Richard Holliman, Phil Wheeler and Alice Dunford, The Open University, UK.
Denbigh students and teachers have helped to inform future priorities for urban tree research in Milton Keynes.
Why did we engage with students and teachers from Denbigh School?
The Natural Environment Research Council, also known as NERC, funded staff from the Open University and Forest Research to explore an aspect of ecology, urban tree research. The project was called TreeLab.
Professor Richard Holliman, The Open University.
The Research Excellence Framework is an exercise in identifying and rewarding excellence in research. It is, of course, also about resource allocation and therefore longer-term planning for research.
Hence, whether we like it or not, REF 2021 (like research assessments before it) will result in cultural and organisational changes in UK universities. For those who do well, REF 2021 will lead to changes, effects and (we hope) benefits to the ways these UK universities, Units of Assessment (UoAs) and the researchers working for them conduct research, and how they engage with non-academic beneficiaries and derive social and/or economic impacts from it. For those who do badly, research will have to be funded from sources other than QR; either that or this work could be de-prioritised.
Research Excellence Framework – REF 2021.
Given the power of the REF to shape research priorities, it is important that the assessment system is equitable, and that the guidance promotes rigour, fairness, transparency and consistency. Although it doesn’t specifically say so in the documentation, it seems reasonable to assume that the current REF 2021 Consultation is an attempt to promote these principles.
It’s fair to note up front, therefore, that this post is prompted by some significant concerns about the current guidance and what it could mean, in particular, for the research impact agenda.
My principle concern in what follows is that the REF should not be about ‘boundary work’; setting up de facto restrictive practices prior to the assessment process that unfairly favours one set of impact-generating practices over another.
Professor Richard Holliman, The Open University.
Like many others working in the UK university sector, I’ve been working through the documentation associated with the REF 2021 Consultation over the last couple of weeks.
It’s a comprehensive package, covering all aspects of the next REF submission. As the OU’s Academic Lead for Engaged Research, my role has been to explore the aspects of the REF Consultation that relate to the impact agenda. This incorporates, unsurprisingly, the Impact submission, but also aspects of the Environment submission.
The consultation closes at 12 noon on 15th October 2018, so there’s plenty of time to contribute.
What follows here are a few initial thoughts about the timing of the consultation, and what this means for the short- and longer-term assessment of impact.
Professor Richard Holliman, The Open University. Credit: Michael Francis.
With apologies to John Lennon, PEACE in this instance refers to the Public Engagement: Attitudes, Culture and Ethos report, which has recently been published by STFC (the UK’s Science and Technology Facilities Council).
You can download a copy of the report from: Public Engagement: Attitudes, Culture and Ethos.
PEACE in our time
The PEACE report is timely. It is welcome because it reminds us of the considerable body of culture change work in engagement over a period of nearly ten years.
But it does much more than that. It also adds to this existing evidence-base, offering findings from newly-commissioned research that investigates engagement practices in the physical sciences, combining these findings with consultative work with the STFC research community, and expert advice.
Professor Richard Holliman, The Open University. Credit: Jane Perrone.
“What have the Romans ever done for us?” John Cleese’s famous line from Monty Python’s Life of Brian is a question that has resonated with me over the last couple of weeks.
Back came the answer, “The aqueduct.”
“Oh, yeah, yeah. They did give us that.”
“And there’s sanitation…”
You get the picture.
Why, you may ask, is Monty Python featuring on the Open University’s Engaging Research blog? You can thank the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology. They recently called for evidence to be submitted to an inquiry into science communication. In effect, they asked “What has science communication ever done for us?”
Clem Herman is a Senior Lecturer in the Dept. of Computing and Communications, Open University
A couple of months ago I was asked to give evidence to the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee as part of their enquiry into Women and STEM. What they wanted to know was why there was still a problem for women in achieving senior levels in STEM academic careers. Having recently led the OU’s successful submission for an Athena SWAN Bronze Award and having researched and written about gender and STEM for many years, I was asked to represent the OU and discuss what universities can do to help alleviate this situation.
NCCPE Blog post: An Engaging thesis
The National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement (NCCPE) is running an Engaged Futures consultation. Alongside, and partly in coordination with this consultation, the NCCPE have launched a blog (NCCPE’s blog).
The NCCPE team invited various stakeholders to contribute a post to the new blog as part of the Engaged Futures consultation. Authors were asked to imagine a future for some aspect of engaged research.
My contribution was based on an imagined future for postgraduate research and it titled ‘An engaging thesis‘. The NCCPE team are keen to start a discussion around these articles, which will grow in number in the coming weeks, so feel free to comment, circulate, etc.