This online session, hosted by Queen Margaret University on 24 November, provided an overview of how to get research noticed by government and other policy institutions. The ‘research questions’ were
What are policymakers looking for from research?
What questions should researchers address?
When is the best time to engage?
Who should you contact?
The following is my lightly edited notes of the presentation by the presentation by Nick Bibby, Director of Scottish Policy and Research Exchange, and the following Q&A session. Hence any mistakes or poor language are due to me, not Nick. Images are screenshots. If I receive the slides, I will update the images so they are clearer.
I write these pieces every 6 months, usually for the Centre for Social Informatics’ all-centre meetings. (I’m usually incapable of speech by the time it’s my turn to report.) Really miffed that we can’t get together in person this time. Click this link to see all the pieces in this series.Continue reading →
I recently attended an European chapter of ASIS&T Information Science Trends online conference This year it focussed on health information hehaviour. The following are my digitally-assisted memories of #AECIST20, i.e. adaptations of my live-tweets from the event. As ever, this report is mostly to help me sort what I need to do from what I want to do after being stimulated by many fascinating presentations. Any mistakes or misrepresentations in the below are of course my mistakes.Continue reading →
The RIVAL network: I’m PA to the ∏, administrator, map-creator, videographer, data-analyst and much more
IL measures paper: Peter and I are contributing a section to a paper by Gunilla Widen. This will report on the survey of community councillors, and how (not to) measure workplace information literacy.
marking: some marking of students’ placement reports.
information avoidance in diabetes: because I don’t want to know about my diabetes, but because I do want to know why this is. And I want to to help others with this bad combination, and to maybe generate some theory!
This is an update of a post from my first week in São Paulo, with input from my much better half. Mistakes of course are my fault, not hers.
If we don’t get PB right first time, people will lose confidence in it.
In this lesson, right can be replaced with good enough, because nothing is perfect, and Scotland is just learning to do PB.
This lesson means we need effective processes so that people know they have made the choices.
It also means that what is promised must be delivered near enough on time and near enough on budget.
This should happen in any context, no matter how much (or how little) money is involved.
We can argue about what near enough means at appropriate points.
Projects must be monitored as they proceed.
Also, due diligence/monitoring must happen at the end of project periods.
And that data must be analysed to see what is effective.
There should also be the possibility of discontinuing projects if it turns out that they are unlikely to be delivered, or if the benefits can be delivered in better ways, or if an urgent need arises for the money allocated to the project.
But this must be done transparently, and must not even appear to be party-political.
Don’t rely on revenue forecasts, because what is forecast may not materialise!
Annual cycles, i.e. projects that must be started and completed in a year, may be sub-optimal.
LeithChooses’ 2018 turnout (1000/20,000 = 5%) is good.