All of our news from the Association of Research Managers and Administrators’ conference in Brighton

Research Professional News was media partner for the Association of Research Managers and Administrators’ 2024 annual conference, held in Brighton on 18 and 19 June. Here are all of our news reports from the conference, pulled together in one place.

Metascience

A plenary session at the Arma event heard from leaders of the metascience team in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology.

Jack Leahy, senior metascience adviser in the department, said his team was undertaking a range of experiments to see how metascience—the use of scientific methodologies to analyse and improve the way research operates—might be applied to UK research funding.

One such experiment is looking at whether more randomisation in the allocation of research funding could shake up the kind of projects that get money to boost breakthrough science and shift processes away from overly conservative peer review, he told the conference.

Political interest

More political and public interest in research brings opportunities but also more questions and a need for the system to provide “better answers”, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council executive chair Charlotte Deane told the conference.

Deane saw a “real opportunity” to make a case for science and research and to think more about how research is performed. “But it’s a challenge as more people interested will ask for answers to more questions,” she added. “There is a need for the system to become fit for purpose to provide better answers.”

Bureaucracy

Meanwhile, Lorna Wilson, Arma chair, told RPN that she hoped the next UK government would continue ongoing work to reduce bureaucracy in research.

Data protection

In another session, there was a warning that “over-zealous” institutional approaches to data protection could be jeopardising research. Beth Collins, a senior research contracts manager, cautioned that research contracts should not overstate the implications of the Data Protection Act for researchers.

Artificial intelligence

Research managers were also encouraged to experiment with and use artificial intelligence in their jobs.

Rupert Lorraine, director of the Arts Institute at the University of Plymouth, said he had a sense that research managers felt “overwhelmed and anxious about using AI”.

But he identified many aspects of research management where AI could help managers become more efficient in their roles, including in drafting letters of support for grant applications—and he demonstrated the use of an AI model to create an early career researcher coaching programme, complete with a website, in two minutes.

Research culture

There is a reputational risk for universities not engaging in responsible research assessment, another session heard. Elizabeth Gadd, head of research culture and assessment at Loughborough University, which is a co-lead of the UK national chapter of the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment, predicted that “a time is coming where there is a reputational risk for those not engaging in this agenda [for responsible research assessment]”.

Gadd added that “the rankings are intellectually incoherent, as pointed out by my institution. We can’t, as intellectuals, continue to support and promote rankings as they are.”

The conference also heard details of the University of Oxford’s training courses on research integrity, which aim to push back against pressures that mean “what’s good for research is not aligned with what’s good for research careers”.

UKRI funding

And UK Research and Innovation representatives urged research managers to ensure that post-award teams in their institutions are able to access UKRI’s new funding service as the winding down of the Joint Electronic Submission system—also known as Je-S—nears its conclusion.

The post Arma 2024: Full coverage appeared first on Research Professional News.

Arma 2024: Institution’s training courses aim to align research careers with “what’s good for research”

University of Oxford training courses on research integrity aim to push back against pressures meaning “what’s good for research is not aligned with what’s good for research careers”.

Speaking in a session at the Association of Research Managers and Administrators’ annual conference in Brighton on 18 June, Mónica Palmero Fernández, a research practice coordinator at Oxford, said: “We have developed a series of online courses for all researchers at all levels in the university.”

Oxford is one of many institutions to have developed training for staff on research integrity. Training is led by experts across the university, including researchers and research support staff, giving recommendations and aiming to raise awareness of better research practices, Palmero Fernández said.

Wider programme

Explaining why the university developed these courses, she said: “What’s good for research is not aligned with what’s good for research careers.” This misalignment contributes to a “publish or perish culture” that incentivises self-interest, speed to publish and ownership.

“We need to support researchers to conduct research ethically and with integrity to enhance the robustness of the research and to be more transparent,” continued Palmero Fernández, adding that the training courses were just the first step in doing this.

“We are also developing complementary policies, as well as initiatives to better integrate research and expertise across the university,” she said. Training alone cannot significantly shift research culture; it “must be part of a wider programme”.

The courses were developed collaboratively with different groups across the university. Management gave feedback at every stage, which helped get senior leadership on board, said Palmero Fernández. The training is non-mandatory and is a resource that staff can return to, she continued.

In line with the values of openness, the courses are freely available to all staff and students, she said, adding: “We are hopefully going to share them with the rest of the higher education community in future.”

The post Oxford research integrity training tackles ‘publish or perish’ culture appeared first on Research Professional News.

Arma 2024: Research teams must ensure staff have access to UKRI’s new funding system

Research managers have been urged to ensure that post-award teams in their organisation are able to access UK Research and Innovation’s new funding service as the winding down of the Joint Electronic Submission system—also known as Je-S—nears its conclusion.

Speaking at the Association of Research Managers and Administrators’ annual conference in Brighton on 19 June, Susan Soulsby, senior engagement lead for UKRI’s Simpler and Better Funding programme, said that updates to the functionality around research awards meant that Je-S would soon be a thing of the past.

In the first three months of 2024, some 85 per cent of applications were made on the new system—called the Funding Service—with only 15 per cent made on Je-S. But Soulsby said that many of the post-application funding processes still needed to be shifted to the Funding Service.

“Up until very recently, the majority of successful applications would get funded, actually, on Je-S,” Soulsby said. “So they would start on the Funding Service then move over and get funded through Je-S. That is starting to decrease and get phased out.”

Soulsby said there were a number of steps that managers could take “to prepare for that”.

“The key thing is to make sure that your post-award teams are starting to get accounts to manage awards,” she said. “You also need to think about your internal guidance for who has that account access, and what that means for your organisation.”

Reducing bureaucracy

Elsewhere in the session, Ruth Williams, associate director of UKRI funding policy, told delegates that the funder was keen to keep looking at how it can streamline research award processes “to make things simpler internally and, of course, externally”.

“We have…improved and streamlined our guidance,” she said, joking that hopefully “people will start reading it”.

She added that UKRI had looked at the government’s report on research bureaucracy closely and had “really tried to take that to heart”.

This, she continued, has included “asking for what we need, when we need it”, reducing the amount of detail required for applications and no longer routinely asking for elements such as CVs and equipment quotes in initial applications.

The post Prepare for final Je-S phase-out, research managers told appeared first on Research Professional News.

Arma 2024: AI touted as aid to grant application support and early career researcher coaching

Research managers have been encouraged to experiment with and use artificial intelligence in their jobs.

Rupert Lorraine, director of the Arts Institute at the University of Plymouth, said he had a sense that research managers felt “overwhelmed and anxious about using AI”. Speaking in a session at the Association of Research Managers and Administrators’ annual conference in Brighton on 18 June, he said they should try to change their view of AI to see it as “less of a hurdle and more of a lever”.

Lorraine identified many aspects of research management where AI could help managers become more efficient in their roles, including in drafting letters of support for grant applications. He went on to demonstrate the use of an AI model to create an early career researcher coaching programme, complete with a website, in two minutes.

Lorraine encouraged attendees to think about auditing their workload and offloading their menial tasks to AI. He recommended that research managers should “prioritise their workloads, get comfortable, then expand their use case” on AI, adding that he used it regularly himself.

Drawbacks

But Lorraine warned that when using AI, putting in the right prompts is vital. “The output is only as good as the input,” he said, adding that research managers should take time to input accurate prompts when experimenting with AI tools such as ChatGPT.

He also pointed out that performance tends to fluctuate as companies fine-tune AI models. “AI could be helpful for skilled grant workers; I’m not suggesting [it] should replace them,” he said.

Lorraine told the audience that they should not input personal or confidential data into general AI models, as the data are “not secure”.

But overall, research managers “should approach AI use with care, confidence and curiosity”, he said.
 

The post Research managers urged to experiment with AI appeared first on Research Professional News.

Arma 2024: Session hears of risk of reputational damage over non-compliance

“Over-zealous” institutional approaches to data protection could be jeopardising research, the Association of Research Managers and Administrators annual conference has heard.

Speaking in Brighton on 18 June, Beth Collins, senior research contracts manager at Cranfield University, cautioned that research contracts should not overstate the implications of the Data Protection Act for researchers.

“Such is the fear of non-compliance [with the act] that, I would argue, there’s a real risk of institutions undermining research by implementing over-zealous processes,” she said.

Collins said that while claims under the act were possible—such as those from people who believe their data has been breached—there were other key elements to the act.

“The likelihood of claims by individuals is significant, although I should perhaps say ‘attempted’ claims, given the need to not only prove that a data breach has occurred but also that harm has ensued as a result,” Collins said.

Tom Morgan, a lawyer at Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP, said that while it was true that harm had to be established in successful claims, the “whole point of the data protection regime” is to afford responsibility for data in a way that data subjects feel is appropriate.

The session heard that effective policies around the creation of research contracts could help universities and other institutes to better understand the reasons behind legislation such as the Data Protection Act, the Export Control Act and the National Security and Investment Act.

“The main role that contracts can play…is getting people to really think about what they are doing, and asking lots of really annoying questions,” Morgan said.

While a failure to get on top of legislative requirements could in extreme cases lead to legal action or fines, a more immediate concern might be the reputational damage suffered by an institution as a result of non-compliance.

Speaking about the national security and investment act, Morgan said that, from a regulatory perspective, institutions were unlikely to breach the legislation as a result of their research contracts.

“But…the real danger is that we end up giving a licence to some technology to someone and that technology falls into the wrong hands," he added. "That’s the whole aim of the NSI [act]…The actual harm we are trying to prevent is technology …being used against the UK’s national security interests.”

If this happened, “who is going to want to work with you on any sensitive technology areas?” he concluded.

The post ‘Over-zealous’ data protection approach ‘could harm research’ appeared first on Research Professional News.

Group will support research managers and administrators identifying as Black, Indigenous or People of Colour

The UK Association of Research Managers and Administrators has launched a global majority special interest group.

The launch of Arma’s “first ever” interest group of this kind was announced by the association on 13 June.

Introduced in 2003, ‘global majority’ is a term for those who identify as Black, Indigenous or People of Colour.

The group aims to provide a space for discussion and support and to help address challenges faced by research managers and administrators who identify as being part of the global majority.

Challenges listed by Arma include obstacles in career advancement, underrepresentation at higher salary grades and a disproportionate responsibility to start and maintain equality, diversity and inclusion committees.

Open to all research managers and administrators who identify as part of the global majority, the group will be led by Mary Caspillo-Brewer at Imperial College London, Anpu Varghese at the University of Aberdeen and Natalie Wall at King’s College London.

These three “champions”, who will work collaboratively to deliver two to three information-sharing sessions a year, said: “As members of the global majority ourselves, we want to create a supportive and innovative space for Arma members and non-members alike to build each other up.”

The post Arma launches special interest group for the ‘global majority’ appeared first on Research Professional News.

Follow the Association of Research Managers and Administrators conference with Research Professional News

The Association of Research Managers and Administrators conference 2024 is taking place this month in Brighton. Research Professional News is media partner for the event.

Follow all our coverage online via the dedicated Arma 2024 page.

The post Arma 2024: news and opinion appeared first on Research Professional News.

One-stop-shop for communication and gathering data could reduce burden and drive change, says Anne Taylor

We are all more productive if we are content with our work environment. Different things are important to each of us. But we all like to have enough funds to do our work, the right physical set-up to enable the work, and a personally supportive atmosphere to motivate us.

This is the same for people in research as anywhere else—a positive culture helps to attract and retain the best researchers, and enables them to produce high-quality work.

Over recent years, many publications and reports have highlighted the need to improve research culture. A 2020 Wellcome survey, for example, found that nearly two-thirds of researchers reported witnessing bullying or harassment and 43 per cent reported experiencing it.

More recent polls report continuing high rates of anxiety and depression in science. Alongside this, issues in research have reflected a growing society-wide focus on equity, diversity and inclusion.

Funders contribute many millions of pounds into UK research and, therefore, have a shared responsibility with others in the system to improve research culture.

In 2018, Wellcome was the first UK research funder to launch a policy to address bullying and harassment. Around the same time, we set up the Research Funders Policy Group to enable collaborative work on funding policies. This consists of a small number of public and charitable funders with an interest in health, including representatives from UK Research and Innovation, Cancer Research UK, the Royal Society and the Association of Medical Research Charities.

In the last few years, Wellcome has also added a question asking about researchers’ working environments to its grant application forms.

Dignity and respect

These expectations, however, must usually be conveyed at arm’s length, as funders generally do not employ researchers directly. Research funders must rely on their terms and conditions to describe not only what they expect grants to be spent on, but also how they expect the work to be done. These policies describe how to treat participants, how to make research open and that we expect everyone linked to research we fund to be treated with dignity and respect.

Funders’ second problem is knowing if their efforts to influence research culture have had any impact, as there are no accepted measures; we are often left using proxies. And to measure anything we need to gather information, which brings an administrative load, particularly as every research organisation and every funder is different. But there is common ground.

How to make best use of that common ground is the basis for a pilot now being run by the Research Funders Policy Group. If successful, it could transform how we assess research organisations’ implementation of funder policies, including those linked to culture.

The vision is to provide a single system for organisations to enter data on how they manage specific policy areas—for example, environmental sustainability and conflicts of interest—and allow multiple funders to access that information. It’s a simple concept, but very hard to achieve, hence the pilot.

The first iteration will no doubt not be perfect, will have gaps, and may bring additional burden before it reaps the benefits that it promises. Success depends partly on the willingness of both research organisations and funders to be brave and ‘speculate to accumulate’.

A handful of research organisations have risen to the challenge and helped in the early stages of designing the process. A dozen more have completed the pilot questionnaire. The funders’ group is now assessing the submissions and seeing if we can all use the proposed criteria to produce assessments we can all accept.

Revealing good practice

At this point the intention is not to rank or grade, but to work with organisations where gaps are identified or improvements could be made. Holding the information in one place also helps to reveal good practice that may benefit other organisations.

The information can be used as a baseline for improvements and gives organisations a ready-made bank of answers for funder audits. Because the system supports the requirements of research funders, the plan is for funders rather than research organisations to pay for it.

We need to be mindful that we don’t run before we can walk, but, while the pilot is focusing on policies, if successful it might expand to other areas, and other parts of the world. Carefully developing a robust common framework is a crucial step towards providing everyone with the information needed to drive up standards.

Research Professional News is media partner for the 2024 conference of the Association of Research Managers and Administrators, held from 18 to 19 June in Brighton

Anne Taylor is associate director, funding operations and governance, at Wellcome. She will be speaking at the 2024 Arma conference on Tuesday 18 June

This article also appeared in Research Fortnight

The post Arma 2024: Funders unite on culture appeared first on Research Professional News.

Technology—plus transparency and integrity—can transform grant applications, say Anna Aston and Stuart Grey

Many jobs are in the process of moving from data-driven workflows to those driven by artificial intelligence. In a data-driven approach, humans make informed decisions by extracting relevant insights from information. In contrast, AI-driven workflows shift the focus to processing and acting on insights autonomously. 

Systems incorporating AI tools, ranging from classification to autonomous agents, will become increasingly common, further enhancing workflow efficiency. When it works well, this does not eliminate human decision-making but significantly enhances its quality, reducing biases and enhancing efficiency. 

Daily tasks

Research managers and administrators can probably think of tasks they perform every day that are candidates for automation. UK association with Horizon Europe, for example, is hugely valuable, but it has also created more administrative work for already stretched research offices. Automating the data-intensive aspects of such work would free up the expertise of researchers and administrators to provide oversight and strategic direction, particularly for decisions requiring contextual understanding, ethical considerations and building collaborations.

Beyond general large language models such as GPT-4, there are a range of widely understood, nonproprietary, AI and machine-learning techniques that could be applied to the management of research funding applications. 

For example, classification techniques based in natural language processing can help to identify and categorise funding opportunities and match applications to specific elements of funding calls. Techniques such as graph algorithms can analyse collaboration networks to identify potential research partners, while sentiment analysis can gauge the tone of research proposals, providing insights into their potential reception by reviewers.

Tools such as Elsevier’s SciVal and Digital Science’s Dimensions already analyse research outputs and identify funding opportunities. Last month, OpenAI launched ChatGPT Edu, aimed at schools and universities. Companies including IBM and Microsoft are also developing AI solutions for large enterprises, many of which can be adapted for research environments.

At the proposal-writing stage—arguably the most critical step in the application process—AI tools can save time and improve quality. This includes generating drafts, summarising key points and enhancing clarity. 

Again, the human element remains vital. The European Research Council, for example, while recognising AI’s potential to enhance the funding process, has warned researchers to maintain academic integrity and authorship responsibility, ensuring that automation does not compromise authenticity. 

Once a proposal is written, it will undergo internal review before submission. AI can enhance this step by providing objective assessments and identifying potential weaknesses. AI-driven review systems can simulate the evaluation criteria of funding bodies, offering researchers feedback to refine their proposals.

Finally, AI can streamline the administrative tasks involved in institutional approval and submission, ensuring that documents are complete and formatted correctly. AI tools can also monitor submission portals for updates and deadlines.

As well as the potential benefits, integrating AI in research funding applications presents challenges such as data privacy, ethical considerations, and the need for transparency in algorithms. The rise of these tools brings concerns about data privacy and being locked in to one vendor. Many AI tools are proprietary, potentially limiting access and interoperability. Visibility and trust are also important, because ethical, transparent data sourcing is essential for training reliable AI models. To build trustworthy AI tools, institutions need clear guidelines on using data.

Open and collaborative

A sustainable ecosystem for using AI in research funding should be open and collaborative. This involves public-private partnerships, developing and building open-source AI tools, and ensuring equal access to technology for all institutions. Continuous education and training for researchers and administrators are also crucial for effective AI integration.

The transition from data-driven to AI-driven workflows represents a significant evolution in the research funding application process. As funders continue to explore and regulate the use of AI, the research community should embrace this technology while maintaining a commitment to integrity and transparency.

The future of research funding applications is intertwined with advancements in AI, promising a more streamlined, innovative and equitable process.

Research Professional News is media partner for the 2024 conference of the Association of Research Managers and Administrators, held from 18 to 19 June in Brighton

Anna Aston is a section manager in the faculty of medicine at Imperial College London. Stuart Grey is a senior lecturer in engineering systems design at the University of Glasgow and the founder of StudentVoice.ai. They will be speaking at at the 2024 conference of the Association of Research Managers and Administrators in Brighton on Wednesday 19 June

This article also appeared in Research Fortnight

The post Arma 2024: Use of AI in funding must be open and collaborative appeared first on Research Professional News.