My experience in trying to engage,
with Scottish Universities
Desire to work with academics
My experience in trying to engage with Scottish Universities has been surprising. We at Carney Heritage Productions do not work in isolation, and we strive to form partnerships so that our therapy can be as good as the collective we can make it. Identifying the potential that universities could offer we made contact with seven research teams from five Scottish universities.
I think it is important for all who read this to know what my experience with leading universities in the fields of dementia and alzheimer health care provision and research was over the past three years.
We wanted the benefit of their research cutting edge thinking to improve our therapy. We knew that we were working at the cutting edge of dementia research. We wanted partners who could show us that their capability to deliver cutting edge inputs matched our capability to deliver. Sadly we found out that if I took the same approach as the universities then my shop content would never have materialised today.
Fit for purpose
My expectations were that at the very least my therapy would have been rigorously challenged by most of the universities. Just to prove if it was fit for purpose or not. The information I submitted to them included all the aspirational research findings produced on the topic of dementia reminiscence care and support 24/7. As such none of the organisations I will report on could find any flaw with my new digital therapy. They recognised that no other therapy with 24/7 access with no geographic limitations was presently available for you. What we were proposing ticked all the boxes that research had identified as effective reminiscence therapy.
The outcome of my attempts to find a dynamic and progressive project partner was totally disappointing and deplorable. I am a one man business who has self funded three years of development without a return. Yet we have produced a digital game changer in dementia and alzheimer care accessible 24/7. No other organisation world wide has managed to produce this.
Our “ A picture house of MY past memories” dementia and alzheimer’s therapy
We have researched and developed over three years a prototype reminiscence therapy for dementia and alzheimer care using our heritage film from our unique Scottish heritage film archive. I then wanted to engage with Scottish universities to see if my prototype could be improved for wide spread utility. I wanted to see how their state of the art thinking, expertise and knowledge could make a positive contribution to my therapy.
I researched dementia health care very comprehensively
I used my academic skills to research all the developments of our therapy
As an outsider to dementia, alzheimer’s and health care I researched every related topic and who were the university research teams studying the subject.
As part of my networking I came to know of an organisation that connected people in business like me who had an innovatory idea with universities. I was keen to work with universities who had research teams in the same discipline area as my prototype.
I had to submit my application to the linking organisation so that they could approve my submission before it was sent to Scottish universities. That comprehensive submission was four pages long.
Seven research teams from five universities responded
They approved the application and sent it out to Scottish universities to see who may be interested in working with me. I got seven responses from research teams within five Scottish universities. I was pleased with that response. All acknowledged the uniqueness and the value of my prototype for dementia care. This was satisfying to know.
I then contacted each of the research teams and asked them to provide for me what they could bring to my prototype. I also asked for a face to face or an online meeting with them to discuss their response.
Evaluating each universities proposals and inputs
The first team I met told me that they could make a contribution to my prototype through their data base management programme. They explained this was their latest research on the subject. I told them that I had been doing what they think is state of the art data management for the past five years. So they were eliminated.
There were two teams that were full of promises to deliver but after two months of more promises to supply the information I required nothing was forth coming so I eliminated them.
That left four teams who had responded to my request for what they could bring to my prototype. I asked them for a draft research question that we could work together on as a starting point for refining a potential funding application model.
At this point I also asked them to provide me with.
1. Their latest peer assessed publications within their subject area which related to my prototype.
2. When last they worked with a business to research an idea.
3. When they last presented an academic paper at a conference related to what they could bring to my prototype
4. What significant professional activity they were involved with related to my prototype.
5. What was their research rating.
These are simple questions that were asked by me so that I could evaluate their status. I am a retired academic so I know how the system should work. There was nothing unusual about me asking them to validate themselves to me. I had to do that to them in my initial correspondence with them through the linking organisation.
Two refused to supply this information and said that their University name was their status and position within the subject. This answer is so unprofessional that I eliminated these two teams.
That left me with two teams who so far had partly met my requirement
I then asked them to identify the funding bodies we should approach and to develop with me a funding application for the research question posed.
One university could not identify any funding bodies. I however had identified two potential funding bodies. It appeared that they did not have their finger on the pulse of contemporary funding bodies available to them. They were next to be eliminated by me.
So that left me with one university who could meet my criteria so far for partnership.
I submitted my content for the funding application to them. They came back and told me that I could not included my costs for my time and my film footage as a research cost. However, they included all their labour and material costs in the application. I told them that how could this be an equal partnership project when me the originator of the research cannot get my cost covered. I was told that this was their procedure and the funding body would not approve my claim for appropriate costs.
Partnership working must be equal
I told them that they could be in breach of the Modern day Slavery Act by treating their supply chain partners ( ie me) in an unequally manner. I pointed to them that their model for partnership working was a Victorian one and one that I would not participate in. So, I eliminated that one also.
Seven research teams could not match my expectation
The power of competition in education and research
All the seven teams did not match my criteria for partnership working. I found this situation to be disappointing. With such attitudes within some Scottish universities like the above examples I have experienced it is no wander a high % of Scottish universities are finding operating very difficult and some will not survive. Market forces will only support the best. Some should fall by the wayside when they are not good enough and fail to work in the 21 century. Some of these universities had such tunnel vision that they did not even know what other teams in their own university (which I had identified) were also researching similar dementia concepts.
I had hoped that a university partner would have been identified with input that left my level of thinking far behind them—but no
What I experienced was not best practice in research methodology and protocol. When you read their web pages about what they do they all state how they wish to participate with others for the development of dementia research. As a businessman and a researcher, I just could not be dragged down to their level of thinking or snail pace outdated actions. By doing what they have always done they will always get what they have always had. Many carry out research but as you and I know there has been no new drug for cure or care made available from research since the years 2000. They totally live in the previous century and are a far cry from 21st century thinking and practice. It is no wander that you the people living with dementia and alzheimer’s have no tangible output for care from these institutions.
My innovation and vision for change and progress must be matched
Working as an entrepreneur and with people living with dementia and people working in dementia care at the delivery point we can do and have done much better than working with these universities. Our dementia and alzheimer reminiscence film therapy has successfully evolved without their help.
Blue sky dynamic thinking and vision for alzheimer’s and dementia therapy is what we have brought to dementia care. I expected the same dynamic thinking from Universities. They find and create ways why things innovative cannot be done. Innovators like me will not be stopped by them.
As a retired academic with many years of being involved with research I have applied my academic research skills and discipline in progressing our therapy to this point. You can be assured that our development of our dementia reminiscence therapy can embrace and withstand an rigorous academic investigation. See for your self the contents of our shop.