ESRC PhD scholarships 2019 – Call for applications

ESRC-funded PhD scholarships are available in population studies at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, to start in autumn 2019. These scholarships are offered in both Demography and Reproductive and Sexual Health training routes. Scholarships may be taken up either as a stand-alone PhD (a ‘+3’ award); or as a programme which includes first taking additional taught courses before starting the PhD (‘2+3’, ‘1+3’, and ‘+4’ awards).

The closing date for preliminary applications is 8 January 2019. Interested candidates are encouraged to contact potential supervisors well ahead of this deadline to discuss their application.

8 – 14 November 2018

Jimmy Whitworth provides expert comment on rabies after PHE announces that a UK resident bitten by a cat on holiday in Morocco has died from the disease after returning home. Jimmy said: “Seeking prompt care and getting vaccination is so important. In this tragic case the person didn’t get the vaccine in time. One of the messages is that health workers must be clued in to the possibility of rabies. There are high stakes, you must not get it wrong.”

Jimmy’s comments were picked up in The Telegraph, The Times, Guardian, Daily Mail, Mirror and Press Association newswire. Overall more than 100 outlets covered the news using Jimmy’s comment. Jimmy also appeared on Sky News and ITV Meridian to provide expert commentary.

Jo Lines speaks to BBC World Service News Hour (14m 02s in) about how important gene drive work in is tackling malaria. Discussion was prompted after Malaria No More sent an open letter to the UN convention on biological diversity (which is meeting in Egypt next week) highlighting why gene drive work is so vital. When the convention meets next week they will be considering recommendations that call on governments to refrain from releasing organisms that contain gene drives, even in small-scale field trials. Jo said: “Research is about knowing more and it’s by doing it in this way so that the key risks, including those that may be of public concern, will be addressed.”

The open letter was co-signed by leading academics. LSHTM co-signatories on the letter include Professor Jo Lines, Professor Sir Brian Greenwood and Professor Immo Kleinschmidt.

James Logan writes for BBC News about the remote African islands of Bijagos, which provide researchers with a “natural laboratory”. The unique settings allow for study of some of the world’s deadliest diseases, which can lead to development of cures. James writes: “We found mosquitoes that are very good at transmitting malaria and worryingly, we also found that some were resistant to insecticides. This means the most common ways to control malaria – bed nets and spraying houses with insecticides – may not work, meaning an alternative strategy is needed.”

Clare Chandler is quoted in The Telegraph on a new WHO report looking at antimicrobial resistance, published during World Antibiotic Awareness Week. Tracking antibiotic consumption from 65 countries, the report finds significant variation, with some overusing the drugs and others lacking access to them. Clare said: “More active forms of surveillance are required to capture an accurate picture of antibiotic use, coupled with research to understand what this means on a day-to-day level.”

Dan Bausch comments in Sky News for a piece about why Ebola will keep coming back. The article focuses on how the virus is maintained in nature, in bats, which means that it will never be eradicated completely. Dan said: “Bats are the reservoir for various other sister viruses to Ebola. So that’s the predominant theory. Humans can get infected in numerous ways – they can get infected through unwitting casual contact, through bat faeces, saliva or food.”

Sanjay Kinra presents results of a new study looking at the benefits of yoga for individuals that have suffered heart attacks, at the annual American Heart Association Conference. Sanjay said: “While we await formal peer review, the preliminary results of our trial suggest that a yoga-based cardiac rehabilitation programme could improve quality of life and promote earlier return to usual activities. This offers a low-cost and culturally-acceptable effective alternative to standard cardiac rehabilitation programmes that are usually complex and expensive.”

The findings were reported in India Times (content not currently available to users in Europe), India Today, Medscape, Telegraph India and Deacon Chronicle.

Rachel Lowe speaks to The Telegraph about how urban environments and megacities, which lack window screens, air conditioning and have a lot of standing water, are contributing to a rise in dengue fever. Rachel said: “When you have these sprawling urban areas, where there is poor sanitation and close contact between the vector and human there is bound to be a rise in the number of cases.”

David Heymann is interviewed by Raconteur on preparing for the next big pandemic. The piece asks how prepared are we to combat a deadly virus infecting millions around the globe? David said: “We just don’t know where the next pandemic will strike. We cannot predict it. There is also the natural evolution of diseases already out there.”

Martin McKee is mentioned in a Guardian article about immigration, after a London based economist, Professor Mariana Mazzucato’s UK residency was denied by the Home Office. Martin’s comments were picked up on Twitter.

Coverage of the Women Leaders in Global Health (WLGH) conference, hosted by LSHTM

Peter Piot writes a letter to the UK Home Secretary Savid Javid expressing concern about the current visa application process for international academics and scholars. The letter was written after 17 speakers and delegates from low-and middle-income countries were denied visas to attend the WLGH conference. The letter is covered in a Times article (£). Peter wrote: “Unfortunately, the current restrictive criteria can only deter organisations from holding future conferences in the UK at a crucial time when the UK should be ‘open for business’. Our school is already considering moving the locations of many of our large international meetings to outside the UK so that valued global experts can participate more easily.”

Peter’s letter was also covered by Devex, BMJ, Daily Mail, Thomson Reuters, and Times Higher Education (subscription required), including over 45 international news outlets.

Following Peter’s letter Jeremy Farrar, Director of the Wellcome Trust writes in the Times (£) about why scientists need the Home Office on their side for Britain to be a leader in global science.

Heidi Larson and Joanna Liu, key speakers at the WLGH conference, are interviewed for BBC Woman’s Hour talking about their hopes for the conference and fostering leadership for women. Joanne said: “Some women feel vulnerable going to the bathroom – we put a light & a lock on the door, it doesn’t cost a lot of money. We must act on things we know, bottom line.”

On social media

This week’s social media highlight comes from the LSHTM Twitter page, recognising the achievements of Professor Sir Brian Greenwood and promoting the Greenwood Africa Award. The new award will recognise the research achievements and future potential of a mid-career African scientists in contributing to the control of infectious disease in sub-Saharan Africa.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on 8 – 14 November 2018

How to present quotes from interview transcripts: the ‘tidying up’ dilemma (including: what do with your own less-than-perfect sentences)

Two members of the DEPTH team, Cicely Marston (supervisor) and Shelly Makleff (PhD student) discuss how best to present quotations from interview transcripts when writing up. We talk about how to present ‘untidy’ speech (e.g. ‘um’, ‘er’, repetition), how much to ‘tidy up’ quotes, and the implications of any ‘tidy up’.

Shelly’s interviews and analysis have been done in Spanish and the quotes she presents in the final write up are translated into English. Here we present a lightly edited version of a supervisory email interchange we thought might be useful to others. And we would love to hear your views in the comments – we certainly don’t have all the answers.

SM: How do you clean up a transcribed quote to present it in an article? Every time I cut some words, even just filler words, should I mark these omissions with an omission marker (such as […])? Or do I have the liberty to just cut those fillers without a […], in order to create a clean and readable quote?

CM: In my opinion all cuts should be marked with an omission marker (e.g. […]). I have argued about this with a journal before because newspapers use ellipses to indicate omissions (rather than a specific omission marker that only indicates omissions). The issue is that when you do this, there is no obvious way to mark pauses in someone speaking so you would need to find another pause marker that won’t be confused with an omission marker. You could do this by writing [pause] every time, but this also makes quotes hard to read if there are a lot of pauses. When you are using translated quotations, it is less clear what to do because for instance, you might keep the translation ‘clean’ by not including every single one of the filler words (though I would recommend you keep them as much as possible where there is a direct translation (e.g. in Mexican Spanish, hesitation where people say ‘este…’ can be translated as ‘um…’ in English), or at least if there is no direct equivalent, make sure you keep the spirit of the original which might have involved hesitations).

For translations, where it is good practice to provide the original language version in an appendix, one way to get around this is to present the original language quotations with all the pause markers etc included, and then present ‘tidied up’ translations in the body of the article. If you do this, you should mention it in the methods section so the reader knows they can refer to the original language quotations. Note that ‘tidying up’ is particularly challenging when you are working in your non-dominant language, which is all the more reason to present the original language transcript excerpts verbatim.

SM: Ok, so sounds like you’d always use […] to signify every piece of cut text in the article. For a conference poster, do you think it’s ok to leave out the […] for filler words so it’s smoother to read?

CM: I would keep it precise i.e. show where you have edited – I assume you won’t cut all the ums and errs. I get quite suspicious when I see a perfect quote because very very few people speak in complete sentences with no hesitations. if you genuinely think the hesitations are unimportant in any given instance, then you *can* edit them, but make sure there is a note that you have done this somewhere on the poster, for transparency.

SM: If I’m adding clarifying info in [], do I do that instead of or as well as the words that are being replaced? In other words, would it be “So for them [the students]” or “So for [the students]”?

CM: I would go with the longer version so that it is clear what they actually said versus what is your interpretation/explanation.

SM: Can I add punctuation and make sentences to create more clarity, when the speech was transcribed as a long run-on sentence?

CM: Yes, definitely improve the punctuation – transcriptions are almost always badly punctuated, especially when the narrative includes reported speech, in which case transcribers often give up on attempting to punctuate it altogether – and to be fair it can take a while to get it right even if it is quite obvious without punctuation what the speaker has said. It is worth doing because it does make it much harder to read when transcripts not properly punctuated. If you are not sure how to punctuate the sentence from the transcript alone (e.g. it is unclear where the emphasis in the sentence was), you will need to go back to the original audio to ensure your ‘new’ punctuation correctly represents what was said.

SM: I wish there were guidelines for this! In a quick internet search, I didn’t find any, at least not that are clear per discipline. While looking for guidelines I did see an article about the diversity of perspectives among academics about how they edit qualitative quotes. One perspective in favour of editing out the filler words pointed out that if participants saw their own quote with all the filler words, they’d feel embarrassed, and it isn’t an expectation that everyone speaks perfectly but that as researchers we should present their ideas as clearly as possible in a way they’d feel comfortable with. And actually, in Mexico when we shared the transcribed quotes with the health educators, they felt embarrassed about it, joking that they needed diction classes. They even made a meme of their horrified reactions when they read their words on paper and heard how they talked (see below). For the presentation of the data, we hadn’t really cleaned up the quotes, it was mainly verbatim, but the idea still stands- the way we represented them didn’t make them sound eloquent, and that embarrassed them.

This meme was created by health educators in Mexico (Ana Karen Alameda Esquivel, Benjamín Israel Bellazetín Ruíz, Yaret Gutiérrez Cruz, Karla Alejandra Medina Alcántara) who were research participants, in response to hearing us read out their own quotes verbatim. [Translation: first picture – when they give you the results from the course you implemented; second picture – when you see the transcription of how you speak].  Presented here with their permission.

CM. I agree that if the quotes have names attached to them, the person might prefer a ‘cleaned’ version, but your quotes are anonymised and so from an individual perspective I don’t think that is too much of a concern.

Having said that, it’s true that original, not tidied-up quotations might contribute to a discourse of the ‘other’ being inarticulate. People who are looking for ways to find others inferior will likely find them regardless and so I’m not sure that compromising the integrity of the transcript will help (although I’m open to arguments to the contrary).

Overall, though, going along with the idea that there is a ‘better’ way to speak brings its own problems. Should we all speak in perfect sentences? Who determines what is ‘perfect’ or ‘best’? This is especially difficult if you are trying to ‘tidy up’ sentences that were spoken in another language than our dominant language. As researchers we should commit to transparency. Interviewers who worry about their sentences should probably listen back to the interviews – they will hear that it sounds very normal, even if they hesitate, repeat words, use filler words, reframe questions and so on. It’s important to build rapport – if you don’t naturally speak in 100% full sentences in real life, why would you do so in an interview? Being inauthentic, or struggling to present a more perfect self, may well have a negative impact on the interview overall.

What do you think? How have you handled these issues? Let us know in the comments.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on How to present quotes from interview transcripts: the ‘tidying up’ dilemma (including: what do with your own less-than-perfect sentences)

ESRC PhD scholarships 2019 – call for applications

ESRC-funded PhD scholarships are available in population studies at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, to start in autumn 2019. These scholarships are offered in both Demography and Reproductive and Sexual Health training routes. Scholarships may be taken up either as a stand-alone PhD (a ‘+3’ award); or as a programme which includes first taking additional taught courses before starting the PhD (‘2+3’, ‘1+3’, and ‘+4’ awards).

The closing date for preliminary applications is 8 January 2019. Interested candidates are encouraged to contact potential supervisors well ahead of this deadline to discuss their application.

Posted in News | Comments Off on ESRC PhD scholarships 2019 – call for applications

Plan-S and the 2020 Wellcome Trust Open Access Policy

The Wellcome Trust last week confirmed its new open access policy, which will come into force for research articles submitted to journals after the 1st of January 2020. The current Wellcome open access policy continues until then but this policy is worth bearing in mind for future publication plans and grant applications. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation also last week agreed to introduce the same policy. Moreover, the policy is broadly in line with the proposed changes to UKRI’s open access policy from 2020 as well as those of other major European funders, which have recently come together as a group called ‘Coalition-S‘ to roll out the new open access policy termed ‘Plan-S’. The various funders are aligning their policies partially to further the movement towards open access as default but also to simplify the policy landscape for researchers.

The new policy states that Wellcome-funded researchers can either publish in fully open access journals under the CC BY copyright license OR in subscription (‘hybrid’) journals as long as the journal allows the accepted manuscript to be released on Europe PMC at the point of publication with no embargo period and under a CC BY copyright license.* Open access fees will be covered for fully open access journals but will not be covered for hybrid journals, so it would only be possible to publish in a hybrid journal if it offered a 0-month green open access deposit policy. In addition, there will be no funding provided for non-open access publication fees, such as additional page and colour charges issued by publishers.

Wellcome will also introduce the policy that where there are ‘significant’ public health benefits to an article being shared widely and rapidly prior to publication, a pre-print (i.e. the final draft of an article before peer review) should be shared on a pre-print server as soon as possible. Following this, a list of recommended pre-print servers will be announced by Wellcome closer to the start of the new policy, but may well include platforms like BioArxiv, with which some publishers are already working.

The policy for UKRI (RCUK) and European Research Council-funded researchers is likely to be more-or-less the same as the above, but there may be slight variations on what green open access repositories are considered acceptable (e.g. in the current RCUK policy, MRC-funded authors, but not others, are required to deposit on Europe PMC). Communication about UKRI policy specifics should be forthcoming next year.

 

Journal Choice

Unfortunately many publishers of hybrid journals at the moment impose lengthy embargo periods on both their STM and Humanities journals. Cambridge University Press impose 6-month embargoes for most of their STM journals, as does The Lancet. However, most other Elsevier, Oxford University Press, Taylor & Francis, Wiley and Wolters Kluwer journals offer 12 month embargoes (often up to 24 months for humanities journals). Emerald is a rare publisher that offers a 0-month embargo as standard. Moreover, the copyright license allowed by academic publishers for accepted manuscripts is usually the CC BY-NC-ND, if not the standard “Copyright [publisher], all rights reserved” statement. Under Plan-S, the more liberal CC BY license is required to be applied to accepted manuscripts to enable wider re-use and dissemination of public or charity-funded research. In sum, this may mean, unless publishers change their policies, researchers will be limited to publishing in fully open access journals and a very small handful of policy compliant hybrid journals. As a result, a small group of researchers from various institutions have raised concerns about their academic freedoms being challenged (academic freedom here being defined as researchers not being able to publish in any journal they wish to).

However, Plan-S will likely deliver more benefits to researchers than restrictions to academic freedom. (Academic freedom may be more fairly interpreted as the ability to publish what you want, rather than where you want). The primary driver is to make sure funded research gets widely disseminated, particularly into the hands of those that cannot read journals through (expensive) library subscriptions. It is worth noting that some publishers of subscription journals are already compliant with Wellcome’s new conditions, such as the Royal Society, while many researchers already prefer to publish in fully open access journals (such as the PLOS and BioMed Central journals, Nature Communications, Scientific Reports). As an institution, we are signed up to the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (or DORA), which commits us to considering the value of a piece of research not necessarily by where it is published (i.e. based on a journal’s impact factor), but to using a variety of measures of ‘quality’ in assessments, including in promotion and hiring procedures. This is a sector-wide movement, with many UK universities signed up, as well as major international funders like Wellcome Trust, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and UKRI. It is also worth highlighting that assessment panels in the REF are expected not to use a journal’s impact factor or notions of journal prestige in their evaluation of research articles submitted for assessment, and funders’ grant committees are also expected not to use where an article is published as a proxy for quality. Researchers should therefore – in theory – not be disadvantaged by a limitation of journal choice. However, it is recognised there is much work to be done in enacting the DORA principles across the sector.

 

The Embargo Problem

We should also bear in mind that traditional publishers have had a long time to change their policies: the current MRC and Wellcome Trust policies have both been around for over 10 years, yet many publishers still impose non-compliant green open access conditions. Moreover, academic publishers have controlled the mechanisms by which researchers can effectively disseminate their work for decades (also read this more provocative recent Twitter thread). Therefore, it is perhaps unfair – as the signatories of the open letter above have claimed – to claim that funders are limiting academic freedoms through their open access policies. A publisher can make a hybrid journal compliant by simply reducing its embargo period; it is not necessarily the case that journals like the Lancet (owned by Elsevier) or Nature (owned by SpringerNature) need to become fully open access to become compliant with the Plan-S proposal. A journal therefore does not need to necessarily radically alter its business model. In some sense it may be more beneficial for subscription-based journals to follow this route rather than publishers whole-sale turning subscription-based journals into open access ones, since unfunded researchers will continue to be able to publish in them. On the other hand, if publishers make their subscription-based journals open access, they will need to allow some mechanism for unfunded researchers (in the UK as well as around the world) to be able to afford to publish in them either through fee waivers or otherwise. Alternatively, in the long-term we might see more alternative open access models emerge to deal with the expensive business of publishing (see a recent blog post on this here). Platforms that allow free open access publishing are already established (e.g. Open Library of Humanities, Gates Open Research, Wellcome Open Research, and various other independent journals), often supported by grants or institutional contributions.

It is perhaps time to put the pressure on major commercial publishers to make sure researchers can still publish in all their journals, rather encouraging funders to relax their open access policies. The policies underline the importance they put on ensuring the vital work they fund is not hidden behind paywalls. We can also offer more support to initiatives like DORA and similar ones like the Leiden Manifesto. Paywalls are only profitable to publishers and not to researchers. Publishers have not gone out of business by delivering 0-month embargoes on their journals (see Emerald, The Royal Society, Sage), and so the onus is on the publishers to respond to legitimate concerns of researchers and funders enacted by the new Plan-S policies. The next few months will be intriguing, as we will likely see other organisations join the Coalition-S group of funders, and we will see publishers’ responses to the upcoming policies: will they establish new open access journals, make existing hybrid journals fully open access, or deliver compliant green open access policies for existing hybrid journals?

 

We will continue to monitor the publishing landscape and funders’ policies and communicate any major updates. Do get in contact with the Research Publications Team in the Library & Archives Service if you have any queries about open access policies, and follow our open access Twitter account for ongoing news and views.

 

*A hybrid journal is a journal which publishes a mixture of open access and closed-access articles available only to subscribers (authors have a choice of paying for open access or not), whereas a fully open access journal only publishes open access articles (and usually involves a fee, but not always).

Congratulations to Fergus McBean awarded 2018 Civil Service Use of Evidence Award

MSc Public Health: Health Services Management alumnus (2011), Fergus McBean has won the prestigious 2018 Civil Service Use of Evidence Award.

The Civil Service Awards, supported by EY, are a highly respected and prestigious cross-government programme to recognise and celebrate the wealth of inspirational individuals and innovative projects within the civil service. Fergus received the award for leading a ground breaking piece of work to use weather forecasting and cholera risk modelling to better inform cholera prevention in Yemen, work that was inspired by articles published in the Lancet on the cholera epidemic in Yemen (the articles can be viewed here and here), and was featured on the BBC website.

Fergus decided to study an MSc Public Health at LSHTM in 2011 as it is a “world-renowned public health university with an incredible alumni network.” “The most important skill I learned at LSHTM was the approach and interrogation of evidence. It is a skill I have used time and time again in providing advice to DFID for the past 5 years.”

Fergus formed valuable relationships while studying at LSHTM. After he graduated he continued to have access to tutors, academics, professors and even the Director of LSHTM, Professor Peter Piot at times (during the Ebola outbreak in West Africa). He found that LSHTM staff were always willing to understand, discuss and help address challenges.

Fergus told us that he feels honoured to be recognised for his work in the Yemen by being awarded the 2018 Civil Service Use of Evidence Award. “The messages of support and encouragement I have received since being nominated and winning have been great. I should say though that this could not have been completed without a team effort within the UK Department for International Development (DFID) with the research and evidence climate team and external partners at the Met Office, University of Maryland, University of West Virginia, NASA, and UNICEF.”

Fergus is currently a Humanitarian Advisor at DFID. Looking to the future, he said “I hope that we can build off the momentum of the work we have done to date, expand it to other countries and increase the timeframe that the Cholera Risk assessment is valid for – from 4 weeks to 8 weeks.”

Fergus’s advice for current students is to make the most of the opportunities you have to introduce yourself and reach out to anyone affiliated with the School. “The networks and contacts you make during your time at LSHTM can be invaluable later on.” “Take the knowledge you receive and don’t be afraid to apply and challenge it in order to find new ways of making an impact on people’s health.”

Congratulations Fergus on your award, we are proud to have you as part of our alumni community!

Senate House Library Membership Event

All School staff and students are entitled to free membership of Senate House Library. This is an excellent resource which gives you access to thousands of online resources. It also entitles you to use their study space and borrow library items.

On Tuesday 4th December, from 13:00-15:00, we will be holding a Senate House Library membership event in the Library. Staff from the Membership Team at Senate House will be visiting the School to register new members.

You can find out more about Senate House Library on their website, and explore their online catalogue, and databases list.

To become a member, pre-register online, then come to the Library between 13:00 and 15:00 on 4th December to complete your registration. 

 

Senate House Library [Stevecadman (CC BY-SA 2.0)]

If you are not based in London, School staff and students can apply for online only membership by completing the ‘Request Senate House Library Access’ form on Service Desk.

 

Postdoc opportunity with the ALPHA Network

Research Fellow in Demography & Health
Department of Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
Closing Date:  Wednesday 09 January 2019
Interview Date: To be confirmed
Reference: EPH-DPH-2018-13

An exciting opportunity is available for an ambitious demographer, statistician, or epidemiologist with the Network for Analysing Longitudinal Population-based HIV data on Africa (ALPHA Network). The ALPHA network brings together ten collaborating African research institutes that conduct population-based HIV surveillance in eastern and southern Africa and is coordinated by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM). Among others, the ALPHA Network harmonizes diverse data sets into a common format so as to conduct comparative studies and meta-analyses on pooled data sets.

The Research Fellow in Demography & Health will join a team of analysts in London to work on a 3-year research project, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to estimate HIV incidence and mortality, and in the comparison of population-based estimates with those emanating from routinely collected data in health facilities.

The successful applicant must have a PhD in the relevant subject, including demography, medical statistics, epidemiology, or reproductive health (or equivalent working experience in these fields); expertise in the analysis of large and complex (longitudinal) datasets; proven ability to use statistical analysis software (preferably Stata or R); and strong quantitative skills, preferably in the area of demographic estimation. Further particulars are included in the job description.

This full-time position is available as soon as possible for the duration of one year, with the possibility of further extension.  It will be based in London in the Faculty of EPH and in the Department of Population Health, at Keppel Street, Bloomsbury. The salary will be on the Academic pathways Grade 6 scale in the range £39,304 – £44,634 per annum (inclusive of London Weighting). The post will be subject to the LSHTM terms and conditions of service.  Annual leave entitlement is 30 working days per year, pro rata for part time staff. In addition to this there are discretionary “Director’s Days”. Membership of the Pension Scheme is available.

Applications should be made on-line via our website jobs.lshtm.ac.uk. The reference for this post is EPH-DPH-2018-13. Applications should include the names and email contacts of two referees who can be contacted immediately if shortlisted. Any queries regarding the application process may be addressed to . Inquiries about the position can be directed to Georges Reniers ()  or Emma Slaymaker ().

Further details:    Job Description

 

Posted in Opportunities | Comments Off on Postdoc opportunity with the ALPHA Network

The ALPHA Network is hiring a postdoc

Research Fellow in Demography & Health
Department of Population Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
Closing Date:  Wednesday 09 January 2019
Interview Date: To be confirmed
Reference: EPH-DPH-2018-13

An exciting opportunity is available for an ambitious demographer, statistician, or epidemiologist with the Network for Analysing Longitudinal Population-based HIV data on Africa (ALPHA Network). The ALPHA network brings together ten collaborating African research institutes that conduct population-based HIV surveillance in eastern and southern Africa and is coordinated by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM). Among others, the ALPHA Network harmonizes diverse data sets into a common format so as to conduct comparative studies and meta-analyses on pooled data sets.

The Research Fellow in Demography & Health will join a team of analysts in London to work on a 3-year research project, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to estimate HIV incidence and mortality, and in the comparison of population-based estimates with those emanating from routinely collected data in health facilities.

The successful applicant must have a PhD in the relevant subject, including demography, medical statistics, epidemiology, or reproductive health (or equivalent working experience in these fields); expertise in the analysis of large and complex (longitudinal) datasets; proven ability to use statistical analysis software (preferably Stata or R); and strong quantitative skills, preferably in the area of demographic estimation. Further particulars are included in the job description.

This full-time position is available as soon as possible for the duration of one year, with the possibility of further extension.  It will be based in London in the Faculty of EPH and in the Department of Population Health, at Keppel Street, Bloomsbury. The salary will be on the Academic pathways Grade 6 scale in the range £39,304 – £44,634 per annum (inclusive of London Weighting). The post will be subject to the LSHTM terms and conditions of service.  Annual leave entitlement is 30 working days per year, pro rata for part time staff. In addition to this there are discretionary “Director’s Days”. Membership of the Pension Scheme is available.

Applications should be made on-line via our website jobs.lshtm.ac.uk. The reference for this post is EPH-DPH-2018-13. Applications should include the names and email contacts of two referees who can be contacted immediately if shortlisted. Any queries regarding the application process may be addressed to . Inquiries about the position can be directed to Georges Reniers ()  or Emma Slaymaker ().

Further details:    Job Description

 

Posted in Opportunities | Comments Off on The ALPHA Network is hiring a postdoc