change Team
Author: Julia Davies – Head of Change Management, University of Bristol
Please contact change-team@bristol.ac.uk to find out how the Change Team can support change in your part of the University.
On 14 September, Concordat Champions and Research Staff Reps gathered in Beacon House with the University of BristolVice-Chancellor,Professor Evelyn Welch, to delve into the challenges that research staff currently face andexplore solutions for constructive changes towards a better Research Career Pathway. This is underpinned by the university’s commitment to implementing the principles ofthe Concordat tosupport the career development of researchers, which isan agreement between UK funders and employers of research staff.
The event began with presentations by the Concordat Champion and Research Staff Reps committee chairs, to shed light on the current state of affairs for research staff in academia. Areas in which Bristol can have (and already is having) an impact and leading role nationally were highlighted, including the recent move from fixed-term to open-ended contracts for research staff. However, a survey of principal investigators has revealed significant negative impacts faced in terms of recruitment and retention of research staff due to uncompetitive salaries, job precarity, and the high cost of living in Bristol, resulting in a loss of talent to more lucrative positions in industry or academic institutions abroad. In particular, this is having a disproportionately high impact on staff relocating to Bristol from overseas due to very high visa and immigration surcharge costs. In this regard, Bristol’s reimbursement policy is out of step with other UK institutions.
Dr Chris Penfold, co-chair of the Research Staff Reps. Committee, discussing the role of the reps. and current activities helping to enhance the research staff experiences and culture.
After a brief interlude for coffee and cookies, Evelyn took to the stage, describing her own experiences of life as an early career researcher and lecturer and the accompanying job insecurity, and her past experiences implementing the concordat in UK research institutions. She shared a genuine desire to listen to the concerns of research staff and to be of service to the research community.
Professor Evelyn Welch, Vice Chancellor, describing her own experiences as an early career researcher and commitment to the researcher development concordat.
The VCs opening remarks were followed by an open forum, with researchers posing questions including plans to improve university policy on costs incurred by staff from overseas, alternatives to funding-limited contracts and associated redeployment, improving access to the university nursery for short-term research staff, and giving the concordat action plan “teeth” to improve the career progression and prospects of all researchers and staff in research adjacent roles.
The VC’s responses and commitment to addressing these concerns were met with optimism towards positive change. She underlined the remarkable talent and dedication of the university’s research staff, acknowledging their vital contribution to the university’s success. In her own words:
“Positive change comes from listening to your concerns… we get it right when we listen.”
As we move forward, plans are underway for regularly VC gatherings, to continue towards a better research pathway and a more inclusive research culture.
More information on the Research Staff Reps Committee, Concordat Governance Group, and the Research Staff Working Party and associated contacts can be found at the Bristol Clear Staff Development Webpages.
One of the three pillars underpinning the University of Bristol’s Vision and Strategy (2030) holds that at Bristol, “our education is shaped by the fact that we are a world-class research-intensive university. The link between research and teaching informs our taught courses, and is integral to research supervision.” Our Vision imagines a future where we attract and inspire students “from across the globe, with a distinctive education offering, innovative teaching and research-rich curriculum that enriches their university experience, careers and lives.” Our staff development offer for colleagues who teach and support learning at the University forms the “Cultivating Research-rich Education and Teaching Excellence (CREATE)” programme, further highlighting the connection between research and education at Bristol.
But what does it mean to cultivate a research-rich curriculum? What are some of the benefits and challenges, and how have colleagues at Bristol engaged with research-rich approaches?
Definitions and benefits of research-rich teaching
The traditional view of research and teaching in higher education – as schematised by Brew in 2003 – demonstrates a clear separation between the two. This could perhaps be seen as the origin of the three learning, teaching and research pathways in our institution.
Two years later, Healey redefined the relationship between teaching and research in his seminal 2005 work, identifying four approaches to the research-teaching nexus. The University of Bristol has since aligned, moving from advocating a research-led approach (teaching the latest advancements in research) to being research-rich, and therefore encompassing all four quadrants.
Healey considers the various roles students and teachers can occupy. On one hand, the nexus aligns with a traditional approach focused on the role of the teacher. Students are less active and more of an audience – they can still engage with research content, but the emphasis is more on transmission of knowledge (research-led) or teaching processes of knowledge construction (research-oriented). On the other hand, the nexus is student-focused, and involves them either in engaging actively with research content (research-tutored approach) or carrying out their own research (research-based).
Benefits for students: A research-rich approach moves away from the traditional teacher-focused approach, which sees students as recipients of knowledge, to a student-centred approach that develops students’ true potential as researchers in training and as partners. As demonstrated by Healey and Roberts in 2004 and Healey in 2005, the students’ learning experience is greatly enriched and enhanced through not only access to cutting-edge research but also active and innovative teaching methods such as inquiry-based learning. This contributes to increased intrinsic motivation and the development of key skills (critical thinking, research skills) that also enhance students’ employability as shown by Griffiths in 2004. The students, in this approach, become an integral part of the university community of practice and can contribute to society throughout their studies.
Benefits for staff: These approaches are an opportunity to bring together two key aspects of colleagues’ professional lives – teaching and research – which might in turn lessen competing demands on time. Colleagues might share the research they are still developing with their students (whether through presenting the information or making students part of the exploration), with students acting as a sounding board. This can also provide an opportunity for staff to express their research to a general audience, receiving early feedback and an intake of fresh ideas. Looking at the experience of colleagues within the institution, other benefits mentioned are an opportunity to improve one’s teaching and job satisfaction, as cited by participants on the CREATE programmes. Finally, it is likely that among the students mentored through this research-rich experience is a future colleague and collaborator, who will have been inspired and empowered to pursue research and teaching.
Challenges of research-rich teaching
Time: Whilst colleagues might already include activities which sit across the different quadrants of Healey’s research-teaching nexus, in an environment in which demands on time and resource are ever-increasing and competing, it can be challenging to find the time and capacity needed to embed research-rich approaches in our teaching. In the first instance, it takes time and space to develop our own research interests and methodologies, and then to engage in (primary or secondary) research that might later be drawn upon in teaching. Subsequently, energy and expertise are required to review and develop our curricula and assessments to embed newly developed research-rich approaches. The resulting competition for time and resources often concludes with colleagues adopting a pragmatic response, in which curriculum enhancements are small and incremental, putting off more substantial development for a later date.
Conflict: The idea of competition between research and teaching extends into wider questions about the nature and purpose of universities, and the value placed upon our core activities. As Bage argued in 2018, “Universities typically value academics’ research over teaching, as indicators through which to judge career advancement and institutional prestige” (p.151). Whilst teaching and research are linked in our Vision and Strategy, how far might the organisation of academic staff at Bristol across three pathways, which separates and delineates research and/or teaching responsibilities, reinforce the distinctive nature of these activities?
Assessment: Assessment on programmes that adopt research-rich approaches might also be challenging (yet beneficial!), as these approaches often aim to develop multiple skillsets in our students including problem-solving skills, research skills, and subject specific knowledge. This can make it difficult (but not impossible) to design assessments that capture the full range of deep learning that results from research-rich approaches. To capture this range of learning, assessment of research-rich learning might involve portfolios, presentations, research projects and reports, or peer review, which can be more time-consuming for staff new to these approaches to mark and provide feedback on. This challenge might equally be seen as a benefit, however, as qualitative assessment is already a feature of many of our programmes, and we know that both staff and students gain much from assessments that promote deeper learning and engagement.
Research-rich teaching at the University of Bristol
Disciplinary approaches: Research-rich teaching at Bristol takes many forms. Beyond the institution’s historical research-led approach, we can also find many examples of innovative approaches covering Healey’s quadrants. One fantastic case study can be found in the Faculty of Health Sciences, bringing together first-year undergraduate dental and medical students to be part of a conference designed to assess their knowledge in only their 10th week at the University. This project demonstrates how students can experience being a researcher very early on. Students develop self-management, transferable skills and creativity through group work and inspiring tasks: an oral PechaKucha, a poster and a creative piece. If you are interested in reading more examples (or sharing your own), please visit the BILT blog page dedicated to research-rich teaching.
Research-rich Learning Communities: Research is not limited to being discipline-specific, and the University counts a great number of Scholarship of Learning and Teaching communities which bring together passionate colleagues, often Pathway 3, but not exclusively. The Engineering Education Research Group is an excellent example of colleagues from various pathways coming together to “lead and define a direction for engineering education and to encourage evidence-based pedagogical innovation both inside and outside the University of Bristol.” You can find their key research themes, publications and blog on their webpage linked to above.
Staff and students as partners: The Bristol Institute for Learning and Teaching (BILT) also champions research-rich teaching through investing in staff and students as partners. Colleagues can work on an existing BILT project or benefit from funding to work on their own project as it aligns with at least one BILT theme. The Student Research Journal and the Student Research Festival are student-led through the BILT student fellows who can count on the support and expertise of BILT colleagues. The former is an opportunity for students to get their outstanding work published in an online, peer-reviewed journal. The latter promotes and recognises the excellent research conducted by both undergraduate and postgraduate students, grouped around key themes.
Conclusion
Research-rich approaches to learning and teaching at Bristol thus have proven benefits for both our students and staff which can enrich the wider University and positively impact the world around us. But bringing together research and teaching remains challenging, and there is still a way to go to meet the aims set out in our University Vision. Whilst structural limitations might still impede our bringing together of research and teaching in our practice in the short term, as highlighted by Hordósy & McLean in 2022, in the longer term we must strive to develop a more equitable, inclusive, flexible and collaborative environment in which research and teaching are mutually encouraged and nurtured.
After more than 20 years working in research management, and having gained first-hand experience in nearly all of the research support functions – from pre-award, bid development, contracting and project management, through to commercialisation, impact and the REF (as well as having completed a PhD!) – I consider myself to have a pretty good understanding of the research process.
So, when I joined Bristol as Director of Post Award in the Division of Research Enterprise and Innovation (DREI) in November 2019 it wasn’t a huge surprise to be delegated responsibility from Jon Hunt, Executive Director of DREI, for delivering the End-to-End Research Lifecycle Project – affectionately known as E2E. Three years in, and having now launched our researcher’s route map, it is timely to reflect on what we’ve done so far, and what’s next…
What is E2E?
The E2E initiative was launched in April 2019 as part of the then Professional Service Fit for the Future programme. In the first phase, KPMG led a review of our existing processes for supporting research applications and awards. Whilst their report highlighted some good practices to be preserved, including the dedication, knowledge and skills of many staff, it also identified a number of weaknesses that were leading to delays, additional effort, high risk exposure in some circumstances and sub-optimal decisions.
In response, we first concentrated our efforts on some major changes, including implementation of Worktribe, creation of the Research Finance Centre of Excellence, and development of a single contracts administrative hub. I think it’s fair to say that these all went some way to improving service delivery, as well as bridging the critical interface between DREI and Finance.
However, we also knew that concerns still remained around a lack of common and transparent processes, decision-making gateways, and defined institutional risk parameters (with appropriate escalation points and risk owners). So, in August 2020, the second phase of E2E got underway, focusing on the design and delivery of three key tools:
A high-level, visual E2E route map setting out the researcher journey, from application and award through to project delivery and lifecycle closure, that incorporates decision points (eg whether or not to go ahead with a bid), and acts as a single platform from which to access information, guidance and advice at all stages of the journey.
Clearly defined roles, responsibilities and accountabilities of everyone involved in the E2E process, including academics, Heads of Schools, Deans and various professional services.
A set of defined features or attributes (eg funder type, bid value, space requirements) that enable DREI and finance to “classify” a proposal based on its complexity as being low, medium or high (now called Levels 1, 2 or 3) and allocate resources accordingly.
This all took a huge effort, with staff across DREI and Finance working together to scope, consult on, and trial the three tools extensively with numerous academic and Professional Services colleagues. It truly was a collective effort, and the levels of engagement from everyone are testament to the interest in the project.
Katie Glenton-Wall, Project Officer
The Researcher Route Map was finally launched two years on, in August 2022. This is still very much a work in progress, and we are keen to continue to get feedback and make improvements where we can – so please do get in touch with our project manager, Katie Glenton-Wall.
Why is E2E important?
The main rationale behind the E2E programme was that optimising resources across the research lifecycle (from bidding through to project delivery) will increase levels of success in a changing and challenging funding environment. This is clearly something that researchers and Professional Service Staff are all trying to achieve, and we hope the route map and associated tools with help to do this in the following ways:
Bringing together information, support and guidance in to one accessible platform.
Emphasising and encouraging consideration of project requirements and engagement with relevant stakeholders asearlyas possible to avoid delays, reworking and potential rejection.
Reducing bureaucracy between DREI and Finance where we can (e.g. in our contracting processes), and allowing us to reallocate resource to where it is most needed, in the most timely way.
Providing clear, consistent and transparent decision-making, with roles and responsibilities understood.
What’s next for E2E?
Since launching phase 2 it’s become clear that this is just part of a longer E2E journey of continuous improvement. We’ve now started to focus on particular pain points that have been identified, one of which is around our process for managing the more complex (L3) bids as described earlier, and we have been working with the consultancy MoreBrains to look at this.
We are also looking more closely at support for post award activities – an area of need that was highlighted both in our stakeholder consultations and in the recent review of research bureaucracy (UoB staff access only). We have been lucky to secure some funding from DREI and the Research England Enhancing Research Culture allocation to do this.
Our third, and possibly most exciting, next step is to evolve the package of tools into a single research office portal – giving easy access to everything a researcher might need to know from a user-friendly one-stop-shop. We hope to be telling you more about this shortly – so watch this space!
It seems the domestic and international geopolitical position in the UK changes on a weekly basis. Over time this has led to the government becoming increasingly concerned about research security and national security risks arising in HEIs.
The main purpose of the Research Compliance team is to make sure the impact of resulting legal and regulatory changes on the University and academics is minimised where possible. There are a number of different legal mechanisms and regulations that apply to research work and transnational education, and both the government and the people who regulate our adherence to these laws have methods in place to check we are compliant with these.
The impact of research security and national security laws is extending across more and more of the work that happens in HEIs, and the Research Compliance team was created to manage the University’s response in this space. A fundamental aspect of our work is to manage oversight from government bodies and regulators, and act as a buffer for our academic colleagues so that they can continue their research and educational partnerships securely and efficiently. Failure to comply with the applicable laws and regulations can result in fines against the University or academics, cancellation of research projects, and in the most extreme cases, a custodial sentence sanction for the academic.
We are a small team and a relatively new entity sitting within DREI (formerly RED), consisting of Chaitali Desai (Senior Research Compliance Manager), Megan Wood-Smith (Research Compliance Manager) and Olivia Bomani (Solicitor Apprentice). We are closely aligned with the Research Contracts team, working with Oliver Geidel, Head of Research Contracts and Compliance.
l-r: Chaitali Desai, Megan Wood-Smith, Olivia Bomani, Oliver Geidel
The areas of regulation that we deal with are:
Export Controls
These apply to the movement of technology, documents, software, material, or data taken out of the UK in either a digital or physical format. This can include carrying or shipping physical prototypes to a collaborator based overseas, as well as emailing technical documents, datasets or diagrams to them. Controls can also apply to information disseminated at conferences to staff, students, or audiences overseas, and accessing work on University servers from outside the country.
National Security and Investment Act
This allows the government to intervene when a collaborator or industry partner gains some control over “entities” or “assets” where they believe there is a risk this will undermine or harm UK national security or its competitive advantage. In a university setting this can apply to movement of IP and know-how (rights in datasets, patentable inventions, licenses for use of research outcomes), lab equipment, or investment and shares in a university spinout.
Subsidy Control in Research and Development
This is relevant to circumstances where financial assistance, which can be monetary or a benefit-in-kind, is given to another organisation at below market value, with the potential to affect local competition or international trade.
Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing
These are regulations around collecting or otherwise accessing non-human genetic resources, or associated traditional knowledge, sourced outside the UK. This can apply to a wide range of resource we access overseas, whether, plant, bacterial, mineral or animal.
Trusted Research and Innovation
These are the over-arching principles that require universities to ensure we are working with suitable partners, managing information and knowledge-sharing risks, and that we have the right contractual documents in place to protect an academic and their work.
The Research Compliance team is just over 18 months old. Chaitali joined the University in September 2021 with a background of 14 years in private practice, working in abuse litigation and large-scale public inquiries. She was joined by Megan in April, and Olivia in May 2023. The research security arena has exploded beyond recognition in this time, and it has been a rollercoaster ride that has involved:
getting to grips with a brand-new area of legal regulation that has an impact on not just research, but also our transnational relationships;
writing training and guidance in an emerging field of law and rolling this out across the academic faculties and professional services teams;
raising the University’s profile in the Research Compliance space with external stakeholders – government, regulators, other HEIs and various committees and panels – so that a research-intensive university like ours gets some input into how the sector responds to these legal and regulatory obligations placed on us by government;
co-leading the Assessment of Third-Party Suitability Project with Liam McKervey (Research Ethics and Integrity Manager), which is about developing and proposing a new aligned process around how we perform and arrive at due diligence decisions across the University.
If you’d like to know more about what the team does, or how we can help you and your academic colleagues navigate these regulatory and national security issues, please get in touch at research-compliance@bristol.ac.uk.
Reducing excessive bureaucracy is one of many improvements we can all agree with in principle, but it’s often hard to achieve in practice. We’re on a mission, with the help of many of our colleagues, to make it happen.
We strongly believe that all staff involved in research activity – academics, researchers, technicians and Professional Services colleagues – should feel enabled and supported when writing and submitting research applications, setting up projects, actually doing the research, and generating outputs.
What we did
It was with this focus on enabling and supporting that we commissioned an Internal Review of Research Bureaucracy in 2022. In part, this was in response to the UK Government’s Independent Review of Research Bureaucracy led by Adam Tickell, and reflects our desire to foster a positive research culture at Bristol.
The review was open to colleagues at all career stages and across academic departments and Professional Services, in order to identify procedures and processes that are perceived as unnecessary, inefficient and/or disproportionate. The methodology for our review was to hold discussion sessions, which were conducted between July and September 2022.
There were nine discussion groups, eight of which were face-to-face. Views were gathered from 60 staff in total. The outputs from the discussions were documented and analysed to identify topic areas, issues, themes and key examples.
We’re very grateful for the time that our colleagues put into these discussions, and the feedback we received from the independent facilitator that ran the sessions was that the tone was very positive and constructive.
What we learned
The majority of the discussions could be grouped into six key themes.
General inefficiencies
Standardisation, self-service, and a ‘one size fits all’ perception
An emphasis on system working at the expense of working relationships
A culture of compliance
Proportionality (or a lack of it)
A focus on income over impact
The full report is available on SharePoint (UoB staff access only) and has been shared with and read by the Senior Management Team.
We certainly recognize the themes that emerged, and we appreciate the insight that it has provided into the reality on the ground, despite our ongoing efforts to improve and streamline how we work.
The report provides us with valuable information that will both feed into existing efforts to reduce bureaucracy and identify new challenges that we need to address.
It’s also worth noting that the Tickell review identified seven principles to cut unnecessary bureaucracy. These are principles that we fully endorse, and that we will return to as we continue to improve and streamline how we work. The principles the review outlines are:
Harmonisation: Reducing administration by using common processes to make core work easier.
Simplification: Reducing process complexity as much as possible.
Proportionality: Ensuring that burdens placed on researchers / institutions match the size of the risk or reward.
Flexibility: Supporting and embracing excellence beyond narrow and traditionally defined parameters.
Transparency: Communicating the rationale for systems that have a bureaucratic burden.
Fairness: Supporting fairness in systems and processes.
Sustainability: Reducing bureaucracy without destabilising, and whilst supporting long-term efficiencies.
What we’re doing
In practical terms, the work we’re doing that is either relevant to our own Internal Bureaucracy Review, or is in response to it, falls into three broad categories.
First, we are implementing practical change. For example, the University is in the middle of an extensive “End to End” review that aims to consolidate the entire research process (harmonisation and simplification from the Tickell review), from grant application to delivery (pre- and post-award). Several workshops have already been conducted as part of this involving researchers and Professional Services staff, and RED has plans in place to understand, for example, where bottlenecks exist in our processes per se and in particular the transition from pre- to post-award, e.g., setting up more complex projects (hiring staff, space, IT, budgeting…). The aim is to clarify why activities are needed and try to simplify them, or sometimes to remove them, and build shared approaches to our work (proportionality). We are also looking at the intent and purpose of our processes, asking questions such as: What is the risk? What’s the worst that can happen? How can we manage these proportionately?
Second, we are working towards longer-term cultural change. This includes work on management and leadership – in particular, to create a culture of leadership at all levels where we all feel empowered to make decisions locally. For example, if a process is acting as a barrier to our work, we should feel able to challenge it and even, if necessary (and with appropriate agreement – for example from a Head of School), temporarily circumvent it to get the job done. We also need to ensure that processes feel personal – one theme was recognising that whilst generic emails are used to provide resilience and continuity of service, we need to find ways to make the interaction responsive and personal. Other options, such as drop-in sessions in Schools so that academic staff can meet colleagues in RED, Finance and HR who support their work, may be one solution to this; it would also enable different services to provide more person-centric support. We need to ensure that we have a one-team ethos.
Third, we intend to continue listening and communicating. We have launched an Internal Review of Teaching Bureaucracy, given the valuable insights our first review gave us. This will be run in a very similar way to the first review, but with a different focus. We are also maintaining the Research Culture Dropbox, where anyone is able to send thoughts, concerns and suggestions, either anonymously or not.
We’ve also launched this Research Culture Blog to help us explain what we’re doing and the nature of and rationale for some of our processes, so that these can be better understood (transparency). Inevitably, we will still have to do some things that may feel bureaucratic, or at least burdensome, but hopefully by explaining the rationale the effort involved will at least feel worthwhile.
We are exploring the wider issue of our broader culture and decision-making at Bristol under the sponsorship of the Vice-Chancellor, including looking at how we can share more information and be more transparent about how we make strategic choices. This has been fed into the consultation on future academic and Professional Services governance and structures.
Next steps
Further workshops are planned to address the frustrations with setting up and running awards, requiring multiple needs to be addressed by several Professional Services teams working in a coordinated way.
We are scoping the possibility of a single virtual Research Office across multiple Professional Services functions, integrated with Schools and Faculties, which would be people-centred and facilitate sharing of best practices where needed – a “one-stop shop” for researchers.
Professor Marcus Munafò
Associate PVC Research Culture
Jon Hunt
Executive Director, Research and Enterprise
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.
