Reflecting on research challenges: Insights from Research Café 3

Posted on

By Noëlle Quénivet and Sarah-Louise Weller

On 1 July, colleagues from the College of Business and Law gathered for the third Research Café, part of a series aimed at enhancing the College’s research culture. This Research Café was designed and facilitated by Professor Carol Jarvis, who began by exploring the importance of belonging to a research community. She emphasised that research can often feel like a solitary endeavour, yet many of the challenges researchers face are shared across disciplines and career stages. The session therefore aimed to create a space for open communication about research challenges and to encourage participants to listen actively and reflectively.

Listening to challenges

The first activity focused on active listening, a skill often overlooked in busy academic environments. Participants were asked to represent a current research challenge through a drawing rather than through words. Then, working in groups of three, colleagues took turns explaining their challenges in just three minutes. One listener focused exclusively on the factual aspects of the challenge, while another listened for emotions and feelings. Each participant had the opportunity to take on all three roles. The exercise highlighted how rarely we listen with a specific purpose and how much we can learn when we pay closer attention. Also, by separating facts and feelings, participants gained new insights into their own challenges and those of their colleagues.

The discussions revealed several common themes. Time pressure emerged as a pervasive concern, as many colleagues described the difficulties of balancing research with teaching, leadership responsibilities, administration and other commitments. Participants reflected on the challenge of setting realistic research goals within constrained schedules. Many also discussed the difficulty of staying “in the zone” and protecting time for deep intellectual work. Others highlighted the challenge of balancing their enthusiasm for teaching with their passion for research, recognising that both are central aspects of academic life at UWE. Collaboration was another recurring theme. Participants reflected on the opportunities and challenges involved in working with colleagues, stakeholders and external partners, particularly when time and resources are limited. Questions of maintaining strong relationships, sustaining productive collaborations and managing expectations also featured in the conversations. The discussion also highlighted the uneven rhythms of academic research. Journal articles, funding applications and research projects often involve long periods of development followed by intense bursts of activity when deadlines, reviewer comments or funding requirements demand rapid responses.

One participant described the experience as “rinse and repeat”, returning repeatedly to similar problems because there is rarely sufficient time to pause, reflect and learn from previous experiences. In this respect, the Research Café itself became an important intervention, providing a rare opportunity for collective reflection.

Friendly consulting in action

The second half of the session introduced a process known as Friendly Consulting, a structured approach to collaborative exploration, planning and learning.

Friendly Consulting provides a framework through which participants can present a challenge they are personally responsible for addressing and receive thoughtful, reflective feedback from colleagues. Importantly, the goal is not to provide direct advice or ready-made solutions. Instead, participants are encouraged to ask questions, share observations and offer perspectives that help the challenge owner see the issue in new ways.

For the first consultation, Noëlle Quénivet and Sarah-Louise Weller presented a shared challenge: balancing their responsibilities as Directors of Research and Enterprise with maintaining their own research activity. Acting as lead consultant and facilitator, Carol Jarvis guided the conversation, interviewing the presenters and mediating interactions with the wider group. Participants contributed observations and reflections while the presenters listened and reflected on the emerging insights.

A second volunteer then presented their own research-related challenge, allowing the group to apply the process again and further develop their consulting skills.

The structured nature of the exercise created a respectful and productive environment for discussion. Participants were able to explore complex issues collectively while maintaining ownership of their individual challenges. The process demonstrated how thoughtful questioning and reflective dialogue can generate valuable new perspectives without relying on direct problem-solving.

Building a stronger research culture

As the session concluded, participants reflected on what they had gained from the afternoon. Many noted that the value of the event extended beyond receiving feedback on their own challenges. Listening to colleagues discuss their experiences provided reassurance that many research difficulties are widely shared and offered fresh ideas for addressing them.

Perhaps most importantly, the Research Café created space for reflection. By encouraging colleagues to articulate challenges, practise active listening and engage in collaborative reflection, the event contributed to the development of a more supportive and evidence-informed research culture within the College.

PS: Copilot was used to structure handwritten notes taken during this event and the final version was edited using Grammarly.

UWE Bristol and Taylor’s University bring together doctoral researchers for the Doctoral Conference 2026

Posted on

On Friday 12 June 2026, doctoral students from the College of Business and Law at UWE Bristol and the Faculty of Business and Law at Taylor’s University came together for the annual CBL-UWE & FBL-Taylor’s University Doctoral Conference. Held across Bristol and Subang Jaya, with participants joining both in person and online, the conference provided a platform for students to share their research, exchange ideas and celebrate the strength of the doctoral community.

The conference showcased the breadth and diversity of research being undertaken across business, management, law, finance, economics and related disciplines. Throughout the day, presenters explored topics ranging from artificial intelligence and entrepreneurship to sustainability, workplace inclusion, healthcare innovation and marketing.

Highlights from the conference

The conference opened with welcome remarks from Professor Wendy Phillips, Dean for Research and Knowledge Exchange at CBL-UWE Bristol, and Professor Poon Wai Ching, Head of Doctoral Programmes in the Faculty of Business and Law at Taylor’s University.

Delegates were then joined by keynote speaker Professor Darren Reynolds, Pro Vice-Chancellor for Research and Knowledge Exchange at UWE Bristol. Drawing on more than three decades of experience, his keynote address, Life Beyond the Borders: 35 Years of Interdisciplinary Working – A Personal Perspective, reflected on the value of collaboration across disciplines and the role of research in creating meaningful change.

Ahead of the conference, doctoral students from both Universities also had the opportunity to participate in on-campus and online pre-conference workshops. Led by Steve Creffield of EvolveIntegral Ltd, “Seeing what you see: A workshop on bringing your research to life for a room/screen of your peers” helped participants develop their communication and presentation skills, providing valuable preparation for sharing their research with conference delegates.

Conference sessions explored a wide range of contemporary challenges and opportunities, including:

  • The growing influence of artificial intelligence on organisations, entrepreneurship and decision-making.
  • Emerging global trends in supply chains, real estate investment, manufacturing and infrastructure.
  • Sustainability, ESG and climate-related challenges in business and law.
  • Entrepreneurship in complex and rapidly changing environments.
  • Innovation and adoption in healthcare and public services.
  • Inclusion, identity and workforce change in contemporary workplaces.
  • Consumer behaviour, social marketing and the evolving customer journey.

Conference programme highlighted the international nature of the doctoral community, bringing together PhD and DBA researchers from across the UK and around the world to share perspectives, experiences and emerging findings.

Celebrating research excellence

A highlight of the conference was the presentation of the annual awards, recognising outstanding contributions from doctoral researchers.

Huge congratulations to this year’s award winners:

  • Best Paper AwardThilaka Hewage Asanka Chamara for “Beyond the Veil: The Intersection of Ethnicity and Sexual Orientation in the Concealment of Gay and Bisexual Male Identities in the Workplace: A Cross-Cultural Comparative Study of Sri Lanka and the UK.”
  • Delegates’ Choice AwardBilal Abu Jafar for “Exporting Under Volatility: How Palestinian SMEs Respond to Export Barriers in a Conflict-Affected Economy.”

The conference once again demonstrated the quality, creativity and impact of doctoral research across both institutions. Beyond the presentations themselves, the event provided valuable opportunities for networking, feedback and collaboration, helping doctoral students build confidence, develop new connections and refine their ideas.

“Whether you joined us on-line or on campus, I hope you enjoyed the Conference and found it interesting and useful.

It was a day of celebration of research – the day for our doctoral students, by our doctoral students and about our doctoral students. I hope they will use it as a springboard to yet greater things in the near future.” Dr Pawel Capik

We look forward to seeing how the ideas presented at this year’s conference continue to develop and to welcoming the next iteration of papers at the Doctoral Conference next year.

Building Integrity and Openness: Reflections from the College of Business and Law Training Session on Research Governance and Open Research

Posted on

By Noelle Quenivet and Sarah-Louise Weller

On 20 May 2026 colleagues from across the College of Business and Law (CBL) came together for a focused and practical training session exploring two foundational pillars of contemporary research practice: research governance and open research. The session was delivered by experts from the University to support researchers in navigating compliance requirements and evolving expectations regarding openness.

The session was delivered in two parts. The first part featured an introduction to research governance by Dr Mateja Celestina, Research Integrity Governance and Ethics Manager. This was followed by an exploration of open research led by Jennifer Crossley (Open Research Services Manager), and an overview of the research and data repositories by Charley Vaughton (Open Research Services Librarian).

Understanding the framework: Research governance in practice

The first part of the session introduced the principles and practicalities of research governance. Research governance was defined as the framework of policies, procedures and codes of practice that underpin the management of research and ensure compliance with relevant standards and legal requirements.

As Dr Celestina pointed out, research governance is integral to excellence, not separate from it. Indeed, it is not an administrative burden but a fundamental aspect of research quality. It ensures that research is conducted ethically, safely and with integrity, and that it complies with institutional and external requirements. It also applies universally: to all forms of research and to everyone involved in the research process.

Dr Celestina stressed that good research governance enhances ethical and scientific quality, boosts the reputation of researchers and the University, safeguards participants and protects researchers with a clear framework, minimises risks, promotes continuous improvement, and, crucially, has legal implications.

A significant emphasis was placed on research integrity. As highlighted in the session, excellence in research is inseparable from integrity. High-quality research processes contribute not only to robust outputs but also to public trust, which is essential for the long-term value and impact of research.

The session then moved to the practical application of governance in research planning. From the earliest stages of a project, researchers must consider whether ethical and governance approvals are required. This includes research involving human participants, personal data or biological material, as well as research involving animals. Beyond ethical approvals, the training highlighted a range of governance considerations that may arise depending on the nature of the research. These include projects involving the NHS or Ministry of Defence, studies requiring Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks, and compliance with export controls, the National Security and Investment Act, and foreign influence regulations. Researchers working with international collaborators must also undertake due diligence, while projects involving genetic material may need to comply with the Nagoya Protocol.

A key takeaway from this part of the session was the importance of the Research Governance Record. All projects, whether funded or not, and whether requiring formal ethical approval or not, must be recorded. This ensures institutional oversight and supports compliance across the research lifecycle.

Open research: Principles, practices and challenges

Mrs Jennifer Crossley then invited participants to reconsider how research is shared, accessed and re-used in an increasingly open scholarly landscape. The session began with a question: what does open research mean to you? The participants’ attitudes towards open research ranged from support to uncertainty and confusion about its implications. Open research was introduced as an approach grounded in transparency, openness and reproducibility across the entire research lifecycle.

Whilst open research is about making research and its outputs as accessible as possible, Mrs Crossley stressed that it is not limited to publication; it covers the entire process of knowledge production, from methodology and data to peer review. The aim is to enhance public value, research integrity, and opportunities for re-use and innovation. Mrs Crossley also explained that open research can be understood as a set of principles and practices that seek to make knowledge accessible, inclusive and sustainable. In this sense, it is about equity and participation.

Participants were then introduced to practical aspects of open research. Open access publishing is defined as the free and immediate online availability of research outputs, often governed by licences that allow reuse provided proper attribution is given. Different routes (e.g. “green” and “gold”) to open access were explained. A key message was that open access is increasingly expected rather than optional. It is necessary for compliance with funder requirements and for eligibility in research assessment exercises such as the REF. Researchers were reassured, however, that there are multiple ways to achieve this, including through institutional publisher agreements, rights retention policies, and repository deposits.

The training also addressed common concerns about open access, particularly around predatory publishing. Participants were encouraged to critically evaluate publishers, looking for warning signs and using tools such as the “Think. Check. Submit.” initiative to make informed decisions.

Another important aspect of open research covered in the session was research data management. Researchers are required to complete training and develop data management plans for their projects. While sharing data is encouraged, the session acknowledged that this can be challenging, particularly in disciplines where data is complex or sensitive.

Ms Charley Vaughton then introduced the UWE Research Repository and Data Repository as the key institutional resources that enable researchers to make their outputs discoverable and to deposit a wide range of materials (e.g. journal articles, book chapters, reports, videos and datasets).

Importantly, the session recognised that open research is not a one-size-fits-all model and that practices must be adapted to disciplinary contexts.

Concluding reflections

What emerged from the session is a clear sense that research governance and open research are interconnected. Governance provides the structure and safeguards that ensure research is conducted responsibly, while open research extends the reach and impact of that work by making it accessible and reusable.

For researchers in the College of Business and Law, the session offered clarity and reassurance. While the landscape of research policy and practice may seem complex, the tools, frameworks and support available within the University are designed to enable compliance while also supporting creativity and innovation.

This blog post was written with assistance from Co-Pilot and Grammarly to improve its structure and clarity.

RISE Securing a green, resilient future – College of Business and Law research showcase

Posted on

After the first successful Research Showcase on the RISE Beacon ‘Enriching Culture, Place and Community’, the College of Business and Law hosted a second bringing colleagues together under UWE Bristol’s RISE Beacon ‘Securing a Green, Resilient Future’.

Opening the event, Professor Wendy Phillips, Dean of Research and Enterprise, highlighted the College’s growing role in research on climate resilience, sustainable economies, governance reform, leadership and community transformation. Emphasising the unique position and need for more interdisciplinary collaboration to address complex global challenges, Professor Phillips said:

“Securing a green, resilient future is not something any one discipline can achieve alone. As our graduates won’t work in a single context, neither should our research.”

As before, the showcase featured a series of quick-fire 5 minute presentations across two panels.


Panel 1: Reimagining systems for a green, resilient future

The first panel explored how systems: economic, legal and environmental, can be reimagined to support sustainability and resilience.

Understanding regional environmental impact

Dr Peter Bradley presented a detailed account of greenhouse gas emissions across 100 sectors in the West of England. One of the most comprehensive regional datasets to date, his work highlights both direct and embodied emissions, providing important evidence base for both policy and decision-making. For example, Professor Bradley showed how directing efforts on key sectors could have a big impact on our emissions and how zero carbon policies will not impact on jobs in the region.

Rethinking river governance

Elena Blanco invited the audience to reflect on childhood memories of rivers, paddling, fishing and connection to nature and then contrasted these with the reality of increasingly polluted waterways across the UK. Highlighting fragmented governance and under-resourced systems, she explored how a rights of nature approach could transform river management in the Bristol Avon bioregion. By recognising rivers as entities with intrinsic value rather than resources to exploit, her work positions governance as a tool for community mobilisation, bringing stakeholders together proactively to protect rivers rather than responding only after damage has occurred.

Building a circular economy through ship recycling

Dr Amore Minayora presented ship recycling as a powerful example of the circular economy. Noting that with around 140,000 ships in global circulation, many eventually reach the end of their service and must be dismantled and reused. While this system is already in operation in countries such as India, Amore highlighted both its environmental significance and its challenges, including greenhouse gas impacts and serious concerns around worker safety, regulation and practices such as beaching. Positioned at the intersection of global trade, circular economy ambitions and growing demand for greener steel, this research explores how ship recycling can be better supported and regulated to deliver safer and more sustainable outcomes.

Environmental harm and international law

Professor Gerhard Kemp explored how environmental destruction intersects with international criminal law, drawing on examples from conflict zones such as Gaza and Ukraine to illustrate the scale of damage to infrastructure and agricultural land. He questioned whether international criminal law should, and can, play a role in holding those responsible to account, noting key limitations including the lack of distinct ecocentric crimes and enforcement mechanisms. His work engages with emerging efforts to define ecocide as an international crime and introduces the concept of “terraforming warfare” as a way of understanding and framing extreme environmental destruction within existing legal frameworks.

Panel 2: Leadership, lifestyles and youth engagement for sustainable futures

The second panel focused on the human dimensions of sustainability, from leadership and behaviour change to inclusion and youth engagement.

Young people and climate action: The Think Fashion campaign

Laura McAllister shared research on sustainable consumption, highlighting how young people are often highly motivated to engage in climate action, particularly through everyday behaviours shaped by both altruistic and more individual drivers. Building on this, a HEIF-funded project brought together students, researchers and local partners to co-create the forthcoming Think Fashion campaign, encouraging more conscious consumer choices and a shift towards reducing and reusing rather than relying on recycling. With plans to develop a wider toolkit for schools, the project promotes a system wide approach, positioning consumers as active citizens who can use their purchasing power to influence change.


Making outdoor events more inclusive

Clare MacKay and Dr Ed Little presented research on the experiences of outdoor event attendees with dietary requirements, including religious, medical and lifestyle needs. Their findings show that many face anxiety, exclusion and stigma, often relying on coping strategies due to limited or unsuitable food options. The research highlights the risks of one size fits all solutions, such as assuming vegan options meet all needs, and emphasises the importance of inclusive design. By developing personas and teaching materials, their work encourages a more thoughtful approach to event planning that supports a healthier, greener and fairer society.

The Burnout Cure: A Radical Rethink of SME Leadership

Dr Alison Miles introduced her forthcoming book The Burnout Cure, which reframes sustainability through the lens of individual leadership and wellbeing. Highlighting the scale of mental health challenges among SME leaders, she described how many feel overwhelmed and uncertain, “lost in the woods” when navigating business pressures. Her work argues that sustainable change begins with the individual, showing that it is possible to run a business in a way that prioritises peace of mind over constant growth. By shifting how leaders think and act, she suggests, wider transformation across organisations and systems can follow.

Leadership beyond the Sustainable Development Goals

Professor Richard Bolden shared insights from his forthcoming edited volume The Elgar Companion to Leadership Beyond the Sustainable Development Goals, which brings together perspectives on the future of leadership in the context of global sustainability challenges. Reflecting on the need to move beyond existing frameworks, he highlighted the importance of more inclusive and system wide approaches. Drawing on a quote from humanitarian Tom Fletcher, he closed by posing a provocative question about the future of leadership in an increasingly technological world: how do we shape systems and algorithms that are more humanitarian than we are?

The next showcase will focus on the RISE Beacon of ‘harnessing creativity and technology’ date to be confirmed. For more details, contact Noelle Quenivet or Sarah-Louise Weller.

Scaling CAR-T: Bringing industry, clinicians and researchers together to expand patient access

Posted on

CAR-T therapies are transforming outcomes for some cancer patients, offering hope where few options remain. However, ensuring more people can benefit from these treatments is a growing challenge.

What is CAR-T?

Cell and gene therapies (CGTs) represent a new wave of transformative cancer treatments, delivering remarkable outcomes for patients. Among these, chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) therapies are at the forefront. CAR-T works by taking a patient’s own immune cells, modifying them in a lab to recognise and attack cancer and then returning them to the body.

These personalised treatments are designed for patients with blood cancers that no longer respond to conventional therapies. In some cases, CAR-T has delivered lasting remission where disease was once considered incurable.

The challenge of cost and complexity

However, this promise comes with significant challenges. CAR-T therapies can cost over £300,000 per patient, with additional hospitalisation costs of £1,000 to £2,000 per day.

These costs reflect the complexity of manufacturing and clinical delivery, as well as the highly personalised nature of each treatment.

This creates real pressure for publicly funded healthcare systems such as the NHS, where affordability and access remain key concerns. But cost is only part of the picture. Delivering CAR-T involves a complex pathway spanning clinical care, manufacturing, logistics and long-term monitoring, challenges that no single organisation can address alone.

The FAST CAR-T consortium

This is what the FAST CAR-T consortium aims to tackle. Funded by EPSRC and led by UCL, the project brings together researchers from Teesside University, the Royal Free Hospital London and Bristol Business School at UWE to explore barriers to CAR-T delivery and how they can be overcome.

As part of this work, the consortium runs workshops that bring together experts from across the CAR-T ecosystem. These sessions focus on shared barriers, what is needed to scale these therapies and how stakeholders can work together more effectively.

Image of breakout group discussion at the Scaling CAR-T workshop

Key insights from the workshop:

Our most recent workshop, hosted at UWE Bristol, brought together 50 participants from over 18 organisations to focus on clinical delivery, workforce and system readiness.

A clear theme was the growing complexity of the therapy landscape. While CAR-T remains central, new approaches such as tumour-infiltrating lymphocytes and regulatory T-cell therapies are expanding into solid tumours, autoimmune diseases and rare conditions.

A complex system around the patient

CAR-T delivery involves multiple stages, from patient identification and cell collection through to manufacturing, infusion and long-term follow-up. Patients may undergo weeks of treatment, including chemotherapy and extended hospital stays.

This is not just clinically complex, it also places pressure on healthcare services, from bed capacity to specialist staff and coordination across teams. As one participant put it,

“this is not a single intervention, it’s an entire system wrapped around a patient.”

The interface between clinical care and manufacturing remains a key challenge. Ensuring chain of identity and chain of custody is essential but logistically demanding, often involving multiple organisations. Limited visibility across the pathway can also make it difficult to identify and resolve issues.

Workforce and infrastructure pressures

Delivering CAR-T requires highly specialised expertise across clinical, manufacturing and pharmacy teams, yet this capability is not evenly distributed. Pharmacists are increasingly involved but may lack formal training in areas such as immunology or cell biology. As demand grows, both training and retention are becoming more challenging.

Infrastructure is another constraint. Even as manufacturing capacity increases, clinical delivery may become the limiting factor. Many centres are already working within limits, whether in bed capacity, specialist facilities or staffing.

At a system level, fragmentation also creates inefficiencies. Different digital platforms, complex contracting processes and regulatory requirements can all slow progress, highlighting the need for greater coordination and standardisation.

What needs to change?

Despite these challenges, several practical solutions emerged from the workshop. The hub-and-spoke model was widely discussed, with specialist centres delivering complex care and regional centres supporting follow-up. This could expand access without duplicating infrastructure.

Participants also highlighted the value of simple improvements such as standardised checklists, shared training and better data transparency.

Digital innovation offers further opportunities. Remote monitoring, wearable technologies and integrated data platforms could improve patient management while reducing pressure on hospitals.

There was also strong support for new hybrid roles and enhanced training pathways to address skills gaps across the system.

Looking ahead

Cell and gene therapies such as CAR-T represent the next generation of advanced medicines, with the potential to deliver more targeted and effective treatments.

However, expanding access is not just a scientific or clinical challenge, it is a systems challenge.

Without change, these therapies may only reach a small proportion of the patients who could benefit.

The next phase of the FAST CAR-T project will focus on translating these insights into practical recommendations and scalable delivery models.

As these therapies continue to evolve, so must the systems that support them. CAR-T has the potential to transform outcomes, but can healthcare and manufacturing systems keep pace and deliver equitable access for patients?

Building a doctoral supervisory community: Insights from the Inception Workshop

Posted on

By Noëlle Quénivet

On 24 February, supervisors from across the College of Business and Law (CBL) met for the first in a series of workshops titled Building the CBL Doctoral Supervisory Community. Facilitated by Professor Peter Case and Dr Pawel Capik, the College Director of Doctoral Research, the event marked the first step towards fostering a more connected and supportive supervisory community and strengthening supervisory practice within the College.

Why develop a supervisory community?

Doctoral supervision is central to sustaining a healthy and vibrant research culture. Yet many supervisors work in isolation, navigating evolving regulations and changing progression processes largely on their own. The workshop aimed to begin building a community of practice, one that encourages cross-disciplinary exchange, supports both PhD and DBA supervision and promotes consistency and confidence across supervisory teams.

The vision is to create a collegial space where supervisors can share experiences, discuss challenges and collectively enhance the doctoral journey for candidates and staff alike.

The emotional dimension of supervision

The workshop opened with reflections on the often invisible labour of supervision. As Dr Capik noted, while doctoral candidates’ success is celebrated, the contributions of supervisory teams and internal reviewers tend to remain in the background. In his words, “they are the unsung heroes”.

Supervisors undertake multiple roles, ranging from academic guide, gatekeeper, quality controller, motivator to pastoral supporter. All are responsibilities shaped by organisational changes within and beyond the University.

Next, with Professor Case facilitating the workshop, participants took part in a Triad Listening exercise. In groups of three, each person shared a supervisory challenge while colleagues alternated between reporting factual details and identifying the emotional content of the stories being told.

Initially, summarising a complex challenge in three minutes felt daunting. However, the activity quickly revealed valuable insights, particularly the difficulty of separating facts from emotions and the role emotional labour plays in supervision.

Colleagues highlighted issues including managing supervisory team dynamics, supporting students returning from suspension and responding to the emerging use of generative AI in doctoral work. Many participants found the exercise eye-opening. Supervisors often overlook the emotional side of their work, even though it has a significant impact on them, their colleagues and their students.

Shared challenges across disciplines

The second part of the workshop invited participants to discuss which supervisory issues were shaped by disciplinary norms and which were common across CBL. Some discipline-specific elements emerged, including defining “rigour”, setting methodological expectations and selecting appropriate external examiners.

However, most of the identified challenges were shared across disciplines. These included:

  • Supervising colleagues and navigating role clarity and power dynamics
  • Balancing support and independence, particularly avoiding undue influence over a student’s theoretical or methodological choices
  • Clarifying the role of the independent reviewer, especially the balance between quality assurance and academic feedback
  • Managing boundaries, including the extent of pastoral care and how far supervisors should push students who do not act on feedback
  • Handling supervisory workloads, especially with multiple candidates at different stages
  • Impostor syndrome, particularly among junior supervisors or those from practitioner backgrounds

Participants also discussed systemic challenges such as accommodating non-linear research pathways (for example fieldwork or illness) and distinguishing between the expectations of PhD and DBA programmes.

These cross-disciplinary conversations demonstrated that despite differences in methods and norms, supervisory teams share many common pressures, questions and aspirations.

Participants also emphasised the importance of recognising and celebrating what supervisors do well. While the workshop focused largely on challenges, colleagues agreed that future discussions should incorporate elements of “Appreciative Inquiry” to highlight effective practices and successful supervisory relationships.

Moving forward: building the community

The session concluded with proposed next steps for establishing a sustainable supervisory community. Suggestions included:

  • Storytelling events for sharing supervisory experiences
  • Developing guidance and resources on good supervisory practice, particularly in relation to supervising colleagues
  • Discussions on recruitment, supervisory workload and team structures
  • Exploring what makes the UWE doctoral experience distinctive
  • Convening a stakeholder workshop to promote dialogue between the CBL supervisory community and representatives of the Doctoral Academy and College research executives

A strong foundation for future collaboration

The workshop was a great success, bringing colleagues together in a friendly and collaborative environment. It allowed participants to share challenges and reflect on the emotional aspects of supervision.

One of the key takeaways was the importance of creating regular opportunities for open dialogue. Most importantly, the workshop set the stage for developing a lasting supervisory community that will empower supervisors, enrich candidates’ journeys and invigorate the research culture of the College of Business and Law.

Using Generative AI for research: Insights from the CBL workshop

Posted on

On 18 February, more than 30 academics and postgraduate researchers from across BBS and BLS came together for an engaging, hands-on workshop exploring how Generative AI (GenAI) can support different stages of the research process. Hosted by Professor Noelle Quénivet and Dr Sarah-Louise Weller, the session was designed to be practical and reflective. It was suitable for colleagues at all levels of experience with GenAI, whether just beginning to experiment or already integrating these tools into everyday research practice.

The workshop set out to demystify GenAI, highlight responsible and ethical use and offer real examples of how colleagues across the College are already using AI tools to streamline their research workflows.

Understanding the landscape: what GenAI can and can’t do

The session opened with an informative presentation from Boudewijn Dominicus (Research Development Manager, Health & Science) and Lindsay McDonagh (Research Development Manager, Creative Technology). They introduced the capabilities of GenAI tools and UWE Bristol’s newly issued Guidance on Generative AI and Large Language Models in Research.

Their talk covered how large language models (LLMs) work, accuracy challenges and common pitfalls, issues around data security, ethics and environmental impact and how funders are responding. They also outlined the policies researchers need to be aware of. UWE’s policy for using AI, specifically Microsoft Copilot, was introduced alongside a clear and memorable framework for effective prompting (RISEN):

R – Role: Give Copilot a specific role
I – Instructions: Provide clear and specific instructions
S – Steps: Break complex requests into manageable steps
E – Examples: Provide examples of desired outputs when helpful
N – Notes: Add important constraints and context

They also shared several practical “pro tips”, including asking the model to rewrite your prompt for clarity, refining prompts iteratively (“multi-shot prompting”) and specifying desired output format, tone or length. They highlighted ways Copilot can support the research funding process, from aligning ideas with call scopes to structuring narratives, editing, tailoring content for different audiences and preparing for interviews.

Exploring ethical questions through scenario-based discussion

Participants then worked in groups to unpack the ethical and legal dimensions of three fictional (but very realistic) scenarios involving GenAI use in research. These discussions encouraged colleagues to reflect on confidentiality, attribution, fairness, transparency and the responsible handling of data when using AI tools.

How researchers are using GenAI right now

One of the highlights of the session was a series of demonstrations from colleagues and PGRs across CBL. Each showcased a different real-world application of GenAI in research practice.

M. Emre Hayyar: Gemini as a learned friend
Emre highlighted the importance of clearly setting boundaries in prompts. Using a powerful “kill-switch” example, he showed how the quality and accuracy of outputs can differ dramatically depending on how a prompt is constructed. His take-home message was clear: LLMs tend to be overly supportive, so ask them to be critical or to take on the role of a supervisor, reviewer or journal editor.

Dr Mike Pollard: using LLMs to build research scenarios
Mike demonstrated how an LLM can act as a research assistant when given detailed and highly specific instructions. He emphasised the importance of fact-checking and refining outputs. He also showed how to instruct the model to exclude certain sources, such as particular years, languages or jurisdictions. He highlighted the need for researchers to reshape and refine generated material themselves to ensure it meets the needs of the task.

Dr Neeti Shikha: from manuscript to conference-ready slides
Neeti shared how she uses Gamma to transform a 5,000-word manuscript into a 15-minute conference presentation. The tool helps create visually engaging, audience-appropriate slides that can be adapted for academics, students or practitioners. She also offered helpful tips for responsible use.

Alexander Grimmig: from annotation to insight
Alex demonstrated how he integrates Zotero, Obsidian and AI tools to annotate, connect and synthesise his notes on journal articles and reports. This combined workflow helps avoid fragmented notes and reduces time spent re-reading papers.

To round off the afternoon, Professor Noelle Quénivet demonstrated how she uses Copilot to draft abstracts and conclusions for journal articles, as well as composite conclusion chapters for books. She closed with an important reminder to always check your target journal’s policy on AI use and disclosure before submitting.

A collaborative and insightful session

Huge thanks go to all the presenters for generously sharing their expertise and to all attendees for their thoughtful contributions and insightful questions throughout. The workshop showed how creatively colleagues are beginning to use GenAI, while also reminding us of the care, ethics and critical thinking required to use these tools responsibly.

The strong engagement across the Business School and Law School demonstrates a genuine appetite for learning how GenAI can enhance, streamline and support high-quality research. We look forward to building on this momentum with further sessions in the months ahead.

PS: For full disclosure, Copilot was used to structure notes taken during this three-hour session and the final version was edited using Copilot.

CBL Research Café brings colleagues together

Posted on

On Wednesday 21 January, colleagues came together for the first CBL Research Café, a new space designed to connect researchers, share experiences and spark future collaborations. The session welcomed 16 colleagues (including PGR students) from across the Bristol Business School and the Bristol Law School, creating an energising and supportive environment focused on learning from one another.

Breaking the ice with Research Bingo

The café kicked off with a lively game of Research Bingo. Each participant received a 5×5 bingo card filled with academic related activities and tasks. To fill their card, colleagues had to mingle and find others who had completed each activity, encouraging plenty of conversation and cross-disciplinary interaction. The competitive spirit was high! The first four players to shout “Bingo!” walked away with a prize.

Learning from each other’s experience

The bingo didn’t stop there. Participants were then asked to identify two to three activities on their card that they hadn’t done themselves and seek out colleagues who had. These informal conversations prompted valuable discussions about how colleagues approached different research activities, the challenges they faced and practical tips others could learn from.

Mapping researcher profiles

Tetris style puzzle showing how pieces fit together and gaps.

The session then moved into a Researcher Profile Mapping exercise. Attendees ‘ticked off’ activities they had undertaken from a comprehensive list, helping to build a clearer picture of collective strengths and gaps. This exercise will enable Noelle and Sarah-Louise to identify shortfalls and shape future research development and training opportunities and provide a useful reflection for PDR discussions.

Colleagues who didn’t attend the café are welcome to complete the mapping exercise here.

Coming up next…

The feedback from this first Research Café was overwhelmingly positive, with colleagues valuing both the networking and the opportunity for reflection.

The next CBL Research Café will take place on Wednesday 4 March, 12-2pm in Room 4Q008.

Further details will be shared soon – so watch this space!

Australia’s Social Media Ban for Under-16s

Posted on

By Dr Issy Bray, Dr Moya Lerigo-Sampson and Dr Yvette Morey

As Australia introduced a “world-first” ban on social media for under-16s last month and political momentum in the UK is building to consider similar action. We ask will such a ban protect young people’s wellbeing or create new risks?

The burden of mental disorders in children and young people is increasing worldwide, a trend certainly worsened by the Covid pandemic. Research points to a range of contributing factors, including intergenerational inequality, climate pressure, insecure work and social media.

While we cannot stop the march of technological progress, the effects of constant exposure to social media during childhood and adolescence remain largely unknown. However many feel strongly that social media, and the use of electronic devices more generally, is detrimental to development and wellbeing for children and adolescents.

Against this backdrop, the Australian government introduced its “world-first” social media ban for under-16s on 10 December 2025. Affecting major platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok and YouTube, the ban prohibits new accounts and requires deactivation of existing ones.

What does the ban aim to do?

While Australia’s ban on under-16’s engagement with social media is unlikely to be popular with young people themselves, the establishment is clear that it does not wish to punish young people – the aim is to protect them.

It is the social media companies that are targeted by the new legislation, which imposes monetary penalties if they fail to take reasonable steps to prevent minors under 16 from having social media accounts in Australia.

However, the Australian Human Rights Commission has indicated that the legislation is potentially in breach of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Digital Freedom Project, a civil liberties group, has announced that it will take legal action against the new laws, saying they violate the right to political communication.

The double-edged nature of social media

Most technological innovations have positive and negative implications. For example, during the Covid pandemic, social media was widely recognised to be a source of support and a way of connecting with others. At the same time as polarising heated debates around lockdown measures such as school closures and travel restrictions.

For many, unable to get out and enjoy their normal life, it encouraged social comparisons that led to dissatisfaction with their lockdown life and, for a minority, it fuelled body dissatisfaction leading to obsessive exercise regimes or disordered eating behaviours.

How will young people be affected?

The situation is not black and white. The balance between benefit and harm may well depend on who you are and where you live.

Approximately 90% of Australians live in urban centres (covering 0.22% of the land mass). The remaining 10% are dispersed in remote rural and coastal communities separated by huge distances.

For a teenager living in the outback, social media might be an important source of information, friendship and connection with the wider world.

As this ban is implemented it will be important to listen to the experiences of young people of different ages and living in different circumstances, to understand how social connection and loneliness are affected and to ensure that socio-economic inequalities are not increased.

How social media is used matters

More subtly, research suggests that the effects of social media depend on how it is used. For example for keeping in touch with loved ones (referred to as ‘active use’), or for viewing images of people we are less well acquainted with, such as social media influencers (‘passive use’), often with negative consequences such as comparing ourselves to others.

Certain sites are more conducive to passive than active use, but one problem with any attempt to research or regulate the use of social media is the speed at which individual platforms appear and then get overtaken. It is an ever-changing landscape, particularly where digital natives are concerned.

However, the Australian legislation allows the government to determine over time which social media platforms must ban age restricted users, meaning that in theory at least it can respond to the emergence of new platforms and data about who is using them and for what purpose. One possible hitch is that the companies themselves own this data.

Is Australia really a “world-first”?

Is the Australian government’s move as ground-breaking as it seems? In the UK and US, existing under-13 age limits already exist but are poorly enforced. In reality many under 13s have had access to social media (one survey estimated the figure to be 43%).

But as of 25 July 2025, the new Online Safety Act (2023/2025) requires platforms to use ‘age assurance’ methods such as ID checks or facial scans.

Politically, it will surely be easier to enforce existing legislation than to implement a new ban in the UK, but it is likely to require a cultural shift that so far been missing. And while the world watches Australia, we would do well to monitor the effects of this stricter enforcement of our own rules.

Protecting young people from harmful content

Critics argue that there is a less radical way to protect young people and that is to specifically protect them from harmful content.

Research carried out by NSPCC reported that more than one in four children had seen content on Facebook and YouTube that contained suicide, violence, bullying, sexual and other adult themes. Such issues have been highlighted recently by tragic suicides, in which young people have been influenced by online communities and exposed to content giving advice on methods of self-harm, and by conversations about pornography, in which dangerous practices such as choking are portrayed as ‘normal’. Prominent voices are calling for a total ban on such material.

The role of the Online Safety Act

In response to these concerns, the Online Safety Act also makes social media companies responsible for protecting under 18s from harmful content. It states that children must be prevented from accessing pornography or content that encourages, promotes or provides instructions for self-harm, eating disorders or suicide.

Ofcom is now the regulator of online safety and responsible for monitoring how effective companies are at protecting internet users from harm. As yet however, there is little information available about how successfully the Online Safety Act has been enforced.

Screen time, wellbeing and alternatives

A recent survey of 16-21 year olds carried out by Ofcom found that two-thirds spend more than two hours on social media every day.

The majority of respondents said they felt worse about themselves after spending time online and approximately half would prefer to be young in a world without the internet.

Protecting children from harmful online content tackles certain serious threats to young people’s wellbeing, but it will not materially alter the amount of time spent online (for over 13s at least).

There are many who argue that reducing screen time would improve young people’s wellbeing not only because of the content they see online, but because they hope it will encourage more time to be spent outdoors in nature, being physically active and interacting with others without the filter of a screen.

A ban on social media for under-16s is one way of doing that, but there are others. Banning use of phones in schools for example, as some schools have trialled in the UK, or introducing a social media curfew. Our government has so far stopped short of introducing these measures.

When we compare ourselves to Australia, will we begin to see a divergence in trends in mental health concerns of young people following the ban?

Learning from Australia

The acknowledgement that social media can be beneficial for wellbeing, and the insights that research offers into how it can be used more positively, suggest that there may be evidence-based alternatives to an outright ban. Such as education-based initiatives that support social media literacy in families.

Australia’s ban provides a natural experiment from which other governments, including our own, should be willing to learn from to make balanced policy decisions based on the evidence that emerges.

The authors have conducted extensive research on social media, including recent work showing that the lives of influencers are often more demanding than they appear (read more about the study).

Using referencing software

Posted on

Sarah-Louise Weller and Noëlle Quénivet

Referencing is a cornerstone of academic integrity and scholarly communication. It ensures that ideas are properly attributed, supports the credibility of research and facilitates peer review. In today’s fast-paced research environment, manual referencing is time-consuming and error-prone, making referencing software indispensable.

On 19 November 2025 Sarah-Louise Weller (Director of Research and Enterprise, Bristol Business School) and Noëlle Quénivet (Director of Research and Enterprise, Bristol Law School) organised a training session for colleagues in the College of Business and Law to explore why referencing matters, the benefits of using software, and compare two leading platforms: EndNote and Zotero which were presented by Cobus Jooste and Emre Hayyar of the Law School.

Importance of referencing

Correct referencing is not just about avoiding plagiarism; it reflects professionalism and respect for intellectual property.

Researchers who fail to reference accurately risk damaging their reputations and being rejected by journals.

Moreover, referencing provides readers with a roadmap for verifying sources and exploring further readings, thereby strengthening academic discourse. From a REF perspective, supporting arguments with credible, easily verifiable evidence certainly bolsters these arguments and enhances the rigour of the output. Clear and precise citations allow for greater transparency and reproducibility in research, both of which are vital to research integrity.

Importance of using the journal referencing system

Proper referencing is essential for meeting journal guidelines, as it not only facilitates the submission process but also enhances the likelihood of a manuscript’s acceptance. While some journals use unique styles, leveraging referencing software can help manage these variations effectively.

Standardised references help the peer review process by providing clear, comprehensive information about sources. It not only helps reviewers evaluate the work on its merits but also gives the manuscript a professional appearance, suggesting it is a finished product rather than a draft. This signals that the author values accuracy and takes the writing process seriously.

Challenges of not using referencing software 

Manual referencing is error-prone and time-consuming, with risks like misspelt author names, incorrect dates and formatting mistakes. Cross-referencing footnotes manually often requires repeated checks, while switching citation styles for different journals can take hours and introduce new errors. These tasks waste valuable research time.

In contrast, referencing software automates citation and bibliography creation, allows quick style changes and integrates with word processors, saving effort and reducing mistakes.

Referencing generators v referencing managers

Referencing generators quickly create individual citations for short papers but lack long-term storage, requiring repeated entry. They mainly support styles like Harvard, APA and Chicago. Some cannot handle primary legal sources.

In contrast, referencing managers like EndNote and Zotero offer comprehensive solutions: they store and organise references, integrate with word processors, automate citation and bibliography creation, enable collaboration and sync across devices, which is ideal for large projects and consistent referencing.

EndNote and Zotero

Cobus Jooste and Emre Hayyar introduced Endnote and Zotero, two popular tools, each offering unique features.

EndNote excels in managing large libraries, supports PDF annotation and offers AI-assisted summarisation. It integrates seamlessly with Thomson Reuters journals, enabling quick imports. Users can create multiple libraries, share group libraries and switch citation styles effortlessly. With over 7,500 styles and community-driven customisation, EndNote ensures compliance with (legal) journal standards. The downside is that EndNote is paid software, which may be costly for individual researchers.

Zotero, in contrast, is free and open-source, making it accessible to everyone. It supports PDF annotation, tagging and categorisation, enabling flexible organisation. Zotero allows migration between platforms, supports footnotes and provides cloud backup options. Its intuitive interface and ability to refresh references make it ideal for collaborative and long-term projects. While it is free and user-friendly, excellent for collaboration and adaptable for various citation styles, it has limited free storage.

Practical tips for researchers

Choosing between EndNote and Zotero depends on budget, project size and collaboration needs. EndNote is suitable for large-scale, institutional projects that require advanced features and style compliance. Zotero is ideal for individual researchers or teams looking for flexibility and affordability.

Some of the tips shared by Cobus Jooste and Emre Hayyar included always backing up libraries to prevent data loss, understanding style requirements (particularly concerning primary sources in law), starting early to avoid last-minute changes, using tagging and categorisation for efficient document retrieval, and exploring tutorials and community forums for troubleshooting and advanced features.

Conclusion

Referencing software is now essential: it ensures accuracy and professionalism in research. Both EndNote and Zotero enable scholars to manage citations effectively, saving time and minimising errors. By using these tools, researchers can focus on producing high-quality work rather than struggling with formatting issues. Ultimately, the choice depends on individual needs, but adopting any referencing software is a step towards improved research practices.

Back to top