image1
image2
image3

Parallel sessions 2: Tuesday 17 June, 14:15-15:45

201: Knowledge Transfer and Impact

Fiona Nightingale, KTP Senior Advisor, Technology Strategy Board
Robert Heathman, Senior Knowledge Transfer Manager, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
Kevin Moore, Deputy Head of Knowledge Transfer, Economic and Social Research Council

The speakers will outline the knowledge transfer opportunities of their respective organisations including strategic priorities and funds available across all disciplines. Details will be provided on the eligibility criteria for applicants, allowed costs, and the application processes. They will include examples of the impact of knowledge transfer from universities to other sectors.

202: International Funding Opportunities

Dr Jimmy Whitworth, Head of International Activities, Wellcome Trust
William F. Schweri, Director of Federal Relations, University of Kentucky

The session will address opportunities for international funding. The session will outline the remit of the relevant organisations with regard to opportunities they offer for international funding. Details will be provided on the eligibility criteria for applicants, allowed costs and the application processes. As well as giving a broad overview of funding themes, details of current funding opportunities, or those which will appear in the near future, will be covered.

203: Working with Industry

Colin Cooper, Assistant Director of Research, University of Liverpool
Dr Alison Hodge, Univesity Partnerships Director, QinetiQ

This session will provide views from a university and an industrial perspective:

  1. One of the fundamental activities of a contemporary university is to engage in collaboration with external bodies where both parties can use the generation of new knowledge to further their own core activities. This presentation will review how universities collaborate with Industry focusing on relationships, contractual arrangements and what makes for a successful collaboration.
  2. The UK Government wants universities to work more extensively with business and industry. However, the take-up is still not as high as perhaps wished for. Why? This presentation will explore some of the issues that influence business and industry in why and how they wish to interact with the academic sector. Topics to be considered can include the impact of full economic costs, the value of intellectual property both background and foreground, commercial and other sensitivities, freedom to publish and the availability of appropriate resources. Does industry expect too much or are we satisfied?

204: Accreditation: Pros and Cons, drawing on experience in the US and the UK

Michael Bone, Chairman, Association of Research Ethics Committees (AREC)
David Anderson-Ford, Vice Chair, Association of Research Ethics Committees & Chair, Research Ethics Committee, Brunel University
Ada Sue Selwitz, Director, Office of Research Integrity, Kentucky University

This session will compare and contrast the UK and US systems of University Research Ethics Committees/Institutional Review Boards with a particular focus on the issue of accreditation.

In recent years, UK universities have increasingly established research ethics committees to review research undertaken on human participants in both clinical but non-NHS, and non-biomedical projects. But this has been in a haphazard and disparate manner. They may not have any regulatory requirement, and each university determines its composition, terms of reference and standard operating procedures (SOPs). The University sector of AREC is currently producing guidance on SOPs, quality assurance and accreditation, planning to examine the lessons learnt from the NHS model of practice in order to make the system robust and fit for purpose yet responsive to the needs of the sector with its extremely broad interest and fields of activity.

In the US, however, the research ethics committee's composition and operation, and informed consent requirements, are strictly regulated by nineteen federal agencies and Food and Drug Administration policy. In addition, the research community has adopted an accreditation system which is designed to ensure that human subjects research being conducted by institutions meets the highest ethical standards. We will discuss lessons learned about obtaining and implementing accreditation for human research protection programmes.

205: Best Practice in using Business Intelligence in determining Research Strategy

Mark Hochman, Director, Research and Innovation Services, University of South Australia
Kim Davidson, Deputy Director, Research and Innovation Services, University of South Australia
John Green, Chief Co-ordinating Officer, Imperial College, London

Most universities collect data at both project and institutional level. We are well used to using such data for comparative or benchmarking purposes, yet often this is where the use of such data stops. There is a wealth of additional information - business intelligence - that can be gleaned from standard university data and readily available business data from external sources. This session will explore how using such data can assist in developing institutional research strategies, determining institutional distinctiveness, identifying new business opportunities and supporting strategic growth.

206: Managing academic research in universities or cat-herding for beginners? The case of the UK

Professor Rosemary Deem, Professor of Education, University of Bristol
Ewart Wooldridge, Chief Executive, Leadership Foundation for Higher Education

Academics are regarded as particularly challenging to manage, leading to descriptions of the process as being like 'herding cats'. The paper examines how UK universities manage their research through such roles as Pro-Vice Chancellors for research, and via the work of central administrative units which specialise in the management of research, consultancy and entrepreneurial/ enterprise activity. What are the possible consequences for academic research and researchers' identities and practices of the attempts to herd research cats? The paper draws on theories about the permeation of universities by new managerialism and the new governance of higher education well as theories about the complexities of strategic management in higher education.

207: Researcher Development: Comparative perspectives on effecting institutional and national culture change

Dr Tracey Swift, Head of Research Development and Postdoctoral Research Training, Research Office, University of Sheffield
Dr Lucy Lee, Development Advisor, Medical School, University of Sheffield
Dr Robin Drennan, Executive Director, GMSA, National Research Foundation, South Africa

This session will provide a funder's perspective and an institutional perspective on researcher development.

The funder perspective will focus on the dual challange of improving global competitiveness whilst simultaneously developing a new cohort of researchers which better reflects the national demographic in South Africa. This part of the session will explore both strategies and practical tools used in supporting institutions in meeting these twin challenges.

The UK institutional focus will be on three key factors: Consultation, Engagement and Evaulation, which have emerged as being fundamental to researcher development at both university and departmental levels. Using the University of Sheffield as an example, the session will share lessons learned from models applied in two different faculties, Social Sciences and Medicine, showing how an alliance of research administrators is integral to the progression of development programmes across an organisation.

See also: