Category / Technology & Design

BU-Lush Cosmetics Ltd collaboration to Develop Renewable Zero Carbon Emissions Energy Technology

Awarded & submitted bids, conferences, Industry collaboration, innovation, Knowledge Exchange, PG research, REF Subjects, Student Engagement, student research

This is a landmark collaborative initiative between BU’s NanoCorr, Energy and Modelling (NCEM) Research Group led by Professor Zulfiqar Khan and team members including Dr Adil Saeed, Dr Mayank Anand and Aerk Dimri and Lush Cosmetics Ltd a major stakeholder in the conurbation. “Born in Poole, Lush offers a range of quirky and unique handmade bathing and cosmetic products with signature ‘Lush’ scents. The brand boasts an extremely ethical promise to consumers with all products being cruelty free, vegetarian and ethically sourced.” [Source]. “Lush Limited is a British cosmetics retailer which is headquartered in Poole, England. It was founded in 1995 by trichologist Mark Constantine, his wife Mo Constantine and five other founders.” [Source].

 

“We laid the foundation for capitalising on tidal energy sources and providing clean energy solutions for local and regional domestic and commercial applications through Community Interest Company (CIC) / Standard Industrial Classification (SIC), Poole Tidal Energy Partnership (PTEP), more than a decade ago, said Professor Zulfiqar Khan, one of the founding directors of PTEP.

This work led to UK based energy company collaboration in BU’s energy research: capture, conversion and storage through full funding of two PhDs, two Post Docs, one PhD in-kind support, industrial labs resources and funding patent applications, a three quarter of a million pound sterling research portfolio led by Professor Zulfiqar Khan. This has yielded in commercial patents in the US and GB, covering novel nano fluids, energy systems (capture, conversion and storage).

“This recent collaboration with LUSH is a testament of our full commitments to UNSDGs, UK and EU clean energy directives, initiatives which has led to emergence of BU as a global leader in Clean Energy Systems,” Professor Zulfiqar Khan added.

Dr Saeed said, “we provide opportunities for our UG/PGT courses to benefits from our research collaborations to enhance students learning and teaching experience through research informed educational provisions.” Dr Saeed, the Programme Leader of Mechanical Engineering course, said, we currently have three final year projects in energy systems which have been inspired and are linked to BU-LUSH collaborative project.

LUSH Creative Technologist Jim Woodward said, “We look forward to starting this journey with Professor Khan, his colleagues and students at Bournemouth University, researching the potential tidal energy in our beautiful Poole Harbour. We welcome the newly appointed PGR and wish him good luck in this exciting PhD project with us. What a force – Lush a local Poole company working with a fantastic local University.”

Research seminar and tech showcase 12.02.25: ICONIC (Intergenerational Co-design Of Novel technologies In Coastal communities) project

Fusion, innovation, PG research, Research themes

The Ageing and Dementia Research Centre are welcoming colleagues from Plymouth University to talk about the ICONIC project (see more details below) and showcase some of the technologies they have created.

 The team are interested in talking to any BU colleagues who work on co-design/digital health or immersive technologies and AI so please do come along (and let Michelle mheward@bournemouth.ac.uk know if would like to give a short presentation about your research).

 12th February 2025

11-1pm (presentations will be first and then tech showcase)

P222, Poole House, Talbot Campus

ICONIC Project

The ICONIC (Intergenerational Co-design Of Novel technologies In Coastal communities) project is exploring how co-design of novel technologies can support digital inclusion in Cornwall and Devon. The project recruited 99 participants to join intergenerational co-design workshops to create technologies that support access to environment, heritage, and community resources. The technologies include a social game, immersive heritage and underwater experiences, and a voice AI system accessed via a telephone call. The research team will be sharing their insights from the co-design process for each technology and discuss the effects of participation on digital inclusion.

  • Dr Rory Baxter is a Research Fellow at the Centre for Health Technology, University of Plymouth, working on the EPSRC funded Intergenerational Codesign Of Novel technologies In Coastal communities (ICONIC) project to address digital exclusion in Cornwall and Devon. The project involves the intergenerational co-design of technologies for supporting access to heritage, environment, and community resources. His previous work includes the ESRC funded GOALD and ERDF funded EPIC projects, which focused on digital health innovation co-design and evaluation to support healthy ageing. Prior to that he completed an EPSRC funded iCASE PhD, exploring human navigation and search behaviour, during which Rory developed VR-based experimental tasks using Unity, which were adapted for online platforms during the COVID-19 pandemic.
  • Dr Oksana Hagen earned a BSc in Electrical and Computer Engineering from NCTU (Taiwan), MSc in Computer Vision and Robotics through the Erasmus Mundus ViBOT program, and a PhD in Computing at the University of Plymouth. After a brief period in industry, Oksana joined Aldebaran AI Lab (France) under a Marie Curie Fellowship to focus on research in machine learning. She subsequently contributed to social robotics research for AgeIn project at the University of Plymouth. Currently, she is part of the ICONIC project, developing VoiceAI and underwater telepresence applications through co-design. Her research interests include machine learning, robotics and HCI.
  • Dr Marius Varga’s expertise sits at the intersection of game technology and user experience, with a focus on serious games and immersive experiences. Currently, a Research Fellow part of the ICONIC project, using a co-design approach, Marius leads the development of a multiplayer Social Game focused on seagrass conservation and for Extended Reality (XR), he is developing an immersive heritage experience in partnership with National Trust. Marius is also involved in digital health projects such part of Bridging project – focused on using XR training with autistic employees and employers and Glider project – addressing challenges in frailty through robotics, play and immersive technology.
  • Dr Linan Zhang holds an MA in East Asian Studies (Japanese) and an MSc in International Development from the University of Edinburgh. She later earned a PhD with Transtechnology Research at the University of Plymouth, where she developed a philosophical framework to ease the paradigm conflicts in knowledge sharing, drawing inspiration from an international health collaboration, a global health crisis, and the development discourse. She is currently an Associate Lecturer for i-DAT, a Research Fellow in Orbital Science, and the Media and Admin officer for the ICONIC Project at the University of Plymouth. Additionally, she serves as an Associate Editor for Leonardo Review.

Thinking about interdisciplinary research

international, PG research, Publishing, writing

Thank you very much for all those who attended last Wednesday’s monthly online session organised by BU’s Centre for Midwifery & Women’s Health (CMWH).  This event featured PhD student Mr. Shafkat Hossein who spoke about his thesis research ‘Using Human-Centred Design (HCD) to develop community-led interventions to prevent drowning among children under the age of 2 in rural Bangladesh’.  His work is part of an interdisciplinary study called ‘Sonamoni’ in which BU collaborates with CIPRB (Centre for Injury Prevention and Research, Bangladesh), the University of the West of England (in Bristol), the University of Southampton, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI), and Design Without Borders (DWB) in Uganda.  Sonamoni aims to design and develop interventions to reduce the number of  young children drowning in Bangladesh.

This public health project is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) through its Research and Innovation for Global Health Transformation programme. For more information, visit the NIHR website.

The second speaker at the CMWH event was Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen, who spoke about trials and tribulations of conducting, running and managing interdisciplinary studies.  His talk was largely based on three three published papers co-written with BU academic and Faculty of Health & Social Sciences Visiting Faculty members on interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary working [1-3].  There are, of course, differences between multidisciplinary, and interdisciplinary and the even more integrated level of working called transdisciplinary.  At the same time the individual member of an interdisciplinary team needs to have individual field-based expertise in their own discipline, e.g. sociology, nursing, chemistry or law to bring required knowledge and skills to that team.

 

 

References:

  1. Shanker, S., Wasti, S.P., Ireland, J., Regmi, P., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E. (2021) The Interdisciplinary Team Not the Interdisciplinarist: Reflections on Interdisciplinary Research, Europasian Journal of Medical Sciences 3(2): 1-5. https://doi.org/10.46405/ejms.v3i2.317
  2. Wasti, S. P., van Teijlingen, E., Simkhada, P. (2020) Public Health is truly interdisciplinary. Journal of Manmohan Memorial Institute of Health Sciences, 6(1):21-22.
  3. van Teijlingen, E., Regmi, P., Adhikary, P., Aryal, N., Simkhada, P. (2019). Interdisciplinary Research in Public Health: Not quite straightforward. Health Prospect, 18(1), 4-7. https://doi.org/10.3126/hprospect.v18i1.19337

Anyone can drown. No one should!

Awarded & submitted bids, international, PG research, Publishing, writing

The first editorial of The Lancet Public Health [1] highlights a public health issue close to our work in Bangladesh, namely the risk of drowning, especially in young children.  “Anyone can drown. No one should” are the words of the Director General of the World Health Organization (WHO) in its first Global status report on drowning prevention, published two weeks ago (Dec. 2024). According to  The Lancet Public Health this landmark report dissects the drowning burden globally, at the country level, and the trends since 2000, presents an overview of the key strategies to prevent drowning, and provides a benchmark for tracking prevention efforts in the future. Importantly, this report sheds light on a tragic, neglected, mostly preventable public health issue.

We are grateful to The Lancet Public Health for raising this important issue in 2025, since Bournemouth University (BU) is currently engaged in  research project in this field called ‘Sonamoni’.  This an interdisciplinary study is a collaboration with CIPRB (the Centre for Injury Prevention and Research, Bangladesh), the University of the West of England (in Bristol), the University of Southampton, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI), and Design Without Borders (DWB) in Uganda.  Sonamoni aims to design and develop interventions to reduce the number of  young children drowning in Bangladesh.

This public health project is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) through its Research and Innovation for Global Health Transformation programme. For more information, visit the NIHR website.

The interdisciplinary team at BU includes three faculties and six member of staff: Dr. Mavis Bengtsson, Dr. Kyungjoo Cha, Dr. Mehdi Chowdhury, Dr. Yong Hun Lim, Mr. John Powell, and Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen.  We recently published the first paper ‘Drowning Prevention should be a Public Health Issue in Nepal related to this project [2].

 

References:

  1. Anonymous (2025) Anyone can drown. No one should. The Lancet Public Health, 10(1): e1
  2. Hossain, M. S., Pant, P.R., van Teijlingen, E., Sedain, B., Rahman, A. (2024). Drowning Prevention should be a Public Health Issue in Nepal. International Journal of Social Sciences and Management, 11(4): 83–87.

New research published on Artificial Empathy in the Metaverse

Dimitrios Buhalis new research published on Artificial Empathy in the Metaverse

Assiouras, I., Laserer; C., Buhalis, D., 2025, The Evolution of Artificial Empathy in the Hospitality Metaverse Era, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Volume 126, April 2025, 104063 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2024.104063

Highlights

  • Artificial empathy of intelligent agents can be strengthened in the metaverse.
  • The experimental nature can hinder the development of artificial empathy.
  • The interoperability is critical for the development of artificial empathy.
  • Enhanced empathy of AI agents in metaverse will improve customers’ reactions.
  • Opportunities and challenges arise in the development of human empathy.

Abstract

As hospitality enters the metaverse era, artificial empathy becomes essential for developing artificial intelligence (AI) agents. Using the empathy cycle model, computational empathy frameworks and interdisciplinary research, this conceptual paper proposes a model explaining how artificial empathy will evolve in the hospitality metaverse era. The paper also addresses customer empathy and responses towards AI agents and other human actors within the hospitality context. It explores how metaverse characteristics such as immersiveness, sociability, experiential nature, interoperability, blended virtual and physical environments as well as environmental fidelity will shape computational models and the evolution of artificial empathy. Findings suggest that the metaverse enables AI agents to form a seamless cycle of detection, resonation, and response to consumers’ affective states, facilitating the evolution of artificial empathy. Additionally, the paper outlines conditions under which the artificial empathy cycle may be disrupted and proposes future research questions that can advance our understanding of artificial empathy.

 

 

 

Fake conferences are not fake news: beware predatory conferences

conferences, international, open access, PG research, Publishing, REF Subjects, Research assessment, Research Ethics, Research Integritiy, Research themes, writing

Introduction

Academic have been warned for a decade about predatory Open Access publishers (van Teijlingen 2014). These are commercial organisations charging academics a publication fee on submission of their manuscripts with a promise to publish their work quickly online. The problem is twofold: first, these commercial organisations don’t offer proper peer-review and editorial quality assurance; and secondly, academic are being tricked into believing the journal is a legitimate scientific publication.  The second author receives on average six to eight invitations a week to publish in this kind of predatory journals – see below for examples. The first author, who despite having not worked in an academic institution for over three years, still receives such invitations to publish in ‘Journal X’.

Predatory conferences

A similar phenomenon to predatory journals is the predatory conference (Moital 2014; Nobes 2017; Grove 2017). These are pretend academic conferences of questionable value, established first and foremost to make money, not for the greater good of the academic discipline.

Both authors have received bogus and legitimate invitations to attend conferences. A predicament with such an invitation, which 99% of time arrives by email, is that it is not easy to distinguish between fake and real offers. For example, the first author recently received an offer (at short notice), to attend a conference in Miami in November 2017 (see below). This was on the back of an editorial he had published couple of months earlier. For a career researcher going from contract to contract, the appeal of being invited to present a keynote at a conference can be flattering, far less an honour and a boost for one’s career. Therefore, while the idea that if it seems too good to be true, is a prudent one to hold; there is also a temptation to follow through.

The author replied to the request quizzing the reason for the invite out of the blue. The answer was less than convincing, and a swift email by the author saying “Don’t tell me… You are offering me a keynote with travel and accommodation… Lol!!” called their bluff and ended correspondence.

But digging a little deeper he found there was a webpage dedicated to taking payments to attend the conference. In the digital world, a fool can be easily and quickly separated from his or her money.

Of course, it may have been a real conference at a real venue, and they really wanted him to speak. But discerning this is not easy at first…

Some of the warning signs/What to look out for

  • The conference email invitation looks very convincing (if not don’t even read it!).
  • The venue is good location as Nobes (2017) highlighted, “the organizers are more interested in marketing the tourist destination rather than the academic value of the conference”.
  • The conference covers too many different aspects or topics, as if the advert is designed to catch the eye of many people as possible who are vaguely connected to the discipline.
  • Mentions on associated predatory journals and ‘important’ organisations in the discipline.
  • Email and bank accounts that don’t look professional/ official.
  • Little mention of attendance fees, but after acceptance emails demanding a high conference fee and other charges.
  • Conference organisers are not academics, or unknown names.
  • Conference does not peer-review submission/ not provide proper editorial control over presentations
  • Signs of copying of names of existing academic conferences or scientific organisation and even copying of their webpages
  • Even more advertising than normal at a scientific conference.

Furthermore, Andy Nobes (2017) offered some helpful advice on quality of the conference websites in the list below. Andy is based at AuthorAID, a global network providing support, mentoring, resources and training for researchers in developing countries.

Who is at risk of falling for predatory conferences?

Academics need to be aware of money-making conferences and meetings without a true commitment to science. But some academics might be more at risk than others. Young researchers, PhD students and fledgling academics, living from contract to contract may feel any conference attendance is a potential career boost. Thus, such an invitation might seem flattering and an opportunity to good to miss. A way to show that he or she is a capable and independent academic.

Final thoughts

Most academics go to conferences for a combination of presenting their work to get critical feedback, making new contacts, sharing ideas and to be inspired. With such broad combination of motivating factors, the exact purpose of conferences is difficult to ascertain because there is no a priori agreed role and value of conferences (Nicolson, 2017a). However, there is evidence that academic conferences function to facilitate commodity transactions, be that knowledge, tools, skills, reputations, or connections, which reflects the neoliberal ethos in the modern academy (Nicolson 2017b). The predatory conference can be viewed in this light, where academia is more and more focused on generating revenue. It is at best scurrilous, and worst, criminal, for organisations to make money using such a confidence trick.  Always check which conferences are organised and advertised by recognised scholarly organisations in your own discipline. If uncertain ask a more experienced academic, a senior colleague or mentor.

 

 

Donald J. Nicolson

(Health Services Researcher, NHS Fife, and Independent Scholar; twitter @_mopster )

Edwin R. van Teijlingen

(Centre Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health)

 

References:

Moital, M. (2014) Ten Signs of a Bogus/Fake Conference.

Grove, J. (2017) Predatory conferences ‘now outnumber official scholarly events’  (26th Oct.)

Nicolson, D.J. (2017a) Do conference presentations impact beyond the conference venue? Journal of Research in Nursing. 22(5), pp.422-425.

Nicolson, D.J. (2017b) Academic Conferences as Neoliberal Commodities, Palgrave Macmillan

Nobes, A. (2017) What are ‘predatory’ conferences and how can I avoid them?

van Teijlingen, E. (2014) Beware of rogue journals.

 

Special Edition Policy Update: Sir John Bell report on Life Sciences and the Industrial Strategy

Funding opportunities, international, PG research

Following our Industrial Strategy update last week, as expected Sir John Bell has published his report for the government on Life Sciences and the Industrial Strategy. There are 7 main recommendations under 4 themes, which are summarised below.

Some interesting comments:

  • “The key UK attribute driving success in life sciences is the great strength in university-based research. Strong research-based universities underpin most of the public sector research success in the UK, as they do in the USA and in Scandinavia. National research systems based around institutes rather than universities, as seen in Germany, France and China, do not achieve the same productivity in life sciences as seen in university-focussed systems.” (p22)
  • “The decline in funding of indirect costs for charity research is coupled to an increasing tendency for Research Councils to construct approaches that avoid paying indirect Full Economic Costs (FEC). Together, these are having a significant impact on the viability of research in universities and have led to the institutions raising industrial overhead costs to fill the gap. This is unhelpful.” (p24 and see the recommendation about charitable contributions under “reinforcing the UK science offer” below)
  • “It is also recommended, that the funding agencies, in partnership with major charities, create a high-level recruitment fund that would pay the real cost of bringing successful scientists from abroad to work in major UK university institutions.” (see the proposal to attract international scientists below).
  • On clusters “Life sciences clusters are nearly always located around a university or other research institute and in the UK include elements of NHS infrastructure. However, evidence and experience suggests that governments cannot seed technology clusters28 and their success is usually driven by the underpinning assets of universities and companies, and also by the cultural features of networking and recycling of entrepreneurs and capital.” And “Regions should make the most of existing opportunities locally to grow clusters and build resilience by working in partnership across local Government, LEPs (in England), universities and research institutes, NHS, AHSNs, local businesses and support organisations, to identify and coalesce the local vision for life sciences. Science & Innovation Audits, Local Growth Funds and Growth Hubs (in England), Enterprise Zones and local rates and planning flexibilities can all be utilised to support a vision for life sciences. “ (see the proposal on clusters under “Growth and Infrastructure” – this was a big theme in the Industrial strategy and something we also covered in our Green Paper response)
  • On skills: “ The flow of multidisciplinary students at Masters and PhD level should be increased by providing incentives through the Higher Education Funding Council for England.2 and “Universities and research funders should embed core competencies at degree and PhD level, for example data, statistical and analytical skills, commercial acumen and translational skills, and management and entrepreneurship training (which could be delivered in partnership with business schools). They should support exposure to, and collaboration with, strategically important disciplines including computer and data science, engineering, chemistry, physics, mathematics and material science.”

Health Advanced Research Programme (HARP) proposal – with the goal to create 2-3 entirely new industries over the next 10 years.

  • Establish a coalition of funders to create the Health Advanced Research Programme to undertake large research infrastructure projects and high risk ‘moonshot programmes’, that will help create entirely new industries in healthcare
  • Create a platform for developing effective diagnostics for early, asymptomatic chronic disease.
  • Digitalisation and AI to transform pathology and imaging.
  • Support projects around healthy ageing.

Reinforcing the UK science offer

  • Sustain and increase funding for basic science to match our international competition – the goal is that the UK should attract 2000 new discovery scientists from around the globe
    • The UK should aim to be in the upper quartile of OECD R&D spending and sustain and increase the funding for basic science, to match our international competitors, particularly in university settings, encouraging discovery science to co-locate.
    • NIHR should be supported, with funding increases in line with Research Councils
    • Ensure the environment remains supportive of charitable contributions through enhancing the Charity Research Support Fund (see above for the context for this).
    • Capitalise on UKRI to increase interdisciplinary research, work more effectively with industry and support high-risk science.
    • Use Government and charitable funding to attract up to 100 world-class scientists to the UK, with support for their recruitment and their science over the next ten years.
  • Further improve UK clinical trial capabilities to support a 50% increase in the number of clinical trials over the next 5 years and a growing proportion of change of practice and trials with novel methodology over the next 5 years.
    • Establish a working group to evaluate the use of digital health care data and health systems; to evaluate the safety and efficacy of new interventions; and to help ICH modernise its GCP regulations.
    • Improve the UK’s clinical trial capabilities so that the UK can best compete globally in our support for industry and academic studies at all phases.
    • Design a translational fund to support the pre-commercial creation of clinically-useable molecules and devices.

Growth and infrastructure – the goal is to create four UK companies valued at >£20 billion market cap in the next ten years.

  • Ensure the tax environment supports growth and is internationally competitive in supporting long-term and deeper investment.
    • Address market failures through Social Impact Bonds and encourage AMR research.
    • Consider how UK-based public markets can be used more effectively in the sector.
  • Support the growth of Life Sciences clusters.
    • Government, local partners and industry should work together to ensure the right infrastructure is in place to support the growth of life sciences clusters and networks.
    • UK’s existing clusters should work together and with government to promote a ‘single front door’ to the UK for research collaboration, partnership and investment.
  • Attract substantial investment to manufacture and export high value life science products of the future. – the goal is to attract ten large (£50-250m capital investment) and 10 smaller (£10-50m capital investments) in life science manufacturing facilities in the next five years.
    • Accept in full the recommendations of the Advanced Therapies Manufacturing Action Plan and apply its principles to other life science manufacturing sectors.
    • A programme in partnership with industry to develop cutting-edge manufacturing technologies that will address scale-up challenges and drive up productivity.
    • Optimise the fiscal environment to drive investment in industrial buildings, equipment and infrastructure for manufacturing and late-stage R&D.
    • Consider nationally available financial incentives – grants and loans, or capital allowances combined with regional incentives – to support capital investment in scale-up, and prepare for manufacturing and related export activity.
    • Make support and incentives for manufacturing investment and exporting available to business through a single front door, provide a senior national account manager accountable for delivery and simplify the customer journey.

NHS collaboration – the Accelerated Access Review should be adopted with national routes to market streamlined and clarified, including for digital products. There are two stated goals:

  • The NHS should engage in fifty collaborative programmes in the next 5 years in late-stage clinical trials, real world data collection, or in the evaluation of diagnostics or devices.
  • The UK should be in the top quartile of comparator countries, both for the speed of adoption and the overall uptake of innovative, cost-effective products, to the benefit of all UK patients by the end of 2023.

The recommended actions are

  • Utilise and broaden the Accelerated Access Review to encourage UK investment in clinical and real-world studies. Deliver a conditional reimbursement approval, for implementation as soon as licensing and value milestones are delivered.
  • Create a forum for early engagement between industry, NHS and arms-length bodies (e.g. NICE, MHRA) to agree commercial access agreements.
  • Use the recommendations from the AAR to streamline the processes and methods of assessment for all new products.
  • Value assessments should be evolved in the long-term with improved patient outcome measures, affordability and cost management data beyond one year timeframes.
  • NICE’s funding model for technology evaluation should be set up in a way that does not stifle SME engagement

Data – Establish two to five Digital Innovation Hubs providing data across regions of three to five million people.

  • The health and care system should set out a vision and a plan to deliver a national approach with the capability to rapidly and effectively establish studies for the generation of real world data, which can be appropriately accessed by researchers.
  • ePrescribing should be mandatory for hospitals.
  • NHS Digital and NHS England should set out clear and consistent national approaches to data and interoperability standards and requirements for data access agreements.
  • Accelerate access to currently available national datasets by streamlining legal and ethical approvals.
  • Create a forum for researchers across academia, charities and industry to engage with all national health data programmes.
  • Establish a new regulatory, Health Technology Assessment and commercial framework to capture for the UK the value in algorithms generated using NHS data. A working group should be established to take this forward
  • Two to five digital innovation hubs providing data across regions of three to five million people should be set up as part of a national approach and building towards full population coverage, to rapidly enable researchers to engage with a meaningful dataset. These regional hubs should also have the capability to accelerate and streamline CTA and HRA approvals. One or more of these should focus on medtech.
  • The UK could host 4-6 centres of excellence that provide support for specific medtech themes, focussing on research capability in a single medtech domain such as orthopaedics, cardiac, digital health or molecular diagnostics.
  • National registries of therapy-area-specific data across the whole of the NHS in England should be created and aligned with the relevant charity.

Skills

  • A migration system should be established that allows recruitment and retention of highly skilled workers from the EU and beyond, and does not impede intra-company transfers.
  • Develop and deliver a reinforced skills action plan across the NHS, commercial and third sectors based on a gap analysis of key skills for science.
    • Create an apprenticeship scheme that focuses on data sciences, as well as skills across the life sciences sector, and trains an entirely new cadre of technologists, healthcare workers and scientists at the cutting-edge of digital health.
    • Establish Institutes of Technology that would provide opportunity for technical training, particularly in digital and advanced manufacturing areas.
    • There should be support for entrepreneur training at all levels, incentivising varied careers and migration of academic scientists into industry and back to academia.
    • A fund should be established supporting convergent science activities including cross-disciplinary sabbaticals, joint appointments, funding for cross-sectoral partnerships and exchanges across industry and the NHS, including for management trainees.
    • High quality STEM education should be provided for all, and the government should evaluate and implement additional steps to increase the number of students studying maths to level 3 and beyond

Save the Date: Energy Info Days 2017

Info Days

 

This year the Energy Information Days will present the new funding opportunities and innovative schemes offered by Horizon 2020’s Work Programme 2018-2020. Applying for funding is a competitive process, and only the best project proposals will be selected. If you would like to know more about the type of projects we will be looking for, save the date and join us in Brussels next 23, 24 and 25 October 2017.

 This year’s Information Days will:
•    update you on the European Energy Efficiency policy;
•    present you the Energy priorities of the H2020 Energy 2018-2020 calls for proposals;
•    provide you with guidance on how to apply for funding;
•    offer you dedicated workshops for each funding area e.g. Energy Efficiency, with the opportunity to meet the EASME energy team and receive answers to your questions;
•    give you an opportunity to network and find project partners through the National Contact Points Brokerage event.

Opening of registrations

Registrations will open in September 2017. A link will be published in this page after the summer and a notification via the EASME Energy Newsletter.

Who should attend?

More than 700 participants coming from SME associations, businesses, European and national trade associations, chambers of commerce, European institutions, universities, financial institutions, etc. are expected.

Agenda

A detailed agenda with the topics and sessions will be published in September 2017.

Event date and venue

From Monday 23 to Wednesday 25 October 2017 in the European Commission Charlemagne Building, Rue de la Loi 170, 1000 Brussels.  Please read the Privacy statement before registering.

Recordings and presentations

N.B You will be able to watch the sessions live on your computer as well as the recordings. The presentations will also be available for download

HE Policy update w/e 25th August 2017

Funding opportunities, Fusion, innovation, international

Immigration, International Students and Brexit

The government have commissioned a series of assessments and reviews of the impact of immigration policy and Brexit via the Migration Advisory Committee:

  • Call for evidence and briefing note: EEA-workers in the UK labour market – we will be responding on the HE questions via UCEA and UUK and we are considering a regional response, please let Sarah or I know if you have evidence that would be relevant to this – it is looking at EEA migration trends, recruitment practices and economic and social impacts.
  • a detailed assessment of the social and economic impact of international students in the UK. We would expect a call for evidence for this to follow. Looking at both EU and non-EU students, the MAC will be asked to consider:
  • the impact of tuition fees and other spending by international students on the national, regional, and local economy and on the education sector
  • the role students play in contributing to local economic growth
  • the impact their recruitment has on the provision and quality of education provided to domestic students.

The Commissioning Letter from Amber Rudd says: “The Digital Economy Act provides a unique opportunity to improve understanding of the migration data and as part of this work the Home Office will be working with the ONS and other Government departments to improve the use of administrative data. This will lead to a greater understanding of how many migrants are in the UK, how long they stay for, and what they are currently doing. The ONS will be publishing an article in September setting out this fuller work plan and the timetable for moving towards this landscape for administrative data usage”

As well as the post-Brexit future of students, the letter also makes reference to the Tier 4 visa pilot which was launched last year and included a handful of universities. Amber Rudd says “the pilot is being carefully evaluated and, if successful, could be rolled out more widely”.

The pilot covered masters courses at 4 universities:

  • Masters course for 13 months or less at the University of Oxford, University of Cambridge, University of Bath or Imperial College London.
  • Participating in the pilot allowed students to:
    • stay for six months after the end of the course;
    • submit fewer evidential documents with their applications – e.g. previous qualifications and documents relating to maintenance requirements

A deluge of other data and reports gave also been published:

  • The Home Office has published its second report on statistics being collected under the exit checks programme – Exit checks data.
    • For the 1.34m visas granted to non-EEA nationals and which expired in 2016/17, where individuals did not obtain a further extension to stay longer in the UK, 96.3% departed in time (that is before their visa expired)
  • A National Statistics update has been published which gives a breakdown of all the data
  • Additional analysis by Office for National Statistics (ONS) on international students, has been published
  • The Centre for Population Change has published the findings of a survey it carried out in March 2017 in partnership with the ONS and UUK. The survey looked at the intentions of graduating overseas students and found:
  • The majority of students do not intend to stay in the UK for more than a year after finishing their studies (and those that stated they intended to stay were not certain of their post-study plans, particularly non-EU students).
  • Fewer than one in ten international students plan to stay in the UK indefinitely and find a job.

According to UUK:

  • Exit checks data shows that student overstaying is at worst 3% and much of the 3% of undetermined outcomes may be due to individuals leaving via routes where there are no exit checks currently (such as via the Common Travel Area). This means student visa compliance is at least 97%, far higher than previous (incorrect) claims.
  • The Home Office exit checks data provides a more accurate picture (than the International Passenger Survey – IPS) of what non-EU students do after their initial period of leave to study
  • The ONS report suggest that the IPS is likely to underestimate student emigration – therefore any implied student net migration figure is likely to be an overestimate
  • The ONS also commits to working with colleagues across the government statistics service to utilise all available administrative systems to further improve migration statistics. They have also asked for UUK’s input to this work.

Widening Participation

A survey of access agreements has been published this week by the Office for Fair Access. In their press release OFFA note that every university has committed to working with schools to help increase access to HE. The report also notes that universities will focus on improved evaluation of the impact of financial support and an evidence based approach more generally, a specific focus on White working class males and BME attainment, and more support for mental health issues.  The amount universities spend on widening access will rise.

Responding to the survey, UUK Chief Executive, Alistair Jarvis, said: “The enhancements in support provided by universities has helped to increase the entry rate for disadvantaged young people to record levels. All UK universities work hard to widen participation and support disadvantaged students throughout their time at university. It is right to expect a continued focus on support for disadvantaged students to make further progress in closing the gap between different student groups.”

Industrial Strategy

The formal outcome of the Industrial Strategy consultation is still pending. However, there has been a reasonable amount of activity in the meantime and we thought it might be helpful to do a round up.

Clusters – The Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) have set up a Creative Industries Clusters Programme, starting in 2018, to facilitate collaboration between the industry and universities. The pre-call announcement sets out the plan for at least 8 research and development partnerships, each led by an HEI, and a Policy and Evidence Centre. Calls will apparently open in October 2018.

Sector deals – As part of the Industrial strategy green paper, the government announced that there were 5 sector reviews taking place and suggested that they would welcome more.

Other organisations are setting up consultations and other reviews to respond to the Industrial Strategy, such as:

The interim findings of the industrial digitalisation review are interesting – they are working on a final report for the autumn of 2017:

  • It highlights a need for more leadership – with “much stronger marketing and messaging” and proposed the establishment of a Digital Technology Institute and Digital Technology Networks
  • It discusses issues with adoption rates for technology, particularly among SMEs and suggests better support for businesses via LEPs and other organisations, work on skills through interventions such as an Institute of Digital Engineering
  • Innovation – the interim review suggests looking at additive manufacturing and AI – and creating new industries in autonomous operations, but also providing kite marked content for businesses.

Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund – Innovate UK are running the Industrial strategy Challenge Fund – in April 2017 they identified 6 “core industrial challenges”:

Interesting reading

JANE FORSTER                                            |                       SARAH CARTER

Policy Advisor                                                                     Policy & Public Affairs Officer

65111                                                                                 65070

Follow: @PolicyBU on Twitter                        |                       policy@bournemouth.ac.uk

BU research recognised by The Renal Association Investigator Award at UK Kidney Week 2017

student research

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.

Psychology PGR Sarah Hodge presents at two prestigious USA conferences and wins prize

PG research, Research Ethics, student research

Representing the research team from Bournemouth University, Sarah Hodge presented cross-disciplinary PhD research at two conferences in Las Vegas (April) and Denver (May).

The first conference Broadcast Education Association (BEA) included a symposium organised and attended by key academics in the area of psychology and gaming and within this Sarah won top paper in the symposium track and 2nd place student paper. The research presented was funded by the University Student Research Assistant (SRA) scheme, which involved collaboration between departments and faculties. The research involved creating a game to measure in-game moral decisions. The research team included Jacqui Taylor and John McAlaney from the Department of Psychology, Davide Melacca and Christos Gatzidis from the Department of Creative Technology, and Eike Anderson from the National Centre for Computer Animation.

 

At the second conference Computers in Human Interaction (CHI), Sarah had a workshop paper accepted on Ethical Encounters in Human Computer Interaction and this naturally stimulated many interesting questions about ethics in research. Sarah was a student volunteer at the conference. Sarah was a Chair student Volunteer at British HCI 2016 that was held at Bournemouth University last summer and this experience supported being accepted as a Student Volunteer at CHI. From this experience Sarah was assigned the role of Day Captain, which involved supporting and overseeing the other student volunteers with their duties. Sarah found it to be a great experience and highly recommends other students to consider being a student volunteer as a great chance to network and it also helps with funding conferences as the registration fee was waived.

 

Hodge, S. Taylor, J & McAlaney, J (2017). Restricted Content: Ethical Issues with Researching Minors’ Video Game Habits Human in Computer Interaction (CHI) May, Denver USA

If you would like more information about the research please contact: shodge@bournemouth.ac.uk

CEMP research published by Samsung

Post-award

CEMP’s Digital Capability study has now been published by Samsung.

ABOUT THIS RESEARCH
In 2015, Samsung funded a six-month research project on the Isle of Portland in Weymouth, exploring the
impact of technology on participants’ engagement with community services, schools and family learning.
We partnered with the Centre for Excellence in Media Practice (CEMP) at Bournemouth University.
The project has given us a rich set of findings on which to build further work, and we hope this summary will be
of help to schools, community organisations, policy makers, employers and even parents – anybody
who shares our interest in enabling communities to benefit from the power of digital technology.