Strategic Promotion of Ageing Research Capacity

Introduction

The initial interest of the research councils in what was to become SPARC was stimulated by the success of the EQUAL Network. This had brought together researchers and a wide range of stakeholders in ageing and disability through workshops where researchers, older and disabled people and those who worked with and for them, to explore the value of scientific research and the challenges of growing old or being disabled. The progress of these workshops were subject to much scrutiny, firstly, because they presented ageing research in quite a different way to approaches which were prevailing at the time, and secondly, because these workshops had been better received than these other approaches. An attractive feature was that because they were free to participants, key groups who would not normally be able to afford to attend such events could be involved, including older people, charity workers, health professionals, for example in primary care, and doctoral students. So continuing with workshops, principally for all-comers, and broadening their scope, was not only to be an important activity for SPARC but, given past successes, it was the activity about which the research councils and assessors of the SPARC proposal were most confident could be delivered to a high standard.

Offers to host workshops were received even before SPARC was officially announced, from those who were familiar with the EQUAL Network and wished to encourage continuity which could be achieved through SPARC. Two offers were quickly taken up and were used as events to launch SPARC in London and Glasgow. Other offers followed throughout the life of SPARC from a wide range of organisations. SPARC was built on a philosophy of working with the community. These offers, and responding to them, were very important. First, they showed that the community was interested and supportive of SPARC. Secondly, in responding to them, it was possible to show that SPARC was prepared to accommodate the interests of the community and not work to a fixed agenda. By the same token it was important that those who made the suggestions were also sufficiently committed to be able to provide some resources to what would become a joint event, and were not just looking to SPARC to run with their suggestions. The budgets for SPARC workshops had deliberately assumed that workshops would be run on the basis of sharing direct costs. For SPARC to generate workshop themes and to run them on their own would have been very much against this philosophy, apart from specific closed workshops to develop the skills of the award holders. However, not all hosts contributed to the direct costs although they did provide other resources, especially contacts and a valuable profile with particular communities of academics, local voluntary organisations and older people.

The principal aims of the workshops were to ensure that the non-academic stakeholders in ageing issues could come together with those from the academic community to hear about the latest research and about the challenges of growing older. These workshops were to supplement the range of scientific events normally available to researchers, not to act as a substitute for them, and to offer something that was different. The intention was that research supported by EPSRC and BBSRC through EQUAL, SAGE and ERA and other research council programmes should be showcased especially in the early days of SPARC before it was possible to include the SPARC projects, but it was also expected that work funded by other agencies would have some prominence. Further, there was a need to include inputs from practitioners and older people, and where this was not feasible for them to act as chair people, discussants and rapporteurs. Another reason for the workshops not acting solely as vehicles for SPARC projects, was to provide the opportunity for the award holders and their teams to meet and share the platforms with leading and, at times, very prestigious speakers. Indeed it was considered very important that SPARC should provide opportunities for others doing relevant work but operating outside of organised programmes of ageing research to present their work, and active steps were taken to ensure their involvement. Generally this was welcomed as SPARC provided a unique platform which was valued by many of these other research teams. Good examples are of SPARC workshops showcasing research on mobile health care, generated through an EPSRC Sandpit, the work of an EQUAL Consortium on rehabilitation and self-management of chronic conditions, and several projects in the NDA programme.

Workshops

Over the four years SPARC ran 47 workshops. These are listed in the Tables 4.1, 4.2 & 4.3 together with information about hosts and numbers of participants. Of these, 25 were all-comers workshops envisaged in the proposal as the principal type of event to be organised by SPARC, five were largely for older people and 17 were largely for scientists of which five were specifically for the SPARC award holders. Included in these numbers were ten international events, of which four were workshops within conferences, five were seminars with small invited groups and one was a conventional all-comers workshop. Several of the events attracted additional funding, for example for international events, from BBSRC and RSC, as did two events in 2008, from EPSRC and BBSRC. The latter were national showcase events, at the BA Festival, and in Wales, which was organised with OPAN Cymru with the close involvement of the Welsh Assembly Government.

Whilst the programme adopted for the majority of the workshops followed a fairly common structure, of short presentations and plenty of networking, there were a number of variations. For example, the showcase events were organised as a mixture of presentations and carousel sessions, which enabled greater degrees of audience participation and demonstrations. The three workshops entitled ‘Research for a better age’, specifically for older people, were quite short, run either side of lunch and had fewer presentations, whilst ‘A walk a day keeps a fall at bay’, also largely for older people, an all day event, was composed of a mixture of research presentations, briefings on services available to older people, and demonstrations of dance, tai chi and various exercise regimes. ‘Older people on the move’, also for older people, had a full programme, but solely of research presentations. Other workshops incorporated inputs from Government Ministers (in Wales and Ireland) and another included an address from HRH The Princess Royal.

During the course of the four years the demand for workshops and offers of support outstripped the capacity of the secretariat. So there were some opportunities which had to be forgone, especially in important areas such as nutrition, falls, vision, hearing, the cardio-vascular system and neurodegeneration but also for more general workshops concerned with active ageing. For those who suggested these workshops the interest was in: the contribution of current biological research to how an understanding the ageing process could assist the development of new treatments for the frailties and diseases of old age; and, the role of engineering research in designing environments and technologies to support those individuals who were disabled by frailty, illness or disease. Although the remit of BBSRC does not include the study or treatment of diseases of old age, many of the SPARC projects had potentially important contributions to understanding age-related decline and the factors which contribute to both health and ill-health, so workshops in these areas would have been relevant without compromising BBSRC’s position.

Table 4.1: Workshops, their hosts and number of participants – National Workshops – 2005-2007

Title	Host/Collaborator and Location	Date	Number of Participants (Non-academic %)	Office	Type
Maintaining Independence in Later Life	Brunel Institute for Bioengineering, Brunel University	February 2005	87 (48%)	R	A
Integrating Research on Ageing	Bioengineering Unit, Strathclyde University	March 2005	78 (26%)	R	A
Pharmacology and Ageing	Royal Pharmaceutical Society, London	April 2005	47 (34%)	B	A
Living with Stroke	Centre for Health and Social Care Research, Sheffield Hallam University	June 2005	64 (45%)	R	A
The Business Case for Ageing Research	Unilever R&D, Bedford	November 2005	61 (50%)	B	A
The Biology and Business of Stroke	TVLSN, Reading University	December 2005	97 (51%)	R	A
Research and Development in Long Term Care	CCC, The Guildhall, City of London	January 2006	80 (71%)	R	A
Design for Older People	Bugatti Institute, Coventry University	February 2006	85 (39%)	R	A
The Chemistry of Ageing	Royal Society of Chemistry, London	April 2006	50 (13%)	B	S
Research for a Better Age	Help the Aged & Brighton University, Eastbourne	October 2006	53 (88%)	B	O
Transport and Older People	Institute for Transport Studies, Leeds University	October 2006	80 (69%)	R	A
Dementia and Cognitive impairment	Eli Lilly & TVLSN, Windlesham	November 2006	98 (69%)	R	A
Old and Active: Maintaining the older person's health, activity and employment	LARCI, Birmingham	February 2007	81 (71%)	R	A
Ageing Research and Occupational Therapy	College of Occupational Therapists, London	March 2007	82 (80%)	R	A
Radical Chemistry and Biology	Royal Society of Chemistry, Glasgow University	March 2007	62 (10%)	B	S
A Walk a Day Keeps a Fall at Bay	Camden Active Health Team, Camden Centre	June 2007	177 (98%)	R	O
Research for a Better Age	Help the Aged, Penzance	August 2007	40 (94%)	B	O
Research for a Better Age	Help the Aged, Hexham	August 2007	75 (94%)	B	O
Older People on the Move	Help the Aged, Reading University	September 2007	80 (88%)	R	O
Understanding the Ageing Brain	CSLB, Cambridge University	September 2007	80 (30%)	R	A

Notes:1. A all-comers, O older people, S scientists or specialists; 2. R & B are the initials of the offices responsible for organising the event; 3. nearly all events included a briefing about SPARC.

Table 4.1 Continued: Workshops, their hosts and number of participants – National Workshops – 2008

Health, Workplace Design and the Older Worker,	TAEN & Help the Aged, London	January 2008		76 (71%)	R	A
Promoting Independence through New Technology	School of Systems Engineering, Reading University	March 2008		76 (79%)	R	A
Rehabilitation in Ageing: Regaining Function and Action	Department of Psychology, Birmingham University	April 2008		85 (44%)	R	A
Outdoors - a step too far? Older People and Mobility	SURFACE, Salford University	May 2008		68 (76%)	R	A
Housing, Health and Technology for Older People: Policy and Practice	CARDI, Belfast	June 2008 110 (81%)			R	A
Technologies for Health, Rehabilitation and Self Management of Long Term Conditions	BIME, Bath University	June 2008 79 (49%)			R	A
Growing Old in Wales: A Showcase of Ageing Research	OPAN Cymru, Swansea	July 2008	130 (79%)		R	A
Older People Going Places	BA Festival, Liverpool	September 2008 115 (70%)			R	A
Design Research and its Applications for Ageing Populations	Glasgow School of Art, Glasgow	November 2008 72 (52%)			R	A
Showcasing Ageing and Disability Research – lessons for policy and practice	CARDI & National Disability Authority, Dublin	December 2008 107 (82%)			R	A

Table 4.2: Workshops, their hosts and number of participants – International Workshops

Title	Host/Collaborator and Location	Date	Number of Participants (Non-academic %)	Office	Type
*Participation by Invitation*
Towards the Integrative Biology of Premature Ageing	BBSRC, Brighton University	October 2005	20 (20%)	B	S
Accessibility in Europe: UK/EU Experts	BRE, Watford	May 2006	24 (70%)	R	S
Anglo-Japanese Werner's Syndrome Consortium	Tokyo, Japan	March 2007 37 (20%)		B	S*
Canada meets UK on Design and Technology for Quality of Life in Old Age	FICCDAT Conference, Toronto, Canada	June 2007 33 (19%)		R	S
UK meets Canada: Opportunities for Collaboration	Royal College of Art, London	January 2008	20 (0%)	R	S
*Workshops within Conferences open to all delegates*
Transatlantic Collaboration and Young Grant Holders in Ageing	American Aging Association, Boston, USA	June 2006 60 (23%)		B	S*
Ageing: Is it all Bad News?	ESOF & Royal Society of Chemistry, Munich, Germany	July 2006	80 (58%)	B	A
New Technologies for Support and Care	BSG Conference, Sheffield Hallam University	September 2007	40 (29%)	R	A
Transatlantic Awareness and Collaboration in Aging Research	American Aging Association, Boulder, USA	June 2008 60 (23%)		B	S*

Note: 1. A all-comers, O older people, S scientists or specialists; 2. R & B are initials of offices responsible for organising the event; 3. nearly all events included a briefing about SPARC but * indicates that the workshops contained an extended briefing by Richard Faragher. 4. See also Showcasing Ageing and Disability Research – lessons for policy and practice, December 2008 held in Ireland.

Table 4.3: Workshops, their hosts and number of participants – Special Workshops for Researchers

Title	Host/Collaborator and Location	Date	Number of Participants (Non-academic %)	Office	Type
*For SPARC award holders and team members only*
Award Holders’ Workshop	Reading University	March 2006	47 (15%)	R	S
Proposal Writing Workshop	Brighton University	November 2006	46 (15%)	B	S
Award Holders’ Workshop	Reading University	January 2007	58 (11%)	R	S
Introduction to the Media	BBSRC, London	December 2007	20 (6%)	B	S
Award Holders’ Final Workshop	London	December 2008	48 (16%)	R	S
*Open workshops*
Funding Opportunities in FP7	British Council for Ageing, Birmingham University	February 2007	67 (15%)	B	S
Ageing and the Undergraduate Curriculum	British Council for Ageing, Keele University	May 2007	35 (3%)	B	S
Funding Ageing Research	NDA, London	March 2008	61 (7%)	B	S

Note: 1. A all-comers, O older people, S scientists or specialists; 2. R & B are initials of offices responsible for organising the event; 3. Nearly all events included a briefing about SPARC

Table 4.4: Planned workshop following the end of SPARC

Title

Host/Collaborator and Location

Date

Type of Participant

Office

Type

A celebration of SPARC.

An invited workshop to showcase SPARC within a major International conference

Include 2009, London

March 2009

Design researchers and practitioners

Participants

During the course of the four years about 3200 individuals attended the SPARC events, of whom half were from the academic world and half were non-academic stakeholders. As might be expected the profile of attendance differed greatly between the three types of event. Academics and researchers, including organisers, accounted for about just over 40% of the participants in all-comers events, 18% at those organised specifically for older people and 85% at those involved with events organised specifically for scientists. Non-academic stakeholders were not very engaged with events organised for scientists, but were very engaged with the other types of event. Across the four years and across all types of event the academic community accounted for about 38% of the participants, organisers and academic presenters about 13% and other stakeholders the remaining nearly 50%, predominately those occupying roles in health, housing and social services and in charities and voluntary organisations and older people. Reflecting the number of events organised and the growth in attendance at events, a consequence of SPARC’s increasing popularity, numbers attending events grew from nearly 500 in the first year to approaching 1100 in the final year. It may be significant that participation in SPARC all-comers workshops grew steadily throughout the life of SPARC, reflecting the reputation of the standards which it had established, in terms of relevance and quality of delivery and networking opportunities, thereby setting expectations by which future activities and those of others may be judged.

Table 4.5: Participation in workshops

Year/Audience	1	2	3	4	A	O	S	Total
	n	n	n	n	n	n	n	n
Business, Industry, Housing Associations	68	92	13	81	233	3	18	254
Charities, Voluntary Bodies, Individuals	38	141	310	217	507	179	20	706
Health, Social Services & Access Organisations	66	53	154	213	430	17	39	486
Government – Central, Regional, Local (not in above), Overseas	18	28	23	79	121	4	23	148
Academics, Students	207	300	359	376	717	21	504	1242
Organisers, Academic Presenters	77	89	108	138	279	24	109	412
Total	474	703	967	1104	2287	248	713	3248

Year/Audience	1	2	3	4	A	O	S	Total	EQUAL
	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%	%
Business, Industry, Housing Associations	14.3	13.1	1.3	7.3	10.2	1.2	2.5	7.8	11.6
Charities, Voluntary Bodies, Individuals	8.0	20.1	32.1	19.7	22.2	72.2	2.8	21.7	18.2
Health, Social Services & Access Organisations	13.9	7.5	15.9	19.3	18.8	6.9	5.5	15.0	18.7
Government – Central, Regional, Local (not in above), Overseas	3.8	4.0	2.4	7.2	5.3	1.6	3.2	4.6	8.7
Academics, Students	43.7	42.7	37.1	34.1	31.4	8.5	70.7	38.2	37.6
Organisers, Academic Presenters	16.2	12.7	11.2	12.5	12.2	9.7	15.3	12.7	15.2
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0

Notes: 1. A all-comers, O older people, S scientists or specialists; 2. Estimated for four events - AAA 2006, ESOF 2006, Japan 2007, AAA 2008

Figure 4.1 Participation in workshops

A comparison with the EQUAL Network is most appropriate for the all-comers workshops where the main difference is that SPARC workshops had a lower representation from central and regional government. It is not entirely clear why this should be the case, although gaining the interest of DH in the SPARC health-related workshops was much more difficult than involving representatives of DCLG, DEFRA, its predecessor ODPM, and DfT with EQUAL.

Reviews

For each of the SPARC workshops extensive feedback was gathered from participants about the value of the event and requesting suggestions for those aspects which went well and those which, in the future, ought to require some attention. Many respondents did not stint with this feedback highlighting both strengths and weaknesses. This extensive qualitative feedback was carefully reviewed and acted upon so as to improve the quality of workshops and their value to participants. Respondents also scored their satisfaction with six key aspects each on a six point scale. The average scores for workshops grouped by year and audience over the four years are summarised in Table 4.6. There is a surprising degree of consistency between these averages, yet as the standard deviations based on the variation between scores within workshops, and the highest and lowest average scores for workshops over the four years reveal, there was also a good degree of variation in individual responses. Respondents were very discerning, and quite clearly some workshops were more successful than others. However, there were no obvious trends or associations. Of the key aspects, the administration of the workshops was rated most highly and consistently, reflecting the investment in SPARC as a facilitating organisation. Venues and catering often scored lowly. So many issues can arise which can be irritating for participants, even at events for which there is no charge to attend. Supposedly excellent facilities can fall short in terms of provision of PA systems and hearing loops, and it is difficult to provide refreshments which are to everybody’s taste. Importantly, while responses varied, all workshops received strong average scores for their usefulness, presentations which were interesting and networking which was worthwhile.

Table 4.6: Participants’ evaluation of the workshops – average scores on each of six items

Year/Audience	1	2	3	4	A	O	S	Total	s.d.	Highest average	Lowest average	EQUAL
Number of workshops with reviews	7	9	12	11	22	5	12	39				12
Review item	ave	ave	ave	ave	ave	ave	ave	ave				ave
Useful	5.1	5.1	5.0	5.1	5.0	5.2	5.1	5.1	0.79	5.89	4.76	4.9
Presentations	5.1	5.2	5.2	5.3	5.2	5.3	5.2	5.2	0.72	5.79	4.80	5.4
Networking	5.2	5.2	5.1	5.1	5.1	5.0	5.3	5.1	0.87	6.00	4.39	5.0
Venue	5.2	5.0	5.1	5.0	5.1	5.3	4.9	5.1	0.82	5.79	4.00	4.9
Catering	5.2	4.8	5.1	5.1	5.1	5.1	4.8	5.0	0.89	5.71	4.13	4.9
Administration	5.5	5.5	5.6	5.5	5.6	5.5	5.5	5.5	0.65	5.79	5.14	5.4

Notes: 1. Based on 1560 workshop review forms.2. Respondents scored each item on a scale of: 1 – very poor, 2 – poor, 3 – unsure, 4 – good, 5 – very good, 6 – excellent. A-All-comers, O – Older people, S- scientists or specialists.

Also, by way of comparison it is possible to consider the average scores achieved for the EQUAL Network workshops, which had pioneered the format of the all-comers workshops. It is clear that SPARC maintained the high standards achieved by EQUAL and exceeded them very marginally in all areas except presentations where the overall average for SPARC was slightly lower. The explanation for this lies with the broader scope of many of the SPARC workshops and possibly the deliberate policy of SPARC of fielding both very experienced and relatively inexperienced speakers, for example some of the early-career award holders, whereas EQUAL had tended to field just very experienced speakers. The spread of scores across all workshops for which feedback is available for each of the six items is given in Figure 4.2.

Figure 4.2: Participants’ evaluation of the workshops – frequency of scores on each of six items

Written feedback, as distinct from the scores, was also consistently positive especially for the all-comers workshops. Many comments reflected that SPARC provided a relaxed yet structured environment for the presentation of material which could be quite technical but because of the mixture of presentations was not over-burdensome for those who were not specialists; workshops were seen to be serious, informed but not overly-academic. Participants valued the opportunity for networking with what was usually considered to be a refreshing and unusual range of participants. This was assisted by very close attention to detail (for example extensive advance information about those participants, permission to add emails and information about an individual’s key interests on the attendance sheet and colour coded name badges). The events were considered to be professionally organised with a sensitivity for the needs of all stakeholders and the requirements of specific participants, which at times could be quite demanding. The focus of some of the workshops on the needs of particular interest groups, for example, pharmaceutical firms, construction firms, local authorities, and occupational therapists, was seen as particularly valuable.

Much of the success of SPARC workshops came from the attention to detail made possible by employing coordinators who regularly organised workshops and through a careful review and post-mortem of each event. This was especially important for the management of the networking activities which were a vital part of each workshop. For example, about ten days prior to each event participants received joining information which included a list of expected participants and key words reflecting their special interests, presented in a way which was inclusive for non-researchers. As a result, some participants arrived at workshops with a list of people they wished to meet. On the day of an event the same information was provided but with email addresses, except those of the very few who asked that these not be revealed. This provided a useful compendium which was often retained for future reference.

The feedback from those workshops which were principally for older people was similar and very positive, especially in their appreciation of the endeavours of young scientists and recognition of the professionalism of the more mature researchers. However feedback was not without criticism of presentation skills, especially of some of the less experienced presenters, and of some of the venues.

The feedback from those workshops principally for researchers generally endorsed the focus of these on information provision, skills development and networking. The international events generated strong feedback on the value of showcasing UK research, which had been extremely well received. Some scientists from overseas had remarked at how much of the work presented at these international events must be “some of the UK’s best kept secrets”. Although the intense interest in UK research is always welcome and reinforce the reasons for establishing SPARC, these comments underline concerns about the poor representation of design, engineering and biological ageing research overseas during the last decade.

Throughout the life of SPARC there were frequent requests to expand the number and size of workshops. However, for many individuals, large conferences are unsatisfactory meeting places, too expensive, and often populated by “the same faces and same rhetoric as ten years ago”. SPARC’s response was to organise many more workshops than originally planned. Even so these were very thinly spread across ageing issues and across the UK, because of the breadth of SPARC’s remit. Nevertheless, the approach of SPARC, of developing workshops in response to the suggestions and offers from stakeholders in ageing, rather than the directors generating workshops thought to be of value, and designing workshops with broad appeal, was generally recognised as having made a significant contribution to the development of ageing research in the UK.

Award Holders

A major aim of SPARC was to ensure that the award holders had plenty of opportunities to meet and rub shoulders with the potential users and beneficiaries of their work, with scientists and professionals from other disciplines and with older people, through attending and, on occasion, presenting at SPARC workshops. All but three project teams presented their work at least once to a SPARC workshop, but these three did present their work at conferences which received financial support from SPARC, as shown in Table 4.7.

One project was presented at five workshops. Four were presented at four workshops, five at three workshops, most at two and a few at one. However, although projects were presented more frequently than originally intended, of the 34 projects only 23 were presented to audiences of all-comers, the type of workshop which lay at the heart of the SPARC philosophy. Finally, representatives of most of the SPARC project teams attended more than just those workshops at which they presented their work and the award holders workshops which they were obliged to attend. One team had representatives at ten workshops, some others had representatives at between six and nine. However a handful of teams were noticeably absent and were not able to benefit in the way that the other teams had from the experience of meeting and networking with other scientists, professionals and older people, or from hearing about the work of others or being part of SPARC.

Table 4.7: Presentations of SPARC projects made at SPARC workshops

Domain of the projects	Ethnography	Modelling	Health	Biology	Total
Number of projects	8	9	8	9	34
Number of presentations made at workshops with an audience of predominantly:
All-comers	20	16	5	2	42
Older people	3	3	1	3	10
Scientists	1	1	5	7	14
Total	24	20	11	12	66