The value of structural diversity: assessing diversity for a sustainable research base

This report is about structural diversity - the diversity of disciplines, institutions and support mechanisms. Structural diversity is a property of a ‘strong’ research base that not only produces great research today but also has the capacity to address new challenges flexibly and responsively tomorrow. It is distinct from the contribution made by social diversity - the diversity of gender, nationality and ethnicity - to productivity, innovation and social cohesion. We need to assess diversity for future research just as much as we evaluate achievement for past research. Research assessment is usually a retrospective analysis of historical data whether it uses grant income, staff capacity, publication output, or citation impact. This is a very limited perspective for policy and investment. It is a skewed view of what might be important for the future of the research base. Awarding more funds to institutions and teams that did well last year is a safe bet only so long as next year looks similar. But the pace of discovery is accelerating, challenges change, new fields emerge and we lack the foresight to predict where demands and the breakthroughs will come next. The capacity to support excellence and respond to opportunity comes from: • Diversity of research fields: A broader range of disciplines supports exceptional levels of research excellence, fed through a network of institutions of regional and international significance (Evidence, 2002; Evidence, 2003). • Diversity in support which gives flexibility of research support to allow a mix of long and short term responses and includes strategic and responsive awards: Government has consistently argued that diverse funding mechanisms are required to enable curiosity-driven research and evolving, targeted programs of high policy priority or scientific need (Cabinet Office, 1993). • Diversity of research organisations, where mission-led units complement large and small universities with regional as well as international engagement: UK Government Chief Scientific Adviser Bob May showed that research economies with a strong university research base performed consistently better than those committed to narrow, mission-led research institutes (May, 1997). Because of our uncertainty about the future we need an agile and responsive research base. So why is this agility not core to the assessment of research and innovation? Diversity in the structure of the research system has been overlooked and under-researched because it is in practice a tricky concept to turn into a hard definition, and even trickier to quantify

Analysis and Synthesis of Metadata Goals for Scientific Data

The proliferation of discipline-specific metadata schemes contributes to artificial barriers that can impede interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research. The authors considered this problem by examining the domains, objectives, and architectures of nine metadata schemes used to document scientific data in the physical, life, and social sciences. They used a mixed-methods content analysis and Greenberg’s (2005) metadata objectives, principles, domains, and architectural layout (MODAL) framework, and derived 22 metadata-related goals from textual content describing each metadata scheme. Relationships are identified between the domains (e.g., scientific discipline and type of data) and the categories of scheme objectives. For each strong correlation (\u3e0.6), a Fisher’s exact test for nonparametric data was used to determine significance (p \u3c .05). Significant relationships were found between the domains and objectives of the schemes. Schemes describing observational data are more likely to have “scheme harmonization” (compatibility and interoperability with related schemes) as an objective; schemes with the objective “abstraction” (a conceptual model exists separate from the technical implementation) also have the objective “sufficiency” (the scheme defines a minimal amount of information to meet the needs of the community); and schemes with the objective “data publication” do not have the objective “element refinement.” The analysis indicates that many metadata-driven goals expressed by communities are independent of scientific discipline or the type of data, although they are constrained by historical community practices and workflows as well as the technological environment at the time of scheme creation. The analysis reveals 11 fundamental metadata goals for metadata documenting scientific data in support of sharing research data across disciplines and domains. The authors report these results and highlight the need for more metadata-related research, particularly in the context of recent funding agency policy changes

The State of Trust and Integrity in Research

L’organisation britannique ‘Digital Science’ publie son rapport « The State of Trust & Integrity in Research » qui compare les pratiques de partage de données et de libre accès de cinq principaux organismes de financement (la Fondation Bill et Melinda Gates, la Commission européenne (CE), les National Institutes of Health (NIH) aux États-Unis, le National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) et le ministère fédéral allemand de l’Éducation et de la Recherche (BMBF

The State of Open Data Report 2022

Il s\u27agit de la plus longue enquête longitudinale et analyse des données ouvertes

Learning from the UK’s research impact assessment exercise: a case study of a retrospective impact assessment exercise and questions for the future

National governments spend significant amounts of money supporting public research. However, in an era where the international economic climate has led to budget cuts, policymakers increasingly are looking to justify the returns from public investments, including in science and innovation. The so-called ‘impact agenda’ which has emerged in many countries around the world is part of this response; an attempt to understand and articulate for the public what benefits arise from the research that is funded. The United Kingdom is the most progressed in implementing this agenda and in 2014 the national research assessment exercise, the Research Excellence Framework, for the first time included the assessment of research impact as a component. For the first time within a dual funding system, funding would be awarded not only on the basis of the academic quality of research, but also on the wider impacts of that research. In this paper we outline the context and approach taken by the UK government, along with some of the core challenges that exist in implementing such an exercise. We then synthesise, together for the first time, the results of the only two national evaluations of the exercise and offer reflections for future exercises both in the UK and internationally

‘Engaging’ students with education: promoting inclusivity through technology

Two focus group transcripts with the three members of the Northampton Saints staff

Novel spaces as catalysts for change; developing learner agency through transnational projects - dataset

This dataset comprises interview transcripts and written reflections with accompanying codes and nodes. These were gathered from seven English undergraduate students who took part in the Digital Learning Across Boundaries (DLAB) project. They centre on the students reflecting on their experiences in schools and on the transnational project culmination in Bruges, Belgium. The data was gathered whilst on the trip to Bruges, and explores the students' experiences from their perspectives

Home-based health promotion for older people with mild frailty: the HomeHealth intervention development and feasibility RCT.

BACKGROUND: Mild frailty or pre-frailty is common and yet is potentially reversible. Preventing progression to worsening frailty may benefit individuals and lower health/social care costs. However, we know little about effective approaches to preventing frailty progression. OBJECTIVES: (1) To develop an evidence- and theory-based home-based health promotion intervention for older people with mild frailty. (2) To assess feasibility, costs and acceptability of (i) the intervention and (ii) a full-scale clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness randomised controlled trial (RCT). DESIGN: Evidence reviews, qualitative studies, intervention development and a feasibility RCT with process evaluation. INTERVENTION DEVELOPMENT: Two systematic reviews (including systematic searches of 14 databases and registries, 1990-2016 and 1980-2014), a state-of-the-art review (from inception to 2015) and policy review identified effective components for our intervention. We collected data on health priorities and potential intervention components from semistructured interviews and focus groups with older people (aged 65-94 years) (n = 44), carers (n = 12) and health/social care professionals (n = 27). These data, and our evidence reviews, fed into development of the 'HomeHealth' intervention in collaboration with older people and multidisciplinary stakeholders. 'HomeHealth' comprised 3-6 sessions with a support worker trained in behaviour change techniques, communication skills, exercise, nutrition and mood. Participants addressed self-directed independence and well-being goals, supported through education, skills training, enabling individuals to overcome barriers, providing feedback, maximising motivation and promoting habit formation. FEASIBILITY RCT: Single-blind RCT, individually randomised to 'HomeHealth' or treatment as usual (TAU). SETTING: Community settings in London and Hertfordshire, UK. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 51 community-dwelling adults aged ≥ 65 years with mild frailty. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Feasibility - recruitment, retention, acceptability and intervention costs. Clinical and health economic outcome data at 6 months included functioning, frailty status, well-being, psychological distress, quality of life, capability and NHS and societal service utilisation/costs. RESULTS: We successfully recruited to target, with good 6-month retention (94%). Trial procedures were acceptable with minimal missing data. Individual randomisation was feasible. The intervention was acceptable, with good fidelity and modest delivery costs (£307 per patient). A total of 96% of participants identified at least one goal, which were mostly exercise related (73%). We found significantly better functioning (Barthel Index +1.68; p = 0.004), better grip strength (+6.48 kg; p = 0.02), reduced psychological distress (12-item General Health Questionnaire -3.92; p = 0.01) and increased capability-adjusted life-years [+0.017; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.001 to 0.031] at 6 months in the intervention arm than the TAU arm, with no differences in other outcomes. NHS and carer support costs were variable but, overall, were lower in the intervention arm than the TAU arm. The main limitation was difficulty maintaining outcome assessor blinding. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is lacking to inform frailty prevention service design, with no large-scale trials of multidomain interventions. From stakeholder/public perspectives, new frailty prevention services should be personalised and encompass multiple domains, particularly socialising and mobility, and can be delivered by trained non-specialists. Our multicomponent health promotion intervention was acceptable and delivered at modest cost. Our small study shows promise for improving clinical outcomes, including functioning and independence. A full-scale individually RCT is feasible. FUTURE WORK: A large, definitive RCT of the HomeHealth service is warranted. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014010370 and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11986672. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 73. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Mapping Engineering & Development Research Excellence in the UK: An Analysis of REF2014 Impact Case Studies

For the first time, the UK research evaluation system, known as the Research Excellence Framework, considered ‘measures’ of impact in the 2014 review. Here, we focus on impact case studies that had an engineering and international development orientation. We found that writers of impact case studies commonly chose to employ an ecological modernization (economic, environmental, and social value) discourse to shape value claims. We also found that the type of engineering and international development research that appears in impact case studies tends to be high tech, best-with-best, and exclusive, rather than low tech, humanitarian, and inclusive