Excellence in research (aka. research ethics and integrity) training

Being on the universities research ethics and integrity review group (REIRG) has me pondering how I, as an academic developer, can make training on research ethics and integrity effective. The way I see it, no training is effective until:

  • the participant sees the need for the training,
  • the training is flexible enough to allow all participants to use it,
  • is a positive experience, and not one where you feel overburdened or criticised.

To me, all of these key elements for training become particularly difficult to meet with research ethics and integrity. Partly this is because there can often be a perception that doing training on ethics and integrity means that you lack them in your research. The language and wording used around research ethics and integrity are not helpful either. Words like pitfalls, misconduct, compliance, make it feel like a trap of some kind to catch you out. So how can we possible create effective training when the culture surrounding ethics and integrity is so negative to start with?

First of all, we need to change the culture so that the training on research ethics and integrity becomes something that you think will enhance you and your research, rather than something you do because it might be mandatory. Research ethics and integrity training is about putting the spotlight on all of the excellent research that goes on, and nudging it a bit to make it even better. It’s about improving what’s already good to make it excellent. It’s about equipping you with the knowledge and space to think about why you do your research in a certain way, and how you might be able to do it even better.

It can also be surprising. You may find that something you thought was common practice might not be such a good idea. A good example is authorship and publication ethics. I’ve included an illustration I drew of a scenario that might not be too far fetched (inspired by xkcd and some great infographics from the Office of Research Integrity).

authorship-ethics

How many publications do you have experience of where authorship is either a) not warranted (i.e. gift authorship), or b) misses out people who should be given credit for their work (i.e. ghost authorship)? Deciding who should be an author and what merits ‘significant contribution’ on a publication is a tricky business, and varies hugely between disciplines.

publication-ethicsPerhaps you’ve thought of publishing your paper, but aren’t sure what the conventions for publication are. If you’re new to publishing, you might think that submitting to two journals at once makes a lot of sense. How are you to know that this wastes journal resources (reviewers, time and money) and gives you an unfair advantage over other researchers? No one could possibly know all the ins and outs of what’s good practice without some guidance. Ethics and integrity considerations are many and varied, and are not something that stops after you have completed your ethics reviews, but appear along the whole research cycle from start to finish. Even senior researchers are not exempt from stumbling on complicated issues.

This depicted scenario is perhaps not too far from reality, and you can see why the researcher might be making the decisions they have. Adding someone with ‘a name’ in your field to your publication can give it extra kudos, and forgetting to add someone who might have given you data, but who you’ve never actually met, can be easily done. Similarly, it makes sense to submit to more than one journal, especially if the turnaround time for review is very long and you need to publish it ASAP.

Good training should not be designed to make you feel bad or put you in the spotlight. Quite the opposite, all it tries to do is get you to realise what good practice is, and then use it if you aren’t already. That’s all. Easy really, but first you need to realise the need for research ethics and integrity training, and then take from it what you need to improve your research. Crucially it needs to fit all sizes, and this means providing it in parts with short useable information that is directly relatable to you. Infographics are a great example of that. A broad-brush approach is only helpful if you are starting from scratch, and this is rarely the case. Most of us are already using good practice, even if we don’t exactly think about why we do it in that way (e.g. the scientific method). I hope that any training you do will only highlight what you are doing well, make you realise what you’re not, and help you to improve it!

This blog post was written by Emily Woollen, an academic developer in the researcher development team at IAD. The opinions expressed in this blog are all her own.

Advertisements

Subject to Planning

Subject to Planning
Glasgow College redevelopment sign. Photo by Sara

I spotted this sign on my way to an event in Glasgow this week. I’m doing a photo challenge thing on twitter so trying to notice my surroundings more and perhaps because of my link to Borders College, it caught my eye.

The Tower and Podium of Glasgow College are pretty distinctive, but rather than this been viewed as a challenge, the tone is of exciting possibilities, new leases of life and “just think of the wonderful things you can do with this unique space”. Today’s post is going to link this redevelopment to my role in researcher development. As soon as I took the photo I realised it was a great metaphor for postdoc career planning.

The key words in the sign above are POTENTIAL and PLANNING.

Too often when I talk to audiences of postdocs and individuals, they are anxious about their prospects. This anxiety can be prompted by a range of challenges

  • becoming aware of the competition for academic positions
  • wanting to sustain a postdoc career for longer, but aware you are becoming expensive
  • not really wanting to carry on, but not knowing what else to do
  • being convinced that you’re over-qualified for the jobs that seem available
  • not having the right experience for jobs

I’d like to think that one of the most reassuring things I can say to these groups is that my postdoc experience has really helped my career and continues to have value for me, even 20+ years after I changed direction. With this positive message in mind, here are five steps you can take to make a plan for your own “alternative uses”.

  1. think about what you are good at and what you enjoy – think broadly and use RDF wheel to think about all aspects of professional skills. There’s a training needs analysis tool in the doctoral section of our website which will help you do this.
  2. look for opportunities to broaden and build your skills. Public engagement, roles in staff societies, representation on committees, health and safety, work package management, supervision – all of these will add valuable skills and stories to strengthen a CV and create talking points at interview
  3. talk to people around you about their career stories and ask for connections. You can’t make an informed decision about a career without real insights into what it’s like. Although you are surrounded by academics all day everyday, have you ever spoken to one about their transition from postdoc to group leader? About what they wished they’d done more or less of at your career stage? Don’t take the next step until you have a sense of the best and worst of the careers you’re considering.
  4. use the training available – make the most of your staff status and look beyond the  IAD (although we’re a good place to start!). As a staff member you are eligible for training offered by lots of different experts in the University. Look at HR, the Library, IS and seminars in other schools and centres. ALL THIS TRAINING IS FREE unless clearly stated otherwise.
  5. use your P & DR as a tool to develop your career. This is a protected time each year for you and your line manager to talk about your skills profile and the opportunities you need to develop. Prepare for this and think about how to convince your boss that your development is important. You may find PI is delighted to have someone to delegate to if they can see how you’ll make it work alongside project responsibilities.

There’s a lot you can do to broaden your skills and employability as a postdoc, but very little (if any) of it will just happen. Just like the development company trying to sell the old College buildings, start your planning, be positive and be open to the possibilities.

Acknowledge, Facilitate, Intervene

rsc-iop-researcher-mental-health-event-for-web

A slide from my talk at the learned society conference on researcher mental health

My final blog post of mental health awareness week is a showcase of some of the work being done at The University of Edinburgh to support researchers, particularly those who are struggling with mental health problems. One of the great joys of working here is having great colleagues so I’m pleased to have the chance to share some of their work. However, there’s a tiny cautionary note. I’m not claiming that Edinburgh is the kindest university – I don’t think any institution could make that claim (although now I think about it I’d be a lot more interested in a KEF if the K stood for kindness…).

I know from my personal experiences working in four UK universities (and a much greater experience as a consultant for a few dozen), that every university is probably the most supportive, more understanding and simultaneously the most callous and damaging. The experiences of researchers are very influenced by the individuals around them, especially their supervisors and bosses, so please don’t read into this a sense that we’ve cracked it here. It’s a work in progress and it always will be, but here are some of our efforts.

This post will feature three school case studies from Chemistry, Biology and Physics.  (As the final case study is from our Chaplaincy, I was going to describe them as the holy trinity of science, but apparently that’s Reason, Observation and Experience!) Each school has taken a different approach, prompted by different issues, but together they provide some great starting points, If you are reading this for inspiration about how to develop some initiatives in your own academic community. (BTW if you’re reading this in England or Wales, we call our academic department up here “schools”)

Chemunity launched in March and is a staff/student collaborative project involving undergraduate and postgraduate research students. One of their aims is to promote good mental health and wellbeing among all students. In time this will lead to the creation of an online collection of desirable resources, as defined and designed by students. As mentioned earlier this week, the School of Chemistry here has an enviable communal space which will be used to host events (e.g. board game evenings) that encourage discussion and build the sense of academic community.

The Chemunity Facebook page explains:

As the title suggests, we aim to bring the collective School of Chemistry community together for an evening of entertainment (did someone say board games?), celebrating the launch of our website & a whole host of special guests.

*What’s our mission I hear you ask?*

It’s actually quite simple. We are absolutely passionate about improving the quality of academic support for both UG & PG students, opening up more conversations about our mental/health wellbeing & bridging the gap between students & lecturers.

SolidariTEA is a new initiative being piloted in our School of Biological Sciences and led by Dr Louise Horsfall. This informal, fortnightly coffee/tea session for PhD students, starts with a student or staff member opening  with a very short story about when they may have encountered and overcome a difficulty in their research or career.

SolidariTEA_Poster[1]

Leading on from this,  people can bring any non-technical queries to discuss but the focus should be on mental health and wellbeing. Like Chemunity it’s funded through our Student Partnership Agreement Grants. SolidariTEA is new but the School plans to develop more resources on supporting students with mental health problems for supervisors whilst recognising that the whole school community needs to be part of this as students will often approach other staff, notably technicians when things start to get too much for them.

The final example from the School Of Physics and Astronomy demonstrates how straightforward it is to embed wellbeing into the doctoral process. The first year pastoral meeting happens about 4 months in the PhD, when the students are likely to have established a working relationship with their supervisor and to have tuned in sufficiently to the PhD for them to be aware of potential problems. It also establishes early that the School is interested in their wellbeing and makes clear how future problems can be raised and are likely to be tackled.

Pastoral Physics
A screenshot from the SOPA wiki

The School’s wiki also makes it clear that needing pastoral support is NORMAL and EXPECTED, trying to dispel any sense that feeling overwhelmed is a sign of failure. It clearly points students to sources of help and talks about interruptions as part of the support available, minimising stigma.

Picture2
Picture3 School of Physics and Astronomy wiki

Our final little gem is our Chaplaincy . It offers support in many forms – there’s a wellbeing and mindfulness programme, a listening service and has a wonderful calming atmosphere even though it sits in the heart of our Central campus. Staff and students are welcome at all times and it proudly proclaims itself to be – a place of all faiths and none.

We’re a large university so I’m sure this only scratches the surface of wellbeing support here. If you are from The University of Edinburgh and have more examples, I’d love to share them here. If you are from elsewhere I hope it gives you to confidence to look for similar initiatives in your own institution. At the Universities Scotland Researcher Mental Health event on June 14th there will be many more examples from our colleagues in other Scottish institutions – book your place here.  If you can’t find anything, please take these ideas – as someone summed up at the event last week, science should have space for everyone.

Particular thanks to Caroline Proctor, Louise Horsfall, Chris Mowat and Will Hossack for their help and suggestions, and to our Chaplaincy for being a sanctuary on campus.

Investigating Mental Health in the Research Community

In mental health awareness week, with the current flurry of activity in HE  focusing on the pressures on researchers and the impact this is having, (not least Research England funding projects through a £1.5 million programme), it can be tempting to feel that we’ve crossed a threshold of acceptance and are working to create a better culture in academia. The Investigating Mental Health in the Research Community  event jointly organised by the Royal Society of Chemistry, Institute of Physics, Royal Society of Biology, Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering (and attended by the Royal Astronomical Society) gave attendees some optimism about academic culture. It highlighted a range of useful resources, good practice and began to build a community of scientists and engineer who are committed to change.

Although I have no wish to burst the bubble of the day, I did use the phrase “preaching to the choir” at one point. Although it was important to connect those of us who want to arrest and reverse the negative impact academic research is having on its community’s mental health, we probably aren’t the problem.

There are many different reasons mental health is being talked about with so much concern and we heard from Dr Susan Guthrie from RAND, co-author of the 2017 report “Understanding Mental Health in the Research Environment” who set the scene for the day with some alarming headlines.

  • Higher education staff report worse wellbeing than those in other employment
  • Causes of stress includework demands, change management, managerial support and poor role clarity
  • The majority of university staff find their jobs stressful
  • PhD students face the same challenges as other researchers
  • Academics aren’t disclosing mental health problems
  • Mental health is a gendered issue, with women more likely to have issues
  • Spending more time on research reduces stress
  • Poor wellbeing negatively impacts on productivity
  • Mental health interventions haven’t been properly evaluated

Having been characteristically frank in my presentation about my views on the reasons for declining researcher mental health, I was asked what I would do to fix it. I had a few suggestions but I struggled to answer because I don’t know. We don’t know. We don’t properly evaluate mental health interventions. We don’t have reliable evidence about what causes problems (Susan began her talk with some serious caveats about the data they had drawn on for their report). And many of us are fearful about doing more harm than good if we try to help. An important early step is to properly understand what is going on.

This doesn’t need to stop us in our tracks though. There are things we can do and many resources to support individuals, communities and institutions who want to do more. Universities UK published a framework last year to help university leaders support student mental health:

http://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/news/Pages/New-framework-for-universities-to-help-improve-student-mental-health.aspx

The Institute of Physics was an “early agitator” with the publication in 2016 of its Resilience Toolkit* to support the physics community and included interviews with undergraduates, PhD students, postdocs, academics and the head of a School of Physics.

The interviews were analysed and generated 12 pieces of advice for better resilience:

  1. Have motivating goals
  2. Have realistic goals
  3. Build a community
  4. Awareness of imposter syndrome
  5. Take proper breaks
  6. Ask for help
  7. Find perspective
  8. Work to your strengths
  9. Develop coping strategies
  10. Look at failure differently
  11. Focus on what you can do
  12. Know what works for you

Although only available to members, at the University of Edinburgh we were inspired by this guide to conduct our own interviews which led to the publication of two guides for postdocs last summer written by our intern Amy (she also blogged as she was researching and writing the guides)

Getting Started as a postdoc

Thriving in your postdoc

One of the great joys of my role at Edinburgh University has been the connection with Fearless Femme, an online magazine designed to counter the negative voices and messages that young women hear online with positive ones. I’d strongly encourage you to look at their articles and approach and to pass on details to all young women around you. We can’t reach our students in the way this magazine does and we support it because we need to use all the channels and mechanisms in our means to reach people, especially when they are vulnerable.

We won’t find one solution to the mental health crisis, we will need many. Some of the most effective solutions are things we can all do. Look at the list above and think about how you can support everyone around you. One of the most memorable moments of the day was when someone shared their story about being a researcher with mental health problems. She spoke to a colleague about this and they said something very simple “I still want to work with you.” If our colleagues begin to have the courage to share their challenges, we have to have the compassion and insight to help them see how valued they are.

My presentation described some of the different ways that Schools in Edinburgh are working on this key topic. My thanks to all the colleagues who shared their ideas. My slides are below:

RSC & IOP Researcher mental health event for web

I’m delighted that after the event I sat down with the RSC to consider what they could do and we’ve got some ideas which we’ll develop in the coming weeks. If you were at the event and want to add anything that will help us, please get in touch with myself or Pip Matthews. And if you weren’t at the event but can highlight resources, ideas or just voice your support please let us know. I’ll post more here once we’ve decided where we can have the most impact in the short term whilst we consider our longer term goals.

As the groups were discussing the problems and solutions I heard a wonderful message from someone in one of the groups.

There should be space for every kind of scientist.

I can’t put it better than that. There SHOULD be. Let’s all commit to making that space.

 

 

(This blog has only scratched the surface of the topics we covered during the event so more will follow).

* A small disclaimer: I wrote the IOP guide as a consultant, so our work at Edinburgh has been heavily influenced by it.

 

 

 

The road to misconduct

Do Not Cross
Photo by DodgertonSkillhause at Morguefile.com

We are making preparations to launch a new online resource for research integrity which should be available later in the summer. Aimed at our research students and their supervisors, this will complement the extensive support and guidance researchers receive in their schools. During the consultation process I’ve spoken to a range of university staff about integrity and added to my understanding of regulations, policies and systems across the University and disciplines.

One of the most interesting of these conversations happened last week when I met Dr Willem Halffman from the University of Nijmegen who was on a brief research visit to Edinburgh. We talked about a wide range of topics in our short meeting, with particular focus on the circumstances which lead to misconduct. My interest in integrity is both old and new. Old, in that I’ve spent close to twenty years training and developing research students and staff, and fostering good practice has been part of this. New, in that it was only last year that I attended the UK Research Integrity Office conference and became fascinated by wider discussions which went far beyond policies and looked at the behaviours and tendencies which lead to misconduct.

One speaker, Dr Maura Hiney spoke about these and referenced  David Kornfeld’s paper on the categories of people who violated the rules of research. Kornfeld’s paper is an interesting read, so I won’t give away the headlines, but he summarises that

These acts of research misconduct seemed to be the result of the interaction of psychological traits and/or states and the circumstances in which these individuals found themselves.

This prompted Willem to point me to a model from financial misconduct – the fraud triangle. This originated from the work of Donald Cressey (Donald R. Cressey, Other People’s Money (Montclair: Patterson Smith, 1973) p. 30.), who tried to explain the circumstances under which people commit fraud. The three factors which make up the triangle  – opportunity, pressure and rationalistion – are described with a simple animation by the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners. Although the examples used relate to financial fraud, it isn’t difficult to extend the model to research.

 

fraud
Image from ALGA – Association of Local Government Auditors

 

I find this model useful as it points to the role that pressure plays in misconduct and is something that cannot be ignored by any institution wishing to develop a high integrity culture. It isn’t enough to play lip service to the regulations and training whilst the pressures on researchers continue to build.

This connection between integrity and resilience is something that I hope to explore and has been a significant driving force in the initial focus I’ve had at Edinburgh on wellbeing and resilience for researchers. As we tailor and embed the integrity module I’ll be looking at how we ensure that our training plays a part in minimising the pressure in the environment as well as being clear about good practice and honest cultures.

Willem’s research has resulted in a number of pubications on scientific  integrity, (Whilst you are looking at his publications, The Academic Manifesto [Halffman, W. & Radder, H. (3 April 2015), The Academic Manifesto, Minerva, Vol. 53, no.3, p. 165-187. doi: 10.1007/s11024-015-9270-9.] makes a number of other suggestions to release the pressure in the system!)

 

IAD >heart< Technicians

The Technicians Make It Happen campaign

 

 

This week’s guest post is a member of a critical, but sometimes unsung, community at Edinburgh – our technical staff.  Marianne Keith is currently a research technician based at The Roslin Institute, supporting the work of a Career Track Fellow into the prevalence of non-O157 E.coli in cow faeces across the UK.

 

I am currently working in a research environment, having chopped and changed several times since starting on my career path back in 2005. I left The University of Edinburgh with a BSc in Biological Sciences (with Honours in Microbiology) with a plan to get a job, save some money, and then do a MSc to bump up my BSc grade. Well once I started working, I never quite managed to start saving money, especially when I left home and I needed to pay for my new lodgings and all the associated bills.

I was actually offered a PhD in Combinatorial Chemistry early on, but declined, knowing virtually nothing about chemistry! Wanting to stay in science, I’ve used my lab skills in a variety of University technical positions. I was a teaching technician for a few years but have worked mainly in research labs, with this being my 4th research laboratory. 13 years out of University, I don’t have the same kind of focused expertise as PhDs or postdocs because no single post requires all the various skills which I have gained to varying levels of experience. Also, nowadays there are many more strengths and abilities which make up a valuable technician, beyond a range of wet lab techniques. Communication is key and I’ve developed a range of skills through my work, but been aware that might be more out there to learn.

This year I made a fantastic discovery. The IAD runs a plethora of courses, most of which are appropriate for both academic staff AND technical staff. There is a misguided assumption by many technicians (and also some academic staff) that the IAD only caters for people who are working towards or already have the initials “MSc” or “PhD” after their name.

I confess to feeling self-doubt when I hear post docs or PhD students present their work, as changing post repeatedly over the last few years has impacted on the depth of my knowledge. This probably influenced my decision to attend the “Assertiveness” course and recently the “Refining Your Presentation Skills” workshop and I can heartily recommend both. I did learn a considerable amount on each day, but most of all, I was made aware that there are other people who encounter the same difficulties in working life as I do. I left each workshop having met new supportive people, carrying a sense of well-being, and feeling slightly more confident each time than when I arrived.

I have now set myself a goal to work my way through all the IAD courses which I believe are relevant to my personal development (regardless of exactly which research project I may be attached to as my career continues), and I would encourage all technical staff to do the same and to take advantage of this excellent resource for professional development.

Many thanks Marianne! This post came about from a conversation between Marianne and Sara at the Technicians’ Support Steering Group which they both sit on. Today (May 30th) is the “Visibility, outreach and professional development – network event”  for technicians, designed to raise awareness of the HEaTED network and various CPD opportunities.

Sara’s slides from the HEaTED event.

And don’t forget – The IAD is here to support all staff involved in teaching and research – we are equally welcoming to academic and technical staff. We’ll be publishing our new programme for 2017/8 over the summer so there’s still time to suggest ideas.

 

Wake up and smell the statistics

This morning I was working with the Researcher Development team on restructuring the section of our website aimed at research staff. Once we’re got some feedback from research staff and those who support them (please let me know if you want to give us your thoughts on our plans), we’ll have a busy summer developing new content, connecting to other support around the University and finding resources from further afield.

After spending the morning continually asking ourselves “what do research staff come looking for and what do they need to find?” I then dashed to join the SRHE “Postgraduate study and employability” conference which was happening just up the road. The reason for my haste was to catch the presentation by Dr Charlie Ball from the Higher Education Careers Services Unit on the postgraduate labour market.

Charlie and I go back a long way – we collaborated on the first ever analysis of PhD destination data and spoke on the phone most days trying to work out how to extract the information we needed from the information we had. I was delighted to hear that after much lobbying (and I suspect some tears of frustration) he has convinced the gods of destination data gathering to include a box on the form which PhD graduates complete which asks “are you a postdoc?” This, along with his excellent work over the last (ahem) years means that we have a much clearer picture of the paths that researchers take through their careers.

Exit
Photo by Luanarodriquez at Morguefile.com

Since the very first analysis over ten years ago, we’ve known that over half PhD graduates leave universities on graduation and never return. Yes, really – immediately on graduation OVER HALF leave academia. We know that those who stay are mostly on fixed term research and teaching contracts (with clear discipline differences in career paths between STEM and AHSS). We know that of these, only a minority continue along the academic path. We know that PhD graduates and former research staff move into a wide array of sectors and roles. Compared to my own time as a postdoc, when our options away from the university or industries related to our research were a complete mystery, researchers now have a wealth of information about their options.

And yet…  some of the old myths seem determined not to die.

One of the clearest messages I’ve had from our schools has been to be really explicit about the small number of academic opportunities available. One of the new developments on our webpages will be a section which highlights the different options and how widely employable researchers are outside universities. I have never seen the solution to the mismatch between the number of researchers we train and the number of academic posts, as taking steps to reduce the former.  Instead I think we should celebrate the value that research training has to both the individual and their future employers.  Let’s face it, populating the labour market with people with high-level critical analysis, a habit of behaving with integrity and personal tenacity is no bad thing.

Someone asked a question about what we it will take to ensure researchers transition more easily into the wider labour market. Charlie’s answer included the suggestion that a wider range of employers should be aware of the value of PhDs – something that is happening through secondments in doctoral programmes and projects like one run by the University of Aberdeen to place research staff for short projects with local companies. (Those of us who have been in researcher development for too long will recall this approach taken with great success by Cardiff University at the turn of the millennium.)

So, today’s post is in part a thank you to Charlie for his work over the last (ahem) years improving the quality of data about researcher destinations and disseminating facts which have challenged a number of assumptions, but also a wake up call to any researcher who thinks that a PhD or postdoc puts them “over the hump” of the journey to an academic career. It’s a counter to any local messages you hear that the academic career is the only real path open and that everything else is a failure or compromise. Or that there aren’t any interesting opportunities out there that would match your interests or values.

Rather tantalisingly (don’t judge me for finding destination data tantalising) he mentioned that comparisons of Bachelors, Masters and Doctoral level destinations show that some career areas appear to open up at PhD level – it would be great to know more about this and to be able to highlight these positive messages about the wider and added value of a PhD. In an attempt to revisit our youth we’re going to try to identify a new project to collaborate on, perhaps on this theme.

My PhD and postdoc experience have paid a dividend throughout my career, not simply because of choosing to work in researcher development, but because of the skills I gained through doing research AND the wider opportunities I took whilst at university. YOUR PhD and postdoc experience will do the same for you, but start preparing for what comes next. The data tells a compelling story. Start building your CV so it tells just as compelling a story about your value.