Next Stage Digital Economy

 

EPRSC

Next Stage Digital Economy Call

  • Opening date:10 July 2014
  • Closing date:09 October 2014at 16:00
  • Status:Open
  • Type:Invitation for proposals

Working in close partnership with the Technology Strategy Board, the Connected Digital Economy Catapult and with support from Microsoft Research, the Research Councils UK Digital Economy (DE) Theme is seeking to promote the realisation of impact and enhanced exploitation of the outcomes arising from its investments in the research base. This call is designed to consolidate, harness and build upon existing DE knowledge and skills arising from DE Theme-funded and related funded awards to help accelerate the research outcomes and outputs to the next stage and create more real impact (be it economic, societal or cultural).

Prior to being invited to submit a full proposal, potential applicants will be required to demonstrate that they possess a valid ‘entry ticket’ to be eligible to apply against this call. The ‘entry ticket’ will be validated by the DE Theme on presentation of this information which will include details of the relevant DE Theme and related funding that assembled forms a substantial critical mass of coherent research and skills to build upon. The DE grant portfolio list (detailing funding body, grant reference/title, and value of DE relevant funding) should be accompanied by a coherence statement which sets out and justifies how this consolidated portfolio will enable the applicant(s) to deliver the overarching objective of this call as well as a summary statement of aims and future plans.

Please email your ‘entry ticket’ submission to DigitalEconomy@epsrc.ac.uk as soon as possible for consideration.

Case Study: ‘And the Doctor Said…………’

Chrissie 5   
SU Lead

Mark Webster

M.Webster@staffs.ac.uk

Funding

body

amount received

          

           AHRC £20k

Project Partners

 Keele University, Dr Alannah Tomkins

a.e.tomkins@keele.ac.uk,

Northumbria University, Dr Geoff Walton geoff.walton@northumbria.ac.uk

Project Researcher: Dr Jackie Reynolds

J.Reynolds@staffs.ac.uk

Unique Media Productions

www.uniquemediaproduction.co.uk

A team of creative practitioners: Maria Whatton, Deborah McAndrew, Dave Reeves, Chrissie Hall.

Project /Scheme title AHRC Research Networking Grant: ‘And the Doctor Said…..’
Summary  

 

 

 ‘And the Doctor Said….’ is an innovative research project, which uses creative writing as a way of exploring people’s experiences of healthcare in North Staffordshire. A series of workshops led by creative writers, playwrights and storytellers took place during 2013 in four different community venues in and around Stoke-on-Trent. Through creative writing, the participants shared, reflected on and wrote about their health experiences. The activities and writing drew upon their own personal experience and local knowledge. It is a ‘Connected Communities’ project, a cross-Council programme designed to help us to understand the changing nature and contexts of ‘community’ and the role of communities in enhancing and sustaining quality of life.
When did it run February 2012-February 2014
Outcomes
  • 10 community workshops resulting in a wide range of creative writing
  • A series of short films documenting people’s involvement in the project
  • A 20 minute audio-documentary
  • A website to disseminate project information and films
  • A published book containing all of the writing from the workshops (freely available)
  • A high quality exhibition that has been displayed in community venues
  • A range of positive outcomes for the research participants, as evidenced through evaluation material and the project films.
  • On-going partnership working between both the academic and the non-academic partners.

This project is highly participatory, directly involving participants in both the production and the dissemination of the research. This has been valuable and has also presented a range of interesting dilemmas and challenges to be addressed. The learning from these challenges is being shared in the project dissemination.

Future / ongoing activities as a result of this project We continue to disseminate this project at a wide range of events and conferences.Planned publications include a methodological journal article and a co-authored chapter in an edited book about creativity in the context of primary care and mental health and ageing.We are also developing a funding bid for AHRC follow-on funding, in order to further develop the impact of this work, particularly in relation to the training and professional development of medical staff. The follow-on project will focus on developing two-way dialogue between health professionals and research participants.
Top tips for working with this funder –
  • Focus on innovative, interdisciplinary collaborations.
  • Focus on involving non-academic partners e.g. artists/creative practitioners
  • Make use of a wide range of networking events linked to different projects
How easy was the application process? Applications are quite lengthy and time-consuming.   Support from colleagues in ECD is invaluable, especially if you are new to the J-es system.
Website/Contact www.andthedoctorsaid.org http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/Pages/Home.aspx
Think this project looks interesting? What Next For further support from the External projects team contact: externalprojects@staffs.ac.uk or call 01785 353774

Case Study: ARBOR

 arbor

 

logo_interreg_ivb_colour-2

External Projects Team: Enterprise and Commercial Development

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Staffordshire University, United Kingdom (Lead Partner)

Lead contact

Prof Tarik Al-shemmeri, T.T.Al-Shemmeri@staffs.ac.uk

 Funding body/ amount received

ARBOR budget is €7.361.958

ARBOR has received European Regional Development Funding through INTERREG IVB

Project Partners

Project /Scheme title ARBOR – Accelerating Renewable Energies through Valorisation of Biogenic Organic Raw Material

 

Summary ARBOR aims to foster trans regional knowledge sharing to exploit the biomass potential of both the rural and the industrialised North West European regions through promotion of best practice examples

Reduce territorial disparities that exist in regulations and policies that stimulate and/or inhibit the development of a harmonised biomass based renewable energy policy

Reduce technological barriers to the development of an efficient value chain for the conversion and optimisation of biomass to energy and subsequent recovery of residues from biomass conversion processes

Evaluate the sustainability and economic aspects of various biomass conversion technologies

Boost local economies and contribute to the development of a green, low carbon economy in NWE

Inform local, regional and European stakeholders on the potential of biomass feedstock and biomass conversion technologies in achievement of the EU 2020 renewable energy targets

Raise public support through a range of communication tools and activities

Timescale 25th September 2009 to 31st March 2015
Outcomes Publications, radio interviews, newspaper articles. Short courses, open days
Future / ongoing activities as a result of this project A six month extension has been approved until September 2015 to ensure all aims are fully realised and outcomes are widely publicised to key stakeholders and the general public. Due to the success of the project so far, the consortium has already begun looking at future EU funding opportunities for projects that could build on the achievements of ARBOR.
Top tips for working with this funder – The right balance of partners, from as many countries as possible, including different professional backgrounds.
How easy was the application process? Lengthy but easy to follow, provided work is shared at the outset, and there was good regional EU reps to help, use them, they are very helpful.
Website/Contact http://arbornwe.eu/
Think this project looks interesting? What Next?

For further support from the External projects team contact: externalprojects@staffs.ac.uk or call 01785 353774

 

 

   

Intellectual Property Act 2014 section 22A: Freedom of information exemptions for Research

In relation to what is generally referred to as ‘Pre-publication research’please note that the Intellectual Property Act 2014 (which is enacted but not yet in force – coming into force on 15 July 2014), by section 22A, has created a novel exemption from the Freedom of Information Act 2000, for pre-publication research. The exemption obtained in the course of, or derived from a ‘programme of research’ will amount to exempted information if the following conditions are met:

(a) the programme is continuing, with a view to publication by a public authority (cf. Universities are public authorities pursuant to Schedule 1 Part IV clause 53 of the 2000 Act), of a report of the Research…and

(b) disclosure of the information under the 2000 Act before the date of publication would or be likely to prejudice: (i) the programme (ii) the interests of any individual participating in the programme (iii) the interests of the Authority (cf. the University) which holds the information, or (iv) the interests of the Authority mentioned in paragraph (a) if it is a different authority from that which holds the information.

Commentators have remarked that in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining exemption must be balanced against and outweigh the public interest in disclosing the information, and that each case would be decided on its own merits. The writer knows of no provisions referring to this balancing exercise, however it is generally recognised that the new exemption would allow Universities as Researchers to consider and validate their research work before putting it into the public domain.

Section 22A(2) is a new provision whereby the Authority (cf. the University) would not be obliged to ‘confirm or deny’ whether they hold exempt information, if by doing so this prejudices the above factors listed (i) to (iv) above.

When the writer comes across further elucidating commentary on the new section 22A Research exemption they will be posted further in this blog.

The link to the new Intellectual Property Act 2014 (adding the new section 22A to the Freedom of Information Act 2000) can be found at:

Click to access ukpga_20140018_en.pdf

Staffs Fest – External Projects lead a Bid Writing Workshop

IMG_0149

The External projects team have led on a Bid Writing Masterclass for colleagues across the University as part of the Staffs Fest programme. Staff from all faculties were represented as the session dealt with bidding from defining a project right through to evaluation of a bid, see picture above and below.

Slides are avaliable, if you want some more information please email Jose Beech External Grants Manager @ j.a.beech@staff.ac.uk

IMG_0153

July’s Wider Outlook is here!

Wider Outlook – Funding, Policy updates and Research

Editorial

Welcome to July’s  Wider Outlook—the team have chosen the theme of  Research Matters and interdisciplinarity for this month’s theme. There is no shortage of encouragement to engage in interdisciplinary research and the need to do this is widely recognised – in order to begin to answer the big research questions –  but how do you make a start and what are the institutional and other barriers? Who does it well – and how could we approach research differently?

Horizon 2020 recognises this too – and has posed research questions around challenges, societal challenges, climate change, health and food security. Explicitly highlighting the multidisciplinary dimensions to these ‘wicked problems’ by including the Social Sciences and Humanities as key collaborators.

We have identified a number of articles related to this topic -and for the first time we have not included funding opportunities in Wider Outlook –  to keep current these are now blogged daily, or sent out to small relevant groups as a bespoke service,

Do continue to use our fantastic Funding Calendar enjoy this edition, and as ever contact us with any comments, ideas or suggestions at  externalprojects@staffs.ac.uk

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

RCUK logo

RCUK’s plans for 2015-16

Collaboration and efficiencies top RCUK’s 2015-16 plans; Research Councils UK will develop an innovation strategy, improve researcher training and career development and review its support of interdisciplinary research, according to its 2015-16 delivery plan.

The plan, published on 16 June, splits RCUK’s aims into two themes: delivering excellence with impact and enhancing efficiency.

Delivering excellence with impact

To address the first, RCUK says it will produce an innovation strategy that takes into account increasing collaboration and the UK science and innovation strategy, to be delivered in the autumn.

RCUK will also refresh its shared strategic objectives with the Technology Strategy Board, and improve work with partners such as the National Centre for Universities and Business. More interdisciplinary training will be provided for researchers, and RCUK says it will develop more robust evidence on the impact of training on the wider economy, as well as establishing an improved professional development agenda.

In addition to the review of the support of interdisciplinary research, which has been prompted by recommendations in the triennial review of the research councils, RCUK says it will continue working on cross-cutting areas, such as big data.

RCUK also sets out its international collaboration plans, working with government to deliver the £375-million Newton Fund, and helping UK researchers benefit from Horizon 2020.

Enhancing efficiency

On the efficiency side, RCUK confirms its plan to appoint an executive director to improve harmonisation in internal operations and says that it will continue making efficiency savings up to 2016.

At the same time, each research council has published its own delivery plan for 2015-16, which sets out the areas of investment for that time as well as committing to further collaborative working, efficiency savings and improving training for researchers. Most of these plans are continuations of earlier delivery or strategic plans. – See more at:

http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/about/aboutrcuk/deliveryplan/

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Website_net4society_Header[1]

Report calls for better inclusion of Social Science and Humanities in H2020

 Horizon 2020 should include more opportunities for interdisciplinary research to ensure that societal challenges and humanities have sufficient space in the programme.

A report by Net4Society group, an advisory group on social and economic sciences funded by the European Commission, found that 37 per cent of the topics in the first Horizon 2020 work programmes include elements of social sciences and humanities. It is important for this work to be properly supported and made more visible in the wider approach to solving the Horizon 2020 societal challenges, the group said.

All Horizon 2020 advisory groups should contain members with a background in social sciences and humanities to ensure that these disciplines are included when projects are implemented, says the report.

When the original proposal for Horizon 2020 was issued in 2012, no provisions had been made for the inclusion of social science and humanities. After prolonged lobbying by social sciences and humanities researchers, the Commission decided to split the programme’s sixth challenge into two, creating a special budget for SSH work.

– See more at:

http://www.net4society.eu/_media/NET4SOCIETY_Opportunities_SSHresearchers_2014_2015_final.pdf

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Basic RGB

Academics Anonymous: breaking down barriers between disciplines

Big problems require thinkers who can transcend the traditional boundaries between subjects. In an era where the speed of progress in e.g. biosciences is accelerating, it’s true that specialisation is necessary just to keep up with the data being produced. In fact, a whole new specialism, bioinformatics, has emerged to do just that. But the rebuttal to this is that we desperately need generalists to unify the specialist niches.

The really big problems of climate change, for example, can only be addressed by unifying thought from meteorologists, oceanographers, glaciologists, social scientists, behavioural scientists, political research, economists and so on. Some ideas:

• Hire and judge people on the quality and impact of their research, not on the journal they have published in.

• Anonymise job and grant applications.

• Allow interdisciplinary grants as standard that are reviewed by people from multiple disciplines.

• Provide funding for pump-priming new collaboration attempts and risky “what-if” projects.

• Bring experts from other institutions and industries into universities to provide specialised training to students while allowing academics to guide students in critical thinking and core skills.

• Give students free choice of modules so they can graduate as generalists.

For more see:

http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2014/may/30/universities-interdisciplinary-research

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

schoolboy with open book on white background. Isolated 3D image

Interdisciplinary research is the future at Sussex University

An extract of a recent interview with Michael Farthing vice-chancellor of Sussex University

“Development studies are still very strong in this university, and we are very concerned about the inequalities that could be driven further by climate change, by migration. We now have a medical school, so we’re fully engaged with health issues, not just local but global,” says Farthing. “There is a sense that the things we do here have got to be important, they’ve got to have impact, they’ve got to be relevant to the world outside.”

While some universities are still struggling with the idea of interdisciplinarity, it has been part of Sussex’s make-up from the start, and the return to a flatter, school-based structure will, Farthing believes, help it to flourish. The university’s neuroscience centre, for example, includes specialists in the fields of medicine, psychology, life sciences and informatics and engineering, while the Sackler centre for the study of consciousness science, built on philanthropic donations, brings together, among others, psychiatrists and computer scientists. A new interdisciplinary centre for Middle East studies is in progress.

In 1961, Sussex was a small university, alive with promise and opportunity. Farthing is aware that the expansion has, to some extent, changed the character of the university. But growth, he argues, has enabled the university to increase the breadth and depth of its research and to offer a wider range of courses. He is clear that he doesn’t want to lose “those very distinctive features” of the university, such as its commitment to interdisciplinarity. “Everybody here lives, breathes, eats, sleeps, drinks interdisciplinarity. And that is as alive as it was 50 years ago,” he says.

http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2014/jun/17/michael-farthing-sussex-university-celebrate-student-protests

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

imagesCA8NV6V2

 

Horizon 2020 – European Parliament input

Much of the credit for Horizon 2020 being simpler and more cohesive than its predecessors can got to the European Parliament, says Fiona Hall MEP.

Research is becoming more complex and interdisciplinary, and companies, institutions and governments are finding it difficult to fund increasingly costly projects. Modern research requires a high level of coordination and cooperation, freedom of movement for talent and ideas, and the ability to leverage large sums of money.

This is the main rationale for having an EU-level research policy. A bloc of 28 countries, representing more than 500 million people and a large resource pool, is well placed to respond to the challenges involved in research and innovation.

EU programmes provide an additional stream of financing to complement national efforts at a time when national budgets are under pressure. According to the UK Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, for example, almost one-fifth of all funding for UK higher education institutions now comes from the EU.

UK researchers are disproportionately successful at obtaining EU funds, having received more than 15 per cent of the total funding from Framework 7 (second only to Germany) and been involved in more projects than any other country. But in general, across member states, money from Framework 7 has helped to bridge the funding gap and enable many projects and international collaborations that would otherwise not have happened.

For full article see:

https://www.researchprofessional.com/0/rr/news/europe/views-of-europe/2014/5/Horizon-2020-shows-MEPs-at-their-most-effective.html

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

research-icon1[1]

Ethics in Horizon 2020

Ethics research must be conducted in all parts of Horizon 2020 to ensure research and innovation is undertaken responsibly, according to the League of European Research Universities (Leru).

Leru states that the intention to solve societal challenges under Horizon 2020, such as health and food production, relies on assumptions about human values that must incorporate ethics. Ethics research can help to address questions such as what makes a good society, and how responsible governments and businesses should behave. According to Leru, ethics should play a central role in Horizon 2020 research. This could include improving research design to incorporate ethical issues at an early stage, as well as using ethics research to ensure scientific research is trusted and accepted by the public. It will also be important to ensure ethics is incorporated in conjunction with other disciplines, rather than remaining isolated within the programme, says Leru. The paper, published on 25 April, was written by ethics scientists to continue Leru’s efforts to ensure the social sciences and humanities are fully incorporated within Horizon 2020.

In previous framework programmes, ethics research was incorporated at too late a stage in research projects, which meant it was mostly used to formulate constraints on scientific developments or assess problems with public acceptance, says the position paper.

http://www.leru.org/index.php/public/news/leru-publishes-an-agenda-for-ethics-research-in-horizon-2020/

 

SU students Win National Social Enterprise Award

Spitalfields market in London was home to 15 pop up shops this week as UK HEI’s competed over 2 days to win one of four National UnLTD Social Enterprise awards.

Funded by a Staffordshire University Social Enterprise UnLTD “try it” award three of our students travelled to London to set up a pop up shop.Congratulations go to Staffordshire University students; Andy Evans, Christina Turnock and Amy Pass (see pic below), who won a UnLTD Digital Marketing Award, selling a variety of products, including tea cups and saucers and sketch books, our students wowed the judges with their digital marketing campaign.

The prize is a day in London with marketing company “Born Social” to explore a digital marketing strategy as well as developing a on going mentoring relationship. Brilliant news and a great opportunity for our enterprising students to develop their skills.

Embedded image permalink

 

 

Royal Academy of Engineering – enterprise fellowships

The Royal Academy of Engineering invites applications for its enterprise fellowships. These enable aspiring entrepreneurs to commercialise technology-based business ideas from academic institutions into spinout companies.

raeng-logo-magenta

 

Applicants must be working in engineering departments or engineering-focused research areas at UK higher education institutions, at postdoctoral level or above. PhD students may apply, but must have received their PhD before they start the fellowship. The proposed technology must be an innovation or invention in engineering or technology.

Each fellow is provided with up to £85,000 to enable them to spend 12 months establishing their own business. In addition to the financial support, training will be provided to develop business skills. Mentors will be allocated to each fellow to provide additional support, advice and access to their entrepreneurial and venture capital networks during the enterprise fellowship.

Closing date 01/09/2014

Enterprise fellows are expected to start by 31 March 2015.

http://www.raeng.org.uk/research/researcher/eef/default.htm

Book NOW – External Projects Team – Staffs Fest Programme

index

There is still time to book onto the External ProjectsTeam Staffs Fest events, we are offering three sessions which can be booked via MyView.

  • 30th June 2014 – Jose Beech – Bid Writing  – 10-12 noon Ashley LT011
  • 7th July 2014 – Margaret Bennett / Esther Knight  – Euro Trash – a fun EU quiz – 1pm-2.30pm BG 50 Brindley
  • 7th July 2014 – Chris Kenning – Consultancy Agreements in a University Context 3pm- 4.30pm BG 50 Brindley

These sessions will be a great opportunity to meet the team and become familiar with our work, please get in touch if you want to find out more before you book. Email us at externalprojects@staffs.ac.uk

 

   

 

   

Shanks v Unilever (Inventors’ Compensation) – again

Shanks v Unilever – again – but this time before Justice Arnold

Professor Shanks, who was employed by Unilever UK Central Resources Ltd from 5 May 1982 to 3 October 1986, has failed in his recent appeal against the Comptroller of Patents decision as to whether his patents were of ‘outstanding benefit’ to Unilever, and therefore failed in his claim for compensation pursuant to section 40 of the Patents Act 1977. It seems that in spite of the benefit to the company of the Shanks’ patents (being in the sum of £24m), in the larger scheme of things, and the size of Unilever generally, this contribution to Unilever’s bottom line, was something of a drop in the ocean.

Professor Shanks had assigned his rights in the inventions (related to an Electrochemical Capillary Fill Device, an ECFD) – which were inventive in the blood glucose testing field, and were assigned by confirmatory patents to the company by the inventor in 1985 and 1990. It was common ground that the inventions belonged to Unilever as employer pursuant to section 39 of the Patents Act 1977.

This latest Shanks v Unilever case is an important addition to the paucity of cases examining the operation of the Patents Act 1977 sections 39 to 41 in respect of employee contributions. Prior to this recent case, it is arguable that GE Healthcare v Chiu was the single authority on the operation of sections 39 to 41 of the Act.

(Unilever) too big to pay?

On preliminary view, Justice Arnold – appears to answer his own ironic question at the subject heading above his paragraph 67, (at paragraph 65, quoting from the Hearing Officer’s decision at paragraphs 222 and 223) and does appear to support the Hearing Officer’s basic conclusion at 222 which was:

‘But Unilever makes profits at an order of magnitude greater on other inventions – albeit primarily by manufacture and at a much lower rate of return than was provided by the Shanks patents. Further, this is not such a case as Kelly, where Floyd J held that without the patents in that case, Amersham would have faced a crisis. There was no suggestion from either party that the Shanks patents were crucial to Unilever’s success.’

The coup de grace was delivered by the Hearing Officer at paragraph 223:
223. In my view, taking account of the size and nature of Unilever’s business, the benefit provided by the Shanks patents falls short of being outstanding.”
Although Justice Arnold at paragraph 71 emphasises that a multi-factorial test is what has been upheld, on another reading, cynics might be left unpersuaded by this, and that Unilever only succeeded because their economic clout did indeed make them ‘too big to pay’. This aspect of the Judgment requires closer reading to be sure.
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2014/1647.html&query=shanks+and+v+and+unilever&method=boolean

The GE Healthcare decision and the reference by Justice Floyd to Universities paying researchers’ one third exploitation income

There is insufficient space here to explore the decision in GE Healthcare, but it serves as a useful hook to emphasise that prior to this Arnoldian decision, the lead authority for employee compensation pursuant to sections 39 to 41 of the Patents Act 1977 was arguably the GE Healthcare decision. The ‘comparables’ and discussion in that case perhaps rightly concentrated on what Dr Chiu and his colleagues would have received were they University researchers who invented, and were employee inventors constrained by section 39. The reader can revisit Justice Floyd’s judgment using the link below.
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2009/181.html&query=ge+and+healthcare&method=boolean

Unjust enrichment

There is now in most ‘remuneration’ cases, always ‘an issue as to unjust enrichment’, in this case neatly closed off by Justice Arnold, as too lofty a cause for inclusion in the statutory compensation provided in the 1977 Act (see paragraphs 32 to 43 and his analysis of Sempra Metals [2007] UKHL 34, that although that case had generally recognised a right to recovery of sums made by mistake of law – ground-breaking to run alongside recovery of sums for causative mistakes of fact, and the right to claim compound interest, unjust enrichment in Sempra was only generally nodded to, but as a high level principle that the time value of money (or a right to interest) was generally recognised. But not here, alas.