Category: Openness and transparency

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 Lavinia Gambelli

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

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

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

UKRN Open Research Programme

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Become an Open Research Trainer

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

Other opportunities for you to get involved

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

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

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

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

By Marcus Munafò

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

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

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

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

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

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

A new Open Research Policy (and associated sub-policies) was approved by URC in June this year. Marcus Munafò – Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor – Research Culture explains the importance of Open Research as part of the wider Research Culture Vision and Strategy for the institution.

Open research is the process of making as much of the research process as possible available to others. The most well-known example is perhaps open access publishing where journal articles (and increasingly other outputs such as monographs) are published under a Creative Commons license, meaning they are free to read and (depending on the specific license) can be re-used in a variety of ways. Most funded research in now published open access, and the REF (Research Excellence Framework) requires work to be published open access, either through the publisher making the article available through a Creative Commons licence for a fee or the author making a copy of the accepted manuscript available (in our case via the Pure repository) to be eligible as for REF. Our recent Scholarly Works Policy is the latest effort to increase the extent to which our published work is available to as wide an audience as possible.

But the final output of a research process – the journal article or the monograph, say – is only a small part of what is produced during that process. Study plans and protocols, data sets (which can include anything from numerical data on spreadsheets through to qualitative transcripts or digitized images), code used to analyse those data and so on are all produced in the vast majority of our research activity. And these intermediate research outputs can also be made more widely available – either open or (if they are published on our institutional data repository – data.bris) under more restrictive conditions. This might be necessary if, for example, there are ethical or legal reasons for doing so (e.g., qualitative data may allow re-identification of participants, which would preclude open publication).

The University has always been at the forefront of open research – our repository was one of the first, and continues to have sector-leading functionality (such as the ability to publish under different levels of access). Anything published on data.bris (or on other third party repositories such as Github, Figshare, or the Open Science Framework) is assigned a digital object identified (DOI) and is, in itself, a publication (albeit typically not a peer reviewed one). This is great for those who contributed to the research process; it allows for the early assignation of priority (i.e., publishing our results first!), and – perhaps more importantly – more granular recognition of individual contributions. A researcher may be third author on a paper, but solely responsible for one element.

In other words, there are a range of reasons to engage in open research. There are practical reasons, such as the ability to demonstrate a greater variety of contributions in a more granular way. The transparency afforded by open research allows for greater scrutiny, and for others to interrogate in more detail what you did, what assumptions and choices you made throughout the process, and so on. And it also allows others to use your outputs in a way that can generate new insights. Indeed, methods to use published genetic data to understand cause-and-effect relationships in epidemiology – known as Mendelian randomisation – were developed at the University of Bristol and are now widely used in biomedical research.

There are also moral reasons to make our research as open as possible (but also as closed as necessary!). Around 80% of the University’s funding – from research and teaching – comes from public money, so it’s only right that we make as much of what we do as possible available to those who ultimately fund our work. And we never know how those intermediate research outputs might be used. We know, for example, that secondary schools have downloaded study protocols, information sheets and consent forms, and data sets to use in classroom demonstrations. This all helps with our efforts to be a civic university supporting our local community.

For this reason, we have updated and strengthened our Open Research Policy, with a single overarching policy that supports a range of sub-policies that cover different open research practices. . The new Open Research Policy and sub-policies, in particular, have been designed to be short and accessible – partly a “how-to” guide for those new to the practice. These were developed by the Open Research Working Group of Research Culture Committee, led by Library Services, and with input from a range of voices across the University through an extensive consultation process. The policies were approved by University Research Committee and signed off by Senate, and are now live. Please take the time to look at them if you can!

Of course, open research will look very different across different disciplines, and not all of us will be familiar with different aspects or practices. For this reason, through the UKRN Open Research Programme, we are offering places on a number of open research train-the-trainer courses. These are available to anyone at the University, at any career stage and on any pathway (including professional services and technical staff). After attending a train-the-trainer workshop, trainers will then deliver workshops on these practices that will be open to anyone (we will hopefully be able to offer tailored versions of these across, for example, Faculties and Schools). If you are interested in finding out more about these courses, or the planned workshops, please contact Lavinia Gambelli, our Open Research Coordinator.

Open research is part of our wider ambition – through our Research Culture Vision and Strategy – to be as transparent as possible in how we work, individually and as an institution. The hope is that that transparency will help to foster a trustworthy research ecosystem and institution. We recognise that this is a journey, and our Open Research Policy is an important step on that journey, but just a step. We need to support that with training, incentives (open research is included in the Academic Promotions Framework, and we run a regular Open Research Prize), and – perhaps most importantly – a listening stance that means we continue to develop and improve our policies so that they work for everyone, regardless of discipline, career stage, or pathway.

By Sophie Collet, Conny Lippert, James Hackney, Marc Strydom and Sarah Everett-Cox 

With many competing pressures on our time at the moment, it is important we know why we are asked to do certain things. One example is the Time Allocation Survey (TAS), which is being carried out during this academic year (2022/23). There are three periods that form part of this return, and the third of these opens for completion from 1 August 2023.

The Transparent Approach to Costing (TRAC) is a sector-standard methodology used in the UK for costing universities’ main activities (teaching, research, and other). A key part of this approach is the TAS, which captures how our academic staff spend their time across the activity categories. It is a government requirement that all universities collect this data at least once every three years, although Bristol has agreed to run the TAS again in 2023/24 to ensure that the data are as accurate as possible, and that any changes in working practices noted in the current return are not outliers.

TAS return data are used to determine the average time per activity for each School, which in turn determines which activity and sponsor type to allocate institutional income and costs to. Funders have previously recognised that there have been pressures in the HEI system that encourage academics to overstate their time on research at the expense of teaching. The data captured by TAS responses provide one lens to inform our strategic decision-making, including understanding balance of activities and our resources, and allocation of internal funding, enabling the University to achieve its strategic goals.

Our annual TRAC return is also submitted to the Office for Students (OfS) each year and has direct implications for strategic planning decisions made at national level, such as in relation to the public funding of higher education.

It’s therefore crucial that the TAS data we collect are as accurate as possible.

There are a few key points we think are worth clarifying:

• Conversations around workload planning (eg if you feel you are working excessive hours) should take place with line managers as a separate discussion outside TAS completion.
• TAS requires a percentage allocation of ALL time worked (ie this should cover all of your working time and not just work completed in traditional office hours).
• TAS is not an individual performance management tool. It’s designed and intended to show the balance of actual work completed over each period, and the analysis that is performed on this data will be aggregated at School and Faculty level.

University of Bristol colleagues can find further guidance on completing the TAS on the MyERP SharePoint site here, and you can contact tas-support@bristol.ac.uk if you have any questions about the TAS return.

You can find a more detailed explanation of the importance of TRAC and TAS in Why is TAS important, and what is TRAC? (PDF file).