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.
Dr Ann Grand, The Open University
Astrobiology is (to slightly mis-quote Douglas Adams) ‘… big. Really big. You just won’t believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly, big it is’.
For AstrobiologyOU, the research group that I’m part of, it’s not enough to study life on Earth and in space.
Not enough to look here and on other planets and their moons for evidence that life exists or might have existed.
Nor even enough to explore the environments that support, could support or might once have supported life on Earth or elsewhere in the Universe.
If you would like to know more about the work of AstrobiologyOU and the people who are doing it, please explore the Astrobiology Collection or visit the AstrobiologyOU website.
The AstrobiologyOU Logo
Professor Richard Holliman, The Open University.
I’m off to the University of East London (UEL) today to deliver a keynote presentation at their 2019 Research and Knowledge Exchange Conference.
Thanks to UEL’s Head of Research & Knowledge Exchange Support, Matthew Whyte, I’ve had a chance to look at the abstracts for the conference. This has really helped in informing the talk I’m planning to deliver.
In working through your abstracts, I was impressed by the knowledge exchange work that is being undertaken by UEL researchers, who are engaging with a wide range of publics, community organisations, stakeholders and end-users.
2019 Research and Knowledge Exchange Conference
In particular, I was struck by how many of the abstract sought to address issues of social justice, not least because this echoes the mission of the Open University.
As a result, I’ll be exploring some of the similarities between the UEL and the Open University in terms of our research and knowledge exchange work.
I’ll argue that, to deliver on an ambitious programme of fairness in knowledge, requires a more nuanced take on what it means to increase our reach in our research and knowledge exchange activities, allied with a commitment to Engaged Research Design.
If you’d like to download a copy of my slides, select: Promoting epistemic justice through knowledge exchange.
Professor Richard Holliman, The Open University.
This year, The Open University celebrates its 50th anniversary. Happy birthday to us!
As part of this celebration, the university is hosting an exciting programme of events and activities.
Yesterday I watched my colleague Martin Weller discuss the ongoing (and increasing influence) of openness in education. (You can access a recording of Martin’s lecture from the link in the previous sentence. Scroll down to the bottom of the page to watch the recording.)
It seems fitting, given the complementary nature of our work, that I was scheduled to deliver my inaugural lecture in this programme shortly after Martin.
Watching the lecture
If you’d like to attend the lecture on 12th March (6-7pm GMT) in person, select How to register. (It’s free to attend, but you need a ticket.)
From 5pm on the day, colleagues will be demonstrating various examples of engagement outside the lecture theatre.
To watch the lecture online, select Watch the webinar. The link will become live shortly before the start of the event. You can submit questions via email or Twitter from the same page.
The lecture will be recorded and made freely available after 12 March.
Professor Richard Holliman, The Open University.
‘Navigating change as we face the future’ was the core theme of the UK’s NCCPE-organised conference in Edinburgh, Scotland last week. For those reading this post from without or without the UK, it’s an appropriate theme. (To that end, we were joined at the conference by colleagues from Thailand, Korea, Canada, South Africa and India.)
Politically as a nation (and nations), the UK is obviously facing unprecedented change at the moment. That, thankfully, is for another day. Rather, the discussions at the Engage Conference focused on the challenges of navigating change to further improve mutually beneficial relations between universities and wider society.
Why focus on change? One of the key reasons is that it is 10 years since the introduction of the NCCPE. If you organise the conference, it seems reasonable that you have a primary role in deciding the theme. After eight national conferences exploring the theme of engagement, this was an opportunity to take stock, set priorities and plan the next steps.
Pathways to Excellence in Public Engagement (STFC, 2018).
Recent STFC-sponsored research explored how physical science researchers in the UK are responding to the requirements to plan for, assess, monitor and report impact (Holliman et al. 2018).
The STFC-sponsored research found that the current system of Pathways to Impact Planning is struggling to consistently deliver rigorous, well-resourced programmes of impact-generating activity, including public engagement.
Upstream planning for pathways is a key requirement for improving the overall quality of the peer review system that underpins impact. How might this be achieved?
‘Navigating pathways to research impact’ is a short video offering entry-level advice on how to plan upstream for Pathways to Impact within the context of an application for research funding.
To access a copy of the transcript for the video, select: Navigating pathways to research impact’ is a short video offering entry-level advice on how to plan for Pathways to Impact (Transcript).
Professor Richard Holliman, The Open University.
Over recent years, STFC’s Public Engagement Team has undertaken a series of strategic reviews to better understand and refine the systems used to create, support, and evaluate high-quality public engagement in the STFC community. (STFC is the Science and Technology Facilities Council.) The most recent of these is called Pathways to Excellence in Public Engagement.
A Catalyst for PEACE
Given my previous role as the operational lead on the OU’s Public Engagement with Research (PER) Catalyst, An Open Research University, I was delighted to be involved in two of these important reviews.
In the first instance, I was a member of the review team that produced the PEACE Report (Public Engagement: Attitudes, Culture and Ethos).
Public Engagement: Attitudes, Culture and Ethos (STFC, 2016).
This review uncovered STFC researchers’ perceptions of the challenges and opportunities they faced in the course of balancing engagement activities alongside their scientific and engineering careers (see ‘Give PEACE a chance’).
Together with the findings from the PER Catalyst programme (NCCPE, 2016), the PEACE report answered some significant questions in relation to how researchers are adapting to the routine requirements to plan for, enact and evidence impacts derived from publicly-funded research.
Collectively, these pieces of work also raised other important questions, not least in relation to whether Pathways to Impact Planning in its current form was consistently delivering rigorous, well-resourced programmes of impact-generating activity.
Pathways to Excellence in Public Engagement
It is in this context that I was asked by the STFC Public Engagement Team to lead a review to explore these important issues. The recently published PEPE Report (Pathways to Excellence in Public Engagement) Report is the result of this review.
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.
“Evidencing impact is hard. Doing public engagement is hard.”
How many times have I heard versions over these phrases over recent years? “Too many”, came the weary reply.
It’s an obvious thing to say, but anything is likely to be a challenge to do well for the first time if you don’t plan ahead. Given that this seems so obvious, what’s surprised me is how often I’ve heard versions of these negative takes on the impact and public engagement agenda in recent months.
I’ve attended a range of events in association with preparations for REF 2021. I’ve heard these types of statements there.
I’ve been working with funders to explore how grants are planned for, assessed, monitored and reported. I’ve heard statements like these made by an unhealthy proportion of researchers during the course of this work.
And I’ve reviewed a good number of proposals over recent months that seek to generate and evidence impact. Guess what? Yes, you’re right. These arguments surface in discussions with some (not all) of these researchers.
Did I mention that it is eight years (yes, eight years!) since pathways to impact planning was introduced by RCUK? It is four years since REF 2014. It is three years since the completion of the RCUK-funded Public Engagement with Research Catalysts (Duncan and Manners, 2016).
So why are we still having the same arguments about the need to produce high-quality planning for the generation and evidencing of research impact?