784 research outputs found
EDI in academic–policy engagement: lived experience of university based knowledge brokers and marginalised academics
No full textBackground:Discourse surrounding Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) has received significant attention within the UK academy and knowledge brokerage contexts, and more recently within academic–policy engagement spaces (Walker et al, 2019a; Fawcett, 2021; GOV.UK, 2021; Morris et al, 2021). Key players in this space identify the need for diversifying academic participation, as well as diversifying knowledges (GOV.UK, 2021; UK Parliament, 2018; UKRI, 2023). However, conceptual and practical insight on embedding EDI principles (and what they mean in this context) within academic–policy engagement processes is missing.Aims and objectives:Underpinned by feminist and decolonial epistemological concepts, this article addresses this gap by outlining strategies, and surfacing ways in which EDI within academic–policy engagement is experienced, conceptualised, understood and considered.Methods:Two parallel qualitative studies, with a total of 20 semi-structured narrative and realist interviews conducted with marginalised researchers (n=10, Study A) and university based knowledge brokers (n=10, Study B), and a rapid literature review. The analysis used a narrative and thematic framework.Findings and discussion:We found a want for EDI to go beyond just diversity of people and representation, towards fostering foundational principles of epistemic justice, equitable access, value-driven engagement and plurality. Academics and knowledge brokers reported both negative and positive experiences within this space that related to known EDI issues. We conclude that EDI cannot be standardised across higher education contexts, and emphasise the need for holistic, relational and plural approaches to EDI across academic–policy engagement systems through a value-led, equitable and ethical lens
Whose science is it anyway? Reflections on how equality, diversity, and inclusion principles in research and policy engagement strategies can improve policy outcomes as exemplified in health research and policy
No full textConsideration of Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) principles within the policy making process across the board will lead to more effective policy creation and implementation, and strengthen current research systems. By being deliberately interdisciplinary and intersectional in our approach to research and policy impact, we can aim to serve a wider scope of people in a way that matches the nuance, complexity, and variety of the lived experience. Finding effective policy engagement solutions must include consideration of EDI principles at each stage of the research-to-policy pipeline. This article offers introductory thoughts on how EDI can be practically implemented at the stages of research design and research funding to bring awareness to the need for embracing EDI principles. While we know that further information, data, and insight are needed when it comes to diversity in research, the research workforce, and funding allocation, our primary aim for this paper is to encourage reflection and critical assessment of how EDI might be considered at the very early stages of the evidence-to-policy pipeline
The measurement frequency and completeness of vital signs in general hospital wards: An evidence free zone?
No full textResearch on Research registry and hub: promoting practices that improve the way we do science
No full textBackground: Research on Research (RoR), referred also as metascience, critically examines research practice. The rapid growth of RoR evidence highlights the need for funders and research organisations to work collaboratively to increase sharing evidence, decrease risk of duplication and research waste, and ultimately lead to better implementation of research. To address these needs, the RoR registry and community hub was established in 2021 to bring together national and international RoR communities and thus strengthen the impact of this evolving discipline within the broader research ecosystem. The RoR registry and hub facilitates collaborative efforts among stakeholders dedicated to refining research practices. It aims to enhance the visibility of RoR studies, thus enabling the formation of research partnerships and promoting effective dissemination of evidence. This paper provides a comprehensive account of the registry's development and outlines the strategic activities implemented to drive its adoption within the research community. Methods: we utilised multiple methods to develop, grow and maintain the RoR registry. These consist of: a review of registries; creation of an advisory group; development of a web-based online registry of projects; conducting an online survey one year after launch to evaluate the performance of the RoR registry and hub; running two online events to first launch the registry and to showcase research registered on the platform; establishing Chatter sessions (online webinars on research on research topics); dissemination activities to promote the registry through publications and collaborations with publishers; and generating materials throughout the time the registry has been operating that reach multiple audiences. Results: the development of the registry took place between January 2020 and June 2021. The scope of registries that were available at the time informed the contents of the registry and especially, the questions that are asked at registration, ensuring a useful and still pragmatic mechanism to register work. An advisory board of experts provided strategic advice during the development phase. In parallel, a brand concept for the RoR registry and RoR team was co-developed. A video to explain the aim of the registry was co-created with a science communicator. An online launch event for the RoR registry and hub in June 2021 announced the registry to relevant communities (ror-hub.org) where a panel of experts discussed research on research and the role of this activity in the research ecosystem. A series of online webinars (Chatter sessions) were set up after the launch event where presenters led a discussion on topics of interest to the community, invited reflection and encouraged adoption of evidence to improve practice. The online evaluation survey of the registry and chatter sessions asked communities of interest about usefulness of the registry, benefits and challenges to engaging with the website and ways to increase its uptake. Forty-seven responses to the online survey were received. Five themes extracted through thematic analysis were: 1: Chatter sessions (two subthemes: management and topic coverage) 2: Registry outputs 3: Opportunities for improvement and collaboration 4: Promoting the registry 5: Reasons for not interacting with the registry. Findings of the evaluation highlighted the need for clearer communication about Chatter sessions with more notice and post-session materials, as well as more diverse topics like AI and bias in research. Members suggested improvements to the registry itself, including better promotion, simpler study entry, and more engaging content like mini blogs to encourage wider use. Finally, while many members found the registry through word-of-mouth, lack of time and awareness were cited as the main barriers to having greater interaction.In May 2024, the RoR team organised an online research festival, ‘AI and research: a promising relationship?’, to celebrate the registry's first three years. The festival included a panel discussion on the role of artificial intelligence in research, including whether AI could reduce research bureaucracy and how AI could impact on research integrity and presentations from projects added to the registry. 107 participants from organisations in 28 countries, including research funders, universities, charities, hospitals and publishers worldwide logged on to the festival sessions, provided highly positive feedback on the relevance and usefulness of the topics discussed, the discussion and presentations. Reflections: this paper presents the development of the RoR registry and community hub, describing the process from initial idea to launch, subsequent evaluation and continuous dissemination to encourage its use for best research practices. The highlights of the virtual research festival hosted by the RoR team, which focused on the intersection of AI and research, showed the multiple ways in which the community around the registry has been established and how it is contributing to the research ecosystem. The next steps for the registry and hub include expansion of the registry by partnering with organisations conducting research on research activity; developing strategies to attract more users to the registry; and encourage active participation within the community hub, targeting outreach and continuously analysing the impact by tracking collaborations, measuring changes in research quality, or surveying users to gather feedback on the platform's effectiveness.<br/
The use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings: A scoping review
No full textBackground Preprints are open and accessible scientific manuscript or report that is shared publicly, through a preprint server, before being submitted to a journal. The value and importance of preprints has grown since its contribution during the public health emergency of the COVID-19 pandemic. Funders and publishers are establishing their position on the use of preprints, in grant applications and publishing models. However, the evidence supporting the use and acceptability of preprints varies across funders, publishers, and researchers. The scoping review explored the current evidence on the use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings by publishers, funders, and the research community throughout the research lifecycle. Methods A scoping review was undertaken with no study or language limits. The search strategy was limited to the last five years (2017–2022) to capture changes influenced by COVID-19 (e.g., accelerated use and role of preprints in research). The review included international literature, including grey literature, and two databases were searched: Scopus and Web of Science (24 August 2022). Results 379 titles and abstracts and 193 full text articles were assessed for eligibility. Ninety-eight articles met eligibility criteria and were included for full extraction. For barriers and challenges, 26 statements were grouped under four main themes (e.g., volume/growth of publications, quality assurance/trustworthiness, risks associated to credibility, and validation). For benefits and value, 34 statements were grouped under six themes (e.g., openness/ transparency, increased visibility/credibility, open review process, open research, democratic process/systems, increased productivity/opportunities). Conclusions Preprints provide opportunities for rapid dissemination but there is a need for clear policies and guidance from journals, publishers, and funders. Cautionary measures are needed to maintain the quality and value of preprints, paying particular attention to how findings are translated to the public. More research is needed to address some of the uncertainties addressed in this review.</p
A scoping review on the use and acceptability of preprints.
No full textBackground: The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the potential significance of preprints in a public health emergency, and now with their continued use, preprints are considered within the context of open research. Funders and publishers are establishing their position of the use of preprints, in grant applications and its publishing model. The purpose of this scoping review was to review the current evidence on the use and acceptability of preprints by publishers, funders, and the research community throughout the research pathway.Methods: A scoping review was undertaken with no study or language limits. The search strategy was limited to the last five years (2017-2022), to capture changes influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., accelerated use and role of preprints in research). The review included international literature, including grey literature. Two databases were searched: Scopus and Web of Science on 24 August 2022. Results: 379 titles and abstracts and 193 full text articles was assessed for eligibility. Ninety-eight articles met eligibility criteria and were included for full extraction. For barriers and challenges, 26 statements were grouped under four main themes (e.g., volume/growth of publication, quality assurance/trustworthiness, risks associated to credibility and quality). For benefits and value, 34 statements were grouped under six themes (e.g., openness/transparency, increased visibility/credibility, open review process, open research, democratic process/systems, increased productivity/opportunities).Conclusions: Opportunities for rapid dissemination using preprints means that best practices through policies and guidelines are required, from journals, publishers, and funders, to ensure preprints become embedded into practice. Cautionary measures to maintain quality and creditability are also needed to be transparent with the public and social media, so care is taken when reading and digesting research from preprints. Transparent guidelines by journals and funders are required to articulate to academia the role and purpose of preprints compared to a peer reviewed journal publication.Keywords: Preprints, grant applications, funding organisations, open research, transparency, publishers, open access <br/
Supporting tutors with their feedback using Open Mentor
No full textAssessment has been identified as one of the major challenges faced by Higher Education Institutions (Whitelock, et al, 2007). As a response to the challenge, in a project funded by the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC) the Open University developed Open Mentor (OM), a learning support tool for tutors to help them reflect on the quality of feedback given to their students on assignments submitted electronically. It was developed on the fundamental theory that there was convincing evidence of systematic connections between different types of tutor comments and the level of attainment in an assignment (Whitelock et al 2004). The work initiated by the Open University is being continued at the University of Southampton and King’s College London through the JISC funded Open Mentor technology transfer (OMtetra) project. OMtetra aims at taking up OM and extend its uses by developing the system further and ultimately offer better support to tutors and students in the assessment process. The findings to date from the preliminary testing suggest that changes are required to the algorithm used in the analysis of feedback comments together with the introduction of a module for user authentication that would facilitate integration within any university system. In addition, changes to the types of assignments processed by OM have been also suggested by tutors who assess marked assignments as well as essays written by post-graduate students which do not necessarily need to have a mark but require complex feedback that allow students to enhance academic writing skills. OMtetra is an on-going project with high potential. We believe that the tools that result from the development and trial implementations of OM will contribute highly to the area of assessment and feedback in Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) since it is an open source tool that will have wider applicability through the customisation process that is currently being undertaken. <br/
- …
