By Emilie Poletto-Lawson and Dr Hannah Grist

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.

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 as early as 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!

Earlier this month, we had the privilege of welcoming pre-eminent academics from a range of disciplines in the field of tobacco and nicotine research for our Histories of Tobacco event. At first glance, this might not seem like a Research Culture event like our others, but research culture is about more than supporting our students, staff and academics and celebrating the fantastic work already being done. Research culture also encompasses finding ways to foster innovative, multidisciplinary research by working with each other, rather than being siloed by our School, Faculty, discipline or research group.  

Tobacco and the research associated with it (both historical and present) is by its very nature a multidisciplinary field. The social history of tobacco can encompass subjects from the colonialisation of the tobacco plant from indigenous tribes in North America to the National Socialist German Workers’ Party’s ideological attacks on tobacco and alcohol. Different countries have approached tobacco legislation in vastly different ways, both currently and historically, and the roles of researchers, policy groups, government organisations and the tobacco industry have influenced our understanding of health issues and subsequent education (and re-education) campaigns and policies.

As Richard Stone outlined at our event, tobacco is also inherently linked to our institution and city. The Wills family, who contributed over £150,000 of the initial £200,000 required to raise a University Charter for Bristol, made their money through the tobacco trade. The legacy of their contribution, both positive and negative, still lives on in Bristol – as one example, people who live around the old tobacco factories that until relatively recently used to produce cigarettes use tobacco products more than the Bristol average, even though the factories are now closed.

Read on to hear from our four keynote speakers on their research across the field of tobacco, and do take a look at their published work – it makes for fascinating reading.

Patricia Nez Henderson – Vice-President, Black Hills Center for American Indian Health
Decolonizing tobacco: an indigenous perspective

Before tobacco was a globe-spanning product generating an estimated $35bn in profit per year, it was (and still is) a sacred plant for many Native American tribes. Used in healing and spiritual ceremonies, and one of the Navajo (Patricia’s own tribe) tribe’s four sacred foods, the US Government passed laws banning ceremonies and prohibiting ceremonial use of tobacco, whilst granting farming rights to colonisers to produce tobacco products and commercialise the plant.

This oppression of the indigenous culture coincided with the tobacco industry’s use of Native American imagery and wording to promote their tobacco products, and it wasn’t until 1978 that the American Indian Religious Freedom Act permitted indigenous people to practice their ceremonial ways again.

Patricia’s work is centred around decolonizing tobacco, reframing the way indigenous communities use tobacco and educating on the difference between ceremonial and commercial tobacco. After 15 years of advocacy, the Air is Life Act 2021 creates a safe space for Navajo people – prohibiting the use of commercial tobacco products on Navajo land to return to a culture of honouring tobacco as a sacred product. Much of the discourse around tobacco doesn’t speak to the culture of tobacco, focusing on commercial and health aspects. The Air is Life Act represents a positive step towards indigenous people reclaiming an aspect of Navajo culture stolen by colonial powers.

Ian Tyrrell – Emeritus Professor of History, University of New South Wales
Before the “Cigarette Century” and after: tobacco, smoking and colonialism

There is no real tradition of historiography on the study of tobacco in Australia. Studies have become fixated with cigarettes, and with the major tobacco corporations, especially chewing tobacco and roll-ups. In recent years, the focus has shifted to smokeless tobacco, and these focus areas don’t reflect the broad swathe of consumption options and varied histories of these products. Until the post-1900 rise of cigarettes, only 3.4% of tobacco products were for leaf; snuff, smoking of pipes, and chewing plug and twist tobacco were all more popular forms of consumption.

The rise of cigarettes in Australia cannot be discussed without mentioning Big Tobacco’s marketing war on chewing tobacco, a calculated move to increase their market share which rapidly increased cigarette usage. The variances in national market preferences, patterns of class differences and patterns of urbanization make for fascinating study, and hopefully research in this area continues.

George Davey Smith – Professor of Clinical Epidemiology, University of Bristol
Cigarettes and death: a long and winding road

It is easy to assume that awareness of the dangers of smoking cigarettes is a relatively recent phenomenon due to improvements in health research, technology and statistical approaches, the discovery of tobacco’s health implications and subsequent policy decisions. In reality, we should consider this a re-discovery.

In late 19th-century discourse, cigarettes were referred to as coffin nails. There was recognition that smoking had a number of health implications. At a governmental level, perhaps the most famous example of anti-tobacco policy was the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, who waged an ideological war on tobacco and alcohol consumption which included both policy and health campaigns. Military personnel were prohibited from smoking in uniforms, and the general population were prohibited from smoking in cars, indoors, and on university grounds. Tobacco capitalism is quite resistant, however! The German tobacco industry began rebranding their cigarettes for the stormtroopers of the Nazi war machine. Smoking also became a form of resistance and the counterculture in Germany, most famously in the Edelweiss Pirates, an anti-Nazi movement of working-class youth who fought the regime.

Raymond Pearl demonstrated major differences in life expectancy due to smoking, but his work did not significantly influence policy and discourse. This could be due to a myriad of factors. As a well-recognised public intellectual, he polarised views. The tobacco industry also opposed his work (and the work of others), running marketing campaigns countering Pearl’s arguments. Pearl’s controversial work on links between tuberculosis and cancer, and his findings on moderate alcohol consumption being better for life expectancy, all contributed to his work not gaining traction in social and policy discourse.

Virginia Berridge – Professor of History and Health Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
E-cigarettes and the politics of harm reduction: history, evidence and policy

The initial intended aim of e-cigarettes was to remove the part of cigarettes that was harmful – providing nicotine without the tar and carcinogens found in cigarettes. Owing to how embedded cigarettes had become in British culture in the 1950s, outright bans were impossible. “Healthier” cigarettes entered the market, but compensatory smoking (requiring more cigarettes for the same nicotine hit) meant that these made a negligible difference. The policy discourse has now shifted towards harm reduction rather than outright bans, in part due to the response to HIV/AIDS and the health benefits of preventative drugs.

The arrival of e-cigarettes as a nicotine replacement to enable long-term use rather than tapering off represented the UK’s changing stance from prevention to harm reduction. Nicotine itself is not especially hazardous, and if it could be provided effectively as a cigarette substitute, millions of lives could be saved. Initially seen as an oddity, they gradually fitted into the UK regulatory system and saw increasing uptake. The nature of the UK’s political system also allowed implementation of policy at a national level compared to federalised states like the United States; with both major political parties very supportive of nicotine harm reduction, it is easier to pass policies and produce education campaigns on non-tobacco options for those dealing with nicotine addictions.

What’s next for Research Culture?

We have three more events left in our 2023 series of research culture events.

The Future of Teaching, part of our Future of Universities series, looks at the challenges and opportunities facing teaching at universities in the near future. This includes focusing equally on students and staff, the role of universities in equipping the next generation to succeed, and the nature of students as customers given the implementation and subsequent rises in tuition fees over the past 20 years.

Our final Future of Universities event, The Future Role of Universities in Society (Thursday 13 July), brings together a panel of experts across the key decision-making points of higher education policy. We’ll be discussing the role of universities in shaping the future of society and the public and political expectations of universities.

We then have our Festival of Research Culture (Wednesday 19 July), our flagship annual event, which celebrates the work across the University to improve our research culture, particularly showcasing projects that have received funding through our Enhancing Research Culture Fund. The event will give you an opportunity to discover interdisciplinary opportunities from outside your area or field of work and feed into ongoing work in this area. Hear from our Vice-Chancellor and President, Professor Evelyn Welch, about the future of our research culture, and be part of discussions on how we can continue striving to make the University of Bristol an innovative, inclusive and collaborative research environment.

 

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.

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.

 

Last month I had the privilege of kicking off our Future of Universities event series. These events bring experts together from across the academic spectrum to discuss what universities could and should be like in 2033. The Future of Research delved into some of the challenges and opportunities facing research universities and those conducting research at our institutions.

Nigel Thrift, Emeritus Professor and University of Bristol alumnus, kicked off proceedings with a fascinating talk based on his new book, The Pursuit of Possibility: Redesigning Research Universities. He talked through some of the areas that require attention to ensure research universities can survive and thrive, including the University funding crisis and current regulation, and commented on how research universities are one of the few actors across the world who have the capacity to arrest the downward spiral towards irreversible damage to the planet that we currently find ourselves trapped in.

We then heard from a fantastic panel chaired by (as she put it) my “professional sibling”, Professor Michele Barbour, the Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor for Enterprise and Innovation. Michele was joined by a panel of experts from across the higher education environment who immediately got to work delving into how we can safeguard the future of research universities and equip our academics and prospective researchers with the tools, time and support needed to succeed.

With almost an hour of discussion and some thought-provoking questions from the audience, there were a lot of talking points! You can watch the full discussion on the recording below.

Thanks to our panel, whose various experiences cut across the higher education landscape, we heard a range of perspectives on what the future of research means. We considered topics from postgraduate researchers and the support (both in infrastructure and more holistic guidance) required to excel, to the synergistic links between universities and how we can leverage these to continue making an impact through research and help solve some of society’s most pressing challenges. Watch the full recording to find out what else we discussed.

The discussion was closed by Professor Evelyn Welch, the University’s Vice-Chancellor, who remarked on the higher education landscape as a community equipped to scope out solutions for these challenges and begin the work on putting this into place. My own work on research culture springs to mind, and the funding from Research England positions us to respond both proactively and reactively to some of the challenges in our research environment.

Next month promises to be a bumper month for Research Culture events and celebrates the diversity of what Research Culture can mean!

First, we have Histories of Tobacco, which looks at tobacco’s initial sacred purposes and its subsequent colonialisation and commodification. The history of this plant offers a fascinating case study of how research and attitudes of the past can help inform our future.

We then have our Celebrating Technicians event, which will focus on the vital role technicians play in the research process. Speakers from across the higher education system will highlight the excellent facilitation and vital research support carried out by technicians at universities across the country.

Finally, our next Future of Universities event, The Future of Teaching, examines the changes in the university landscape and how we, as institutions, need to adapt to safeguard higher education and best equip future researchers to change the world.

I hope to see you at one of these events in June!

 

What does decolonisation really mean, and how can it enhance research culture? 

by Tarini Bhamburkar
Postgraduate researcher, Department of English

The past few years have seen serious, guided efforts within the University of Bristol to decolonise its curricula, its library shelves and its teaching patterns. This has brought an increasing acknowledgement of the implications of slavery and empire as regards socio-political history and its repercussions in the contemporary world. But “decolonisation” is a weighty term, and often an overwhelming one when pondering on how to bring it “into operation” across the different teaching and research functions of the University.  

So, how do you bring it into research culture? 

Primarily, decolonisation, and the understanding of the transnational nature of history and literature, begin with acknowledging and addressing the legacies of colonialism and imperialism in literature and culture. It requires a critical examination of the narratives, systems and practices that have perpetuated colonial discourse and hierarchical relations throughout history. And it sounds like an intimidating task for someone to initiate on an individual basis.  

This is where funding from the Research England Enhancing Research Culture (ERC) allocation at Bristol was able to provide support. It helped develop a project uniting researchers at Bristol (and beyond) who worked on the literature of the British empire, postcolonial studies, settler colonial studies, transnational relations, histories structured by racial difference, etc, to form a network. With the help of symposia, reading events and awaydays, connections were fostered and formalised between scholars who have worked on different aspects of “decolonial” studies – to acknowledge empire and colonial history.

One example is an interdepartmental symposium that brought together scholars across the Schools of Humanities, Modern Languages and Law (see images below). It was a day dedicated to discussing the transnational aspects of colonial and postcolonial studies. Another is the Victorian Diversities Research Network event, which brought together scholars engaged in seeking new methodologies, to “widen” and “undiscipline” historical, colonial literary fields in the nineteenth century. 

Events such as these, and the wider project in general, have helped to re-emphasise the importance of diversifying and decolonising our syllabi, brought together researchers who work in colonial studies, and enhanced the transnational aspect of how we conduct research at Bristol. I personally hope to sustain the communities and networks that were formed with the support of the ERC funding, and even to broaden them if possible.

As postgraduate researchers, we do not often get access to such funding opportunities, so the ERC support came as a blessing – especially after a harrowing two years with very limited networking and communication. Scholars – especially postgraduate researchers and early-career researchers – enjoyed coming together on a formal platform and sharing their research, thereby facilitating a community of decolonial researchers at Bristol. 

 

By Nina Di Cara and Natalie Zelenka

Earlier this month we held a launch event for Version 1.0 of the Data Hazards project, as part of a series of Research Culture themed events. The project has been in development for two years, and for the past year has been supported by funding from Research England’s Enhancing Research Culture initiative.

Here we’d like to tell you more about the project and what we have been able to achieve with support from the Research Culture initiative.

About the Data Hazards project

Data Hazards are similar to chemical hazards, but applied to the area of data science, statistics and artificial intelligence. They communicate potential risks with a Hazard ‘label’ that can be used alongside research presentations, papers and proposals to communicate ethical risks.

For example, using datasets that are known to be biased in some way may need the ‘Reinforces Existing Bias’ label. A project that uses a very energy-hungry method could have the ‘High Environmental Cost’ label applied.

We can also use these labels to generate more meaningful conversations between different disciplines – and between researchers and the public – about the potential risks of data science research.

The Hazard labels themselves have been developed over the past two years as part of a collaborative process where we have tested out a workshop format that allows researchers to get feedback about the potential ethical risks of their research from others.

The project is based online on the GitHub platform that allows anyone to contribute ideas. So far, we estimate that we have had contributions from 100 people up to Version 1.0, and we hope to keep receiving ideas and feedback so that we can continue to develop it.

Training workshop facilitators

By helping more people to consider the risks of data science projects, we have a chance to positively influence our wider research culture. We can do this by making data scientists more mindful of their impact on the world and by making it easier for people outside of our usual research environments to ‘step in’ to data science work and raise their concerns about the future impacts of it.

Thanks to Research Culture funding in 2022, we were able to hire AI ethics expert Ismael Kherrobi Garcia to help design learning resources about the Data Hazards project. We then used these resources to deliver two sets of training – one online, one in person – to new Data Hazards project facilitators so that we have more people able to teach others about the project and run workshops.

 

We had around 30 attendees at our facilitator training workshops, which were a great success. So far, our trained facilitators have gone on to run a Data Hazards and Reproducibility Symposium at the Alan Turing Institute, present the Data Hazards project ACM’s Computer Human Interaction Conference 2023 and support conversations about the project at AI UK this year. Some have also used the Data Hazards in their teaching and in their own research.

We were also very lucky to be able to work with Bristol PhD student Vanessa Hanschke and artist and animator Yasmin Dwiputri to create new labels for the Data Hazards project (as shown above), and to animate three explainer videos about the project to help us to share the project with new people. You can watch these below.

Launching Version 1.0

On 29 March, the Wills Memorial Building hosted an event to celebrate the launch of Version 1.0 of the Hazard labels.

The event kicked off with talks by project leads Natalie Zelenka and Nina Di Cara, who explained the project and how it has been used in teaching and data-intensive research as a tool for identifying risks and mitigations.

The project’s explainer animations were showcased for the first time, and their animator and producer (Yasmin and Vanessa respectively) were on hand to describe the process behind creating them.

Guests also heard from Tania Duarte from We and AI about how stills from the animation are already being used as part of the Better Images of AI project, which provides free descriptive images of AI to journalists and editors as an alternative to the inaccurate imagery we sometimes see representing AI: blue glowing brains or robot women assistants.

After the talks, there was time for networking, canapés, drinks, and some hands-on activities. Attendees had the chance to apply the Data Hazard labels to real data-intensive projects (pictured below on the posterboard), and to make suggestions to improve the labels for the future.

What’s next for Data Hazards?

The project will continue to grow and evolve as the Data Hazards team works towards version 2 and beyond. If you’d like to get involved, we invite you to contribute or collaborate via the email address below or GitHub. You can also read about and cite the Data Hazards preprint on the Open Science Framework.

Finally, the project is looking for collaborators who can help them to work towards their goals developing a more comprehensive set of labels and trialing the use of Data Hazards in new contexts (such as outreach, industry, and more academic disciplines). Please email data-hazards-project@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

 

Annie Vernon discusses the joy of failing, how to respond, and tips for those in academic careers.

Last month we welcomed Olympic silver medalist and award-winning author Annie Vernon to the University as part of our first Research Culture event in the 2023 series.

Annie has spent the past 15 years – following her race in the Women’s Quadruple Sculls final at the Beijing Olympics – thinking: Did we win a silver medal, or lose a gold medal?

Their quad won the World Championships in the three years before the Olympic Games, spent the majority of their race in the lead, and were set to make history as the first Team GB women’s boat to win rowing gold at the Olympics. The Chinese quad beat them on the line, and left the GB women reflecting on coming up just short.

Annie uses her experience of the extreme highs and lows of a career in sport to cast a spotlight on the way a lot of us view our professional careers. For her, failure was an equalizer. In order to improve, her more experienced colleagues in the quad had to go back to the drawing board too.

She reflected on the similarities between this situation and her partner’s career in academia. When research hits a wall, or an experiment produces an unexpected result, everyone is in the same boat – PGRs, early-career researchers, and researchers with decades of experience. It’s a vital part of our research culture as schools, faculties and an institution as a whole to respond to these situations as opportunities, not setbacks.

Annie also reflected on her time at Cambridge University and her participation in the annual Women’s Boat Race. You would expect that in a two-horse race, on the same course, the two universities would be swapping victory frequently. In fact, there tend to be five to 10 years of dominance from one team, before it swings back the other way. The reason why is simple: that’s how long it takes to acknowledge there are areas that can be improved, begin the process of fixing it, and embed these changes.

There is a striking parallel here between the Boat Race and our own efforts to enhance research culture, and part of the reason why this work is so important to the University. We want to create and sustain a research culture that values and celebrates the diversity of research and supports faculty, staff and students to achieve their goals. We have funded a fantastic mix of projects and look forward to sharing more details about them with you soon. For now, check out the upcoming Research Culture events below and register for your free tickets!

Research Culture 2023 events

Data Hazards Launch
29 March, Reception Room, Wills Memorial Building
Learn more about Data Hazards (such as High Environmental Cost or Danger of Misuse) and how to use them in your own research, and join interdisciplinary discussions around research data ethics. Data Hazards Launch – get tickets

Future of Universities: The Future of Research
20 April, Reception Room, Wills Memorial Building
What could future universities look like? What should their role in wider society be? Join us to hear a range of perspectives on how universities can evolve to remain a positive and rewarding place to work and study. This first event of three will focus on the future of research within institutions considering perspectives from researchers, funders and students. The Future of Research – get tickets

Histories of Tobacco
7 June, Watershed
The use and trade of tobacco has a long and complex history entwined with a number of global social issues, and Bristol’s role as a major colonial port during the slave trade must be remembered for the lessons we can learn. Join us to hear from experts on tobacco’s changing role through history, and how we can learn from the past to inform our future. Histories of Tobacco – get tickets

Celebrating Technicians
19 June, Reception Room, Wills Memorial Building
Technicians are a vital part of the research process, supporting and furthering the innovative and groundbreaking research endeavours at the University. Join us to explore the history of the role in academia, hear from experts on the importance of technical support, and forge new links across the University. Celebrating Technicians – get tickets

Future of Universities: The Future of Teaching
29 June, Reception Room, Wills Memorial Building
What could future universities look like? What should their role in wider society be? Join us to hear a range of perspectives on how universities can evolve to remain a positive and rewarding place to work and study. This second event of three will focus on the future of teaching within institutions considering perspectives from staff, students, and beyond. The Future of Teaching – get tickets

Future of Universities: The Role of Universities in Society
13 July, Reception Room, Wills Memorial Building
What could future universities look like? What should their role in wider society be? Join us to hear a range of perspectives on how universities can evolve to remain a positive and rewarding place to work and study. This final event in the series will focus on the role institutions play in society considering perspectives from government and other external stakeholders. The Role of Universities in Society – get tickets

Festival of Research Culture
19 July, M Shed
Thanks to two years of dedicated funding from Research England, we have supported academic, technical and Professional Services staff through a range of research culture activities. Join us for our annual celebration of these activities taken place to date, and a look forward to the future of research culture at the University of Bristol. Festival of Research Culture – get tickets

 

Every organization – particularly large, complex ones like the University of Bristol – needs to plan ahead. The University introduced the Integrated Planning Process (IPP) in 2017 in order to help academic Faculties, Schools and the Professional Service Divisions to plan on a five-year timescale, within the framework of the University Vision and Strategy.

The IPP is built around the notion of an (almost) year-long series of regular, structured conversations between the University’s Senior Management Team – the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (DVC) and Provost, the Pro Vice-Chancellors, the Deans and Heads of School, and Professional Services Directors. Staff with specific responsibility for aspects of our many and varied activities (e.g. Faculty Research and Education Directors) are also involved.

Ultimately, the process is designed to assist the Senior Management Team to take good, evidence-based management decisions. Topics within scope of the IPP include issues such as the size and shape of the University’s student population, staff / student ratios, investment in Professional Services support in specific Schools, and space requirements.

What are its key features?

• It is co-created: a key principle of the process is that plans are co-created by the Senior Management Team. Plans, targets and budgets emerge from an iterative process so they are never merely ‘imposed’ by a small group of individuals. While priorities and constraints are determined at the start of the cycle, Schools, Faculties and Divisions have flexibility within that framework to plan their own activities.
• It is comprehensive and scalable: the process attempts to cover the majority of the University’s planning and the associated enabling activities (e.g. workforce plans, student number plans, new programme approvals, budget-setting). Plans and budgets are prepared at School, Faculty, Divisional and Institutional level, using standard documents, templates, data and performance metrics.
• It is evidence-based: a detailed data pack for each School and Faculty informs IPP discussions. The data pack covers student intake and populations, staff workforce plans, research income targets, and a wide range of performance indicators (e.g., REF, NSS, citations, league table performance). Summaries from this pack are used in the meetings. You can find an example from last year’s IPP here.
• It is integrated: plans cascade not only up and down the management structure, but also across Faculty and Professional Services boundaries. Many colleagues from across the University are involved in the strategic conversation. The process has been designed in such a way that the documentation, templates and data used at Faculty level can be also be used for ‘local’ planning within Faculties.
• It is iterative: the IPP conversations at Faculty and PS Divisional level occur periodically throughout the academic year through formal meetings to review and refine plans. Faculties have the option to replicate these for their own purposes with Schools.

How is it structured?

The IPP is carefully co-ordinated so that the main and sub-processes align, and decision points are clear. Conversations are usually free-flowing and can cover many aspects of the University Strategy, but the process has distinct phases:

 

• September/October: Strategy Implementation Board[1] meets for a two-day residential to discuss matters of strategic importance. Key decisions that are taken here (e.g. the future size and shape of the University, financial constraints, ways of working) set the parameters within which Schools and Faculties can develop their own plans.
• December – March: We then conduct a series of Strategic (SPMs), Faculty (FPMs) and Divisional (DPMs) Planning Meetings during these months. The meetings agree rolling five-year plans for each Faculty, School and Division. This year’s process, for example, plans our activities for the rest of the 2022/23 academic year, and the years to 2026/27.
  • SPMs and FPMs are led by the DVC and Provost; they provide an opportunity to discuss strategic issues for Faculties and Schools aligned to the aims and objectives of the University Strategy (e.g. growth plans, research strategy, workforce plans).
  • DPMs are led by the Registrar and Chief Operating Officer; they consider how resources within Professional Services can best support our academic endeavours and the University’s strategic ambitions.
• April – May: Plans and budgets are considered, reviewed and approved by University Executive Board, Finance and Infrastructure Committee and the Board of Trustees.

Several key documents inform discussions in the IPP:

• Strategy Thumbnails: standard templates used by Faculties and Schools to articulate their five-year plans, within the thematic framework of the University Strategy.
• Data Summaries: extracts from the more detailed data packs mentioned above. Each summary is specifically tailored to inform the agenda for each meeting.
• Issues/Comments Logs: shared documents where issues of strategic importance can be identified in the run-up to the planning meetings.

The outputs

The key outputs of the IPP are:

1. agreed academic plans for each Faculty and School;
2. operational plans for Professional Services Divisions;
3. budgets and income and expenditure projections covering the next five years.

These detail future activities and investments in staff, buildings and other infrastructure. 

Where to find out more

You can find information about the IPP on this SharePoint site.

Colleagues in the Planning and Business Intelligence Team will also be happy to respond to specific queries. You can email them at ipp-project@bristol.ac.uk.

[1] Strategy Implementation Board is a new University committee. It comprises all members of the University Executive Board, meets once a month, and considers only matters relating to the University Vision and Strategy. These include implementation of the Strategy, monitoring of progress against our objectives using strategic performance indicators, and reporting of that progress to the Board of Trustees.