'Boundary Objects' in Archaeological Finds and Environmental Research: Using Bowker and Star's Concept of the 'Boundary Object' to Analyse and Interpret Disparate Archaeological Legacy Data

Is a big data analytical approach viable using archaeological artefact and ecofact data? In particular is it possible to use Bowker and Star's (1999) concept of the 'boundary object' to manage the issues caused by data scale, complexity, diversity and variable information standards when attempting to carry out this kind of research? This paper reviews the theoretical and methodological debates around archaeological big data as they impact upon research into assemblages of artefacts and ecofacts and presents a methodology for the construction and use of a large archaeological database of legacy artefact and ecofact data created as part of the English Landscapes and Identities Project at the University of Oxford.

Academic Endowments in the United Kingdom – Do They Make a Difference?

This paper analyses the role and significance of the endowments for the UK higher education system. We have systematised the metrics commonly used to measure the performance of the academic endowments. To collect the data about universities and colleges, we exploited the data provided by the HESA (Higher Education Statistics Agency) that collect and disseminate UK higher education data and the data provided by the Charity Commission for England and Wales. The size of the university and colleges endowments is valued using their respective financial statements, using endowment reserve account of the balance sheet.The academic endowments linked with the UK universities and colleges are estimated to be worth £15.8 billion in 2020. According to the number of the endowments linked with universities and colleges endowments, they play a significant role in the UK higher education system. However, there is a notable difference concerning endowment size between the few most reputable academic institutions and other universities and colleges. For example, the two largest endowments (the University of Oxford and the University of Cambridge with accompanied colleges endowments) in 2020 had a share of 75% measured by the size of the endowment assets. Moreover, this 75% has been stable during the last several years.In addition, the UK academic endowments are much smaller than their US counterparts and thus generally have lesser significance for the UK higher education system, while they may play a significant role for particular institutions. The endowment size per student has also been much smaller in the UK than in the US. Except for the six universities and colleges, the share of the income coming from endowments and donations in the total income has been relatively low, 2% or less. Considering the long history and tradition of the endowments in England, their role in the UK higher education system is deeply rooted. However, with their historical performance and significance for some higher education providers, there is an opportunity for a more prominent role in the future.

Immunocytochemical Labelling of Haematological Samples Using Monoclonal Antibodies

I reflect on my experience working with David Y. Mason in the Leukaemia Research Laboratories in the Nuffield Department of Pathology at the University of Oxford in the early 1980s. This was soon after the first monoclonal antibodies had been produced, which led to an exciting and productive time in biological discovery and pathology diagnostics. A specific focus in the laboratory was the development of immunoenzymatic staining methods that would enable monoclonal antibodies to be applied in diagnostic practice. This paper describes the work that led to the performance of immuno-alkaline phosphatase staining on blood and bone marrow smears, the success of which changed leukaemia diagnosis.

The barriers and facilitators of radical innovation implementation in secondary healthcare: a systematic review

PurposeThis study aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators related to the implementation of radical innovations in secondary healthcare.Design/methodology/approachA systematic review was conducted and presented in accordance with a PRISMA flowchart. The databases PubMed and Web of Science were searched for original publications in English between the 1st of January 2010 and 6th of November 2020. The level of radicalness was determined based on five characteristics of radical innovations. The level of evidence was classified according to the level of evidence scale of the University of Oxford. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used as a framework to classify the barriers and facilitators.FindingsBased on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, nine publications were included, concerning six technological, two organizational and one treatment innovation. The main barriers for radical innovation implementation in secondary healthcare were lack of human, material and financial resources, and lack of integration and organizational readiness. The main facilitators included a supportive culture, sufficient training, education and knowledge, and recognition of the expected added value.Originality/valueTo our knowledge, this is the first systematic review examining the barriers and facilitators of radical innovation implementation in secondary healthcare. To ease radical innovation implementation, alternative performance systems may be helpful, including the following prerequisites: (1) Money, (2) Added value, (3) Timely knowledge and integration, (4) Culture, and (5) Human resources (MATCH). This study highlights the need for more high-level evidence studies in this area.

Preface

This year, Journal of Environmental Science and Sustainable Development (JESSD) is proud to hold its second international virtual symposium, featuring world-class speakers and editors worldwide. We were incredibly honored to have invited Prof. Christopher Silver, Ph.D., FAICP from College of Design, Construction, and Planning, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA; Mari E. Mulyani, D.Phil. from University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom; Prof. Rotimi Williams Olatunji from School of Communication, Lagos State University, Nigeria; Prof. Svetlana Drobyazko from Open International University of Human Development, Kyiv, Ukraine; Prof. Marinela Panayotova from Departement. of Chemistry, University of Mining and Geology, Bulgaria; Anita Bernardus from APRIL Group; Ir. Maya Tamimi, M.Sc. from Unilever Indonesia; Dr. Yuki M. A. Wardhana from PT Penjaminan Infrastruktur Indonesia; and Dr. Taufan Madiasworo, ST, MT from Deputy Director of Integration on Settlements Infrastructure Management, Directorate General of Human Settlements, Ministry of Public Works and Housing. The symposium was held in virtual format due to related restrictions during COVID-19 pandemic. I appreciate everyone’s participation in the second JESSD Symposium: International Symposium of Earth, Energy, Environmental Science, and Sustainable Development, despite the restrictive situation caused by the global COVID-19 pandemic. Instead of being postponed, this symposium was conducted virtually to response to emerging issues mainly related to earth science, energy, environmental science, and sustainability. Moreover, this symposium also facilitates the publications of qualified research on COVID-19 to contribute to the global response towards the pandemic situation. This symposium is slightly different with previous symposium and conference held last year. By making the best use of development in telecommunication platforms, we are able to gather virtually to share our insights and progresses covering numerous subjects ranging from: the broad earth science, energy, and environmental science, to more specific topics on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and the special issues of COVID-19 Research as well as Community Engagement for Better Environment. This symposium utilized Zoom and Youtube, a widely known cloud-based video conferencing tool, as its telecommunication platform.

#Vaccine: Using Hashtags from Indian Tweets to Capture and Analyse the Sentiments of People on Vaccination for Covid’19 Pandemic

To prevent the public from pandemic Covid’19 the government of India has started the vaccination from mid of January 2021. The government has approved the two vaccines, Covishield from the university of Oxford and Covaxin from Bharat Biotech.The vaccination started with frontline workers and is further extended to common public prioritizing the elders of above 60 years and people aged 45 years above with co morbidities. Though many people have got benefitted from it there is still a group of people not convinced with the vaccination. We have carried out this work to analyze those Indian people sentiments on the vaccines through the hash tags of tweets. The results show that though majority of the community has a positive belief on the vaccines but some of them still express negative emotions.

Who funded the research behind the Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine?

ObjectivesThe Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, Vaxzevira or Covishield) builds on two decades of research and development (R&D) into chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx) technology at the University of Oxford. This study aimed to approximate the funding for the R&D of ChAdOx and the Oxford–AstraZeneca vaccine and to assess the transparency of funding reporting mechanisms.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review and publication history analysis of the principal investigators to reconstruct R&D funding the ChAdOx technology. We matched award numbers with publicly accessible grant databases. We filed freedom of information (FOI) requests to the University of Oxford for the disclosure of all grants for ChAdOx R&D.ResultsWe identified 100 peer-reviewed articles relevant to ChAdOx technology published between January 2002 and October 2020, extracting 577 mentions of funding bodies from acknowledgements. Government funders from overseas (including the European Union) were mentioned 158 times (27.4%), the UK government 147 (25.5%) and charitable funders 138 (23.9%). Grant award numbers were identified for 215 (37.3%) mentions; amounts were publicly available for 121 (21.0%). Based on the FOIs, until December 2019, the biggest funders of ChAdOx R&D were the European Commission (34.0%), Wellcome Trust (20.4%) and Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (17.5%). Since January 2020, the UK government contributed 95.5% of funding identified. The total identified R&D funding was £104 226 076 reported in the FOIs and £228 466 771 reconstructed from the literature search.ConclusionOur study approximates that public and charitable financing accounted for 97%–99% of identifiable funding for the ChAdOx vaccine technology research at the University of Oxford underlying the Oxford–AstraZeneca vaccine until autumn 2020. We encountered a lack of transparency in research funding reporting.

HISTORICAL CONNECTIONS BETWEEN JESUS COLLEGE, OXFORD, AND LLANDYSUL IN CEREDIGION: INSIGHTS FROM THE COLLEGE ARCHIVE

Jesus College, a constituent college of the University of Oxford, was founded in 1571 by Elizabeth I. The college has benefitted from parish patronages, with the right of advowsons, which have assisted the college's development. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the college held twenty such advowsons, including a relationship with Llandysul parish in Ceredigion (Cardiganshire) that was established in 1680 and survived until 1944. This study uses the college archive to provide an initial investigation into the historical connections before and since 1680, so raising awareness of the historical link with Llandysul and providing a framework for future research.