auto_awesome_motion View all 7 versions
organization

University of Stirling

Country: United Kingdom
Funder (2)
Top 100 values are shown in the filters
Results number
arrow_drop_down
502 Projects, page 1 of 101
  • Funder: UKRI Project Code: 2487570
    Partners: University of Stirling

    Research question(s)/problem: In the face of economic austerity, with reduced sources of funding and available resources, SME heritage organisations have been under increased pressures to demonstrate value. Some have been exploring how they can re-orientate to fulfil a wider range of public and social benefit agendas in addition to economic value. Northlight is creatively experimenting in this area, and like other SME heritage organisations it faces challenges in implementation and sustainability at organisational, project and community levels. Recent research has addressed related questions, most notably around the value and benefits of arts and culture (e.g. Crossick & Kaszynska 2016). However, value is still approached in profoundly different ways in public policy, with its stress on economic measures, and academic research, which predominantly opposes 'reduction of cultural practices to financial proxies' (O'Brien 2014:79; also Belfiore & Upchurch 2013). Furthermore, there are significant gaps in understanding how heritage contributes to social, economic and environmental values (e.g. Bonacchi 2013; Burtenshaw 2017; Jones 2017, Resera & Bentrupperbaumer, 2005). There is therefore a pressing need for research focusing on how SME heritage organisations respond to rapidly changing economies, in dialogue with emerging theories of economic practice aimed at social purpose (Mazzucato 2018). How are SME heritage organisations framing ideas of mission, need and value? How are they navigating heritage and creative economies to implement their visions? How can heritage studies and public policy scholarship contribute to these developments? Research context, methods and sources, originality/innovation and contribution to knowledge: The objectives are to: 1. Map the political, policy and funding arenas in which SME heritage organisations are operating. 2. Increase knowledge and understanding of changing organisational priorities and practices oriented towards public values. 3. Examine the risks, challenges and opportunities for creating sustainability at organisational, community and project levels. 4. Investigate how heritage organisations can increase their sustainability through collaboration and integration with creative industries. 5. Develop new working models for heritage SME's and improve policy and guidance produced by professional bodies (e.g. HES, MGS, Creative Scotland, CIfA, FAME, IHBC). Methodology and approach To answer these questions, I will take the proposition of 'collaboration' as method seriously (Estalella and Criado 2018), within a broadly qualitative, ethnographic approach combined with survey-based quantitative analysis. I will be embedded in Northlight and participate in their projects, to understand the organisation's priorities, practices, challenges and opportunities. This explicitly interventionist methodology (Pink and Morgan 2013) is designed to facilitate research into, and support of, emergent practices and sustainable futures. Qualitative research methods, including critical approaches to evaluation (Seale et al. 2004) will be used to increase knowledge of the experiences and values associated with community heritage projects.

  • Funder: UKRI Project Code: RES-192-27-0001
    Funder Contribution: 3,492 GBP
    Partners: University of Stirling

    Abstracts are not currently available in GtR for all funded research. This is normally because the abstract was not required at the time of proposal submission, but may be because it included sensitive information such as personal details.

  • Funder: UKRI Project Code: NE/S006311/1
    Funder Contribution: 139,605 GBP
    Partners: University of Stirling

    This fellowship will communicate the scientific outputs from the Radioactivity in the Environment (RATE) programme to relevant stakeholders facilitated by focussed outputs of RATE information. This will be achieved by fostering and developing strategic partnerships with industry, regulators and other interested parties which will: a. address challenges of radiation protection by ensuring access to data and embedding the RATE findings in policy b. identify future research requirements on environmental radioactivity c. ensure that meaningful impact arising from RATE is recorded. The fellow will embed the findings of RATE in policy and practice around radiological protection, radioactive waste management and nuclear new builds. Knowledge exchange activities will bring together academia, industry, regulators and communities to exchange ideas, evidence and expertise. Preliminary analysis has identified primary stakeholders such as the Department for Business, Energy and Industry Strategy, Environment Agency, Food Standards Agency, Radioactive Waste Management and Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Conversations with these key stakeholders during the preparation of this proposal identified the need for RATE outputs to address three user-defined challenges (see objectives). Primary stakeholder groups (see beneficiaries) will aid the development of reports addressing each challenge through meetings (see LoSs). RATE information in novel reports will address UK and international user-defined challenges for radiation protection and will be developed with primary stakeholders. These reports will create economic impact and improve quality of life through addressing the Government's clean growth industrial challenge for low carbon-based energy generation systems. The key role of these reports will be to signpost users to RATE information and facilitate discussion during meetings and workshops. The fellowship will communicate with secondary stakeholders (identified through a detailed stakeholder analysis at the start of the fellowship). Fellowship specific workshops and national and international conferences/meetings will be used to ensure RATE research outputs are disseminated to broad audiences to increase impact. All meetings/workshops will use the reports to focus discussion and to identify avenues for embedding the RATE outputs into policy and practice and identify further research needed in environmental radioactivity. National and international meetings and conferences will be used to build on the legacy of RATE and foster collaborative working, therefore, increasing the impact of RATE. Impact from this fellowship will come from assessing the change in stakeholder's views of the radiation protection landscape with the addition of the RATE information. How this information is used in policy and practice, both nationally and internationally is another measure of impact. To be able to evaluate the impact of this fellowship, an information baseline will be established at the start of the fellowship to enable comparison at the end of the fellowship. This project will be led by a fellow developed as part of the capacity building of the RATE Programme. The fellow has taken every available opportunity to extend their knowledge and understanding of the policy arena surrounding environmental radioactivity. In addition the fellow has worked at Scottish Environment Protection Agency, undertaking knowledge exchange activities (including facilitating meetings and workshops) expanding their knowledge and understanding of the science-policy interface. Utilising soft skills developed to support and foster knowledge exchange between partners this project will capitalise on established networks of contacts both nationally and internationally in the field of environmental radioactivity. The fellow will also draw on working relationships with other participants of RATE including the project PIs and the RATE science co-ordinator.

  • Funder: UKRI Project Code: ES/F024274/1
    Funder Contribution: 84,257 GBP
    Partners: University of Stirling

    Abstracts are not currently available in GtR for all funded research. This is normally because the abstract was not required at the time of proposal submission, but may be because it included sensitive information such as personal details.

  • Funder: UKRI Project Code: ES/K00588X/1
    Funder Contribution: 306,128 GBP
    Partners: University of Stirling

    People's well-being, consisting of, for example, their health, happiness and overall satisfaction with life, is influenced by a wide variety of life events (e.g., income increases, marriage, and unemployment) as well as changes in the society in which they live (e.g., changes in national income and how equally that income is distributed). Our programme of research will show (a) the type of person who loses or gains the most well-being when these events take place, and (b) the psychological reasons as to why people's well-being changes after such events. Showing why, and for whom, socio-economic events can have a large impact on well-being is important for understanding basic questions such as why some people are happier or more depressed than others. Such research can also help in understanding the impact of policy (for example, who will suffer the most if society becomes more unequal). We use already collected datasets which provide tens of thousands of people's responses, over several years, to questionnaires about themselves and their levels of well-being. These well-being responses, as well as detailed medical information about their biological functioning, can be linked to specific events that people have encountered in their lives. We use these datasets to ask five key research questions, each with both theoretical and policy implications; 1. Do well-being reactions to socio-economic events (such as marriage or unemployment) depend on a person's personality prior to the event occurring? If so, this would suggest that certain people have predictably stronger or weaker reactions depending on their existing psychological characteristics, indicating who may need the most support following life events. 2. Whilst personality by definition represents quite stable psychological characteristics, here we ask whether personality changes in predictable and meaningful ways following life events. If personality is something that changes, then this suggests some potential for policy discussions and applied research to focus on how to create the conditions that allow for positive personality development. 3. Is a person's health and well-being influenced by their level of income, or rather by how their income ranks amongst other people (e.g., those in the same community)? If the latter is the case, then this has implications for understanding why the relationship between income and well-being exists, and may offer specific solutions as to how to reduce the negative effects of having a low income. 4. Does losing one pound of income have a proportionally greater impact on well-being than gaining one pound of income? Although intuitively "yes", calculations of the impact of income on well-being currently assume that income gains and losses impact equally on a person or a nation's well-being. This question has relevance to policies that prioritise the avoidance of income losses over stimulating income gains. 5. Do people have lower levels of well-being in less equal societies? Here, we explore whether the influence of positive and negative life events on well-being are different depending upon the level of inequality in a society, and whether this occurs due to low feelings of basic fairness and trust. This would contribute to debates as to the relative costs of allowing income to become more unequally distributed. The integration within our programme is the focus on showing how psychological characteristics are important for understanding how socio-economic circumstances influence well-being across these five broad areas. Our aim in answering these questions is to; (a) contribute new answers to old theoretical questions in several fields, (b) encourage interdisciplinary collaboration in understanding the impact on well-being of socio-economic events, (c) feed into important policy debates, and (d) suggest an increased role for psychologists to work alongside other social scientists in informing policy in this area.