BU research, (led by me, Dr Paul Hartley), was recognised at UK Kidney Week in Liverpool last week. We were invited to speak about our fruit fly model of human renal disease, work that has been variously supported by grants from the British Heart Foundation and Kidney Research UK. The conference was an excellent opportunity to showcase the model and highlight our current collaborations with consultant-scientists based at Great Ormond Street Children’s Hospital as well as a number of different groups at the University of Bristol, the University of Osnabruck in Germany, Harvard Children’s Hospital and the University of Edinburgh. The research work is based in Dorset House labs and is supported by a wide network of talented people within BU as well as our undergrad and post-grad students.
Category / Research news
Last Summer the Centre for Qualitative Research organised a series of short (half hour) surgery sessions where participants could ask us any questions that they might have about qualitative methods and their research. If we didn’t have the answer, we have a list of CQR Members who often do!
Dr Kip Jones, Centre Director and Deputy Director, Caroline Ellis-Hill will offer sessions this Summer!
To book a half hour (in person) with Kip at Royal London House on a Tuesday morning or Thursday afternoon, just email firstname.lastname@example.org with your possible date. Kip will get back to you with a time.
To book a a half hour (via Skype only) with Caroline on a Wednesday morning, email email@example.com with our possible date. Caroline will get back to you with a time and Skype arrangements. (We particularly hope that colleagues and students at Yeovil and Portsmouth will take advantage of this particular distance resource.)
CQR members have expertise in a wide range of methods. If necessary, through the surgery process we can connect you up with a particular resourceful person.
- Research as Film/Film as Research
- Grounded Theory
- Performance Poetry
- Focus Groups
- Participatory Action Research
- Biographic Narrative Interpretive Method
- Appreciative Inquiry
- Arts-based methods
- Telephone interviews
- Questionnaire design
- Performance Poetry
- Performative Social Science
Sessions will generally run through July and the first half of August.
These sessions seemed to work quite well last Summer. We hope that you will find them a valuable assistance. No need to be a CQR member (but you may want to become one!)
Kip and Caroline
The American Journal of Men’s Health published our latest paper on obesity prevention in men. The paper ‘Clinical Effectiveness of Weight Loss and Weight Maintenance Interventions for Men: A Systematic Review of Men-Only Randomized Controlled Trials (The ROMEO Project)’ originates from a collaboration between BU and various universities in Scotland, led by the University of Aberdeen .
This systematic review paper found that reducing diets produced better weight loss than physical activity alone. The most effective interventions combined reducing diets, exercise, and behaviour change techniques . Group interventions produced favourable weight loss results. The paper reports that once engaged, men remained committed to a weight loss intervention.
The paper concludes that weight loss for men is best achieved and maintained with the combination of a reducing diet, increased physical activity, and behaviour change techniques. Strategies to increase engagement of men with weight loss services to improve the reach of interventions are needed. This paper is the thirteenth paper from a large NIHR grant [2-13].
The American Journal of Men’s Health is an open access, peer-reviewed resource for cutting-edge information regarding men’s health and illness. It is, however worth noting that although our paper is formally published in July 2017 it has been online for two years! The journal’s website states clearly that the article was first published online on June 30, 2015 BUT the issue in which it appears is published is July 1, 2017!
Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen
- Robertson, C., Avenell, A., Stewart, F., Archibald, D., Douglas, F., Hoddinott, P., van Teijlingen, E., Boyers, D. (2017) Clinical effectiveness of weight loss & weight maintenance interventions for men: a systematic review of men-only randomised controlled trials (ROMEO Project), American Journal of Men’s Health 11(4): 1096-1123. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1557988315587550
- Robertson, C, Archibald, D, Avenell, A, Douglas, F., Hoddinott, P., van Teijlingen E, Boyers, D., Stewart, F, Boachie, C, Fioratou E., Wilkins, D, Street, T., Carroll, P., Fowler, C. (2014) Systematic reviews of & integrated report on quantitative, qualitative & economic evidence base for the management of obesity in men. Health Technology Assessment 18(35): 1-424. http://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/118180/FullReport-hta18350.pdf
- Stewart, F., Fraser, C., Robertson, C., Avenell, A., Archibald, D., Douglas, F., Hoddinott, P., van Teijlingen, E., Boyers, D. (2014) Are men difficult to find? Identifying male-specific studies in MEDLINE and Embase, Systematics Reviews 3,78.
- Archibald, D, Douglas, F, Hoddinott, P, van Teijlingen, E, Stewart, F., Robertson, C., Boyers, D., Avenell, A. (2015) A qualitative evidence synthesis on management of male obesity. BMJ Open 5: e008372. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008372 http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/10/e008372.full.pdf+html
- Boyers, D, Stewart, F, Fraser, C, Robertson, C, Avenell, A, Archibald, D, Douglas, F, Hoddinott P, van Teijlingen E. (2015). A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of non-surgical obesity interventions in men, Obesity Research & Clinical Practice 9(4), 310-327.
- Robertson, C, Avenell, A, Boachie, C., Stewart, F., Archibald D., Hoddinott, P, Douglas, F, van Teijlingen E, Boyers D. (2016) Should weight loss and maintenance programmes be designed differently for men? Systematic review of long-term RCTs presenting data for men & women: The ROMEO Project, Obesity Research & Clinical Practice 10: 70-84.
- Robertson, C., Avenell, A., Boachie, C., Stewart, F., Archibald, D., Douglas, F., Hoddinott, P., van Teijlingen, E., Boyers, D. (2015) Should weight loss programmes be designed differently for men and women? The ROMEO Project, Appetite 87: 374.
- Robertson, C., Avenell, A., Stewart, F., Archibald, D., Douglas, F., Hoddinott, P., van Teijlingen, E., Boyers, D. (2015) A systematic review of long-term weight management randomized controlled trials for obese men. The ROMEO Project, Appetite 87: 374.
- Robertson, C., Avenell, A., Stewart, F., Archibald, D., Douglas, F., Hoddinott, P., van Teijlingen, E., Boyers, D. (2015) A systematic review of weight loss interventions in the UK. The ROMEO Project, Appetite 87: 375.
- Boyers, D., Avenell, A., Stewart, F., Robertson, C., Archibald, D., Douglas, F., Hoddinott, P., van Teijlingen, E., (2015) A systematic review of the cost-effectiveness of non-surgical obesity interventions in men, Appetite 87: 375.
- Archibald, D., Douglas, F., Hoddinott, P., van Teijlingen, E., Boyers, D., Avenell, A., Stewart, F., Robertson, C., (2015) A qualitative evidence synthesis on the management of male obesity. The ROMEO Project, Appetite 87: 381.
- Avenell, A., Robertson, C., Boachie, C., Stewart, F Archibald, D., Douglas, F., Hoddinott, P., van Teijlingen, E. (2016) Sex based subgroup differences in randomized controlled trials: empirical evidence from Cochrane meta-analyses BMJ 355:i5826 http://www.bmj.com/content/355/bmj.i5826/rapid-responses
- Avenell, A., Robertson, C., Stewart, F., Boyers, D., Douglas, F., Archibald, D., van Teijlingen, E., Hoddinott, P., Boachie, C. (2016) Sex can affect participation, engagement, and adherence in trials, BMJ 355:i6754 http://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/355/bmj.i6754.full.pdf
Having just completed my Undergraduate degree in Psychology, I have embarked on a summer Research Assistant position working with the Ageing and Dementia Research Centre (ADRC) here at Bournemouth University. I will be working closely with an expert team within the research centre – Dr. Michele Board, Dr. Jane Murphy, Dr. Michelle Heward, and Ashley Spriggs, who have all dedicated their careers to this particular field.
Our current project focusses on ‘Dementia Education Through Simulation’ (DEALTS), a dementia care training program for healthcare professionals, which has previously been delivered in a ‘train the trainer’ format to healthcare trusts. The current program, DEALTS 2, aims to build upon the previous DEALTS, and provide an up to date evidence-based framework. This updated program signifies the importance of empathy and humanised care when training, which aligns closely with Tier 2 .The current training program utilises simulations including videos, case-studies, and role-play to help increase relatability to the patient.
My role within this project is to support the team within the Faculty of Health and Social Sciences on an evaluation of DEALTS 2. Initially I am expected to analyse the feedback questionnaires taken from the DEALTS 2 sessions. Other responsibilities include helping Dr. Michelle Heward deliver a presentation at the BU Humanising Caring, Health and Wellbeing Conference, 29th – 30th June. You can register for a place at https://humanisation.eventbrite.co.uk
I will also be conducting a literature review, and help out at one of the DEALTS 2 training sessions. This will enable the foundations for the team to eventually create an up to date evaluative research paper on DEALTS 2.
So far, I am excited by the responsibilities given and organised work structure. Not to mention feeling incredibly welcomed by the team, which has lead me feeling immersed in this project. After having previous experience with research assistant roles, this project has so far exceeded my expectations in terms of my roles and responsibilities. I feel excited enthusiastic for the scope of opportunities this project could bring.
I intend to report my experience at the end of my work placement, and hopefully will finish with some significant data to report, and greater insight into DEALTS 2. I look forward to what the next four weeks may bring!
Congratulations to Dr. Sam Rowlands, Visiting Professor in the Faculty of Health & Social Sciences, who published an interesting Commentary in the BJOG together with Prof. Roger Ingham from the University of Southampton. Their paper ‘Long-acting reversible contraception: conflicting perspectives of advocates and potential users’ argues that a patient-centred approach to contraceptive care is fundamental to women’s autonomy. The authors remind the readers that it needs to be appreciated that unintended pregnancy is most likely to be reduced by fulfilling the unmet need for contraception and encouraging those not using any form of contraception, or condoms only, to use a method of their choice accompanied by adequate instruction (where necessary) in correct usage.
As promised to our audience at the 31st International Confederation of Midwifery Triennial Congress in Toronto today: the slides used on our session ‘Mental health training for community maternity workers in Nepal. The slides in PDF format can be accessed here: Nepal THET ICM 2017. Our project brought together academics, midwives, nurses, and other health workers in Nepal and the UK to help in the training of Auxiliary Nurse Midwives in Nawalparasi on key aspects of mental health and mental health promotion. The project led by Bournemouth University was funded under the Health Partnership Scheme (HPS) which is managed by a London-based organisation called THET (Tropical Health & Education Trust).
Can I also take the opportunity to list all our collaborators in Nepal and UK:
Padam Simkhada, Bhimsen Devkota, Shyam K. Maharjan, Lokendra Sherchan, Ram Chandra Silwal, Krishna Acharya, Bishnu G.C., Ram K. Maharjan, Bibha Simkhada, Jillian Ireland, Jane Stephens, Colette Fanning, Edwin van Teijlingen, Geeta Sharma, Samridhi Pradhan, Seam MacKay, Ish Fawcett, Andrea Lawrie, Dave Havelock, Liz Murphy, Rose Pringle, Sapana Bista, Chrissy Reeves & Flora Douglas.
Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen
Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health
The reviewer is Sophie Clare a Staff Midwife at Wexford General Hospital finds it an insightful book which is “a collection of chapters examining issues pertinent to maternity care and midwifery practice across cultures and continents.” She concludes that our book “demonstrates the value of international comparative research in learning what kind of care is best and for whom, in any given setting.”
Professor Edwin van Teijlingen
Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health
- Clare, S. (2017) New Thinking on Improving Maternity Care: International Perspectives, Sarah Church, Lucy Firth, Marie-Claire Balaam et al (ads) 2017, Pinter and Martin Ltd, 216pp, £24.99, pbk, ISBN 978 178066 240 4 [book review], The Practising Midwife 20(6):36.
- Church, C., Firth, L., Balaam, M-C., Berg, M., Smith, V., van der Walt, C., Downe, S., van Teijlingen, E. (Eds.) (2017) New Thinking on Improving Maternity Care: International Perspectives, London: Pinter & Martin
BU academics from the Faculty of Health & Social Sciences had a strong presence at the International Confederation of Midwives (ICM) in Canada this lunch time. They presented four separate academic posters today at the ICM conference in Toronto. First, Dr. Alison Taylor presented her poster ‘Mothers need to talk, midwives need to listen: Insights from breastfeeding mother’s video diaries’. Secondly, Sara Stride and Dr. Sue Way presented their poster on ‘UUPP Study: Updating the Understanding of Perineal Practice at the time of birth across the United Kingdom’.
Prof. Vanora Hundley, Dr. Ann Luce (BU Faculty of Media & Communication), Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen and two students, Sofie Edlund and Sian Ridden also presented their poster on ‘Changing the narrative around birth: midwives’ views of working with the media’. And, last but not least, Prof. Vanora Hundley and Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen also contributed to a poster produced by Dr. Andrew Symon and colleagues from across the UK: ‘Midwifery-led antenatal care models: Mapping a systematic review to an evidence-based quality framework to identify key components and characteristics of care’.
Dr. Alison Taylor of the Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health (CMMPH) presented her poster today on breastfeeding on the first day of the International Confederation of Midwives (ICM) conference. Alison’s poster ‘Early breastfeeding support for first-time UK mothers: A study based on video diaries’ was well received in Toronto (Canada).
The ICMLive produces webcasts of some of the major conference. This week you can watch events live here.
Professors Vanora Hundley and Edwin van Teijlingen
Dr Nicole Ferdinand, Senior Academic Events Management, was one of the presenters at the Sussex Impact Day, at University of Sussex, Attenborough Centre for the Creative Arts, Falmer, Brighton, June 13th 2017. Her presentation on Capturing Event Impacts by Developing an Event Profile was one of three sessions which were dedicated to Understanding Event Impacts. It was praised for providing useful “practical information” to University of Sussex Academics, who were increasingly “using events to accelerate the impacts of their research” by Megan McMichael, ESRC Impact Acceleration Account (IAA) Project Manager at Sussex University. Key insights from her presentation included: the need to have a dedicated budget to capture impact; the increasing importance of capturing social media impacts and incorporating automation or e-evaluation tools to make event impact capture easier.
The University of Sussex Impact team also invited Dr Ferdinand to join other sessions at the Impact Day, including the plenary session featuring external organisations who have first hand experience of working with academics. The speakers were Mr Antonio Capillo, Senior Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Manager at The Fairtrade Foundation, Ms Tao-Tao Chang, Research Grants manager at The Victoria and Albert Museum, Dr Penny Hawkins, Head of Research Animals Department at the RSPCA and Dr Malcolm Skingle, Academic Liaison Director at GSK.
For more on the Sussex Impact Day have a look at a summary of the day’s events and Dr Ferdinand’s session on Capturing Event Impacts on Storify.
New Parliament – On Monday we sent out a special edition policy update to keep you current on the political arrangements as the new government is formed. If you missed it you can read it here. Locally, all the incumbents were re-elected, meaning the whole of Dorset continues to be represented by Conservatives. A breakdown of the local MPs, the profile of their vote share, and current political interest areas is available here. It has now been confirmed that the Queen’s Speech and state opening of Parliament will take place on Wednesday 21 June. Since Monday’s update it has been confirmed that Jo Johnson remains in post as Universities Science Research and Innovation Minister. Anne Milton is the new Apprenticeships and Skills Minister. Locally Tobias Ellwood will move to the Ministry for Defence.
- Student voting preferences: YouGov’s post-election poll states that 64% of full time students voted Labour, 19% for Conservatives, 10% Lib Dems. For graduates Labour got 49% and Conservatives 32%.
- Effect of age: The survey states that young turnout was not as high as the media initially reported – 59% of 20-24 year olds voted. The survey highlights that age is a new dividing line in British politics. For every 10 years older a voter is, the likelihood they will vote Conservative increases.
- Effect of education: The survey reports that education is also an electoral demographic divide with support. In the recent election support for the Conservatives decreased the more educated a voter was, with the reverse for Labour and the Lib Dems. Age is a factor, the young have more qualifications than the old, however YouGov report even accounting for this the Conservatives still have a graduate problem.
Longitudinal Education Outcomes (LEO) data – The full longitudinal education outcomes (LEO) data was released this week. It shows graduate earnings and employment outcomes from 2014/15 taking data from the students graduating 1, 3 and 5 years before 2014/15. The methodological of how the data measured prior attainment has changed and ethnicity identifiers have been removed from the dataset for this release. LEO will be published alongside the Key Information Set on Unistats. Wonkhe ran a live LEO blog on release day (BU got a mention) and have an assortment of articles discussing the LEO findings as well as university rankings for each subject area. Polar data is available so comparison of the class effect on graduate earnings is possible even at a subject level. BU is generally positioned well within the LEO data, which is consistent with our DLHE outcomes data.
Gender pay gaps: Wonkhe reported on the first trial release of LEO data highlighting that the pay gap between women and men is visible from graduation. Wonkhe have explored this gender pay gap through the full LEO dataset released this week. Their new article identifies that, while the gender gap remains, subject area has an affect and where there are lower numbers of men than women on a subject, e.g. nursing, the men outperform the women’s pay by an even greater margin. The article questions whether universities are failing to prepare women to enter the most well-paying graduate jobs, and failing to encourage women’s aspirations on the same par as men. The article also anticipates that when the pay data can be cut by ethnicity that further gender racial divides will been seen. The Guardian also report on the gender pay gap.
Brexit – residency rights for EU citizens wishing to remain in the UK post Brexit are not as black and white as it seems. This report from Migration Watch UK on the EC’s negotiating position explores the shades of grey. There are ongoing rumours of pressure to soften the approach to Brexit but no indication of it – the formal negotiations with the EU start on Monday.
Higher Education and Research Act (HERA) – With Jo Johnson, Justine Greening and Greg Clark’s continuation of their cabinet roles the sector anticipates that both TEF and the HE and Research Act will move forward with more certainty now. UUK have published a briefing on the implementation of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. UUK remain positive in their approach to the act whilst acknowledging the potential risk to institutional autonomy. The act replaces HEFCE with the OfS, establishes the combined UKRI, and begins to establish the new regulatory system for the sector. UUK call for universities to engage and influence how OfS and UKRI approach their remit and to consider the implications of these split bodies with reference to the relationship between teaching and research within universities.
Regulation: The sector will be regulated through the register of HE providers. The OfS can vary the conditions applied to providers (as the pool of providers will be wider) and requirements relating to access and participation. A technical consultation on registration fees is expected during autumn 2017. Student protection plans will be a requirement of registration, including transparency in enabling provision for student transfers. The OfS will consult on whether there are appropriate bodies that could perform quality assessment and data collection in advance of April 2018 and that would command the confidence of the sector.
Teaching quality: During amendment through parliament conditions of registration relating to quality and standards of teaching meant conditions should relate to sector recognised standards. The detail and ownership the sector will have over the definition of standards is unclear. However, amendments within the Lords ensured that ‘quality’ and ‘standards’ should be properly defined and separate and the independent ability of institutions to set their own standards was protected. The UK-wide standing committee on quality assessment is working to coordinate a shared regulatory baseline and is also reviewing how the quality code, including standards, may need to evolve in the context of the new regulations. HEFCE is also expected to conduct a review of the Annual Provider Review in the autumn.
Degree awarding powers: will be subject to independent quality advice from either the designated quality body or an independent committee, and replicates much of the role of the QAA’s Advisory Committee on degree awarding powers (Section 46). A consultation on how the OfS should exercise its new powers, including ‘probationary’ degree awarding powers, and the removal of degree awarding powers is expected. There are additional conditions to be met before OfS can vary or revoke degree awarding powers or university title, royal charters cannot be revoked in full. There is to be additional ministerial oversight of new providers without a validation track record. Amendment discussions secured tightened regulation around degree awarding powers and university title to protect both students and the sector reputation on sector entry for new providers.
Financial powers: OfS will have the ability to make grants or loans to a HE provider, replicating HEFCE’s powers to provider funding for high cost or strategic/vulnerable subjects. It’s likely any support for providers in financial difficulty would require DfE and Treasury input.
Fee limits & TEF: Fee limit changes require (active) approval by both Commons and Lords, even if the increase is below inflation. An approved access and participation plan is required. There are three levels of fee limits:
- the higher amount which will ordinarily increase by inflation (LINKED TO TEF)
- an intermediate cap LINKED TO TEF (but won’t be implemented before 2020)
- a basic cap (currently set at £9,000)
Until the academic year 2020/21 all providers participating in TEF with approved access plans will be permitted to charge the full inflationary increase up to the higher amount. Before differential fees determined by TEF rating can be implemented an independent review of TEF must take place. The review would need to take place in winter 2018/19 for differential fees to be implemented in 2020/21. The review will cover:
- the process by which ratings are determined under the scheme and the sources of statistical information used in that process
- whether process and statistical information are fit for purpose in determining ratings under the scheme
- the names of the ratings under the scheme and whether those names are appropriate
- the impact of the scheme on the ability of higher education providers to which the scheme applies to carry out their functions (including in particular their functions relating to teaching and research)
- an assessment of whether the scheme is in the public interest
- any other matters that the appointed person considers relevant
Subject level TEF have been delayed by an additional year but will be piloted in 17/18 and 18/19.
UKRI: will operate from April 2018 and is expected to commence by drafting its research and innovation strategy in collaboration with the sector. Research England will have to consult on the terms and conditions attached to the quality-related funding it provides. The government must publish details of the funding provided to UKRI, the terms and conditions attached, and the amount granted to each of the seven councils. This is designed to give public oversight of the process, and to encourage responsible allocation of funding to the different councils. The dual support system will not be undermined. The Act enshrines the Haldane principle within the legislation ‘decisions on individual research proposals are best taken following an evaluation of the quality and likely impact of the proposals (such as a peer review process)’. UKRI should give equal regard to all nations of the UK.
Widening Participation – The Social Mobility Commission have published the Social Mobility Barometer surveying the public’s attitude towards UK social mobility. The Barometer is new and there will be follow up polls each year until 2021. It was run by YouGov. Press coverage: BBC; TES focus on the belief education will be better in the future.
- 48% of the public believe that where you end up in society today is mainly determined by your background and who your parents are; 32% believe everyone has a fair chance to get on regardless of their background.
- 79% believe that there is a large gap between the social classes in Britain today.
- A large majority of people believe that poorer people are held back at nearly every stage of their lives – from childhood, through education and into their careers.
- 71% believe opportunity is dependent on where a person lives (something the government’s intended Industrial Strategy aims to tackle)
- Young people increasingly feel they are on the wrong side of a profound unfairness in British society. The report links this dissatisfaction with the recent election where record numbers of young people voted.
- Personal finances, job security and housing are key issues.
- 76% of the public say poorer people are less likely to attend a top university and 66% say poorer people have less opportunity for a professional career.
Fees and Funding
The House of Commons Library have published a clear briefing paper on HE funding in England. It covers the 2012/13 higher fee increase, removal of maintenance grants and student loan repayment threshold decisions. It also summarises the public spend on HE (within England) and the impact of student loans on the national debt.
Jane Forster Sarah Carter
VC’s Policy Adviser Policy & Public Affairs Officer
This week the Oxford Encyclopaedia published our contribution on religious organisations and health promotion . The paper in question ‘Faith Communities and the Potential for Health Promotion’ is co-authored by scholars based in England, Scotland and Canada. This new publication is part of a growing number of publications at Bournemouth University on the contribution of faith communities to public health.
Faith communities often have multiple resources, existing networks and an infrastructure that can be applied to health promotion programmes for their own membership or as an outreach to the wider community. Health programmes in a faith community in high-income countries may include targeted initiatives, ranging from walking groups or weight checks, health events, or health assessments, to diabetes self-management. These activities can be organised by charities and NHS organisation and held at local churches, synagogues or mosques which is referred to as faith-placed health promotion. If the health promotion is part of the ministry of the religious organisation it is referred to as faith-based health promotion.
On top of this encyclopaedia entry, the Open Access journal African Health Sciences [Impact Factor 0.66] accepted our paper in the same field a few weeks ago. This paper ‘Influence of faith-based organisations on HIV prevention strategies in Africa: a systematic review’ formed part of the first author’s M.Sc. in Public Health . Our previous papers reported on a study of faith-based and faith-placed health promotion in and around Dundee [3-4].
Professor Edwin van Teijlingen
Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Prenatal Health
- Kiger, A., Fagan, D., van Teijlingen, E. (2017) Faith Communities and the Potential for Health Promotion. In: Encyclopedia of Health and Risk Message Design & Processing, Parrott, R. (ed.) New York, Oxford University Press. (http://communication.oxfordre.com/).
- Ochillo, M., van Teijlingen, E., Hind, M. (2017) Influence of faith-based organisations on HIV prevention strategies in Africa: a systematic review. African Health Sciences (accepted June).
- Fagan, D., Kiger, A., van Teijlingen E. (2010) A survey of faith leaders concerning health promotion and the level of healthy living activities occurring in faith communities in Scotland. Global Health Promotion 17(4): 15-23.
- Fagan, D., Kiger, A., van Teijlingen, E. (2012) Faith communities and their assets for health promotion: The views from health professionals and faith leaders in Dundee, Scotland, Global Health Promotion 19(2): 27-36.
Dr Sascha Dov Bachmann, Associate Professor in International Law and Extraordinary Associate Professor in War Studies (Swedish Defence University) will speak to Members of Qatar Armed Forces and Qatar Embassy in London about Hybrid Warfare within the GCC context. He will be joined by Brig (rtd) Anthony Paphiti (UK) and Prof Hakan Gunneriusson from the Swedish Defence University. The event will touch upon various fields of interest associated with Hybrid Warfare such as Lawfare, Information Operations and how particular vulnerabilities can be exploited. This activity is taking place as part of the wider project on Hybrid Warfare by Sascha Dov Bachmann in collaboration with colleagues from the UK, NATO, Sweden, South Africa and Qatar.
The Faculty of Media and Communication will be welcoming Dr. John Willison from the University of Adelaide for a series of researcher development training open to all academic staff, PGR’s and colleagues in RKEO.
Dr Willison is a highly engaged and widely published academic whose expertise include the creative blending of teaching and research, researcher development and the evolution of research-oriented curricula. He is a senior lecturer in the Department of Higher Education, School of Education at the University of Adelaide, South Australia, where he coordinates the Graduate Certificate in Higher Education (GCHE) for academics from all faculties. He is currently leading a major initiative funded by the Office for Learning and Teaching considering Research Skill Development (RSD) and assessment in undergraduate and postgraduate degrees across disciplines from all faculties.
Dr Willison’s principal research interest centres on the ways that academics conceptualise and implement the development of their students’ research skills in content-rich courses. He examines the close conceptual connection between the skills associated with research in a discipline, and the skills required and developed in problem-solving, critical thinking, clinical reasoning and Work Integrated Learning. His research with graduates from various disciplinary contexts is pointing to the value graduates place on research skills once they are employed.
Click here for further details and a range of resources.
FMC have scheduled a series of tailored training events. The faculty are keen to hear the discussion and share new thinking widely across BU.
All events will take place in the Fusion Building, Talbot Campus – Room F201
The sessions are outlined below:
Thursday 29th June
Session 1: 10.00-12.00: Research Skill Development First Year to PhD
This workshop will be of interest to all academics at BU. It provides an introduction to the Research Skills Development (RSD) framework, which provides a systematic approach to the scaffolding of research into learning for students at all levels. The session will also look at how RSD can be integrated into and complement the Research Development Framework developed by Vitae, which is currently used at BU for PGT and PGR training
Session 2: 14.00 – 16.00 Enabling Research Skill Development for Higher Degree Researchers and Early Career Academics
This workshop will be of primary interest to Deputy and Associate Deans, Heads of Department, Heads of Research, Research Centre Directors, and colleagues in RKEO, amongst others who have a role in the support of postgraduate students and early career academics. It examines how the Research Skill Development (RSD) framework can be used to assist PGR students and ECRs to achieve successful outcomes at these most crucial stages in their academic careers.
Friday 30th June
Session 3: 10.00-12.00: Models for Engaged Learning and Teaching (MELT): MELT your students’ minds
This workshop will be of interest to all academics at BU. It provides an introduction to the Research Skills Development (RSD) framework, which provides a systematic approach to the scaffolding of research into learning for student at all levels. Its main focus is on the adaptation of the RSD framework to meet the particular needs of different disciplines. It will demonstrate how this adaptation can be carried out to enhance the student experience in different disciplines without losing the core strengths and consistency that the framework provides for scaffolding student learning.
Session 4: 14.00 – 16.00 Engaging teachers to enable dynamic student learning
This workshop will be of primary interest to Deputy and Associate Deans, Heads of Department, Heads of Education, Programme Leaders, and colleagues in CEL, amongst others, who have a role in the support of curriculum design, the enhancement of the student learning experience, and the conduct of research into university education. It examines how the Research Skill Development (RSD) framework can be used to scaffold learning and assessment design across curricula at all course levels. It will use data from a series of large-scale research projects that provide a critical analysis of the use of RSD in a wide range of disciplines.
Researchers from Bournemouth University’s Faculty of Health & Social Sciences have received a grant of £140,000 from the Burdett Trust for Nursing. The researchers will be working to study and improve registered nurse retention in collaboration with our practice partners at Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch NHS Foundation Trust (RBCH).
This exciting project launches on 1st June 2017 and will run for two years. Led by Dr Janet Scammell, working alongside Professor Stephen Tee and Dr Sharon Docherty, RBCH staff and service users is an exciting, collaborative, nurse-led project that will test an innovative evidence-based model for improving nurse retention known as TRACS (Transition, Resilience, Authentic leadership, Commitment, Support).
Retention of nurses within the UK is a grave issue with approximately 10% of the nursing workforce in England seriously considering leaving the profession. This has significant implications on the care provided to patients within the NHS.
Working with a large NHS Trust, a ‘bottom-up’ co-created retention strategy and tool-kit, based on principles underpinning TRACS will be developed and implemented in one high-risk Directorate. A robust evaluation will run alongside. The project will develop and refine an adaptable and evidence-based retention model, acting as an exemplar that will be transferable to any healthcare setting where nurses are employed.
Dr Scammell said “We’re excited to be working on this project and collaborating with local partners to improve retention within the healthcare workforce.”
A project website will be developed in the near future to host information as well as useful resources
All HE news has been dwarfed by the election outcome. At the time of writing we have a minority government in place and it looks as if there will be very uncertain times ahead. The obvious HE angle has been the reports of increased turnout, in particular amongst the young – and the power of the student vote to change outcomes in university towns. Again, at the time of writing, there has not been clear confirmation of the actual role of the younger vote – more information will be forthcoming in the next week or so once the analysis is done.
The obvious immediate impact on HE of the result is that, because of the uncertainly, the publication of the TEF results, planned for Wednesday, has been postponed. It is not likely to be postponed for long, though.
Longer term, there are rumours of a possible change of direction towards a softer Brexit and a softer approach to migration. The latter may happen – but possibly only because it will be difficult to pass controversial legislation. Softer Brexit seems unlikely simply because in the end the EU want a hard Brexit – but we will see. The Brexit argument did not help the Lib Dems much – suggesting that the majority is still pro-Brexit. There are also stories of a delay to Brexit – but that also seems unlikely as all the EU member states would need to agree.
Universities are carefully considering their messaging relating to rankings position following a complaint to the advertising watchdog. The BBC report the University of Reading will remove their claim to be within the top 1% of the world’s universities after the watchdog stated the figure could not be substantiated and could be misleading. The difficulty over making claims arises because no ranking assesses every HEI and each ranking measures a different set of criteria. While the HE sector has long debated the usefulness and bias within rankings, and the impact on student institution choice, clouding the claims a university can make is likely to weaken international communications particularly within status focussed cultures. This potentially could exacerbate the current recruitment instability following the Brexit vote and the inhospitable atmosphere created by the immigration targets.
New research from Claire Callender continues the debate on whether fees deter the poorest students from attending university. The researcher is keen to point out that prospective students fully understand the different nature of student loans and critiques the current policy focus on school achievement as the mechanism to boost access. Callender’s research found that debt aversion has increased among working-class and middle-class students and is a much stronger deterrent now than in the past. Recent increases in disadvantaged applications are attributed to few alternative options to the uncapped number of university places. Callender states: “Many potential students, particularly the poorest, do not feel that student loans are affordable, or a safety net against an uncertain future, despite understanding how the loans work. For these young people the idea that student loans are not really debt does not ring true…The current government’s argument that student loans widen participation is misleading. Our study shows that a student funding system reliant on fees and loans, regardless of whether debt is repaid or written off by the state, discriminates against those it claims to help.” These claims have been critiqued in comments left on the Wonkhe article by highlighting that students intention and opinion may not actually translate into university avoidant behaviour.
Action on Access have published Supporting Student Success: What Works Programme. This is the final report following the 6-year retention and success programme, click here for the ‘summary’ (30 pages) and here for the full report. It emphasises the need for a whole-institution approach embedded in the local context and a mixed methodology evaluation to develop an ongoing evidence-informed programme of tailored interventions.
2017 Student Experience Survey
Before the election, this week’s big policy news has been the release of the HEPI-HEA 2017 student experience survey findings. Wonkhe succinctly summarise the findings here, and there has been press coverage on the findings from the BBC, Guardian, and The Times.
In brief, teaching is perceived more positively, learning gain has been reported positively (although Wonkhe disagree), and student wellbeing remains a concern. Most interesting is the consideration of the results dissected by student residency, ethnicity and sexual orientation. Students who live at home and commute score lower on satisfaction and wellbeing than students that relocate and live in. There are also clear ethnicity differences, in particular Asian and Chinese students rate teaching staff and value for money of their degree lower; and non-straight students score lower across the board on wellbeing. As Wonkhe suggest the interplay between race, commuting, attainment, wellbeing, learning gain, part time employment, and student support may make for some interesting personalisation interventions within the sector if the data can be sufficiently interpreted.
For more detail on the findings, read on…
Individual student experience differed greatly depending on ethnicity, accommodation (live in or at home) and sexual orientation. These factors had a direct impact on how engaged students are with their studies and on their overall quality of life. It raises the tricky personalisation agenda for universities and the report encourages deeper thinking about how to respond to the individual characteristics of each student.
The Survey confirms higher education transforms lives but also that it does not currently help all students equally. In particular work is needed to address the less positive academic experience of minority groups, and to realise the potential benefits from studying alongside non-UK students. The conclusion states: Accusations that curricula, teaching and learning practices and assessment methods unintentionally favour white students have proved controversial. Yet the Survey confirms that all these areas, and more, must be considered if we are to understand fully the different performance of students with different ethnic backgrounds. (Page 54.)
Contact hours: The report suggests student expectation around contact hours may be evolving because of the peak of 10-19 hours compared to 2016 peak of 20-29 hours. The report suggests that beyond this tipping point of contact time student satisfaction is also about using the right teaching methods in the right volume.
Value of money: Perceptions of value for money are falling. 34% of students think they are receiving poor value (35% think they are receiving good value). Students want universities to provide information on where fees go, taxpayers to cover more of the costs and policymakers to provide stronger arguments for future fee rises. The decline in perception of value is of concern, and highlights how complex this issue is. For the third year running students have complained about the lack of information on how ‘their’ fees are spent. Only 19% of students believe they receive enough information, the report suggests therefore that institutions need deeper engagement and personalisation of approach with students at every stage of their higher education experience to meet their expectations better. There are ethnic differences in perception of value for money too. Among the UK-domiciled students the differences between white and non-white student groups are significant.
Learning gain: Two-thirds (65%) of students in UK higher education say they have learnt ‘a lot’. Evidence that perceptions of teaching quality are rising includes year-on-year increases in students’ perceptions of teaching staff characteristics. Compared to 2016, a higher proportion of students think: course goals are explained clearly (up from 63% to 65%); teaching staff motivate students to do their best work (from 51% to 54%); and staff help students explore their own areas of interest (from 33% to 37%).
Delving into the document there is a focus on how living arrangements affect learning. On average, students who live at home perceive themselves to be learning less, perhaps showing they are not as well integrated as others. Some institutions are now usefully exploring the concept of the ‘sticky campus’ to ensure all students have access to the non-academic aspects of student life. In addition undertaking paid employment for more than a few hours a week can be detrimental to academic work, including – potentially – the class of degree obtained. However, universities can potentially make life easier for students in need of extra income by providing on-campus jobs, acting as caring employers and providing managers who understand the rhythms of student life.
Students that live at home are much less likely to report strong gains in learning and more likely to wish they’d chosen another course or institution – this raises issues of isolation and access to learning support.
The report states the results highlight economic and cultural factors affect a student’s decision to live at home, particularly students within Polar areas 1 and 2 and the Asian community.
Teaching quality: Perception of teaching quality differs by ethnicity. Staff characteristics are consistently rated lower among UK-domiciled Asian and Chinese students, these are also the cohorts with the lower scores for learning gain and value for money.
Differences by student ethnicity in perception of teaching staff characteristics
Student wellbeing: Students are less happy and more anxious than non-students. The Survey confirms student wellbeing is lower than for the rest of the population. Only one-in-five students (19%) report low anxiety, compared to twice as many (41%) people in the population as a whole. Students who say they have learnt ‘a lot’ have higher levels of wellbeing, indicating how more positive results could be achieved in future.
Sexual orientation & wellbeing: Students who identify as straight do better on each of the four wellbeing measures than other students, the report suggests HEIs have further to go in providing a fully supportive environment for people of all sexual orientations.
University spending: Students were asked their most and least preferred ways to save money – wellbeing and support services emerged as a priority for retaining spending.
Global diversity: A new question asked UK-domiciled students about studying alongside students from outside the UK, 36% responded positively, 32% were unaware of any benefits and the remainder were neutral. The report suggests more needs to be done to explain the benefits of learning within a diverse environment to students.
Teaching Excellence Framework: The survey reports the vast majority of students (76%) are firmly opposed to TEF-linked fee rises (or perhaps just opposed to fee rises).
Responses to the survey findings
Julia Goodfellow, UUK responded: “students understandably have higher expectations of their universities following the introduction of the current fee and income-contingent loan system in England. Universities have increased investment in teaching and learning and are continuing to respond to student feedback. Students are now reporting record levels of satisfaction with their courses across all the UK’s universities, and that is down to the hard work and commitment of university staff. Universities are also publishing more information about what universities spend their money on, making sure it is accessible and meaningful to students and parents.”
On Tuesday 13 June the full LEO (longitudinal education outcomes) data will be released showing the connection between university graduate earnings and employment. It is expected to be released on this site – unless this is also postponed because of the election result.
Jane Forster Sarah Carter
VC’s Policy Adviser Policy & Public Affairs Officer
Welcome to this week’s political scene.
Its been a relatively quiet week in policy land with the main focus on today’s general election, however, gender equality for female academics and the student academic experience survey have hit the news.
2017 Student Academic Experience Survey
The 2017 Student Academic Experience Survey results have been released. Wonkhe succinctly summarise the findings here, and there has been press coverage on the findings from the BBC, Guardian, and The Times.
In brief: teaching is perceived more positively, learning gain has been reported positively (although Wonkhe disagree), and student wellbeing remains a concern. Most interesting is the consideration of the results dissected by student residency, ethnicity and sexual orientation. Students who live at home and commute score lower on satisfaction and wellbeing than students that relocate and live in. There are also clear ethnicity differences, in particular Asian and Chinese students rate teaching staff and value for money of their degree lower; and non-straight students score lower across the board on wellbeing. As Wonkhe suggest the interplay between race, commuting, attainment, wellbeing, learning gain, part time employment, and student support may make for some interesting personalisation interventions within the sector if the data can be sufficiently interpreted.
For more detail on the findings see this week’s policy update.
The QS World Rankings have been released today. Paul Greatrix writes for Wonkhe noting that while the UK still places 4 institutions in the top 10 the majority of UK HEIs have dropped lower in the rankings (including 11 of the 16 Russell Group institutions). Paul reports that QS highlight weaker research performance and reputational decline as the reason for the UK institutions ranking drop, and he anticipates further falls as the Brexit gloom descends.
Furthermore, following a complaint to the advertising watchdog Universities are carefully considering their marketing messaging around rankings position. The BBC report the University of Reading will remove their claim to be within the top 1% of the world’s universities after the watchdog stated the figure could not be substantiated and could be misleading. It remains to be seen what impact this will have on recruitment, particularly for international students.
Academic Gender Equality
This week the Guardian reports Patricia Fara’s (Cambridge historian) call for universities to invest more money in childcare if they want to see gender equality. The Guardian writes that childcare is the single biggest problem for female academics and cites the 2016 report from Institute of Fiscal Studies into pay inequality which found the pay gap widens steadily for 12 years after the birth of a first child, leaving women on 33% less pay per hour than men.
The topic of female academics is also picked up by HEPI this week who discuss the expectation and difficulties of mobility in relation to career progression.
Consultations and Inquiries
There are no new consultations or committee inquiries this week. The new parliament will convene on Tuesday 13 June.
To sign up to the separate weekly general HE policy update simply email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Policy & Public Affairs Officer
The alarm on your smart phone went off 10 minutes earlier than usual this morning. Parts of the city are closed off in preparation for a popular end of summer event, so congestion is expected to be worse than usual. You’ll need to catch an earlier bus to make it to work on time.
The alarm time is tailored to your morning routine, which is monitored every day by your smart watch. It takes into account the weather forecast (rain expected at 7am), the day of the week (it’s Monday, and traffic is always worse on a Monday), as well as the fact that you went to bed late last night (this morning, you’re likely to be slower than usual). The phone buzzes again – it’s time to leave, if you want to catch that bus.
While walking to the bus stop, your phone suggests a small detour – for some reason, the town square you usually stroll through is very crowded this morning. You pass your favourite coffee shop on your way, and although they have a 20% discount this morning, your phone doesn’t alert you – after all, you’re in a hurry.
After your morning walk, you feel fresh and energised. You check in at the Wi-Fi and Bluetooth-enabled bus stop, which updates the driver of the next bus. He now knows that there are 12 passengers waiting to be picked up, which means he should increase his speed slightly if possible, to give everyone time to board. The bus company is also notified, and are already deploying an extra bus to cope with the high demand along your route. While you wait, you notice a parent with two young children, entertaining themselves with the touch-screen information system installed at the bus stop.
Once the bus arrives, boarding goes smoothly: almost all passengers were using tickets stored on their smart phones, so there was only one time-consuming cash payment. On the bus, you take out a tablet from your bag to catch up on some news and emails using the free on-board Wi-Fi service. You suddenly realise that you forgot to charge your phone, so you connect it to the USB charging point next to the seat. Although the traffic is really slow, you manage to get through most of your work emails, so the time on the bus is by no means wasted.
The moment the bus drops you off in front of your office, your boss informs you of an unplanned visit to a site, so you make a booking with a car-sharing scheme, such as Co-wheels. You secure a car for the journey, with a folding bike in the boot.
Your destination is in the middle of town, so when you arrive on the outskirts you park the shared car in a nearby parking bay (which is actually a member’s unused driveway) and take the bike for the rest of the journey to save time and avoid traffic. Your travel app gives you instructions via your Bluetooth headphones – it suggests how to adjust your speed on the bike, according to your fitness level. Because of your asthma, the app suggests a route that avoids a particularly polluted area.
After your meeting, you opt to get a cab back to the office, so that you can answer some emails on the way. With a tap on your smartphone, you order the cab, and in the two minutes it takes to arrive you fold up your bike so that you can return it to the boot of another shared vehicle near your office. You’re in a hurry, so no green reward points for walking today, I’m afraid – but at least you made it to the meeting on time, saving kilograms of CO2 on the way.
It may sound like fiction, but truth be told, most of the data required to make this day happen are already being collected in one form or another. Your smart phone is able to track your location, speed and even the type of activity that you’re performing at any given time – whether you’re driving, walking or riding a bike.
Meanwhile, fitness trackers and smart watches can monitor your heart rate and physical activity. Your search history and behaviour on social media sites can reveal your interests, tastes and even intentions: for instance, the data created when you look at holiday offers online not only hints at where you want to go, but also when and how much you’re willing to pay for it.
Personal devices aside, the rise of the Internet of Things with distributed networks of all sorts of sensors, which can measure anything from air pollution to traffic intensity, is yet another source of data. Not to mention the constant feed of information available on social media about any topic you care to mention.
With so much data available, it seems as though the picture of our environment is almost complete. But all of these datasets sit in separate systems that don’t interact, managed by different entities which don’t necessarily fancy sharing. So although the technology is already there, our data remains siloed with different organisations, and institutional obstacles stand in the way of attaining this level of service. Whether or not that’s a bad thing, is up to you to decide.