Tag: research

  • A topic modelling analysis of higher education research published between 2000 and 2021

    A topic modelling analysis of higher education research published between 2000 and 2021

    by Yusuf Oldac and Francisco Olivas

    We recently embarked upon a project to explore the development of higher education research topics over the last decades. The results were published in Review of Education. Our aim was to thematically map the field of research on higher education and to analyse how the field has evolved over time between 2000 and 2021. This blog post summarises our findings and reflects on the implications for HE research.

    HE research continues to grow. HE researchers are located in globally diverse geographical locations and publish on diversifying topics. Studies focusing on the development of HE with a global-level analysis are increasingly emerging. However, most of these studies are limited to scientometric network analyses that do not include a content-related focus. In addition, they are deductive, indicating that they tried to fit their new findings into existing categories. Recently, Daenekindt and Huisman (2020) were able to capture the scholarly literature on higher education through an analysis of latent themes by utilising topic modelling. This approach got attention in the literature, and the study’s contribution was highlighted in an earlier SRHE blog post. We also found their study useful and built on it in our novel analysis. However, their analysis focused only on generating topics from a wide range of higher education journals and did not identify explanatory factors, such as change over the years or the location of publication. After identifying this gap, we worked towards moving one step further.

    A central contribution of our study is the inclusion of a set of research content explanatory factors, namely: time, region, funding, collaboration type, and journals, to investigate the topics of HE research. In methodological terms, our study moves ahead of the description of the topic prevalence to the explanation of the prevalence utilizing structural topic modelling (Roberts et al, 2013).

    Structural topic modelling is a machine learning technique that examines the content of provided text to learn patterns in word usage without human supervision in a replicable and transparent way (Mohr & Bogdanov, 2013). This powerful technique expands the methodological repertoire of higher education research. On one hand, computational methods make it possible to extract meaning from large datasets; on the other, they allow the prediction of emerging topics by integrating the strengths of both quantitative and qualitative approaches. Nevertheless, many scholars in HE remain reluctant to engage with such methods, reflecting a degree of methodological conservatism or tunnel vision (see Huisman and Daenekindt’s SRHE blog post).

    In this blog post, our intention is not to go deep into the minute details of this methodological technique, but to share a glimpse of our main findings through the use of such a technique. With the corpus of all papers published between 2000 and 2021 in the top six generalist journals of higher education, as listed by Cantwell et al (2022) and Kwiek (2021) both, we analysed a dataset of 6,562 papers. As a result, we identified 15 emergent research topics and several major patterns that highlight the thematic changes over the last decades. Below, we share some of our findings, accompanied by relevant visualisations.

    Glimpse at the main findings with relevant visuals

    The emergent 15 higher education topics and three visibly rising ones

    Our topic modelling analysis revealed 15 distinct topics, which are largely in line with the topics discussed in previous studies on this line (eg Teichler, 1996; Tight, 2003; Horta & Jung, 2014). However, there are added nuances in our analysis. For example, the most prevalent topics are policy and teaching/learning, which are widely acknowledged in the field, but new themes have emerged and strengthened over time. These themes include identity politics and discrimination, access, and employability. These areas, conceptually linked to social justice, have become central to higher education research, especially in US-based journals but not limited to them. The visual below demonstrates the changes over the years for all 15 topics.

    • The Influence of funding on higher education research topics

    Research funding plays a crucial role in shaping certain topics, particularly gender inequality, access, and doctoral education. Studies that received funding exhibited a higher prevalence of these socially significant topics, underscoring the importance of targeted funding to support research with social impact. The data visualisation below summarises the influence of reported funding for each topic. The novelty of this pattern needs to be highlighted because we have not come across a previous study looking into the influence of funding existence on research topics in the higher education field.

    • The impact of collaboration on higher education research topics

    Collaborative publications are more prevalent in topics such as teaching and learning, and diversity and social relations. By contrast, theoretical discussions, identity politics, policy, employability, and institutional management are more common in solo-authored papers. This pattern aligns with the nature of these topics and the data requirements for research. Please see the visualised data below.

    We highlight that although the relationship between collaboration and citation impact or researcher productivity is well studied, we are not aware of any evidence of the effect of collaboration patterns on topic prevalence, particularly in studies focusing on higher education. So, this finding is a novel contribution to higher education research.

    • Higher education journals’ topic preferences

    Although the six leading journals claim to be generalist, our analysis shows they have differing publication preferences. For example, Higher Education focuses on policy and university governance, while Higher Education Research and Development stands out for teaching/learning and indigenous knowledge. Journal of Higher Education and Review of Higher Education, two US-based journals, have the highest prevalence of identity politics and discrimination topics. Last, Studies in Higher Education has a significantly higher prevalence in teaching and learning, theoretical discussions, doctoral education, and emotions, burnout and coping than most of the journals.

    • Regional differences in higher education research topics

    Topic focus varies significantly by the region of the first author. First, studies from Asia exhibit the highest prevalence of academic work and institutional management. Studies from Africa show a higher prevalence of identity politics and discrimination. Moreover, studies published by first authors from Eastern European countries stand out with the higher prevalence of employability. Lastly, the policy topic has a high prevalence across all regions. However, studies with first authors from Asia, Eastern Europe, Africa, and Latin America and the Caribbean showed a higher prevalence of policy research in higher education than those from North America and Western Europe. By contrast, indigenous knowledge is most prominent in Western Europe (including Australia and New Zealand). The figure below demonstrates these in visual format.

    Concluding remarks

    Higher education research has grown and diversified dramatically over the past two decades. The field is now established globally, with an ever-expanding array of topics and contributors. In this blog post, we shared the results of our analysis in relation to the influence of targeted funding, collaborative practices, regional differences, and journal preferences on higher education research topics. We have also indicated that certain topics have risen in prevalence in the last two decades. More patterns are included in the main research study published in Review of Education.

    It is important to note that we could only include the higher education papers published up to 2021, the latest available data year when we started the analyses. The impact of generative artificial intelligence and recent major shifts in the global geopolitics, including the new DEI policies in the US and overall securitisation of science tendencies, may not be reflected fully in this dataset. These themes are very recent, and future studies, including replications with similar approaches, may help provide newly emerging patterns.

    Dr Yusuf Oldac is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Education Policy and Leadership at The Education University of Hong Kong. He holds a PhD degree from the University of Oxford, where he received a full scholarship. Dr Oldac’s research spans international and comparative higher education, with a current focus on global science and knowledge production in university settings.

    Dr Francisco Olivas obtained his PhD in Sociology from The Chinese University of Hong Kong. He joined Lingnan University in August 2021. His research lies in the intersections between cultural sociology, social stratification, and subjective well-being, using quantitative and computational methods.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • A change in approach means research may never be the same again

    A change in approach means research may never be the same again

    At first glance Liz Kendall may look like an odd choice for Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology. She has never worked in science, she has rarely mentioned science directly in any intervention in her entire parliamentary career, and this is not a role with the kind of profile which will allow easy entry in any future leadership race.

    Although covering a related brief has never been a disqualifying quality for any predecessors, her move from the Department for Work and Pensions following her failed welfare reforms felt more like a hasty exit than a tactical manoeuvre.

    Her direct predecessor, Peter Kyle, often seemed more preoccupied with turning the UK into an “AI superpower” than he did the more tedious business of how the research ecosystem is governed and how it can be manipulated to fulfil the government’s ambitions. In truth, the business of research reform is not about more grand visions, frameworks, or strategies, but the rather grubbier work of deciding where to spend a finite amount of funding on an infinite amount of programmes.

    Practice and promise

    Kendall’s interest in research has so far been on the business of making the country better. As seen in her speeches during her time on the backbenches, research is about practical things like regional economies, skills, and curing diseases. For Kendall, “what matters is what works.” And in her speech at the Innovation for Growth Summit a management theory of research reform about balancing the speculative with the practical emerged.

    The premise of her speech was that the growth of the UK economy is reliant on making the most of the UK’s R&D strengths. To get the most out of the UK’s R&D strengths Kendall believes the government can neither be too directive and must allow curiosity-driven research to prosper. It should also not be too permissive, funding must be directed toward government priorities particularly when it comes to translation and application.

    It is a middle ground approach to research management for a third-way politician. In line with the three bucket model (outlined here by current Strathclyde professor of practice, research and innovation policy, and former DSIT and Research England person Ben Johnson) Kendall has clarified the government’s research funding allocations. There will be £14bn for curiosity driven R&D, £8bn toward the government’s priorities, and £7bn for scale up support. £7bn has also been announced in skills and infrastructure to secure the success of each bucket of activity.

    The label problem

    The labelling of existing funds in new ways is in itself not a strategy for economic growth. Clearly, doing the same thing, with the same people, in the same ways, would lead to exactly the same outcomes with a different name. A bit like when international research became about making the UK a “science superpower” or when every ambitious research programme was a “moonshot” or relabelling every economic benefit produced through research as “levelling up”.

    The boldest ambition of Kendall’s speech is perhaps the most understated. Kendall is committed to “doing fewer things better.” In a speech delivered at the same event by UKRI’s Chief Executive, Ian Chapman, this simple sentiment may have massive consequences.

    Chapman’s view is that the UK lacks any of the natural resources advantages of its major international competitors. Instead, the UK maintains its competitiveness through the smart use of its knowledge assets even if he believes these are “undervalued and underappreciated.”

    Chapman’s UKRI will be more interventionist. He will maintain curiosity driven research but warns that UKRI will not support the activities where it has no “right to win significant market-share in that sector,” and in backing spin-outs UKRI will be “much more selective.” The future being etched out here is one where there is much greater direction by government and UKRI toward funding that aligns with the industrial strategy and its mission for economic growth while maintaining a broad research base through curiosity driven research. Clearly, funding fewer programmes more generously means that some areas of research will receive less government funding.

    The government’s approach to research is coalescing around its approach to governing more broadly. Like the industrial strategy the government is not picking winners as such but creating the conditions through which some desirable policy outcomes like economic growth have a better chance of emerging. It’s a mix of directing funding toward areas where the UK may secure an advantage like the doubling of R&D investment in critical technologies, addressing market failures through measures like the £4.5m for Women in Innovation Awards, and regulating to shape the market with the emphasis of economic growth and sustainability in UKRI’s new framework document.

    Football’s coming home

    In her speech Kendall likened the selective funding approaches to the selective sports funding of the Olympics. Alighting on a different sporting metaphor Chapman recalled the time a non-specific European team he supports (almost definitely Liverpool) came back from 3-0 down to win the European Cup as a reminder that through collective support researchers can achieve great things.

    Perhaps, UK research has been more like the England men’s football team than it has the current Premier League champions. The right pieces in the wrong places with little sense of how the talent of individuals contribute to the success of the whole. In committing to funding fewer programmes better the government wants all its stars on the pitch in top condition. The challenge is that those who go from some funding to none are likely to feel their contributions to the team’s success have been overlooked

    Source link

  • Transparency, collaboration, and culture, are key to winning public trust in research

    Transparency, collaboration, and culture, are key to winning public trust in research

    The higher education sector is focussing too much on inward-facing debates on research culture and are missing out on a major opportunity to expose our culture to the public as a way to truly connect research with society.

    REF can underpin this outward turn, providing mechanisms not only for incentivising good culture, but for opening up conversations about who we are and how we work to contribute to society.

    This outward turn matters. Research and Development (R&D) delivers enormous economic and societal value, yet universities struggle to earn public trust or support for what they do. Recent nation-wide public opinion research by Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE) has shown that while 88 per cent of people say it is important for the Government to invest in R&D, just 18 per cent can immediately think of lots of ways R&D benefits them and their family. When talking about R&D in public focus groups, universities were rarely front of mind and are primarily seen as education institutions where students or lecturers might do R&D as an ancillary activity.

    If the university sector is to sustain legitimacy – and by extension, the political and financial foundations of UK research – we must find new ways to make our work visible, relatable, and trusted. Focusing on the culture that shapes how research is done may be the most powerful way to do this.

    Why culture matters

    Public opinion is not background noise. Public awareness, appetite and trust all shape political choices about funding, regulation, and the role of universities in national life. While CaSE’s work shows that 72 per cent of people trust universities to be honest about how much the UK government should invest in R&D, the lack of awareness about what universities do and how they do it leaves legitimacy fragile.

    This fragility is starkly illustrated by recent polling from More in Common: when asked which government budgets they would most like to see cut, the public didn’t want funding cuts for R&D, yet placed universities third on the list for budgets that they would be happy to be cut (alongside foreign aid and funding for the arts).

    Current approaches to improving public opinions about research in our sector have had limited success. The sector’s instinct has been to showcase outputs – discoveries, patents, and impact case studies – to boost public awareness and build support for research in universities. But CaSE polling evidence suggests that this approach isn’t cutting through: 74 per cent of the public said they knew nothing or hardly anything about R&D in their area. This lack of connection does not indicate a lack of interest: a similar proportion (70 per cent) would like to hear more about local R&D.

    Transparency

    Evidence from other sectors shows that opening up processes builds trust. In healthcare, for example, the NHS has found that when patients are meaningfully involved in decisions about their care and how services are designed, trust and satisfaction increase – not just because of outcomes, but because people can see and influence how decisions are made.

    Research from business and engineering contexts shows that people are more likely to trust companies that are open about how they operate, not just what they deliver. Together, these lessons reinforce that we should not rely on showcasing outputs alone: legitimacy comes from making visible the processes, people and cultures that underpin research.

    Universities don’t just generate knowledge; they develop the individuals who carry skills and values into the wider economy. Researchers, technicians, professional services staff and others who enable research in higher education bring curiosity, collaboration and critical thinking into every sector, both through direct collaboration and when they move beyond academia. These skills fuel innovation and problem-solving across the economy and public services, but they can only develop and thrive in supportive, inclusive research cultures. Without attention to culture, the talent pipeline that government and industry rely on is put at risk.

    Research culture makes these processes and people visible. Culture is about how research is done: the integrity of methods, the openness of data, the inclusivity of teams, the collaborations – including with the public – that make discoveries possible. These are the very things the public are keen to understand better. By opening up the black box of research and showing the culture that underpins it, we can make university research more relatable, trustworthy, and visible in everyday life.

    The role of REF in shifting the conversation

    The expansion of the old Environment element of REF to encompass broader aspects of research culture offers an opportunity to help shift from an inward to a more outward looking narrative and public conversation. The visibility and accountability that REF submissions require matters beyond academia: it gives the sector a platform to showcase the values and processes that underpin research. In doing so, REF can help our sector build trust and legitimacy by making research culture part of the national conversation about R&D.

    Openness, integrity, inclusivity, and collaboration – core components of research culture – are values which the public already recognise and expect. By framing research culture as part of the story we tell – explaining not just what our universities produce but how they produce it – we can build a stronger connection with the public. Culture is the bridge between the abstract notion of investing in R&D and a lived understanding of what universities actually do in society.

    Public support for research is strong, but support for universities is increasingly fragile. Whatever the REF looks like when we unpause, we need to avoid retreating to ‘business as usual’ and closing down this opportunity to open up a more meaningful conversation about the role universities play in UK R&D and in the progress of society.

    Source link

  • UK university censors human rights research on abuses in China

    UK university censors human rights research on abuses in China

    Last year, FIRE launched the Free Speech Dispatch, a regular series covering new and continuing censorship trends and challenges around the world. Our goal is to help readers better understand the global context of free expression. Want to make sure you don’t miss an update? Sign up for our newsletter.

    Yet another university erodes academic freedom to appease Beijing

    In August, I released Authoritarians in the Academy, my book about the relationship between higher education, authoritarian regimes, and the censorship that internationalization has introduced into colleges and universities. And this month, an investigation released by The Guardian provided a perfect example of how this influence and censorship play out, in this case in the UK. 

    Earlier this year, Sheffield Hallam University told professor Laura Murphy, whose work the university had previously touted, to abandon her research into Uyghurs and rights abuses in China. The ban ultimately lasted for eight months until the school reversed course and issued an apology in October after Murphy threatened legal action. The Guardian reports that “the instruction for Murphy to halt her research came six months after the university decided to abandon a planned report on the risk of Uyghur forced labour in the critical minerals supply chain.”

    China’s censorship goes global — from secret police stations to video games

    2025 is off to a repressive start, from secret police stations in New York to persecution in Russia, Kenya, and more.


    Read More

    There are multiple alleged reasons for the university’s decision to disavow research critical of the CCP, but they all boil down to fear of legal or financial retaliation from the same government at the center of academics’ investigations. Murphy suggested that Sheffield Hallam was “explicitly trading my academic freedom for access to the Chinese student market.” And this is a real challenge among university administrations today: fear that vindictive governments will punish noncompliant universities by cutting off their access to lucrative international student tuition. 

    Another likely reason was a warning from Sheffield Hallam’s insurance provider that it would no longer cover work produced by the university’s Helena Kennedy Centre for International Justice after a defamation suit from a company named in its research. The HKC has raised the ire of Chinese government officials before, leading to a block of Sheffield Hallam’s websites behind the Great Firewall. Regarding the ill will between CCP officials and the HKC, a university administrator wrote that “attempting to retain the business in China and publication of the [HKC] research are now untenable bedfellows” and complained of the negative effects on recruitment in the country, which looks to have suffered.

    Most disturbing was a visit Chinese state security officials conducted in 2024 to the university’s Beijing office, where they questioned employees about the HKC’s research and the “message to cease the research activity was made clear.” An administrator said that “immediately, relations improved” when the university informed officials the research into human rights abuses would be dropped. 

    The university’s apology and reversal may not spell the end of the story. A South Yorkshire Police spokesperson suggested that, because of potential engagement with security officials in China, Sheffield Hallam may face investigation under the National Security Act related to a provision on “assisting a foreign intelligence service.”

    NYC indie film festival falls victim to transnational repression

    One of the most common misconceptions about free expression today is that nations with better speech protections are immune from the censorship in less free countries. Case in point: New Yorkers hoping to attend the IndieChina Film Festival, set to begin on Nov. 8, could not do so because of repression in China.

    Organizer Zhu Rikun said relentless pressure necessitated the cancellation of the event, with film directors in and outside China telling him en masse that they could not attend or requesting their films not be shown. Human Rights Watch also reports that Chinese artist Chiang Seeta warned that “nearly all participating directors in China faced intimidation” and even those abroad “reported that their relatives and friends in China were receiving threatening calls from police.”

    Zhu, whose parents and friends in China are reportedly facing harassment as well, thought it would “be better” after moving to the U.S. “It turns out I was wrong,” he said. 

    Worrying UN cybercrime treaty nets dozens of signatures, with a notable exception

    Late last month, 72 nations including France, Qatar, and China signed a treaty purportedly intended to fight “cybercrime,” but that leaves the door open for authoritarian nations to use it to enlist other nations — free and unfree — in their campaign to punish political expression on the internet. As I explained last year as the proposal went to the General Assembly, among other problems, the treaty fails to sufficiently define a “serious” crime taking place on computer networks other than that it’s punishable by a four-year prison sentence or more. 

    You might see the immediate problem here: Many nations, including some who ultimately signed on to the treaty, regularly punish online expression with long prison terms. A single TikTok video or an X post that offends or insults government officials, monarchs, or religious bodies can land people around the world in prison — sometimes for decades. 

    Despite earlier statements of support from a representative for the United States on the Ad Hoc Committee on Cybercrime, the U.S. ultimately did not sign the treaty and “is unlikely to sign or ratify unless and until we see implementation of meaningful human rights and other legal protections by the convention’s signatories.”

    That’s not all. There’s plenty more news about speech, tech, and the internet:

    • New amendments to Kenya’s Computer Misuse and Cybercrimes Act are worrying activists in the country, including one that grants the National Computer and Cybercrimes Coordination Committee authority to block material that “promotes illegal activities” or “extreme religious and cultic practices.”
    • Influencers, beware: the Cyberspace Administration of China released new regulations requiring social media users publishing material on “sensitive” topics like law and medicine to prove their qualifications to do so. Platforms will also be required to assist in verifying those qualifications.
    • The much-maligned Online Safety Act continues to create new concerns for free expression in the UK. TechRadar reports that regulatory body OfCom is “using an unnamed third-party tool to monitor VPN use,” one likely employing AI capabilities. VPN use is, to no surprise, spiking in the UK in response to mandated age-checks under the online safety regulations.
    • Brazil is employing a new AI-powered online speech monitor to collect material from social media and blogs that can be used for prosecution of hate speech offenders in the country. Hate speech convictions can result in serious punishment in Brazil, like the one levied against a comedian sentenced to over eight years for offensive jokes this year.
    • The European Union Council’s “Chat Control” proposal to scan online communications and files for CSAM appears to be moving forward. The latest proposal removes the obligation for service providers to scan all material but encourages it to be done voluntarily. However, the text of the proposal allows for a “mitigation measure” requiring providers deemed high risk to take “all appropriate risk mitigation measures.”
    • Apple and Android removed gay dating apps from their app stores in China after “an order from the Cyberspace Administration of China.” A spokesperson for Apple said, “We follow the laws in the countries where we operate.”
    • India has somewhat narrowed the scope of its vast internet takedown machine, limiting the authority of those who can demand platforms block material to officials who reach a certain rank of power. Those ordering removals will now also be required to “clearly specify the legal basis and statutory provision invoked” and “the nature of the unlawful act.”
    • Chief Minister Siddaramaiah of the Indian state Karnataka is threatening a new law against misinformation that will punish those “giving false information to people, and disturbing communal harmony.”
    • Swiss man Emanuel Brünisholz will spend ten days in prison next month after choosing not to pay a 600 Swiss francs fine from his incitement to hatred conviction. Brünisholz’s offense was this 2022 Facebook comment: “If you dig up LGBTQI people after 200 years, you’ll only find men and women based on their skeletons. Everything else is a mental illness promoted through the curriculum.”
    • A Spanish court acquitted a Catholic priest of hate speech charges after a yearslong investigation into his online criticisms of Islam, including a 2016 article, “The Impossible Dialogue with Islam.”

    Russian censorship laws should not dictate expression in the NHL

    NHL teams have decided to entirely abandon Pride warm up jerseys from their programming out of fear of retaliation against their Russian players.


    Read More

    • Continuing its widespread censorship of what it deems “gay propaganda” or “extremist” material, Russian media regulator Roskomnadzor banned the world’s largest anime database last month. Roskomnadzor blamed the block on MyAnimeList’s content “containing information propagating non-traditional sexual relations and/or preference.”
    • Singapore plans to roll out a new online safety commission with authority to order platforms to block posts and ban users and to demand internet service providers censor material as well. Initially, it intends to address harms like stalking but will eventually also target “the incitement of enmity.”
    • South Sudan’s National Security Service released comedian Amath Jok after four days in detainment for insulting President Salva Kiir on TikTok, who she called “a big thief wearing a hat.” But Jok isn’t out of the woods yet. Authorities have indefinitely banned her from using social media. 

    South Korea seeks to punish expression targeting other nations

    In response to controversial protests against China, a Democratic Party of Korea lawmaker is pushing for legislation to punish those who “defame or insult” countries and their residents or ethnic groups. The bill would punish false information with fines and prison terms up to five years, and “insulting” speech with up to a year. 

    That effort garnered support this month when President Lee Jae Myung said that “hate speech targeting specific groups is being spread indiscriminately, and false and manipulated information is flooding” social media. He called it “criminal behavior” beyond the bounds of free expression.

    Media censorship from Israel to Kyrgyzstan to Tunisia 

    • The BBC has apologized to President Trump over “the manner” in which a clip of his speech on Jan. 6, 2021, was edited to give “the mistaken impression that President Trump had made a direct call for violent action,” but notes that its UK-aired “Trump: A Second Chance?” program was not defamatory. It remains unclear whether Trump will still follow through on his threat to file a suit against the British outlet, but in earlier comments he claimed to have an “obligation” to do so.
    • By a vote of 50 to 41, Israel’s Knesset passed the first of three steps in the approval of the Law to Prevent Harm to State Security by a Foreign Broadcasting Authority, which would give authorities permanent power to shut down and seize foreign media they deem “harmful” without needing judicial review or approval.
    • A BBC journalist and Vietnamese citizen who returned home to renew their passport has not been allowed to leave the country for months. The journalist was reportedly held by police for questioning about their journalism.
    • Thai activist Nutthanit Duangmusit was sentenced to two years for lèse majesté for her part in conducting a 2022 opinion poll to “gauge public opinion about whether they agree with the King being allowed to exercise his authority as he wishes.”
    • A Kyrgyz court’s ruling declared two investigative media outlets as “extremist,” banned them from publishing, and made distribution of their work illegal.
    • Investigative outlet Nawaat received a disturbing surprise from Tunisian authorities on Oct. 31: a notice slipped under their office door without even a knock, warning them to suspend all activities for a month. 

    Tanzanian police warn against words or images causing “distress”

    In response to protests over President Samia Suluhu Hassan’s reelection, Tanzanian authorities issued a disturbing warning to the country: text messages or online posts could have serious consequences. The mass text sent to Tanzanian residents warned, “Avoid sharing images or videos that cause distress or degrade someone’s dignity. Doing so is a criminal offense and, if found, strict legal action will be taken.”

    Hundreds have indeed been charged with treason, including one woman whose offense was recommending that protesters buy gas masks for protection at demonstrations.

    Masih Alinejad’s would-be killers sentenced to 25 years in prison 

    In 2022, journalist and women’s rights activist Masih Alinejad was the target of an Iran-coordinated assassination plot that culminated in a hit man arriving outside her New York home with an AK-47. Late last month, two men were sentenced for their involvement in the attempt. The men, Rafat Amirov and Polad Omarov, were handed 25 years each in a Manhattan federal court. Regarding the verdict, Alinejad said: “I love justice.”

    Ailing novelist granted pardon from Algerian president

    Some parting good news: Boualem Sansal, an 81-year-old French-Algerian novelist who is suffering from cancer, has been granted a presidential pardon after serving one year of a five year sentence. Sansal was arrested late last year and convicted of undermining national unity and insulting public institutions. His humanitarian pardon from Algerian president Abdelmadjid Tebboune comes after months of advocacy from European leaders.

    Source link

  • Making creative practice research visible

    Making creative practice research visible

    I still remember walking into my first Association of Media Practice Educators conference, sometime around the turn of the millennium.

    I was a very junior academic, wide-eyed and slightly overwhelmed. Until that point, I’d assumed research lived only in books and journals.

    My degree had trained me to write about creative work, not to make it.

    That event was a revelation. Here were filmmakers, designers, artists, and teachers talking about the doing as research – not as illustration or reflection, but as knowledge in its own right. There was a sense of solidarity, even mischief, in the air. We were building something together: a new language for what universities could call research.

    When AMPE eventually merged with MeCCSA – the Media, Communication and Cultural Studies Association – some of us worried that the fragile culture of practice would be swallowed by traditional academic habits. I remember standing in a crowded coffee queue at that first joint conference, wondering aloud whether practice would survive.

    It did. But it’s taken twenty-five years to get here.

    From justification to circulation

    In the early days, the fight was about legitimacy. We were learning to write short contextual statements that translated installations, performances, and films into assessable outputs. The real gatekeeper was always the Research Excellence Framework. Creative practice researchers learned to speak REF – to evidence, contextualise, and theorise the mess of creative making.

    Now that argument is largely won. REF 2021 explicitly recognised practice research. Most universities have templates, repositories, and internal mentors to support it. There are still a few sceptics muttering about rigour, but they’re the exception, not the rule.

    If creative practice makes knowledge, the challenge today is not justification. It’s circulation.

    Creative practice is inherently cross-disciplinary. It doesn’t sit neatly in the subject silos that shape our academic infrastructure. Each university has built its own version of a practice research framework – its own forms, repositories, and metadata – but the systems don’t talk to one another. Knowledge that begins in the studio too often ends up locked inside an institutional database, invisible to the rest of the world.

    A decade of blueprints

    Over the past few years, a string of national projects has tried to fix that.

    PRAG-UK, funded by Research England in 2021, mapped the field and called for a national repository, metadata standards, and a permanent advisory body. It was an ambitious vision that recognised practice research as mature and ready to stand alongside other forms of knowledge production.

    Next came Practice Research Voices and SPARKLE in 2023 – both AHRC-funded, both community-driven. PR Voices, led by the University of Westminster, tested a prototype repository built on the Cayuse platform. It introduced the idea of the practice research portfolio – a living collection that links artefacts, documentation, and narrative. SPARKLE, based at Leeds with the British Library and EDINA, developed a technical roadmap for a national infrastructure, outlining how such a system might actually work.

    And now we have ENACT – the Practice Research Data Service, funded through UKRI’s Digital Research Infrastructure programme and again led by Westminster. ENACT’s job is to turn all those reports into something real: a national, interoperable, open data service that makes creative research findable, accessible, and reusable. For the first time, practice research is being treated as part of the UK’s research infrastructure, not a quirky sideshow to it.

    A glimpse of community

    In June 2025, Manchester Metropolitan University hosted The Future of Practice Research. For once, everyone was in the same room – the PRAG-UK authors, the SPARKLE developers, the ENACT team, funders, librarians, and plenty of curious researchers. We swapped notes, compared schemas, and argued cheerfully about persistent identifiers.

    It felt significant – a moment of coherence after years of fragmentation. For a day, it felt like we might actually build a network that could connect all these efforts.

    A few weeks later, I found myself giving a talk for Loughborough University’s Capturing Creativity webinar series. Preparing for that presentation meant gathering up a decade of my own work on creative practice research – the workshops I’ve designed, the projects I’ve evaluated, the writing I’ve done to help colleagues articulate their practice as research. In pulling all that together, I realised how cyclical this story is.

    Back at that first AMPE conference, we were building a community from scratch. Today, we’re trying to build one again – only this time across digital platforms, data standards, and research infrastructure.

    The policy challenge

    If you work in research management, this is your problem too. Practice research now sits comfortably inside the REF, but not inside the systems that sustain the rest of academia. We have no shared metadata standards, no persistent identifiers for creative outputs, and no national repository.

    Every university has built its own mini-ecosystem. None of them connect.

    The sector needs collective leadership – from UKRI, the AHRC, Jisc, and Universities UK – to treat creative practice research as shared infrastructure. That means long-term funding, coordination across institutions, and skills investment for researchers, librarians, and digital curators.

    Without that, we’ll keep reinventing the same wheel in different corners of the country.

    Coming full circle

    Pulling together that presentation for Capturing Creativity reminded me how far we’ve come – and how much remains undone. We no longer need to justify creative practice as research. But we still need to build the systems, the culture, and the networks that let it circulate.

    Because practice research isn’t just another output type. It’s the imagination of the academy made visible.

    And if the academy can’t imagine an infrastructure worthy of its own imagination, then we really haven’t learned much from the last twenty-five years.

    Source link

  • The Ultimate Guide to Careers in Medical Research

    The Ultimate Guide to Careers in Medical Research

    Today’s medicine is deeply rooted in the advancements of methods and technology in the field of medical research. From uncovering the causes of diseases to developing new therapies and preventive strategies, medical researchers connect the curiosity of science with the compassion of medicine.

    Alvin Pham

    Pre-Medical Committee, American Physician Scientists Association

    Behind every statistic is a patient, and behind every breakthrough is a team of scientists, physicians, and participants working toward a healthier world. These diverse goals of medical research give rise to a range of specialized careers, each contributing to health innovation in unique ways. The following are some of the most impactful paths within the field.

    Physician-scientists

    Physician-scientists combine clinical care with laboratory or clinical research. They investigate disease mechanisms, develop therapies, and translate discoveries from the bench to the bedside.

    It requires an M.D./D.O. and Ph.D. (about 8 years), followed by 3-7 years of residency and fellowship training, or an M.D./D.O. (4 years) with residency and research experience.

    Physician-scientists bridge the gap between science and medicine by turning laboratory findings into real treatments. Their dual expertise enables them to identify and resolve clinical needs and lead interdisciplinary teams that directly improve patient outcomes.

    Clinical research scientists

    Clinical research scientists design and conduct studies to evaluate new treatments, diagnostics, and interventions in human subjects. They often work in hospitals, universities, or pharmaceutical companies, focusing on the safety and efficacy of medical innovations.

    To become a clinical research scientist typically requires a Ph.D. in biomedical sciences or clinical research (about 4–6 years) or an M.D./D.O. (4 years) with research experience. Postdoctoral training may add 2–4 years.

    Clinical research scientists advance evidence-based medicine by generating the data that guides clinical decisions. Their work ensures that new drugs, devices, and therapies are both safe and effective before reaching patients.

    Public health researchers

    Public health researchers investigate population-level health trends, disease prevention strategies, and policy impacts. Their work informs public health programs, pandemic response, and health equity initiatives.

    This role typically requires a Master of Public Health (M.P.H.) (about 2 years) or a Dr.P.H./Ph.D. in public health or epidemiology (about 4–6 years).

    Public health researchers shape the health of entire populations through data-driven research and public policy. Their work reduces disease burden, addresses health disparities, and guides interventions that save lives on a global scale.

    Medical anthropologists

    Medical anthropologists study how culture, society, and behavior shape health and illness. They often work in global health, public policy, or academic research, analyzing medical practices across different populations.

    This job typically requires a Ph.D. in anthropology or medical anthropology (about 4-6 years), sometimes preceded by an M.A. in anthropology (about 2 years).

    Medical anthropologists link social and cultural factors and show how those influence health behaviors and care delivery. Their insights improve communication between healthcare providers and patients, fostering culturally sensitive and effective medical practice.

    Biotechnology researchers and engineers

    Biotechnology researchers and engineers develop and test new biomedical technologies such as genetic therapies, diagnostic tools, or drug delivery systems. They work in academic, corporate, or government research labs, bridging biology and engineering.

    This role typically requires a Ph.D. in biotechnology, molecular biology, or bioengineering (about 4-6 years), although Master’s-level researchers (2 years) can enter industry positions earlier.

    Biotechnology researchers drive innovation in medicine by developing new tools and technologies that transform diagnosis and treatment. Their discoveries enable personalized medicine and accelerate the development of next-generation therapeutics.

    Medical research is not a single path or person but a network of disciplines united by a shared goal: to improve human health through discovery and innovation. Whether exploring cultural influences on health as an anthropologist or translating lab findings into clinical care as a physician-scientist, each role contributes a vital piece to the puzzle of modern medicine. Together, these careers form the foundation of scientific progress, turning questions into cures and curiosity into compassion. 

    Source link

  • New test tubes or shiny buildings? The choice facing policymakers when it comes to funding research

    New test tubes or shiny buildings? The choice facing policymakers when it comes to funding research

    Let me start with a vignette. Back in 2017, we published a brilliant award-winning report on TRAC written by a young intern. This looked specifically at cross-subsidies in universities from Teaching (international students) to Research.

    Back then, there was no clear cross subsidy towards home students, as they (more than) paid for themselves due to £9,000 fees. But the subsidy from international students towards research was large, as it remains today.

    We held a launch event at the LSE for the paper. This remains seared on my mind for, instead of being impartial, the eminent professor in the Chair attacked our young intern for having the temerity to publicise the split in resources for teaching and research.

    His (widely shared) view was that, at an institution like the LSE, research informs teaching and teaching informs research, so policy makers should not look too closely under the bonnet but instead let universities spend their resources as they see fit.

    The interesting part of this story is that the person who asked us to write the report was the LSE’s own Director of Research. He was frustrated that his colleagues seemed not to understand the financial flows in their own institution.

    A second reason why we should shine a spotlight on how universities work is that teaching and research are now split down the middle when it comes to political oversight:

    • we have one Minister for teaching and another for research;
    • we have one Whitehall Department for teaching and another for research; and
    • we have one regulator / funder for teaching and another for research.

    We might prefer it if it were not so, but it is naïve to think substantial cross-subsidies within institutions fit as naturally with these arrangements as they did with the arrangements in place back at the turn of the millennium, when TRAC was first mooted.

    In our 2017 report, we showed that, according to TRAC, only 73% of research costs were recovered. On revisiting the issue in another report three years later, we found cost recovery had fallen to 69%. Today, as the KCL report shows, the number is just 66%.

    In other words, during a decade when politicians have exalted the power of R&D to transform Britain, the level of cost recovery has been falling at almost 1 percentage point a year.

    However, what has changed over time is that this is now fairly well understood. For example, TRAC data were heavily used to show the sector’s challenges in both the Universities UK Blueprint and the recent Post-16 Education and Skills white paper.

    Let me focus on that white paper for a second. It is a slightly odd document, where you can see the joins between the three Secretaries of State (for Education, Work and Pensions and Science, Innovation and Technology) who share responsibility for it.

    In particular, the white paper recommits to improving cost recovery for research while simultaneously looking for new ways to crack down on the international students who currently provide big cross-subsidise for research.

    The end result, as the white paper itself admits, is likely to be less research:

    We will work with the sector and other funders to address the cost recovery of research. … We recognise that this may result in funding a lower volume of research but at a more sustainable level.

    While some research-intensive institutions may celebrate this concentration, it does not feel like we have talked enough about the consequences in terms of what it could mean:

    • for research capacity in each region;
    • for the pipeline of new researchers; and
    • for the likelihood of missing out on new discoveries that may otherwise happen.

    In other words, what we have in the white paper is the perhaps inevitable result of giving the Minister for Science, Research and Innovation, Lord Vallance, the additional role of champion for the ‘Oxford-Cambridge corridor’.

    So far, I have assumed the TRAC numbers are accurate, yet we all know they are rough – or worse. A 10-year old piece on TRAC in Times Higher Education quotes one university finance director as saying: ‘if you put garbage [data] in, you will get garbage out.’

    In preparation for this session, I spoke to one academic at a research-intensive university, who even argued: ‘TRAC is a piece of fiction to conceal how much teaching subsidises research.’

    He went on to explain that your contract might say 40% of time should be on Teaching and 40% on Research (with 20% for admin): ‘If you spend 60% on Research and 20% on Teaching, you would be in violation of contract so no one will admit to it.’

    A second academic I contacted was similarly scathing:

    ‘I think it is a classic case of looking for a lost wedding ring under the lamppost, even when you lost it a mile away. Universities obviously have an incentive to say that teaching UK students and doing research is more expensive, because they hope to get more money from the government. That is why TRAC does not lead to better business models – the stuff is known to be suspect.’

    Such criticisms may explain why I have only ever been able to find one university that has followed the logic of their own TRAC numbers by refusing to take on any major new research projects (and even they only had the ban in force temporarily).

    The lesson I take from all this is that TRAC is useful, but not enough. Some sort of calculation needs to occur to inform policy makers, funders and managers. But TRAC is not the slam dunk that people sometimes like to think it is because:

    1. the process is neither liked nor trusted by those it measures;
    2. institutions do not respond to what the data say, so look guilty of crying wolf; and
    3. every sector in search of public money does its own calculations, so the fact that TRAC exists and shows a substantial shortfall in the full economic costs of research and, increasingly, teaching home students too does not automatically give higher education institutions a leg up over other areas of when lobbying the Government.

    Finally, TRAC is meant to help politicians understand the world but I think we also need to recall the motivations of political leaders. When I was in Whitehall, we struggled to persuade the Treasury to move towards full economic costing. They caricatured it as buying new test tubes when the alternative was shiny new buildings. In the end, politicians in hard hats cannot go to topping-out ceremonies for new test tubes.

    Source link

  • Should research be free for all?

    Should research be free for all?

    In the past, Gitanjali Yadav, like many other Indian researchers, would have used illegal online libraries to access academic journal articles. Now a new initiative by the Indian government brings hope as a legal alternative, delivering free article access to researchers across India.

    While Yadav benefits from the new scheme, it has brought her new challenges.

    Despite being one of the world’s top scientific research countries, many Indian universities don’t have enough funding for researchers to read the papers they need. 

    The Indian government sought to solve this issue with the One Nation One Subscription (ONOS) scheme. ONOS gives public Indian academic institutions free access to academic journals.

    But just as soon as the government gave access, they also took it away. Following the ONOS launch, another important website for reading academic articles was shut down. 

    Previously Sci-Hub, an illegal academic library, was the one-stop shop to read and download academic literature. Many Indian academics relied on it to access articles behind paywalls. But now the platform has been banned, leaving many Indian academics, and their research, without options. 

    A researcher at the National Institute of Plant Genome Research, Yadav downloads and analyzes thousands of academic articles for her research. Now, her attempts to access these articles on a mass scale have led to blocks by publishers even though her institution has subscriptions. 

    Why access matters

    Researchers worry that ONOS will not be able to replace Sci-Hub effectively, and that this will lead to downstream effects in conducting research. 

    India’s access problems raise a bigger question: can countries in the Global South compete in science when they don’t have the same access to information as richer countries? 

    Obtaining academic articles isn’t always simple. Similar to checking a book out from a library, you can only read an article if it is held in a library’s collection. Access to research papers is given through universities and academic institutions. 

    Academic journal subscriptions and publishing fees are estimated to earn $10 billion annually in the United States alone. The average cost of an annual subscription to a single journal by an Indian institution is around $1,300, though journals are often sold together in packages. The costs of these packages can vary, but a large Indian institution could expect to pay $50,000 for one year’s access, making the fee unaffordable for many Indian institutions. 

    Meanwhile, the researchers who provide articles and provide peer review for the journals are unpaid for their work

    Paywall problems

    Without access through their university, many academic articles are kept behind paywalls. Researchers can pay to read a paper, but fees average around $50 for a single article, and Indian universities can’t pay for all the journals they need. 

    “You’re somebody working in an Indian laboratory,” said Peter Murray-Rust, Cambridge researcher and well-known advocate for Open Access science. “What are you going to do? You’re going to pirate it.” 

    Launched in 2011, Sci-Hub changed Indian research by allowing anyone to illegally read articles for free, even if the articles were behind paywalls. 

    One fan was Jonny Coates, the executive director of Rippling Ideas, an organization that advocates for open access to scholarly works. “There are some people who tell you, actually, what Sci-Hub’s done is it solved the access problem,” he said.

    At its peak, Sci-Hub provided access to over 81 million research articles. For academics in India, many started downloading articles illegally. The country downloaded over 5 million articles from Sci-Hub in 2017 alone. 

    Is ONOS a game changer?

    Comments from hundreds of Indian researchers can be found thanking Alexandra Elkyban, Sci-Hub’s founder, online: “The website Sci-Hub you have developed is like an oasis in the desert for people like me,” wrote Indian researcher Keshav Moharir. “God bless you.”

    Now the platform is banned, and the Indian research scene is changing. The Indian ban on Sci-Hub follows a 2020 lawsuit filed by major academic publishers like Elsevier and Wiley. 

    When the Indian government launched the $715 million ONOS initiative earlier this year it was heralded as a solution to the access problem because it gave eligible public institutions free access to 13,000 academic journals.

    The announcement was met with much excitement: cutting-edge research could now be pursued without financial barriers. Researchers from small institutions were enthusiastic that they could finally access the resources previously limited to top tier universities. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi described it as a “game-changer for Indian academia and for youth empowerment,” in an X post. 

    But ONOS has also faced criticism from researchers. For those offered ONOS, more than half are still waiting to use the platform, and it’s unclear why they remain without access. At the same time, ONOS also only covers a small portion of the some 40,000 academic journals worldwide, limiting access to specialized publications that can be important for researchers. And there are logistical challenges, highlighted by Yardav’s difficulties. 

    Private universities, meanwhile, are left without ONOS or Sci-Hub. And some say it will be difficult for them to conduct research going forward.  

    Beyond India 

    India’s challenges show a bigger problem in the Global South. In contrast to institutions in high-income countries, those in the Global South have less money and fewer legal ways to read papers. That means that Global South countries are less likely to be able to read paywalled papers and include them in their own research. And because of this, their research may not be as strong or influential. 

    Lack of access can also influence what type of research gets done. A recent study by researchers at NYU Abu Dhabi on paywalls and scientific data concluded that paywalls can compound disparities between who gets access and who doesn’t and who ends up contributing to the global production of knowledge.

    One researcher from Ghana quoted in the study noted that the availability of papers could affect which projects he recommends to his students. 

    Murray-Rust said that being able to read the body of research is so essential for conducting good science, that in many cases, piracy becomes a standard practice.

    Whether government-led schemes can replace grassroots alternatives like Sci-Hub effectively is yet to be seen. 

    Researchers like Yadav fear that ONOS will end up being more symbolic rather than a real change for India’s research community. For now, India’s academic community finds itself in a difficult phase of transition. 

    Questions to consider:

    1. Why does it cost money to access some research studies?

    2. Who should fund scholarly research?

    3. If you put a lot of time and money into conducting a research study, would you give away the results for free? Why or why not?

     

    Source link

  • Northern Ireland can be a testbed for research culture

    Northern Ireland can be a testbed for research culture

    In higher education, talk of “research culture” can sometimes feel abstract. We know it matters, but what does it actually look like in practice – and how do you change it?

    Today, we’re publishing a new report on research culture in Northern Ireland that tries to answer some of those questions. Produced in partnership with CRAC-Vitae as part of the Research Culture Northern Ireland (RCNI) initiative, and supported by the Wellcome Trust, the report draws insights from across universities, government, industry, and the voluntary sector.

    Our aim was to explore how research is experienced in a small but vibrant ecosystem, and to test whether Northern Ireland might offer a different perspective on research culture – one that could be of interest not only here, but to other regions of the UK and beyond.

    Why Northern Ireland, why now?

    Northern Ireland’s research ecosystem is distinctive. Our higher education sector is small but high-performing, regularly punching above its weight in UK and international rankings. We are separated from the rest of the UK by the Irish Sea, but uniquely, we share a land border with the EU – creating opportunities for cross-border collaboration.

    Yet there are challenges too. Levels of innovation and productivity remain lower than in the UK and Ireland overall. Access to research funding is uneven. Career mobility is limited, partly shaped by geography.

    At the same time, research and innovation are high on the policy agenda. The Northern Ireland Executive’s Programme for Government highlights ambitious R&I plans, including the creation of a regional strategy to support key sectors such as cyber security and software, advanced manufacturing and life and health sciences. The appointment of Northern Ireland’s first Chief Scientific and Technology Adviser signals stronger leadership in this space, and with the CSTA shortly bringing the regional R&I strategy forward for consultation, it highlights the significant developments since the report on research culture was commissioned. The Belfast Region City Deal is creating new innovation centres, while a recently published Collaborative Innovation Plan represents a coordinated commitment by Innovate UK, the Department for the Economy and Invest NI to accelerate inclusive and sustainable innovation across the region.

    To harness these opportunities, we need a research culture that enables collaboration across sectors, supports the talent we already have, and makes the region an attractive place for others to come and do research.

    Finding out

    Queen’s University Belfast and Ulster University jointly created RCNI with support from the Wellcome Trust to explore research culture in more depth, and to test interventions that might help address challenges.

    Alongside pilot projects on postdoctoral careers, practice-as-research, and the role of research professionals, we commissioned CRAC-Vitae to examine Northern Ireland’s research ecosystem through survey data (167 responses), interviews (17), and focus groups. The aim was not only to generate evidence specific to our context, but also to explore whether familiar UK-wide challenges looked different – or perhaps more visible – in a small system.

    The findings are grouped into five themes. None of them are unique to Northern Ireland – but they resonate in ways that may feel familiar to colleagues elsewhere:

    Collaboration and coordination. Collaboration is widespread, with 80 per cent of respondents reporting that they had worked with an external organisation. However, qualitative data revealed that collaborations are often informal, relying on personal networks. Smaller organisations can be excluded, and visibility across the system is limited.

    Career pathways and talent development. Career progression is constrained by limited opportunities with 59 per cent of respondents identifying a lack of progression routes. Pathways are often fragmented, and cross-sector mobility remains low, with 52 per cent of respondents reporting difficulty moving between sectors. Talent is underutilised as a result.

    Understanding and communicating the value of research. Research has enormous civic and community benefits, but these are undervalued and misunderstood – limiting recognition and policy impact.

    Reducing administrative burden. Bureaucracy, compliance, and regulatory hurdles disproportionately affect SMEs and non-HE actors, creating inefficiencies and blocking participation.

    Strategic vision and system reform. Stakeholders see a fragmented and opaque system, lacking shared vision and coherence – only 31 per cent of survey respondents agreed there is a shared strategic vision for R&I in NI – a situation compounded by political instability.

    We know this is a small sample and just one piece in a growing evidence base. But it offers useful starting points for further discussion – and perhaps areas where regions could work together.

    Reflections for small regions

    Looking across these findings, a few reflections stand out that may be of interest to other small regions with strong research ecosystems.

    First, proximity can be a strength. The size and concentration of institutions, government, and industry in a defined area creates real opportunities to build effective networks and shared understanding of barriers. In particular, it can help identify and tackle bureaucratic friction more quickly.

    Next, that collaboration is essential – but needs structure. In small systems, personal connections carry weight. That can be a strength, but risks becoming exclusive and unwelcoming to newcomers. Creating formal mechanisms for inclusion is key.

    There’s also work to be done on harnessing existing talent. With only a handful of research-intensive institutions, we need to do more to support and retain the talent we already have. Not every research student or postdoc will have an academic career – but their skills are vital to other sectors and to addressing regional challenges.

    Finally, a joined-up voice matters. A coherent strategic focus and communication plan helps small regions do more with less. Playing to strengths, and presenting a clear message externally, is critical to attracting funding and partnerships. This project, a partnership between Queen’s and Ulster, embodies that.

    These are not answers, but starting points for reflection – and perhaps for collaboration across regions that face similar issues.

    Where could this go?

    We are realistic: these challenges cannot be solved by one project, or even one region. Our next steps will therefore follow a dual approach: influencing system-level reforms through evidence, advocacy, and convening – recognising that changes to policy and funding lie with government and funders – and also testing project-level interventions through pilot projects, generating practical learning that might inform broader reforms.

    The first of these involves a new collaboration with CRAC-Vitae to pilot innovative approaches to tracking the career outcomes of postdoctoral researchers in Northern Ireland. This aligns with our “people first” focus for this project, recognising that our research and innovation ecosystem is nothing without the talent and ideas that populate it.

    If successful, we hope that coordinated career tracking will help identify mobility trends, sectoral destinations, and skill gaps across the R&I workforce – providing the evidence needed to strengthen cross-sector pathways and retain and develop talent within NI’s R&I ecosystem.

    Building on other RCNI work exploring postdoctoral career development, these efforts aim to build a clearer picture of how people move through and beyond the research ecosystem – and how policies and practices can better support their progression.

    Although modest in scale, this pilot will address an area with little existing evidence and may offer a model for others seeking to strengthen mobility and progression across the research ecosystem.

    An invitation to reflect

    So what does this mean for colleagues elsewhere? We don’t claim to have the answers. But we think Northern Ireland’s experience highlights issues that many regions face – and raises questions that might be useful to explore collectively.

    If proximity can be a strength, how do we best harness it? If collaboration relies too heavily on personal networks, how do we make it more inclusive? If we want to value research talent beyond academia, how do we support those careers in practice? And if small regions need a joined-up voice, how do we achieve it without losing diversity?

    Northern Ireland is a small system, but that makes its challenges and opportunities more visible. We hope this report is not only useful here, but a provocation to reflect on how small research ecosystems across the UK – and beyond – might learn together.

    Source link

  • Clean energy research funds under threat – Campus Review

    Clean energy research funds under threat – Campus Review

    There has been much excitement since Australia signed a landmark agreement with the United States last month to expand cooperation on critical minerals and rare earth elements.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link