Introduction
Whilst SPARC pursued a range of objectives, the most significant was the development of the award holders through supporting them and their projects in a variety of ways, not just through funding. This section reviews the reflections of the award holders on their experience as SPARC award holders. It also considers various aspects of their activities as a result of their receiving awards, especially those relating to publication, dissemination and seeking further funding.
Reflections of Award
Holders
Accompanying each final report was a summary of factual information about each project covering costs, the identity of collaborators, career progression and achievements of members of the research team. This final report also contained the reflections of award holders on the experience and insights gained in running their SPARC projects and the contribution which their involvement with SPARC had made to their development in the field of ageing research.
An Introduction to the
Field of Ageing Research
Of particular interest was the extent to which the projects had given the award holders and their team members an introduction, training and experience of ageing research.
All award holders responded positively. Most provided detailed comments. The most frequent was that the SPARC projects had provided a “superb” introduction to ageing research and to the importance of the area. About half used terms such as “excellent”, “invaluable”, “fundamental”, “wonderful”, “ developmental” and “ stimulating”. The breadth of the experience was mentioned frequently, variously covering the subject areas which were being studied, the value of working with collaborators, experts and mentors, the contacts made, the introduction to working directly with older people, and new research methods and technologies which had been employed.
Some of those at a very early stage in their careers commented that SPARC had been invaluable in providing a bridge from being a recently completed doctoral researcher to becoming an independent researcher, knowledgeable about managing research projects and bidding for funding.
For both early-career and experienced award holders key features of the SPARC experience had been, for example, the development of new collaborations, often with individuals from other disciplines, the development of a greater familiarity of ways of working with older people, voluntary agencies, and professionals, for example in the health sector, and the opportunity to gather credible preliminary data. These contributed to the development of a track record in ageing research which, together with other contributions from SPARC, had “opened doors”, not least for securing funding for future projects and studentships.
Over half of the respondents stressed, often in superlative terms, the importance of the SPARC infrastructure. There were two main areas of comment. Firstly, the SPARC workshops were seen as providing exceptional opportunities for development, for presenting work and forums for discussion, meeting older people and practitioners, making contacts, and sharing experiences and frustrations with other researchers. Secondly, the SPARC secretariat was seen to be “incredibly” and “totally” supportive of award holders.
Constraints
However, there had been some constraints. About half of the respondents mentioned the difficulties encountered because of the time scale of the projects. There were two main issues. Firstly, for those working directly with older people and communities there was the time taken to recruit older people and to gain the trust of communities. Here there was the added issue that in gaining the required level of involvement much enthusiasm and encouragement had been generated only for the project to end shortly afterwards, prompting the comments such as “Imagine what could have been achieved in three years”. Some award holders anticipated these problems and so, in the interests of completing a well-rounded project, they limited their level of interaction with older people, yet recognised that a longer project would have benefitted greatly from more interaction. The second issue was quite simply that a year or 18 months was “too short in which to do a decent study” and to produce publishable data. Yet these comments were made by those who had achieved some strong publications from their SPARC work and, generally, it was recognised that SPARC was a pump-priming activity, so project time scales were not unrealistic. Few other constraints were mentioned but those which were noted included: logistical difficulties unrelated to funding or time scales, the impact of a physical reorganisation of an award holder’s institution, and an unsupportive institution.
Smooth Running Projects
About two thirds of the award holders claimed that their projects had run very much as planned, to time and budget, although to achieve this several “had to do much more work than expected”. However, in the main, the issues faced were those identified earlier as constraints, for example those which were either unexpected or were more difficult to overcome than had been expected. A third of the award holders gave detailed accounts of the lengthy time required to recruit volunteers, although were very pleased with the outcome, especially the data and other information gathered, and to gain access to organisations, which was particularly problematic for some projects.
About a third of the projects required a change in methodology, mostly not significant changes. In some cases this was due to advice from mentors and other experts; advice which subsequently enriched the projects. In other cases initial methods were not effective, for example in one project this led to questionnaire surveys being substituted for formal interviews, and in another different laboratory techniques being used to those planned. Technical issues were experienced by several of the laboratory based projects ranging from poor biological materials, unsatisfactory performance of collaborating laboratories, late delivery of equipment, and problems caused by restrictions on animal movements imposed during the course of a project. However, although significant changes were made to a few, no project was completely redesigned. In some cases there was a realisation that the projects were overambitious and in others there were unexpected staffing and organisational issues.
Organisational Issues
Staffing issues were reflected in comments about the management and organisation of the projects. Only a handful of award holders claimed that they had “few difficulties”. Most had some, but in the main the difficulties had not had a major impact on the projects. A few award holders were concerned about the length of time required to recruit research staff and students in such a short time scale, a few had problems due to staff departing or being on sick leave, and some commented on the difficulty of managing staff who were part-time or shared with others.
However, the main issues were those of recruiting and organising volunteers, which was much more time-consuming than expected, and engaging professionals and keeping them involved with the projects. Some felt that the short time scale of the projects exacerbated the problems whilst others claimed that this required recognising that the essence was working to tight time schedules. Finally, a few projects experienced difficulties with the quality of biological materials and reliability of their supply, and others had problems with poorly performing collaborators.
In carrying out their SPARC projects nearly all award holders had strong support from their institutions. In the main those at early-career were well supported, some reflecting this in terms such as “generous” and “exemplary”. The support they received varied but often included reduced teaching loads, additional funding and the allocation of doctoral students. The more experienced award holders were less reliant on special institutional consideration as they had better access to resources and most also reported full support. There were, however, three award holders who reported that they were not supported by their institutions. The impression is that from the outset they may have failed to recognise that whilst SPARC offered opportunities for both personal and institutional development it relied on a partnership between SPARC and the institution. In these cases the institutions may not have been fully cognisant of the nature of SPARC or appreciative of the obligations entailed when accepting a contract for a SPARC award.
Findings and Benefits to Society
When asked about the main findings of their projects most award holders emphasised the results of, for example, experiments, trials and surveys, which were, of course, their main objective. These results are too diverse to summarise here. However, others were concerned to mention the research process (for example, ways of involving older people in research, and new laboratory methods) and the analytical frameworks developed in the course of the projects.
The responses to a question about how the projects could benefit society were many and varied. These too are difficult to summarise. Some emphasised the potential contribution to helping individuals meet their needs and aspirations in their normal daily routines through the better design of products, facilities and services and enhanced understanding of, say, diet and exercise . Other responses were more concerned with the potentially valuable insights gained into specific aspects of ageing, such as the basic mechanisms of cell ageing, nutrition, falls, and memory. Even though at an early stage, these offered interesting propositions for life styles, combating disease, therapies and rehabilitation, which subsequent research could take further. Underlying some comments, and in some cases quite explicit, was the view that in order to benefit society it was necessary actively to promote research findings and to raise a debate. Clearly this endorsed what SPARC had set out to achieve.
Personal Benefits
The personal benefits of being involved with SPARC were many and varied. Nine award holders stated that their involvement with SPARC had contributed significantly to securing promotion either at their own universities or at others, as it had for at least four co-investigators of the six who were particularly active. This was also true for at least four research staff, who had achieved, for example, promotion at either their own or at other universities, prestigious fellowships, and for three very young researchers, doctoral studentships. Another four award holders had been appointed to more responsible positions in their universities or departments. The situation at October 2008 is given in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1: Personal development of SPARC research team members
|
|
Principal Investigator |
Co-investigator or similar |
|
Promotion to: |
|
|
|
Professor |
|
1 |
|
Reader |
4 |
1 |
|
Senior
lecturer |
1 |
|
|
Principal
lecturer |
1 |
|
|
Senior
research fellow |
1 |
|
|
Permanent
lectureship |
|
1 |
|
Better appointment at
another institution |
2 |
|
|
Appointment to prestigious
fellowship |
|
1 |
Note: This table refers to
the 27 award holders who were not professors at the time their projects began
and six very active co-investigators.
Quality Research
SPARC was essentially a pump-priming exercise, to enable newcomers to get started in ageing research, so it might be expected that the outcomes from the projects would vary greatly. Whilst some award holders may have been conscious of the limitations of their short studies, many had engaged in extensive the dissemination activities through scientific workshops, conferences and journals. Some had enjoyed close contact with practitioners and policy makers as a result of their work.
The award holders were asked about indicators of research quality in their fields. All mentioned publications, with some emphasising those journals which are peer-reviewed and with high impact, as a prime indicator, although other forms of publication were also mentioned as important. Nearly all of those involved with design and engineering-related research and a lone biologist, also nominated the adoption and exploitation of research by practitioners and policy makers. Some mentioned that in building credibility, tailor-made reports and workshops for end users and beneficiaries were an important indicator of quality; and, a few, from across all fields, mentioned patents. Several biologists said that as their work could not be taken directly into practice, so adoption of their work by other scientists was important.
Comments also reflected the great importance of other aspects of peer-approval as an indicator of quality, including, citation in publications, being highlighted in journal editorials, invitations to address conferences, securing grants through competition, and generating interest in a field to such a level that it leads to the development of new scientific associations.
Finally, and of some significance, some felt that an important dimension of quality in ageing research was that of relevance, reflected in involvement with policy makers, the recognition of the value of a study by participating organisations, levels of interest in a study by older people and practitioners, and the extent to which findings resonate with the experience of these other stakeholders.
Dissemination and Advancing
Knowledge
Given the comments above it may be hardly surprising that all award holders indicated that they intended to produce publications about their SPARC projects for journals in their own fields and, where appropriate, for example, for multidisciplinary journals and journals in other fields. Most also indicated an intention to make further presentations of their work, with different respondents emphasising different audiences, for example practitioners and older people, specialist groups and learned societies, national and international scientific conferences and, where possible, further SPARC or similar events. More than a few had already done so.
Other award holders had engaged in other forms of dissemination. One had organised a special conference for key decision makers to encourage building on the support they had gained from local authorities and voluntary bodies when undertaking their work. A special report had been produced for this event. A few award holders had incorporated findings from their projects into MSc courses and training materials for professionals. Others were busy using the knowledge gained from their projects, in the role of experts or consultants. One mentioned that as a result of the SPARC workshops he had realised the importance of public engagement and now was very much involved with introducing school children to the world of microbiology and ageing research.
Respondents were realistic about the extent to which their projects had advanced knowledge. At the most general level about one third, all biologists, considered that their work had either raised key questions and issues or provided data and insights for the research community to work with and to debate, whilst another third, mostly biologists, felt that their work offered better techniques and tools for researchers. Those more involved with design and engineering made similar comments but orientated towards practitioner rather than research communities. So, for example, insights gained from SPARC into older people as drivers or workers were as relevant to policy makers and practitioners as to researchers, as were the tools which were developed for engaging older people in consultations about design issues.
The Future
Looking to the future most award holders were optimistic. Two thirds indicated that their institutions had identified ageing as a priority area. Some were actively supporting the development of this priority, others were encouraging more proposal writing. Over a third, mostly early-career award holders, mentioned practical support which was being given to them in the form of reduced teaching loads, funding students and research staff, laboratory facilities and provision of travel funds.
Over two thirds of award holders claimed to be actively seeking further funding and were very busy writing and submitting proposals; most of these had already been successful in some way. Some were especially keen to become involved with multidisciplinary projects and were already fully engaged with NDA activities. A few were busy with recruiting doctoral students and developing student projects, at masters and undergraduate level, focused on their interest in ageing. Others were working with a range of agencies, local and national, and voluntary bodies as well as older people applying and extending their new found expertise.
As it is some time since the final reports were submitted, and on which this commentary is based, many award holders will have been able to take their aspirations, and the initial developments mentioned above, much further.
Dissemination
By December 2008, when
the final survey was completed, most
award holders had been very active in their dissemination activities, but with
varying success. Some were orientated towards the production of journal
articles and refereed conference papers, others were orientated towards
presentations to a mix of audiences, and a good number were attempting to
operate across the board, as shown in Tables 6.2 and 6.3. However, a few of those with a strong
academic orientation or seeking to operate across the board had yet to have any
journal papers accepted, so they had yet to achieve their strategy.
Those award holders with a strong professional orientation cited important invitations to address national conferences of relevant bodies and to give public lectures, whilst rather more than a third of all award holders had received invitations to make presentations at international conferences (as opposed to standard conference presentations). Some were pleased to have had their proposals for symposia within conferences accepted as these allowed them to elaborate their SPARC projects and related themes. Some research team members had been given opportunities to present their work at national and international conferences and professional meetings as a result of submitting papers, but some papers had been presented as a result of invitations from conference organisers. Most of these team members were co-authors of papers led by the award holders; a few had taken the lead with producing conference papers.
Table 6.2: Types of
dissemination by the research teams
|
Type |
Number of Teams |
|
Refereed journal papers and
chapters in books |
|
|
Published
or in press (three or more) |
9 |
|
Published
or in press (one or two) |
9 |
|
Most
advanced paper (although others may have been in preparation): |
|
|
In
revision |
3 |
|
Submitted |
2 |
|
In
preparation |
2 |
|
Refereed conference papers
and published abstracts in journals |
23 |
|
Other types of conference
paper |
19 |
|
Presentations of other
types (excluding those at conferences above and SPARC workshops) |
30 |
|
Invited presentations
(included in above) |
|
|
At
conferences |
10 |
|
To
organisations |
13 |
|
Either |
20 |
|
Presentations at SPARC
workshops or SPARC supported event |
34 |
|
Incorporation of findings
into course materials |
6 |
In a similar vein some of the early-career researchers saw it as significant that they had been invited to write reviews for important journals, to act as editors for books, to join editorial boards, to review proposals for research councils and other funding bodies and to join panels advising other universities on ageing research. Many mentioned making invited presentations to all manner of groups in the UK (including briefing government departments and parliamentary events). A few mentioned: their involvement with developing good practice guides and the like for practitioners; work with community groups; and the development of training and course materials.
Table 6.3: Dissemination strategies being pursued by the SPARC teams
|
Basic Strategy |
Number |
Examples |
|
All |
5 |
At least thee refereed
journal papers and/or book chapters published or accepted; also had several
refereed conference papers, and other papers and/or presentations, often
invited |
|
|
6 |
At least one refereed
journal paper or book chapter published or accepted; also had several
refereed conference papers, and other papers and/or presentations, often
invited |
|
|
5 |
Although papers has been
prepared for refereed journals, submitted or were in revision, they had not
yet been accepted; but had several refereed conference papers, and other
papers and/or presentations, often invited |
|
Academic |
4 |
At least three journal
papers and/or book chapters published or accepted; in some cases also had refereed
and/or other conference papers |
|
|
3 |
At least one journal paper
or book chapters published or accepted; in some cases also had refereed
and/or other conference papers |
|
|
2 |
Although papers has been
prepared for refereed journals, submitted or were in revision, they had not
yet been accepted; but in some cases had refereed and/or other conference
papers |
|
Presentations |
7 |
Largely presentations,
frequently invited often by professional or business organisations, and
conference papers |
|
Not Known |
2 |
|
Further Funding
Most award holders mentioned the development of new collaborations, often international, sometimes multidisciplinary, which were leading towards new projects. In some cases the resulting proposals were successful, usually with the award holder acting as co-investigator. Several mentioned that they had secured awards, some more than one award, during the course of or shortly after completing their SPARC projects. Some of these new awards were substantial. Others were quite small but nevertheless achieving these awards was a sign of useful progress. Clearly some award holders were more successful than others but most of those who had been knocked back were optimistic. Quite a few investigators were involved with NDA proposals, in various guises, with varying degrees of success. By all accounts generally they fared better than those who had not been involved with SPARC possibly reflecting the value of the familiarisation with ageing and the credibility facilitated by SPARC.
At the time of making their initial reports the situation with follow-on funding for the award was as follows: five had secured several awards and were principal investigators or equivalent on at least one of these, two had awards as principal investigator and two had an award as a co-investigator but on such significant projects for them to be regarded as equivalent to principal investigators status, and ten were involved with projects, some major, as co-investigators. A further four had secured small awards, fellowships for staff and studentships (excluding those as part of SPARC). Of the others, five had made unsuccessful applications and the others had not yet made any applications. It must be noted that this was the state of play just three months after the end of each of the SPARC projects. However, even at that stage the extent of activity in soliciting further funding at this stage was quite surprising.
The situation had clarified by December 2008. This is summarised in Tables 6.4 – 6.7. These provide various perspectives on what had been achieved in terms of securing further funding. The tables reflect a great deal of activity on the part of many of the award holders and their teams, but relatively little on the part of some others. On average the project teams had bid for funding for about four projects, but the reality was that some had bid for many more and a few had not bid at all, and regardless of bidding frequency some had done very well and others had yet to be successful. Interestingly, some of the award holders had concentrated on seeking funds from the research councils whilst others had concentrated on making bids to research charities. In all, a great variety of funding organisations received bids. Table 6.6 classifies the award holders in terms of their success in securing further awards. It shows that despite the short passage of time since the completion of most projects there had been many successes, although some of these follow-on projects had been secured during the life of the SPARC projects.
A crude estimate of the value of the projects secured, counting only a proportion of the value of those projects for which an award holder was a co-investigator or partner, was about £9.8m, of which about £6m was from research council sources and research charities with a strong academic mission, such as RiA.
Finally in this analysis of the funding secured, Table 6.8 suggests that in some respects those who undertook ethnographic projects had been relatively more successful in securing follow on funding than those involved with other types of projects, but this is largely explained by this group having proportionately more mature and very experienced researchers as award holders, who because of their experience should have been more able to secure such funding. Certainly, overall this group was more successful, which is only to be expected. Nevertheless a high proportion of the less experienced and very early-career researchers had also been very successful, and were clearly building their careers as competitive researchers.
Table 6.4: Bidding
patterns of SPARC teams
|
Number teams: |
Had Bid for at least one
project |
Successful with at least
one Bid |
Pending Bids |
Total number of bids made |
Total number of successes |
|
Large projects >£100k |
N |
N |
N |
N |
N |
|
As PI |
23 |
10 |
7 |
49 |
16 |
|
As CI |
20 |
11 |
3 |
37 |
16 |
|
As Partner |
8 |
7 |
1 |
9 |
6 |
|
Medium sized projects
£50k-£100k |
|
|
|
|
|
|
As PI |
4 |
2 |
0 |
4 |
4 |
|
As CI |
3 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
|
As Partner |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
|
Small Projects <£50k or
value uncertain |
|
|
|
||
|
As PI |
11 |
9 |
2 |
19 |
16 |
|
As CI |
5 |
4 |
0 |
8 |
7 |
|
As Partner |
7 |
6 |
0 |
7 |
6 |
Notes: This table probably
understates the number of bids made. Partner refers to being named in a
consortium bid but not as a major player.
Table 6.5: Funders of
successful bids
|
Size of project |
n |
Funders |
|
Large projects >£100k |
|
|
|
As PI |
16 |
EPSRC 3, NDA Major Package 2, RiA, BHF 2, JRF, DMT, DfT, HEIF, Fight for
Sight, HRT 2, RiA fellowship |
|
As CI |
12 |
BBSRC 5,EPSRC,
BHF, Marie-Curie, Stroke Assn, JISC, DfT, LLHW |
|
As Partner |
6 |
NDA project 2, BBSRC studentships 2, HRT
studentships, BHF studentships |
|
Medium sized projects
£50k-£100k |
||
|
As PI |
4 |
MRC, RiA, Pocklington, Lincoln CC |
|
As CI |
2 |
BBSRC, RSC |
|
Small Projects <£50k or
value uncertain |
||
|
As PI |
16 |
BBSRC, ESRC, NHS, NICE, HtA, WAG, British
Council, JISC 3, Industry 2, James
Tudor, HRT, Lord Dowding, Japan
Partnering |
|
As CI |
7 |
Japan Partnering, GOSW, MRC studentship, NHS, EU 2,
SFC |
|
As Partner |
6 |
NDA network 5, Local network |
Table 6.6: Awards received by SPARC teams during or following their
SPARC projects
|
Group |
N |
Details |
Nature of Support |
|
|
A |
PI on at least one large
project (>£100k) |
10 |
Most of these project teams
had secured other activities variously as CI on large projects, PI on small
projects, partnerships in networks and studentships. Active bidding for
grants usually as PI. Typically bid for 4 and successful with 3. |
5 led large RC awards, 5 led
research charity awards. RC support sought by 7, and received by 5. |
|
B |
PI on at least one medium
sized project (£50k-100k) and CI on at least one large project |
2 |
These were also either PIs
on small projects, or partners in network. Active bidding for grants roughly
equally as PI or CI, typically bidding for 6, and successful with 4. |
Both were PI and CI on
medium and large awards (for one these was an RC award, for the other they were
not), and both supported by RCs. |
|
C |
CI on at least one large
project and involved with other activities. |
6 |
These had an active
portfolio of work, also often as PI and sometimes as CI on small projects or
involved as a partner in networks. Active bidding for grants, usually as CI
sometimes as PI, typically bidding for 6 7, and successful with 3 or 4. |
All had some form of RC
support. |
|
D1 |
CI on at least one large
project or |
2 |
Active in bidding typically
for large grants, as PI or CI, typically bidding for 4 or 5, successful with
1. |
All were supported by other
sources. RC support sought by 1. |
|
D2 |
PI on a small project
(<£50k) |
2 |
||
|
E |
Small activity, small
project or network partner |
4 |
Active in bidding typically
for large grants, mostly as CI, typically bidding for 3 or 4, and successful
with 1 |
RC support sought by 3, and
received by 2. |
|
F |
Active but not yet
successful |
6 |
Typically bidding for 3 or 4. |
All had bid to RCs for
support. |
|
G |
Little activity |
2 |
No bids or one bid or not
known. |
|
Table 6.7: Summary of awards
received by SPARC teams during or following their SPARC projects
|
Had made bids for large or medium-sized awards: |
N |
% |
|
as Principal
Investigator |
27 |
79 |
|
as
Co-investigator but not Principal Investigator |
4 |
12 |
|
Had secured large or medium-sized awards: |
|
|
|
as Principal
Investigator (A and B above) |
12 |
36 |
|
as Co-investigator
but not as Principal Investigator (C and D1) |
8 |
24 |
|
No large or medium-sized awards but had secured a small
awards as Principal Investigator or was a Partner in a network (E and D2) |
6 |
18 |
|
Active (F) |
6 |
18 |
|
Inactive, relatively inactive or not known (G) |
2 |
6 |
Table 6.8: Type of project by award group
|
Award Group |
Type of project |
Research experience of
award holder |
|
||||
|
|
Ethno-graphic |
Modelling |
Health |
Biology |
Mature and experienced |
Less experienced and very early-career |
Total |
|
PIs - A & B* |
5 |
1 |
3 |
3 |
6 |
6 |
12 |
|
CIs - C & D1 |
- |
4 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
6 |
8 |
|
Small - E & D2 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
- |
2 |
4 |
6 |
|
Searching - F |
- |
2 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
6 |
|
Uncertain -G |
- |
1 |
- |
1 |
- |
2 |
2 |
|
Total |
8 |
9 |
8 |
9 |
12 |
22 |
34 |
Note: * see Table 6.6
Figure 6.1: Funding secured by type of project
Development of the award holders and their teams
To conclude this section on the award holders is an assessment of the added value to the award holders of the workshop, advocacy and other support activities of SPARC, that is in addition to having received SPARC awards.
Securing further support
Assessing the contribution of SPARC to the development of the award holders in the field of ageing research is not straightforward. In the absence of SPARC some of the award holders would have continued their quest for support in the field of ageing and eventually would have been successful. Indeed, this was the case for some who continued to seek other support during the life of SPARC. It is clear that they were quite capable of making their own way in the field. About a quarter of the award holders were so active that the contribution of SPARC to their success in the field of ageing is best judged in terms of the benefits of their accumulated portfolio of ageing research including SPARC, rather than solely as an outcome of SPARC.
On the other hand about half made it clear that their success in securing further awards was due to the benefits of having had a SPARC project. Further, most of those who had yet to secure a follow-on award were building on their SPARC projects as the foundation for their future work in the ageing field.
The grants which had been secured can be classified to two types. Firstly, there were those from the research councils and those research charities which have a strong academic mission, such as RiA, secured by 17 of the award holders. Secondly, there were awards from funders with a particular focus, such as research charities concerned with particular diseases of old age or particular issues faced by older people, for example the Stroke Association and JRF, as well as government organisations such as NICE, secured by 16. These two types of funder parallel two key dimensions pursued by SPARC in support of the award holders; firstly, the development of their academic strength and, secondly, assisting their understanding and helping with the development of strong relationships with particular communities of interest outside of the academic world. Taking this perspective the funding received can be distributed as shown in Table 6.9.
Table 6.9 Estimates of funding secured
|
Source of funding |
Probably
on own account |
Definitely
SPARC influenced |
|
Research council and
research charities such as RiA |
£2.4m |
£3.7m |
|
Research charities with
strong focus on health or social issues such as BHF, JRF and government
bodies |
£2.3m |
£1.4m |
Publications
Just as academics have to secure research funding in order to progress their careers, so they have to publish in academic journals and research-orientated books. Here too it might be argued that the award holders would have published the findings of whatever research they happened to be engaged with, thus making it difficult to claim that SPARC had done much to enhance their level of publication. This is especially the case for some of the award holders with strong publishing track records prior to SPARC. However, it is reasonable to assert that by virtue of introducing the award holders to ageing research the topics areas chosen for the publications and the quality of the work reported had been influenced by SPARC support. There were 29 award holders with refereed publications based on their SPARC projects.
Whilst academic publications are part and parcel of academic life, the production of publications suitable for non-scientific audiences does not figure strongly. For many award holders, even those with many years research experience, the executive summaries of their projects were the first such publications in their careers to date. Twenty three summaries were produced. So here there was a clear contribution from SPARC, which together with the much used SPARC posters, made a significant contribution to developing the familiarity of the award holders with communicating with non-academic communities.
Presentations
A similar situation relates to presentations. Perhaps except for some of those at a very early stage in the careers, most award holders were familiar and comfortable with making presentations to academic audiences. However, few had much experience of presenting their work to non-academic audiences. Here too SPARC provided unique opportunities for most award holders, for developing a familiarity with presenting to non-academic audiences. However, there were some who were already experienced in making such presentations and continued to do so throughout and after their SPARC projects. Analysis of the returns made by the award holders suggested that nine were quite active in presenting their work to non-academic audiences through a range of organisations and opportunities. However, for 17, SPARC not only provided an introduction to such audiences but the only opportunity to make presentations to these.
For academic audiences the contribution of SPARC was more limited, purely because opportunities to present to such audiences, in seminars, workshops, symposia and conferences are a basic feature of academic life. Indeed a dozen of the award holders were very active in presenting their work to academic audiences. However, for seven, largely early-career award holders, SPARC provided their first and only opportunity. They, in particular, will have benefitted greatly from being able to take part in SPARC workshops designed largely for specialists, usefully accelerating their development. Others would have also gained from these events but because of their experience and networks the SPARC contribution would have been rather less.
International
SPARC organised some international workshops, largely within academic gatherings. These can be seen to be important for all involved. This would have been particularly the case for those award holders at an early stage in their careers who may have not have experienced international events previously, unlike some of the mature researchers who would have been fairly familiar with such gatherings. However, because of their focus, these should have contributed some academic development to all the award holders involved with them.
In the course of SPARC, 20 award holders, or their team members, were involved with international events (either SPARC workshops or SPARC supported events). Of these, nine had previous experience of international conferences and workshops. They would have gained something from these special SPARC events. However, it is more likely that the other award holders would have gained much more as the events were unique in their experience.
Media
In contrast the media activities of SPARC contributed to the development of skills in engaging with non-academic communities. No award holder, not even the most mature researchers, admitted having had anything to do with the press and media prior to SPARC. However, during the course of SPARC, eight became the focus of close media attention, some as a result of publication of their executive summaries, others because of workshops, and others because of other work undertaken by the SPARC Publicity Officer.
Summary
A simple method of illustrating the relative contribution of SPARC to the development of the award holders is to consider the indicators discussed above in terms of their relationship with the two environments, academic and other stakeholder, and to distinguish between:
· those activities which clearly relate to the individual efforts of the award holders and their teams and over which the influence of SPARC might be expected to be small, and
·
those which can be attributed
to SPARC activities either directly or through advice given to the award
holders.
In terms of conventional academic activities attributable to the award holders the indicators are:
· Secured further funding from research councils and similar bodies
· Published their findings in academic journals
· Presented their work at academic gatherings
· Been active internationally
and in terms of relationships with non-academic stakeholders:
· Secured further funding from major charities concerned with specific ageing or health issues, government departments or industry
· Published their work in a form suitable for professional lay audiences
· Presented their work to lay audiences
· Attracted the attention of the press and other media
Each of these can be considered in terms of what award holders and
their teams achieved, firstly, ‘on their
own account’, and secondly, uniquely with the support of SPARC. Scoring each of
these indicators on a presence (1), absence (0) basis for each indicator for
each team gives an index for their experience of ‘academic’ and ‘other
stakeholder’ environments in terms of what might have been achieved on their
own account and overall including the support of SPARC. Two examples are given below.
Example 1. A mature researcher, new to ageing research, a strong publications
stream and with strong existing international networks, operates largely in an
academic environment
–
Main benefits arising from SPARC : funding
– academic; publications – other; presentations – other; media involvement -
other
–
Scores: On own account:
academic – 3, other – 0; Overall: academic – 4, other – 3.
Example 2: An early-career researcher, recently completed PhD, in first academic
post, a few academic publications, no overseas links, has made few
presentations, none outside of university world.
–
Main benefits arising from SPARC: funding – other; publications – other;
presentations – academic and other; international involvement - academic
–
Scores: On own account: academic – 1, other – 0; Overall: academic –
3, other – 3.
This leads to Table 6.10 and Figure 6.2 which illustrate the pattern of influence of SPARC on the award holders and their teams and to Table 6.11 and Figure 6.3. These show that when the activities of the award holders and their teams are considered on their own account there is a major disparity between their experience of the ‘academic’ and ‘other stakeholder’ environments with the latter hardly figuring. However, whilst modest in terms of raising the experience of the academic environment, SPARC’s contribution was substantial in relation to the ‘other stakeholder’ environment. This is no surprise, this is what was planned. However, the extent of SPARC influence was significantly different between the four groups of project types. This was not planned. It is a reflection of the short-fall in the number of both the presentations to all-comers audiences achieved by two of the groups and the executive summaries produced also for these.
Table 6.10: Number of SPARC teams with certain achievements in relation to academic and other stakeholder environments
|
Indicator |
Funding |
Publications |
Presentations |
International |
Media |
|||
|
Group |
academic |
Other |
academic |
other |
academic |
other |
Academic |
other |
|
Own Account |
8 |
9 |
29 |
0 |
13 |
9 |
15 |
0 |
|
SPARC Influenced |
9 |
7 |
0 |
23 |
6 |
17 |
11 |
8 |
Notes: 1. Numbers in table
are the number of SPARC teams having achieved a particular outcome. 2. The SPARC influenced count is for those
teams which did not achieve a particular outcome on their own account, for
example those securing academic funding on their own account would not be
included in the entry for having secured academic funding as a result of SPARC
influence.
Figure 6.2: Number of
SPARC teams with certain achievements in relation to academic and other
stakeholder environments
When projects are considered in terms of the experience of the award holders it is clear that ‘on their own account’ the mature and experienced researchers enjoyed a richer ‘academic’ environment than those at an earlier stage in their careers, although there was little difference in terms of ‘other stakeholder’ environments. However SPARC contributed significantly to the development of the ‘academic’ environments experienced by these early-career award holders as well as greatly to the development of both early-career and experienced teams in terms of ‘other stakeholder’ environments, such that the overall situation for both groups was quite similar. This is an extremely important finding as it reflects the achievement of an express purpose of SPARC, which was to accelerate the development of the award holders in both environments.
Finally, an indication of the movement in orientation due to SPARC influence is given in Figures 6.4 and 6.5. These illustrate the significant shift of many project teams towards the other stakeholder environment. Quite clearly many teams moved from a largely single dimensional academic environment to one which suggests a non-trivial degree of engagement and experience with the non-stakeholder environment. Nevertheless there were about 12 projects with very low scores in terms of the non-stakeholder environment (7 biology, 5 health, 1 modelling), although just three with low scores in terms of the academic environment (2 modelling, 1 health). These differences are illustrated for the different groups of projects in Figure 6.4 and for levels of experience of the award holders in Figure 6.5.
Table 6.11: Index of orientation of activities of SPARC teams in
relation to academic and other stakeholder environments
|
|
|
Own Account |
SPARC Influence |
Overall |
|
||
|
|
|
academic |
other |
Academic |
Other |
Academic |
other |
|
Maximum Index |
|
4 |
4 |
3 |
4 |
4 |
4 |
|
Average |
n |
2.1 |
0.5 |
0.8 |
1.6 |
2.8 |
2.1 |
|
Ethnographic |
8 |
1.9 |
0.9 |
0.8 |
2.4 |
2.6 |
3.3 |
|
Modelling |
9 |
1.9 |
0.3 |
0.4 |
2.1 |
2.3 |
2.4 |
|
Health |
8 |
2.3 |
0.6 |
0.9 |
1.3 |
3.1 |
1.9 |
|
Biology |
9 |
2.2 |
0.3 |
1.0 |
0.8 |
3.2 |
1.1 |
|
Significant Differences? |
|
|
|
|
p<0.001 |
|
P<0.001 |
|
Mature & Experienced |
12 |
2.7 |
0.7 |
0.3 |
1.9 |
3.0 |
2.6 |
|
Early and Very Early-career |
22 |
1.7 |
0.5 |
1.0 |
1.5 |
2.6 |
1.9 |
|
Significant Differences? |
|
p<0.003 |
|
p<0.03 |
|
|
|
Note: p>0.05 taken to indicate no significant
differences.
Figure 6.3: Orientation of SPARC teams in academic and other stakeholder environments
Figure 6.4: Orientation of SPARC teams in academic and other
stakeholder environments: comparison between indices
for Own Account and Overall,
for each type of project
Note:
Early includes Very early, Experienced includes Mature
Figure 6.5: Orientation of SPARC teams in academic and other
stakeholder environments: comparison between indices
for Own Account and Overall
for experience of award holder
Accelerated Development?
In the absence of comparative data for those who did not experience SPARC, justifying the claim that SPARC significantly accelerated the development of the award holders is difficult. Rather the claim is based on a judgement formed from working with and observing the development of many academic scientists over 40 years, feedback from award holders and comments from interested on-lookers. However, there are some important pointers to support this claim, especially for the early career award holders.
There were many instances of the early career award holders gaining their first experience of a specific activity in the academic environment, and even more instances of ‘first-time’ activities in the other stakeholder environment, through opportunities offered by SPARC. These are important activities, critical to the personal development of an academic scientist. However we do not know how quickly opportunities to undertake the activities in the academic environment would have been available without SPARC. Sooner or later they would have been presented, as they are fundamental to the academic environment.
For the activities relating to the non-academic environment, we know from the limited prior experience of the mature award holders that the opportunities offered by SPARC do not occur as a matter of course. Here we can confidently claim significant accelerated development for both early and mature researchers.
Using the crude measures given above, in terms of activities in the academic environment SPARC was able to help the early career researchers greatly enhance their profiles so that they resembled those of the mature researchers. This was achieved over a short time span whereas in the normal course of events it might be expected that this would take much longer. For example, SPARC was able to ensure that some of its early career award holders were the centre of attention at major events, offering these an experience which often is enjoyed only by scientists who are at least in mid-career. This would have been especially important where these were international events but, in terms of creating a profile and networking, national events and workshops would have been important as well.
Similarly, from what the award holders have reported, the fact that whilst their projects were small scale they had benefited by being able to operate in a truly competitive research environment with high expectations and high standards. This gave them the confidence and credibility to seek and secure further funding. Again, we do not know if their success rate was higher than the norm, yet the number of early career researchers leading significant new projects and operating as co-investigators on such projects, over half, is greater than what many heads of departments would expect of their junior staff (based on informal discussions with heads of built environment and biology-related departments). Also, the crude success rate of known bids made by the award holders was high. Overall, based on proposals to all types of funders and for projects of all sizes, a rather implausible 50%, but for bids of all types to the research councils about 35%, this includes those where the award holder would have been as co-investigator or partner.
A confounding factor is that some of the award holders were very capable, their careers were moving forward anyway. Unlike some others they were not wholly dependent on SPARC. These may have been in a better position to judge the extent to which SPARC support had been critical to their development, but their views are no different from those of the other award holders. Finally, there are the views of the mature award holders about the influence of SPARC on their own development, which was very positive, but perhaps even more significantly on the early career award holders. All were surprised at what had been achieved b y such a small and short programme. Two offered the view that the experiences of the early career award holders would be achieved as the norm only in very well organised research teams within large well-endowed broadly-based internationally-leading departments. In contrast most of the early career award holders were operating in more modest organisational settings. Several were working as individuals within departments which although supportive were not very experienced in the field of ageing and which could not have offered these experiences. These award holders would have had to found them for themselves.