Strategic Promotion of Ageing Research Capacity

Introduction

SPARC (Strategic Promotion of Ageing Research Capacity) was a unique initiative designed to encourage the greater involvement of academics and researchers in the many issues faced by an ageing population and encountered by older people in their daily lives. It ran for four years from January 2005 to December 2008.

SPARC was funded by EPSRC and BBSRC and informed by the broader community of researchers, practitioners, policy makers and older people for the ultimate benefit of older people, their carers and those who provide services to older people. It pursued three main activities: Small Awards to newcomers to ageing research, across all areas of design, engineering and biology and at the interfaces relevant to an ageing population and older people; Workshops to bring together all stakeholders interested in improving the quality of life and independence of older people; Advocacy of the need for and benefits to individual older people and to society of ageing-related research. SPARC was inclusive and warmly welcomed the involvement of everyone with a relevant interest.

This final report provides a detailed account of the activities of SPARC. Six sections follow this introduction and background. The first reviews how the resources provided by the research councils have been used to pursue a number of distinctive activities designed to support newcomers to ageing research and to establish a new approach to ageing research. The three subsequent sections review what has been achieved by each of these activities. This is followed by a section which considers the achievements of the award holders. Finally, there is a review of SPARC as a whole.

Background

The development of the proposal which led to SPARC was stimulated by a grave concern for the future of ageing research. Although in 1997 EPSRC and in 1998 BBSRC had commenced what were to be very successful programmes of ageing-related research, the slow implementation of a policy to coordinate the ageing research activities of all the research councils in the early 2000s led to a loss of momentum. There were consequent fears for the continuation of promising research themes and the careers of researchers working in the area of ageing. There was particular concern for maintaining the engagement with ageing research of younger researchers who had been involved with the EPSRC EQUAL Initiative and the BBSRC SAGE and ERA programmes. These researchers represented an important national investment in ageing research. Ensuring continuing support to these was considered vital to the future health of the area. Also, there was a need to make the most of the increasing enthusiasm of those others who were taking an interest in the area, including both early-career and very experienced researchers, as were others who whilst not engaged in research were keen to see society benefitting from a greater amount of ageing research.

What was to become known as SPARC was initially proposed in early 2002, when there was already a clear cause for concern. At that time there was support for the proposal from many quarters, from a range of non-academic stakeholders in ageing issues as well as the research community and the Office of Science and Technology. There was even encouragement from Lord Sainsbury, Minister for Innovation, who spent an hour discussing the proposal and its background with Peter Lansley, the initiator of what was to become SPARC, and Verity Smith, who at that time were running the EQUAL Network (www.equal.ac.uk). However, it was not until late 2004 that support was secured. In part this was prompted by the end of the funding period for the EQUAL Network a project which had demonstrated the value of many of the dissemination activities on which SPARC was to build. Although all relevant research councils were involved with detailed discussions, an agreement to consider a proposal was initially secured only with EPSRC. This was in the spring of 2004. Then, in mid 2004, just as the final details were being agreed with EPSRC, encouraged by its research community, BBSRC approached EPSRC with a wish to join the venture as conceptualised. This approach was welcomed.

The activities of SPARC anticipated many of the expectations of scientists which were to be expressed by successive government ministers with responsibility for science when speaking about the role of science and society, and in reports on the future direction of research, such as those by Cooksey on health research and the Science and Innovation White Paper in 2008. These further reinforced the view that despite contemporary discourse on inclusion, older people continued to be marginalised from debate and discussion of those potential scientific developments from which they could most benefit. During the life of SPARC the research councils received renewed encouragement from government to place more importance on knowledge transfer and translating research outputs into products and services of benefit to end users. This was then encapsulated in the strategies and policies of the research councils. Also, they looked to SPARC for examples of good practice.

Objectives, Aims and Performance Measures

At the time of the proposal the objectives for SPARC were:

Capacity Building

1. Facilitating the development of the capacity of the UK science base to undertake design, engineering and biology-orientated ageing-related research

2. Initiating closer links between the individuals who undertake or seek to undertake, ageing research activities on behalf of BBSRC and EPSRC

3. Providing financial support for small scale projects to academics who wish to establish themselves in ageing-related research

Networking

4. Networking and supporting interdisciplinary areas of ageing research such that their value to the national research effort as a whole is both maximised and communicated

5. Strengthening the relationships between the research community and research end-users (including the great variety of organisations which support older people)

6. Contributing to the creation of a coherent, accessible and internationally competitive UK ageing research programme, that meets the needs of older people and is valued by policy makers, practitioners and other relevant stakeholders.

Aims
At the outset it was proposed that these objectives would be pursued through the following aims:

1. Enabling investigators new to ageing to establish themselves through undertaking small projects or feasibility studies

2. Stimulating activities across the EPSRC/BBSRC interface and encouraging cross-disciplinary working

3. Complementing and strengthening the large project and consortia approach of EPSRC and BBSRC by ensuring growth in the number of academics with relevant experience who are sufficiently networked to gain responsive mode funding for large scale projects

4. Ensuring that the outcomes of the small projects are presented on the same platform as those for existing EQUAL and ERA projects and consortia/large projects, thus facilitating coherence

5. Building on the EQUAL Network and replicating its success in fields represented by ERA, by ensuring the engagement of the research community with a wide range of stakeholders in ageing, and by demonstrating the contribution to improving the quality of life of older people of (i) design, engineering and technology orientated research, (ii) biological research, and (iii) research at the interfaces between these two areas

6. Providing a measurable contribution to the strategic ageing objectives of EPSRC and BBSRC.

Goal

The ultimate goal was to benefit a wide range of stakeholders:

1. New researchers - directly through receiving small project support, thus enabling them to establish their activities in ageing or disability-related research, and in due course become more involved with these areas. Other researchers and the science base in general - from the findings from the small projects and trained manpower.

2. Users (older and disabled people) and intermediaries (organisations which provide services to or represent older and disabled people) - directly through interaction with the researchers (and vice versa) through projects, at workshops and similar events. The relevance of this approach to bringing together researchers, users and intermediaries had been established through the preceding EQUAL Network.

3. Other users and intermediaries - through the incorporation of findings from the small projects into policy and practice. In this respect confidence was drawn from the success of the findings from projects supported by the EQUAL Initiative being taken up by a wide range of organisations. The range of intermediaries is very broad.

4. Policy makers and influencers – by being appraised of the outcomes from the project with a view to ensuring that findings are exploited to the full. Here again there was ample evidence from the EQUAL Initiative to suggest that this was possible, and could be achieved.

5. Contribute to the achievement of a range of objectives of both EPSRC and BBSRC as set out in their strategic plans.

SPARC had other aims, some of which were implicit, although in essence all were focussed on increasing research capacity in the field of ageing, raising the profile of ageing research and repositioning ageing research in relation to beneficiaries and users of research. Given the breadth of its activities it was appreciated that there would be different ways of assessing the progress of SPARC. Thus, whilst measures of achievement put forward in the proposal were seen as appropriate they were supplemented by other areas for assessment and metrics suggested by the panel which reviewed the SPARC proposal.

Areas for Assessment

1. The level of demand for support from new researchers

2. The quality of the proposals and of the outputs from projects which are funded, as judged by peer review

3. The number of new investigators who emerge as a result of SPARC activities

4. The opinions of users and intermediaries of those outputs and of specific SPARC dissemination activities

5. Audit of the overall quality and impact of SPARC and its contribution to the strategic objectives of EPSRC and BBSRC.

Metrics

1. The number of SPARC awards to result in follow-on applications to main funding bodies. It is expected that at least 60% of SPARC awards will lead to follow on applications.

2. The number of SPARC award holders to become PIs on conventional research council grants. It is expected that at least 30% of SPARC award holders will have become new PIs on research council grants within two years of completion of their SPARC award.

3. The number of workshop meetings held and the breadth of attendance at those workshops. It is expected that at least 12 workshops will be held during the lifetime of the grant.

4. Additionally, EPSRC may send a questionnaire to the wider ageing research community to gauge the wider impact of SPARC.

Expected Initial Challenges

SPARC was proposed at a time when despite there being a fair amount of activity in the ageing area many of these were largely without strategic direction. For example, the policy of coordinating the ageing research activities of the research councils had led to slow progress in developing new national programmes of research, despite plenty of interest and support. Another example, was that the structures and missions of universities and the relevant learned and professional societies did not map very well onto the needs and concerns of older people. These issues were commented on by the House of Lords Inquiry Scientific Aspects of Ageing. However, it was not SPARC’s aim to replicate or extend those activities which would normally be available through an individual’s home university, the research funding bodies and scientific societies (examples are the provision of basic skills development courses or exposure to the conventional academic discourse in a field). Rather, it set out to supplement these activities by offering unique opportunities for the development of researchers, through pump-priming projects and through engaging closely with a wide range of non-academic stakeholders in ageing, including older people. However, it was recognised that SPARC would need to undertake some skills and knowledge development activities. Here the intention was to provide a different range of experiences for those who might become involved, experiences which to some extent would challenge the traditional way in which many individual researchers were developed and socialised in the field of ageing, and in due course change the nature of the academic discourse in that field.

Associated with each of the tasks necessary to meet the objectives of SPARC were various requirements and risks. For the most part the tasks were familiar, in some form or other, to the SPARC directors.

Awards Scheme

The development of the awards scheme could be guided by good prior knowledge of how other schemes operated, those of both the research councils and charities which supported research, and the expectation that the scheme would parallel the practices and standards of the research councils. Although the procedures could be defined very easily and standards set, the biggest challenge here was expected to be that of developing a web-based system for handling applications, proposals and refereeing. This had to be achieved very quickly. However, at least this could be pursued with a familiarity with how such systems worked for other organisations. Another risk, raised by some onlookers, was whether there would be sufficient interest in the scheme. However, because of the discussions which had led to the development of the SPARC proposal, this was not a major concern. After all, the interest of researchers usually follows funding.

Workshops

SPARC built heavily on the workshop activities developed through EQUAL (www.equal.ac.uk) and also through a regional network based at the University of Reading (www.reading.ac.uk/agenet), which had involved a wide range of disciplines including, significantly for SPARC, the biological disciplines. These had brought together the full range of stakeholders in ageing, including older people, which were such a feature of the SPARC proposal. The procedures developed and standards achieved by these existing networks, and the success of the networks, widely acknowledged in both academic and non-academic communities, provided confidence in being able to replicate this success for the ageing research supported by BBSRC. Here the main risks were that there might be insufficient offers from others to host events, and a lack of funds to be able to run a good number of workshops. However, past experience suggested that this would be unlikely. Support for hosting workshops had been expressed even before SPARC was funded, and the budget for workshops could be managed in a variety of ways depending on circumstances. It was also recognised that specific workshops would be needed to support the development of the award holders. As these were expected to be within a familiar academic environment, they were likely to be straightforward to organise.

Advocacy

The important role of advocacy had been demonstrated by the EQUAL Network. Quite simply this needed a clear articulation of the case for ageing research, a degree of persistence in dealing with policy makers and sensitivity and responsiveness to others interested in the world of ageing research. This was expected to be a somewhat opportunistic and elastic activity in terms of time spent by the directors, especially in respect of links with politicians and government. However, as well as developing and extending existing relationships with policy makers it was expected that SPARC would be able to build on strong relationships within the academic and research worlds, especially with research councils, other funders, scientific bodies, professional bodies and charities.

A key aspect of advocacy was to be the development of the executive summaries of each project, by far the most innovatory aspect of SPARC. This was specifically to support individual award holders and their teams in the communication of their work to non-academic audiences, and to build their confidence and familiarity when working with such audiences. The publication of executive summaries of research was well established in other fields, not least those in which Peter Lansley, the principal investigator, had worked, and indeed in some areas of ageing research. EPSRC had been particularly keen that executive summaries should be produced, and was enthusiastic about those of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. This was, however, an area where additional skills would be required, hence the inclusion of funds for professional advice in the grant. The risks here were expected to be largely those of the time required to produce suitable materials, reporting on projects with outcomes which might be judged as insubstantial, especially as the projects were so small, and handling confidential materials.

Website

The SPARC website was envisaged as the main means for communicating with the broad spread of stakeholders who were expected to become involved with its activities. Given the scope of these activities, SPARC needed a professionally designed website. So although it would have been possible to continue with the ‘diy’ approach taken to the preceding EQUAL website, which had been praised for its clarity and reliability, a more sophisticated approach was needed, not least for handling the proposals to the awards scheme. There were funds available for employing the appropriate skills. However, as many who have been involved with the construction of websites will attest, this is far from a straightforward or risk free activity. This is especially the case when a new website has to be built quickly. For example, because of security issues, the handling of research proposals uploaded to the site, its operation had to be ‘right first time’.

Organisation

SPARC was to be organised around two offices. Although both had similar responsibilities for relating to the research community, Reading University for that clustered around EPSRC, Brighton University for that relevant to BBSRC, for organising the awards scheme and workshops, and for advocacy, a significant set of administrative responsibilities rested with the Reading office from which the principal investigator operated. The main perceived risks related to, firstly, the coordination of two offices and, secondly, possible differences in expectations of SPARC and levels of performance. Relating to this risk was that much of the experience of the type of workshops envisaged for SPARC, the outreach activities via publications, the use of the web and advocacy to those outside of the academic community, rested with the principal investigator. However both directors had experience of the operation of a range of awards schemes and communication of science to the public.

Timing and Budgets

Although originally proposed and funded as a three year project, after agreement to fund the award had been reached, EPSRC advised a longer time scale of four years. Whilst there was no increase in the funding, this advice was taken. It proved very beneficial to achieving the objectives of the project. Thus, SPARC commenced on 1^st January 2005 and ended on 31^st December 2008, although some preliminary activities were undertaken in late 2004 and other activities were planned to take place after the formal end of SPARC.

The initial funding for SPARC was £1,367,000 of which £893,000 was for small awards. The remaining £474,000 was for the organisation and management of the awards scheme, workshops, publicity, publications, a website, committee work and general administration of SPARC. It was envisaged that about 50% of these organisational costs would be for running the awards scheme, 40% for workshops and 10% for advocacy. EPSRC contributed 64% and BBSRC 36%. Subsequently BBSRC made a further major contribution towards the cost of small awards and both research councils made further small contributions to support awards, to bring the total value of the SPARC to £1,762,000, split nearly equally between the two research councils (EPSRC 52.8%, BBSRC 47.2%).

Organisation

The SPARC secretariat consisted of two offices located at the University of Reading and the University of Brighton. The Reading office was staffed by Professor Peter Lansley, principal investigator and director, Verity Smith as part-time coordinator (80%) and, for the last 15 months, Dr Lucy Chappell, publicity officer (50%). It had some supplementary assistance for handling contractual and financial matters. The Brighton Office was staffed by Dr Richard Faragher, co-investigator and co-director, and a coordinator, initially Kirsty Springall who was full time, then Dr Alison Willows, temporary part-time, and for the final 19 months Dr Nicky Hewson, a full-time appointment. Professor Lansley and Dr Faragher were both full-time academic staff responsible for a broad range of research, teaching and administrative duties within their respective institutions, so their involvement with SPARC was substantially part-time. This is the typical situation with most projects funded by EPSRC and BBSRC.

Both offices were responsible for running the awards scheme, organising workshops, liaising with the scientific and broader communities of interest, and for advocacy activities. Reading was specifically responsible for managing financial and contractual matters with EPSRC, which acted on behalf of BBSRC, liaison with the award holders institutions’, who had contracts with the University of Reading, and overseeing consultants to the project. It was also responsible for liaising with the chair and other members of the advisory committee, organising meetings of that committee, and had budgetary responsibility for a range of other activities.

Advisory Committee

Good practice commended the appointment of an advisory committee, a proposal which was strongly endorsed by the review panel which in turn recommended that at least a quarter of the committee members should represent the user perspective and be from outside of the university sector. In the event four non-academic members and seven academic members were appointed. Mrs Elizabeth Mills, OBE, an independent consultant, was invited to take the chair of the committee. She nominated, Dr Lorna Layward of Help the Aged as Deputy-chair. They were joined by Dr Elizabeth White of the British Association of Occupational Therapists and the Department of Health nominee, Professor Janet Ashkam of the Picker Institute, who was a consultant to that department. Janet’s unexpected death in July 2008 is a continuing source of sadness for the members of the committee.

The academic members of the committee had a broad spread of interests and backgrounds, including young early-career researchers and academics as well as very experienced senior academics. All were appointed prior to the formal commencement of SPARC. Representatives of the research councils and members of the secretariat were not members of the committee but were ‘in attendance’. The advisory committee acted as the awards panel for the small awards scheme. At some meetings the committee was supplemented by experts in those fields in which it had limited expertise. The committee met on eight occasions.

Several committee members hosted workshops, others chaired workshop sessions and some regularly attended these events. There was frequent interaction with the Chair and Deputy-chair, especially in the final six months of SPARC, when there was intense discussion concerning the objectives and achievements of SPARC.

Table 1.1: The SPARC advisory committee

Committee member	Affiliation
Mrs Elizabeth Mills OBE (Chair)	Eminence Grise
Dr Lorna Layward (Deputy Chair)	Help the Aged/Research into Ageing
Professor Janet Askham	Dept of Health and Picker Institute Europe
Professor Bernie Conway	Dept of Bioengineering at Strathclyde University
Dr Deborah Dunn-Walters	Department of Immunobiology at Guy’s Hospital
Dr Sian Henson	Department of Immunology, Imperial College London
Professor David Kipling	Department of Pathology, Cardiff University
Dr Constantinos Maganaris	The Centre for Biophysical and Clinical Research into Human Movement, Manchester Metropolitan University
Professor Kevin Morgan	Department of Human Sciences, Loughborough University
Professor Marcus Ormerod	SURFACE Inclusive Research Centre, University of Salford
Dr Elizabeth White	College of Occupational Therapists
Research Council representatives
Dr Colin Miles (BBSRC)	Until March 2006
Dr Pete Kennewell (BBSRC)	Until March 2006
Dr Lesley Heppell (BBSRC)	From March 2006
Dr Tom Avani (BBSRC)	June 2006 only
Dr Kedar Pandya (EPSRC)	Until March 2006
Dr Andrew Clark (EPSRC)	May 2007 only
Dr Louise Jenkin (BBSRC)	From February 2008
Dr Matt Davies ( EPSRC)	February 2008 only
Ms Linda Sayers (EPSRC)	From June 2008
SPARC Secretariat
Professor Peter Lansley	SPARC Director, University of Reading
Ms Verity Smith	SPARC Coordinator, University of Reading
Dr Lucy Chappell	SPARC Publicity Officer, From February 2008
Mrs Margaret Deacon	School Manager, University of Reading, June 2005 only
Dr Richard Faragher	SPARC Director, University of Brighton
Ms Kirsty Springall	Administrator, University of Brighton, Until June 2006
Dr Alison Willows	SPARC Coordinator, (part-time temporary), University of Brighton, May 2007 only
Dr Nicky Hewson	SPARC Coordinator, University of Brighton, From February 2008
Co-opted Members for Awards Panels
Professor Helen Petrie	Department of Computer Science, University of York, October 2005 only
Professor Roger Anderson	Professor of Vision Science, University of Ulster, October 2005 only
Dr Bruce Allen	Institute of Ophthalmology, University College London, June 2006 only

Meetings were held in April, June and October 2005, March and June 2006, May 2007, February and June 2008 and a ‘virtual’ meeting was held in December 2008

Programme of Activities

A Quick Start-up

SPARC was centred on three principal activities, the small awards scheme, workshops and advocacy. As soon as funding for SPARC was agreed and before the formal start of SPARC, announcements were made about its mission and programme of work. In October 2004 details about the small awards scheme were released and in November 2004 several briefings were prepared to be made in locations across the UK in January 2005. At the same time workshops were organised, drawing on contacts and offers made during the latter months of the EQUAL Network, so that there would be no delay in establishing SPARC. The SPARC website was also initiated.

The First Year

The first of seven briefings on the small awards scheme to be made in the first three months was given on 12^th January 2005 and two launch workshops were held on 24^th February and 16^th March 2005, at Brunel and Strathclyde Universities respectively. These had to be made very quickly as the deadline for the first of two calls for proposals to the small awards scheme was 1^st May 2005.

An initial committee meting was held on 27^th April 2005.

Even before the formal commencement of SPARC, work had started on the development of systems and procedures for managing the awards scheme. All manner of documentation had to be developed. Information about the scheme, including much detailed information about its scope, for example, eligibility of applicants and costs, and forms for applications and refereeing, had to be finalised. As it had been decided to operate an all-electronic application and refereeing system, sophisticated and secure web-based systems had to be designed and implemented in a very short space of time, in addition to a website which could handle other aspects of SPARC’s activities. SPARC was fortunate to secure the services of Daniel Guth as web designer and webmaster whose achievements in the first few months of SPARC were the cause of many commendations from those using the application, and subsequently the refereeing, systems.

The 85 proposals which were received in response to Call 1 were reviewed by the advisory committee in its role of awards panel on 28^th June 2005, to ensure that those proposals which were to be taken forward to referees were from applicants who were eligible for awards and that the topics addressed by the proposals were within the scope of the call. In the event 66 were eligible in all respects. Refereeing followed, with each proposal being reviewed by at least 3 referees, and typically 4 or 5. On 3^rd and 4^th October 2005 the advisory committee considered the proposals in the light of the referees’ reports, using as its basis of assessment two principal criteria, scientific excellence and capacity building potential. The committee made recommendations about which proposals should be supported and provided feedback which was subsequently communicated to the applicants with encouragement and advice on potential future submissions.

Twenty-eight proposals met the conditions for funding. Twenty were recommended of which, given financial limitations, 13 were funded. The committee also made a number of observations about the strengths and weaknesses of the applications and about areas of research which were under-represented and were worthy of encouragement in the second call for proposals.

Successful applicants were asked to provide further information and to agree a contract with the University of Reading, as the fund holder, with a view to starting their projects early in 2006. Call 2 was made almost immediately with a deadline of 1^st March 2006. For both calls, to ease the burden of proposal writing, applicants needed to provide just outline financial information.

Although the development of the awards scheme was the most intensive activity in 2005, the organisation of workshops was equally important. Seven workshops were organised and there was a considerable amount of networking and advocacy. The style of those workshops which were to be open to all-comers was deliberately modelled on those established by the EQUAL Network, but their greater frequency, and the need to engage with a much broader community, required the explicit articulation of the purpose, nature and style of the workshops and transparent methods of organisation. In turn it was necessary to exploit the use of the web as the main means for advertising events, handling registrations for workshops, recruiting members to the SPARC network and communicating with members, as well as those interested in ageing research, from scientists through to the general public. So a great deal of time was spent on systemising the organisation of workshops, with a view to achieving consistency of standards of organisation and delivery across offices and workshops. In this way the expectations of those who attended workshops about what the workshops provided could be aligned and the value of these events enhanced.

The Second Year

Although systems and procedures for the awards scheme had been established in the first year they needed constant attention and improvement during the second year. Call 2 could not be a simple repetition of the first, principally because of a change in the way of treating research overheads between Call 1 and Call2 brought about by the introduction of full economic costing (fEC) by the research councils. At that time many in the university system were bewildered by the new system. To add to the complexity, SPARC did not follow what was to become the conventional new system, but had its own rules about eligible costs. Nor had it followed the conventional previous overheads system. As a consequence a great deal of effort was devoted to explaining these requirements to potential applicants, their heads of department and to university finance officers.

By the time of Call 2 SPARC had been noticed by a wider community of researchers, so the level of interest was higher. In part this interest was stimulated by the announcement that BBSRC would supplement its share of the SPARC grant with a further £325,000 provided that the quality of applications achieved in the first call was maintained in the second. In the event, at the meeting of the advisory committee on 28^th March 2006, of 100 applications considered 69 were selected for further consideration. After receiving referees’ reports 28 were identified by the committee, at its meeting on 22^nd June 2006, as being above the threshold suitable for funding support. Following negotiations with EPSRC and BBSRC for further funding, 21 of these projects were supported. For this call, proposals had been processed and applicants informed of the outcome within four months, the target period for turning-round applications set out in the original proposal. This had not been possible for the first round largely because of the impact on the availability of referees during the summer holiday period. As with the first call, further information was sought from successful applicants and contracts agreed with the aim that the projects would commence in October 2006.

As there were to be no further calls for proposals, attention could then switch to supporting the award holders during the course of their projects, monitoring progress, agreeing interim payments and preparing to receive final reports on the first few projects funded through the first call. In parallel eleven workshops were organised and, as in the previous year, advocacy activities continued to be fruitful, although there was limited time available for these because of the time needed to run the awards scheme. By the second year the website had developed further. It included a great deal of information to support those interested in ageing research. Information was available about each project, including downloadable versions of hard-copy posters produced by the secretariat for each project team, most of the presentations made at the workshops, guides to organisations which fund research and to funding opportunities, announcements of forthcoming events and regular news items. The membership of the SPARC network had grown, leading to more frequent communication of items of interest through the SPARC mail-list, but maintenance of the membership list had become more time-consuming.

The Third Year

Work relating to the awards scheme was focused on monitoring progress and, then later, the receipt of the final reports of the completed projects, their assessment and dissemination through executive summaries and other means. Here again new systems and procedures had to be developed, although not as complex as those for the proposals. This was a period of close liaison with award holders, sometimes helping them to manage the realities of completing short-term projects on time. The contracts allowed up to three months after the end of the agreed funding period for producing a final report. A flexible interpretation of this period assisted some award holders, who in the main submitted their reports within a few weeks of the stipulated deadline. In the event only a handful of final reports were delayed for no apparent reason, although several projects negotiated extensions usually because of staffing problems, and variously because of difficulties in gaining ethical approval, delays in delivery of equipment, problems with laboratory animals and opportunities to extend the scope of a project afforded by additional resources being made available by others. During this third year 18 final reports were received of which three were considered by the advisory committee which met on 15^th May 2007.

With the prospect of producing 34 executive summaries and the need for a greater degree of skill in handling publicity, with considerable encouragement from Jane Reck, Press Officer of EPSRC, Dr Lucy Chappell was recruited as a part-time Publicity Officer. She took up her post in November 2007. Also, after a number of changes in personnel, Dr Nicky Hewson was recruited as coordinator at the Brighton office.

During the year a broad range of advocacy activities were undertaken, the very active web site became the most visited site for ageing research in the UK. Fourteen workshops were organised. This was well above the eight which had been budgeted for and was made possible because of additional funding being available from the research councils and other bodies for overseas events and because workshop hosts were able to meet many of the direct costs incurred in running workshops.

The Final Year

In the final year the three prime activities of awards, workshops and advocacy became very closely intertwined. There was a strong focus on handling the remaining final reports and on dissemination, especially promoting the findings from projects through workshops, publications and media activities. Most of the remaining final reports were considered by the advisory committee at its meetings on 19^th February 2008 and 23^rd June 2008.

During this final year the bulk of the executive summaries were produced as well as a compendium describing all of the SPARC projects. The writing of the executive summaries was a time consuming and exacting task, involving the secretariat and the award holders in several iterations before a satisfactory summary could be ‘signed off’. The aim was to produce summaries for an intelligent lay-audience, such as those who attended the SPARC workshops - professionals from housing, health, social services, voluntary bodies, industry and with similar backgrounds as well as older people, many of whom were retired professionals, and scientists. Whilst it was expected that the typical member of the audience for these summaries would not be an expert in many of the areas of research covered by SPARC, they were likely to have some familiarity with science and to be comfortable with the presentation of research where this was not over-complicated. Given the largely professional nature of the audience they were not expected to be put off by the occasional formula, graph or strange word. For example, many readers would know something about nutrition, not just about ‘good fats’ and ‘bad fats’ but the terminology as well, such as triglycerides, and would regard the use of these terms as being part and parcel of science communication. Too much simplification could be seen as condescending. Certainly, it was the case that plenty of professionals and older people had enjoyed hearing about the SPARC projects, as shown by the considerable support for SPARC events and, at least as far as the first few executive summaries were concerned, they appreciated reading about the projects as well. Nevertheless the production of the executive summaries was not straightforward.

Although an effective template for the summaries was developed and worked well for the design, engineering and some of the biological projects, some difficulties arose when using this for all remaining biological projects. For example there were some concerns about: jeopardizing the publication of unique data in leading journals because of prior publication in the summaries; the potential for readers to make inappropriate interpretations of findings from what were mainly pilot studies; and the lack of substantial results. So, for some of these projects the executive summaries had a simpler style and focus, and they were not produced at all for 11 projects.

During the year 13 workshops and several other events were organised. Where possible executive summaries of particular projects were timed to be released at the workshops. These included presentations about those projects, providing a good opportunity for issuing press notices and in some case stimulating media activity. In these cases printed copies of the summaries were provided to all workshop participants.

Important amongst the workshops were two national showcase events, in Wales and at the BA Festival, for which a special compendium of SPARC projects was written. Needless to say the preparations for the BA Festival, the UK’s premier annual science event, were extensive and time consuming but very worthwhile.

Interestingly, during this final year membership of SPARC accelerated. Even though it was clear that SPARC was coming to an end, those who became members very much wanted to be involved and because of the energy, enthusiasm and excitement which it engendered, expected that momentum would be maintained. Indeed some were aware that workshops were being planned for 2009 which would be viable even if the EPSRC funded KT-EQUAL programme, which it was hoped would take over from SPARC, did not transpire.

The other activities in the year included a substantial amount of advocacy work, for example leading to a significant involvement with Canada and, in a different sphere, the National Dementia Strategy, and those relating to final reporting and tidying up the many loose ends which are an inevitable feature of a wide ranging project. The last formal activities were a workshop for award holders and a Parliamentary reception both on 16^th December 2008.

Subsequent Activities

Following the formal end of SPARC presentations about the initiative were planned to continue to various audiences, at international conferences and to gatherings of scientists and community groups. Significantly, such was the standing of SPARC that it was invited to run a workshop at Include2009, a leading bi-annual international conference on Inclusive Design. Many papers and other publications on SPARC, for academic and professional journals were also planned, to add to those already published.

Previous - Next

Preface - Summary - Introduction - Resources and Activities - Awards Scheme - Workshops - Advocacy - Award Holders - Review - SPARC