Three new Impact Officers have joined RKEO, with a fourth currently out for recruitment. Our role is to support academics with the development of their research impact and impact case studies for the REF. We are based in RKEO (M402) and are also available two days a week in our relevant faculties to offer advice and support.
Matt Fancy will be supporting academics in the Faculty of Management (Tuesday and Friday at Dorset House), Brian McNulty in the Faculty of Media & Communication (Tuesday and Thursday in Weymouth House) and Amanda Lazar in the Faculty of Health & Social Sciences (Monday and Friday in Royal London House). We are currently sharing responsibility for supporting SciTech until the new Officer is in post, with Matt allocated to Archaeology (UoA15), Brian to Computer Science (UoA11) & Geography (UoA14), and Amanda to Psychology (UoA4) & Engineering (UoA12).
We are looking forward to meeting and working with you all over the next three years, so please get in touch with any impact-related enquiries: we’re here to support you!
The British Academy have provided updated guidance on the small grants – BA scheme notes for applicants and BA FAQs . They have asked that all applicants read the documentation carefully before starting their application.
Due to the expected high demand, we ask that if you are interested in applying to this call then please send your intention to bid form to your Funding Development Officerby 2nd May, after this date no new applications will be accepted.
Timeline
The call closes at 5pm on Wednesday 6th June 2018.
11th April 2018
Call Opens – start reading guidance
2nd May 2018
Intention to bid forms to be submitted to your faculty funding development officer.
31st May 2018
Nominated referee supporting statement to be completed via FlexiGrant
30th May 2018
Your final application must be submitted on FlexiGrant by this date at the latest.
Hate Crime on university campus has attracted widespread attention in the media of late, with a spate of high profile incidents targeting Black Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) students in particular in the UK. Despite increased awareness of it, it is estimated that hate crime is considerably under-reported by students (Universities UK, 2016; NUS, 2012). BU’s Equality and Diversity Unit, supported by Dr James Palfreman-Kay, was awarded funding by HEFCE in late 2017 as part of their Catalyst Fund to tackle hate crime and online harassment on campus. This is a joint project, working with partners in SUBU, CPS Wessex, Dorset Police, Access Dorset, the Dorset Police and Crime Commissioner as well as colleagues and academics at BU and from other agencies associated with Prejudice Free Dorset.
What does the project involve?
The objective of the project was to provide students with the knowledge of what a hate crime is, how to respond to it and where to seek support, both on and off campus. This was achieved through the use of a drama based format called Forum Theatre (FT) which uses actors to share scenes of discrimination and hate crime (Dwyer, 2010; Hamel, 2015). FT has previously been used in promoting social change and critical thinking (Boal, 1974) and the value of this approach was that it would enable students to try out courses of action which could be applicable to their everyday lives and provide a gateway for increasing reporting.
The project is funded for the remainder of 2018, and a pilot was run in March with a cohort of social science Level 4 students. Jane Healy, Lecturer in Sociology & Crime & Deviance, worked with James to embed the Forum Theatre process within a learning session with 85 students from across BA Sociology, BA Sociology & Criminology, and BA Sociology & Anthropology programmes. The students were exploring Hate Crime as one element of their Level 4 Social Exclusion and Discrimination Unit, and the FT company were invited into the Wollstonecraft lecture theatre on the Lansdowne site. Four actors created two scenarios based on a fictitious university campus, involving religious and homophobic hate crimes but also acknowledging other, intersecting elements of identity. The scenarios were drawn from examples of similarly reported crimes provided by CPS Wessex. None had occurred at BU, but were designed to engage students and encourage discussion and debate.
The students were thoroughly engaged in the FT scenarios. As the first scenario was played out, silence descended on the room and students (and staff) held their breath as the ‘student’ characters experienced an unpleasant encounter near their halls of residence. The second involved online hate crime and the impact it had on victims, friends and bystanders. Once the scenes were completed, actors returned to the stage in their ‘roles’ and students were able to ask questions of them. The response was at times rambunctious as members of the audience quizzed and at times challenged ‘bystanders’ about their participation. Ultimately, however, the serious message of hate crime as a corrosive and socially divisive aspect of contemporary society was conveyed in a respectful and thought-provoking manner.
What next?
In order to evaluate the success of the programme, students were asked about their knowledge of hate crime both before and after the FT event and what impact it has had on them, through an evaluation questionnaire. Initial findings suggest an improved awareness of hate crime, although some students unfortunately had previous experience of hate crimes and incidents. Students are also being invited to do a follow up interview.
The FT event provided a unique method of engaging with and debating hate crimes on campus, in a safe and respectful environment. Embedding it within a Unit enabled the project’s exposure to a large cohort. As a result of positive feedback, it will be rolled out across all three sociology programme year groups over the coming months.
Interested in attending the next Forum Theatre?
There are two further forum theatre open events on Campus before the end of term; 23 April in Lansdowne and 17 May on Talbot. Details can be found at the bottom of this post. However, any interested academics and/or teaching staff can contact Jamesto discuss a bespoke session to suit their student cohort.
By raising awareness and increasing reporting, BU is sending a positive message that hate crime, in all its forms, is unacceptable.
Jane Healy has recently completed a PhD in disablist hate crimes and is a Lecturer in Sociology & Crime & Deviance in the Faculty of Health & Social Sciences.
Congratulations to Dr James Gavin, BU Lecturer in Exercise Physiology, on recently being awarded a funded position at the British Council Researcher Links Workshop, which will be taking place from 11 – 15 June 2018 in Botucatu, Brazil.
The Researcher Links programme provides opportunities for early career researchers from the UK and internationally to interact, learn from each other and explore opportunities for building long-lasting research collaborations. The 5 day workshop will provide a unique opportunity for sharing research expertise and networking.
“I’m immensely excited (the closest I’ve come to South America was working in a Brazilian restaurant as an undergraduate) to be able to spend dedicated time working with, and learning from, international ECRs across the health sciences,” says Dr Gavin.
During the workshops ECRs will have the opportunity to present their research in the form of a poster with short oral presentation and discuss this with established researchers and mentors from the UK and partner countries.
“I will present work on my current projects, including: i) Community-based exercise programmes for recovery self-management after orthopaedic surgery: a development study and, ii) the feasibility of inspiratory muscle training (IMT) in reducing falls risk in older adults”, says Dr Gavin.
There will be a focus on building links for future collaborations and participants selected on the basis of their research potential and ability to build longer term links.
“Aside from the prestige of the University of Sao Paulo (THE World University Rankings top 150), I hope to learn cross-cultural skills, particularly in developing and sustaining international research partnerships”, he says. “On return, I look forward to sharing my experiences with my colleagues in Sport, Physical Activity Research Centre (SPARC) and the Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, and seek opportunities for supporting a partner ‘international ECR’ to visit BU.”
The Global Food Security programme invites expressions of interest from early career researchers at lecturer level or equivalent to take part in a sandpit (2·5 days on 4-6 July 2018 followed by 2 days on 19-20 July 2018) to address the following question:
How can we transform our food system so it is based on healthy and sustainable diets and how would this impact on sustainable and resilient food production and supply?
New York is the world’s media capital and it is no surprise that American academic institutions dominate the field of Media Management. Fordham University in New York extended an invitation to me as a Visiting Scholar, and as a Santander Universities Network partner, the process of engaging with them was straight forward.
My application to the Santander Mobility Scheme had 3 primary objectives which fused research, education and professional practice. During my visit to the USA, I taught on Fordham’s MSc Media Management programme, had discussions with leading media management scholars and the Editor of The International Journal on Media Management.
I also met with the Managing Director of the Boston Consulting Group to discuss the metrics that are used to measure the level of innovation in firms, as well as their the chronic under performance. I also had a meeting with the Editor of Strategy & Leadership to discuss developing a ‘Masterclass’ paper on Scenario Planning and how best to encourage Early Career Researchers to write for the journal.
All of this activity aims to develop a number of fusion based outputs and impacts into the near and medium term future. Overall, it was a great trip and many thanks to the Santander Staff Mobility Scheme!
The Research and Knowledge Exchange Office (RKEO) through the Research & Knowledge Exchange Development Framework (RKEDF) has a number of workshops in the coming months to assist you in developing and enhancing the impact that you can make with your research, with particular reference to the REF.
Please follow the links above to find out more and to book. You will then receive a meeting request giving the room location. Many of these events have input from external presenters; please ensure that you are in the room and ready to commence at the given start time.
This session will provide detailed information about NIHR’s funding programmes including the Public Health Research, Invention for Innovation, Health Technology Assessment, Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation, and Health Services and Delivery Research schemes. The session will cover the remits, application processes and tips for success to these programmes.
We are delighted to welcome the following speakers:
Dr Ruth Nebauer, Assistant Director of i4i programme
Andrew Cook, Consultant in Public Health Medicine and Fellow in Health Technology Assessment
Date: 16th May 2018
Time: 12-2pm
Venue: Talbot Campus
The session is open to all academics, researchers and clinicians who have an interest in applying to the NIHR.
The NIHR is the UK’s major funder of applied health research. All of the research it funds works towards improving the health and wealth of the nation.
BU will be launching a new network for Early Career Researchers later in 2018
If you are an ECR* or interested in the development of ECRs at BU, please sign up to attend this pre-launch meeting to discuss your ideas and expectation of this new network. Priority will be given to ECRs in the first instance, but whatever your role at BU, please sign up as your input will be most welcome.
This session will take place at Talbot Campus on Wednesday, 25th April, from 13:00 – 15:00, with refreshments, but not lunch, provided. Please feel free to bring your lunch.
*an ECR, in this case, is defined as someone who started their research career on or after 1 August 2013. This is the point at which they held a contract of employment of 0.2 FTE or greater, which included a primary employment function of undertaking ‘research’ or ‘teaching and research’, with any HE or other organisation, whether in the UK or overseas.
After the initial announcement and consultation, things had gone a bit quiet. Louis Coiffat from Wonkhe chaired a conference on it before Easter and wrote about it here. BU’s concern has been that there is likely to be an over-focus on commercialisation and technology transfer so that the result of the KEF is to recognise and distribute investment funds to those institutions already receiving income from commercialisation – rather than to invest in those participating in a broader range of knowledge exchange activities and with potential to develop important – but possibly less financially significant – technology transfer arrangements, e.g. in healthcare or other less remunerative areas (see John Vinney’s blog for Wonkhe from February).
And see the section below on research news – HEIF funding, which is likely to be influenced by the KEF – is increasing.
So the feedback from the conference is interesting:
“It’s looking like KEF will involve a leadership statement (or concordat) – for institutions to self-evaluate, define, and communicate their own KE strategy. And, of course, some metrics. The latter will probably see institutions clustered and benchmarked. Speakers had good intentions about “proportionate” reporting burdens.
A one-size-fits-all approach clearly won’t work, as another speaker said, this “isn’t a simple league table with one institution best at knowledge exchange”. Also, real life is messy, how can everything universities do be measured? In reality, much KE activity is already happening, it’s just not being captured, synthesised or described. But, nobody wants every academic completing a timesheet.”
And:
“There’s also the question about how KEF relates to REF impact case studies. The consensus seems to be that KEF is about an institutions’ overall capabilities, not a peer-reviewed example of a single research impact in time.
One promise of KEF is that it should support better self-evaluation so that providers can work on their weaknesses honestly without finger-pointing, and crow about their strengths. It should provide institutions with valuable new information they can then tailor to different audiences. However, it should also be formative, open, and flexible – rather than box-ticking. Universities will always need to answer questions about how their impact compares (with other institutions and internationally), and how they can improve. KEF could help with that.”
We look forward to the response to the recent consultation to see where all this ends up.
Student Loan Repayment threshold
The changes to the student loan repayment threshold announced by Theresa May last year have come into effect.
Graduates earning over the new £25,000 threshold are set to benefit too, with lower payments compared to before, for example:
£25,000 per year repays £0 per month instead of £30
£27,000 per year repays £15 per month instead of £45
£30,000 per year repays £37 per month instead of £67
£33,000 per year repays £60 per month instead of £90
£35,000 per year repays £75 per month instead of £105
£40,000 per year repays £112 per month instead of £142The increase in the student repayment threshold marks a key milestone and is another example of the steps the Government is taking to support those in higher education.The increased repayment threshold applies to any student who has taken out a post-2012 undergraduate student loan or Advanced Learner Loan.
Martin Lewis has written about the change in threshold on Money Saving Expert.com. It is also important to note that this change also affects interest dates.
We are seeing more 18-year-olds than ever before attend university, including the highest ever number from disadvantaged backgrounds and we want to give these students a fair deal both during their studies and afterwards too. Not only will it benefit hundreds of thousands of graduates in the next financial year alone, but millions in the years to come.
Research news
Research England announced a pilot to explore a longitudinal, real-time evaluation approach for the REF 2021. The pilot will be led by research teams at Cardiff University and the University of Sheffield, and will test the feasibility of evaluating the perceptions, experiences and understanding of the REF among academics across career stages, and in a range of departments and universities.
The pilot will launch in the spring with the results available by early 2019.
Executive Chair of Research England, David Sweeney, welcoming the pilot, said:
“UK universities deliver world-leading research and are recognised globally for the quality of their outputs and diverse impact. National research assessment has been part of our high-performing system for over 30 years and has developed over that period through consultation with the community. This work presents an opportunity to test evaluating REF 2021 in a new way, informing the collection of evaluative data for shaping exercises post 2021.”
Research England has agreed budgets for the academic year 2018-19 and capital budgets for the financial year 2018-19. Allocations for individual institutions will be announced in early May 2018. The letter to all institutions is here.
There is an overall increase of £70m available in 2018-19, enabling higher education institutions (HEIs) in England to deliver on the government’s industrial strategy and tackle global, national and local challenges.
The following budgets are being increased:
An additional £25m for knowledge exchange through Higher Education Innovation Funding (HEIF), enabling universities to increase their contributions to deliver commercialisation and working with business to meet Industrial Strategy priorities;
An additional £20m for the postgraduate research degree supervision element of quality-related research (QR) funding, supporting universities to develop the next generation of researchers and protecting the health of the talent pipeline through postgraduate study and into research and the wider economy;
An additional £10m for the Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF) element of QR, supporting investment in cutting-edge research that addresses the challenges of economic development and wellbeing faced by developing countries;
An additional £6m to contribute to the charity research element of QR, providing additional support for research that universities carry out on behalf of charities.
David Sweeney, Executive Chair of Research England, said:
“We are delighted to announce funding levels for the coming year. The increased public investment in universities reflects their central role in delivering economic growth and creating social prosperity for the country.
We see universities as key partners in tackling global challenges, and the increased investment into GCRF reflects that. Our investment into the postgraduate pipeline will enable our higher education sector to continue to grow and attract top talent.
Achieving the government’s target of 2.4% of GDP investment in R&D by 2027 depends on universities deepening their partnerships with business, charities and other organisations. Through HEIF, and working with the Office for Students, we are committed to investing in the knowledge exchange activities that underpin R&D partnerships.”
“We are delighted to announce the launch of the Expanding Excellence in England (E3) fund, a first new initiative for Research England. This competitive fund will allocate up to £75m over three years to help grow small but excellent research units and departments in English universities. Bids will be assessed by an expert panel chaired by Professor Sir Ian Diamond, Principal and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Aberdeen.”
“Aims of the Fund
Strengthen the contribution of English HEIs to our society, pushing the frontiers of human knowledge, delivering economic impact and creating social impact by supporting our society and others to become enriched, healthier, more resilient and sustainable;
Build the capacity and quality of research in departments and units within English universities where excellence exists but at a small scale with potential for growth;
Contribute towards the delivery of government strategy, including the Industrial Strategy, the GCRF strategy and local priorities by supporting sustained improvements in research capacity across England while maintaining the principle of funding excellence wherever it is found;
Enhance the skills base and build talent in areas of research excellence where there is untapped potential;
Stimulate strategic partnerships between HEIs and other organisations outside of Higher Education.”
As part of the Connecting Capability Fund Research England has invested £67 million in 14 collaborative projects between universities and with other partners to drive forward world-class university commercialisation across the country, including a project to build a creative technology network through a project led by the University of the West of England
HE Review
Reminder: to inform our BU response to the HE Review all staff and students are invited to consider the issues in this (anonymous) short survey. Please take a look at the survey questions as we’d like to hear from as many staff and students as possible. You don’t have to answer all the questions. The major review of HE will shape the HE system, including how universities are funded for years to come. The survey will be available to staff and students until Friday 20th April.
As monitoring authority, the OfS’s function will be to collect information from RHEBs to enable it to monitor those bodies’ performance in discharging the ‘Prevent duty’ imposed on them by section 26(1) of the Act.
I am now looking to the OfS to build on this experience when undertaking their function as the new monitoring authority; and in particular I would like them to build on the valuable work HEFCE has undertaken in sharing good practice and driving continuous improvement, which I know the HE sector values. Their work should include ensuring RHEB’s continue to effectively balance their Prevent and free speech responsibilities .
I would also like the OfS to take the opportunity to review the existing monitoring framework and consider how it might evolve to align with the values and approach of the Office for Students. In particular, I would like the Office for Students to consider how it might take a more risk-based approach.
Transforming the service economy
The Government Office for Science issued a report on Growth Opportunities for the UK Service Economy.
Recommendation 1: The Office for National Statistics should work with academia to develop new methods for mapping value chains as well as measuring research and development in the service sector. Opportunities to pilot and test new methods include the SERVCOM survey of service sector outputs and revisions to the Standard Industrial Classification.
Recommendation 2: Industry and sector councils should raise the level of horizon-scanning to anticipate and monitor emerging opportunities and challenges to their services. In addition, government should undertake detailed studies to better understand how the potential to trade services at a distance is developing, and how this tradability will affect individual services.
Recommendation 3: BEIS should build on the Bazalgette review of creative industries, the Maier review of industrial digitalisation, the Bell review of the life sciences sector and the Hall and Pesenti review of artificial intelligence to strengthen the service sector through the Industrial Strategy. Government and business should work together on the collected recommendations from these reviews. To support the service economy, this process can exploit sector deals, place-based policy making and support development of education, skills and lifelong learning, and the work of UK Research and Innovation and the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund
Recommendation 4: (1) Government needs to close the skills gap in STEM subjects such as data science, and ensure that our education system cultivates creative, social and critical thinking skills. (2) Industry needs to make a commitment to lifelong learning in the workplace by providing courses that train and reskill existing employees, rather than relying on new employees to fill skills gaps.
Recommendation 5: Government and industry should jointly conduct a public debate on the impact and regulation of digital disruption, especially with regard to ensuring the protection of casual employees. There should be similar analysis and debate of the market and regulatory status of incumbent businesses and potential disruptors to help produce a level playing field. This could be facilitated through the work of the Alan Turing Institute and the Open Data Institute.
Recommendation 6: Government, industry and academia should work together to raise productivity, encouraging the adoption and diffusion of innovation across the service sector. Government procurement could be used to incentivise support for SMEs as a key part of the supply chain to government, as is done in the USA. Schemes for place-based support from BEIS, Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) and other departments should consider how to incentivise diffusion of best practice, which needs to be in management and leadership as much as in technology.
Recommendation 7: The Departments for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) and BEIS should continue developing a coordinated approach that takes into account business broadband concerns and ensures businesses can benefit equally from digital technology initiatives to help drive productivity and economic growth.
Recommendation 8: Analysts and policy makers and those who deliver public services should work across government to understand how the government policy levers identified in the Technology and Innovation Futures report 2017 can be applied to greatest effect in the service sector.
Recommendation 9: Government should consider using outcome-based contracts and avoiding over-prescriptive specifications. This approach to procurement will allow providers of assets to servitise and innovate their business models using digital technologies. It will be important to carefully examine and test outcome-based contracts and regulatory approaches to avoid unintended consequences and to achieve the full set of desired outcomes.
Recommendation 10: The development of outcome-based contracts offers great opportunities to the UK. Industry, academia and leadership councils should together explore the possibilities for provision of outcome-based contractual services. Horizon-scanning will be essential to anticipate, monitor and assist in the identification of emerging opportunities in this area. Innovators should be encouraged to look across sectors and think more broadly about potential opportunities for servitisation and where the UK could create new comparative advantage.
Recommendation 11: Government should use sector and city deals to develop and build on existing financial ecosystems across the UK with the aim of reducing regional disparities. This will require mass data collection to measure and evaluate the planning and implementation of these deals.
AHRC blog has just published an article on a potential new project on youth, gender and sexuality proposed by a team at Bournemouth University. The AHRC supported short film RUFUS STONE is seven years old this year. Our screenings of this film’s story, particularly to young people, have impressed upon us how a supposedly ‘old’ story – the film is set in rural Britain more than 50 years ago – still resonates with young people today.
Our proposed project, “Rufus Stone … the next Generation’ – will contribute to knowledge on the substantive topic of ‘Post-Millennials’ or ‘Generation Z’ (GenZ), focusing on their anxieties and ambiguous approaches around gender and sexuality.
Because GenZ is the first generation to be totally hooked up to technology since birth, we want to work with mobile phones and iPads and social media over several months in sessions with youth to produce their own film/video about their lives and relationships.
We’re currently applying for funding to work with young people aged 16-18, involving them in telling their stories, co-created by involving them in every stage of production. We are at the bidding stage now. If you would like to express an interest in joining the team, please contact Kip Jones for a chat.
We are continuing to recruit for 2 studies involving our Brythm App, designed at BU. Brythm is based on the principles of slow and deep breathing that have been found to lower blood pressure. Our previous research supports the idea that changing the way you breathe has an impact upon your heart rate and blood pressure. We have developed an App (called Brythm) to exploit the beneficial influence of breathing, which guides users to a personalised, optimal breathing frequency.
We are currently conducting one study on healthy women in a laboratory setting to test the cardiovascular responses to slow and deep breathing, which would require approx 2 hours of your time. The other study involves using the App daily at home for 8 weeks to test the feasibility of using the App. For both studies participants will receive information about their current blood pressure.
Lab Based Cardiovascular Responses Study
Participants must be female non-smokers of reproductive age (18-49 years) who are not currently pregnant. They must also have no prior medical diagnosis of cardiovascular or respiratory disease (including asthma). The entire study requires a single visit to the Cardiorespiratory Research Laboratory in Bournemouth House (3rd floor) lasting approximately 2 hours. During this visit you will be asked to undertake a number of 5-minute sets of slow and deep breathing, guided by our App, while a series of non-invasive and painless cardiovascular measurements are made. The App will be installed on our iPad in the lab and you will not be required to use your own device.
At Home 8-week Feasibility Study
Participants must be aged 40 or over and you must have access to an iOS or Android device capable of downloading and running the Brythm App. More details on device specifications available on request. You will be expected to complete daily 10-minute sessions using the Brythm App for 8 weeks and will have an initial meeting with our Project Manager prior to commencing the study, where you will be given a demonstration of the Brythm App and be given an opportunity to try it for a few minutes. You will also receive an automated blood pressure monitor to take home with you for the duration of the study; you will be asked to use it to make two measurements each day, which will be recorded via the Brythm App. Following the intervention we will ask you to attend a focus group where you will be invited to share your experiences of using the App.
For more information, and to receive a participant information sheet outlining either study in more detail, please contact Malika Felton at mfelton@bournemouth.ac.uk or 01202 961845.
The second day of the conference was open by Professor Graeme Close & Mr Michael Naylor with a lecture on “nutritional strategies for competition and performance.”
Follow up with the oral presentations and free communications. I found particular interest in the research of Mr Chynkiamis on the effect of VitaBREATHE on exercise tolerance in COPD patients and in the feasibility study of Miss Thomas on the effect of 10 weeks postural stability exercise on balance in elderly care homes residents. I am glad that I had the chance to discuss with Miss Thomas part of the outcomes and the methods she used for my undergoing research on falls prevention.
Later in the afternoon, I had the opportunity to talk more about inspiratory muscle training (IMT) with Mr Hopkins and Mr Gibb who are looking at the effect of IMT on time trial performance in trained cyclists.
After, the workshop “psychological challenges for physical activity uptake” by Dr Melissa Fothergill intrigued me as I believe it is a crucial matter of discussion, especially if working with frail populations.
The final motivational lecture titled “creating your future” by Dr Steve Ingham closed the 2018 BASES student conference with tips and advice on how to progress in the sport science carriers.
Concluding, it was a great experience as not only I had the chance to improve my network and meet peers with a similar background as mine but most important because in these two days I had increased my awareness and motivations.
A special thanks go to my supervisors Professor Alison McConnell, Dr James Gavin and Professor Tom Wainwright who pointed me at this event.
The conference is now over, and by the time you read this post, I will be already on my way back to Bournemouth.
“Our vision is to host a successful, safe and secure Games that deliver a lasting legacy for the whole of Scotland, and to maximise the opportunities in the run up to, during, and after the Games.”
This was the promise made by the Scottish government to the Commonwealth in 2014. In the 12 days of competition that followed, the city of Glasgow achieved a “hero-like status”, Team Scotland achieved its biggest-ever medal haul of 53 medals, and the games recorded the highest number of tickets sold for a sporting event in Scottish history.
Minister for sport Aileen Campbell hailed the event as a huge success by announcing that Glasgow’s Commonwealth Games was the largest sporting and cultural event ever held in Scotland and had changed the lives of thousands of people.
The message from the host nation was clear: the games were not just about showcasing elite athletes, but about delivering a legacy that would provide a flourishing economy, celebrate cultural diversity, embrace sustainable living, and create a more physically active nation. But four years on, not all those ambitions have been achieved.
Getting a nation off the couch
The games were considered a golden opportunity for Scotland to harness the power of sport to motivate a sedentary nation. A ten-year implementation plan was launched in 2014 to tackle physical inactivity across Scotland as well as myriad other initiatives to support communities in improving the local sporting infrastructure.
Two and a half years after the games, an interim report by the Scottish parliament’s Health and Sport Committee was undertaken to assess the progress made in increasing physical activity levels across Scotland.
The report concluded that there was no evidence of an active legacy being achievable. More alarmingly, any evidence of a relationship between the hosting of a major sporting event and raising the host nation’s physical activity levels was inconclusive.
This raises serious questions as to why such an ambitious legacy aim was included in the first place given the likelihood of failure. It could be that the Scottish government included the aim of increasing participation within its legacy pledge as a desperate attempt to address Scotland’s poor health profile, one of the worst in Europe.
Glasgow’s east end, the main site of the 2014 Commonwealth Games, is considered one of the poorest urban areas in Europe. Chris Perkins/Flickr, CC BY-SA
A final evaluation report on the impact of the Glasgow 2014 Commonwealth Games published by the Scottish government days before the opening ceremony of the Gold Coast 2018 Commonwealth Games highlighted the harsh reality that the active legacy programme had not “resulted in a step change in population levels of physical activity in Scotland”.
In fact, the GoWell East study that tracked participant levels within the surrounding area of Glasgow found that overall rates had actually declined, with just over 53% achieving the recommended physical activity levels in 2016, compared to 62% in 2012.
However, the east end community surrounding the main games site is one of the most deprived areas in Scotland, with some of the worst statistics in Europe for child poverty, health, crime, and alcohol and drug abuse. This could account for the declines in physical activity levels in the east end of Glasgow as the underlying reasons behind social inequalities in sports participation is poverty – not having the income to spend on sport.
Policy fail
But Glasgow is not alone. Other nations hosting major sporting events have failed to capitalise on the perception that a sprinkling of magic over a big sports event will motivate a population to become active. Data that tracked participation levels of Australians before, during and after the Sydney 2000 Olympic Games found they had declined, due – ironically – to Australians spending more time watching sport on TV than taking part themselves.
Undoubtedly, many nations believe that elite sporting success and the hosting of major sporting events on home turf can encourage mass involvement, and in turn create an active nation. An example of this is London’s 2012 Olympic Games, which promised to “do something no other Olympic Games host nation had done before”: inspire a new generation of young people to get involved, get active and take part in sport. This bold statement from the UK government has since been questioned, because in fact, no previous games had even attempted to leverage improved physical activity as a legacy outcome.
Despite their glossy success, London’s Olympics also failed to improve rates of participation in sport. PA, CC BY-SA
It became abundantly clear post-London 2012 that the Olympic Legacy promise had failed to come to fruition with figures showing no more young people taking part in sport than before the games. As has been argued elsewhere, there is still a lack of robust evidence to suggest that the presumed trickle-down effect of hosting a major sporting event can trigger an increase in physical activity.
Big spend but no return
The failure of London 2012 and Glasgow 2014 to create and inspire a nation to get active is not really surprising. For more than 40 years, community sports policy in Britain has been plagued by failings to meet physical activity performance indicators set by governments.
This could be down to a variety of factors including: poor policy analysis to inform future policy-making decisions; overambitious or naïve participation targets; inadequate resources to deliver long-term programmes; and changes in direction leading to ambiguity regarding who is responsible for delivery.
Given these issues, it is understandable that grass-roots sport policies and major sporting events have failed to encourage more people to get active. Future government policy on community sport needs to have an all-party group commitment, that is evidence-based to ensure objectives are realistic. It needs to have a long-term plan and be adequately funded to ensure that there are real and lasting results.
In the end, we have to face a difficult truth: governments continue to invest in costly elite sport and big extravagant sporting events that come at the expense of community sport.
Here are some highlights from the Funding bulletin of 10th April 2018
If you are interested in applying to any of these calls then please contact your RKEO Funding Development Officer, in the first instance at least 3 weeks prior to the stated deadline.
#TalkBU is a monthly lunchtime seminar on Talbot Campus, open to all students and staff at Bournemouth University and free to attend. Come along to learn, discuss and engage in a 20-30 minute presentation by an academic or guest speaker talking about their research and findings, with a Q&A to finish.
Often our New Year resolutions involve changing unhealthy habits in the coming year. But how many of us have actually managed to change our unhealthy lifestyle and maintained it? Changes can be stressful, but how one manages the change can potentially ease that stress and make the change more achievable, which can potentially impact our physical and psychological well-being.
In this talk, Dr Fiona Ling will discuss her research that centres around physical activity behaviour change, and the extended implications on changing other health habits and public health promotions in order to encourage a healthy lifestyle.
Every year the British Association of Sport and Exercise Sciences (BASES) organise the student conference, as an opportunity to discuss and exchange views on contemporary issues in sport and exercise science (including clinical exercise, biomechanics, performance, physiology and psychology).
This year the venue is Northumbria University, and the programme includes international speakers from the applied and research worlds.
The conference started with the lecture “not all that can be counted counts – why we should listen to Einstein?” by Mrs Esme Matthew & Miss Laura Needham, who brought they experience as members of English Institute of Sport (EIS) and their work with the UK Olympic team.
It was particularly inspiring to see how the lab works moved into the field of applied science and the relationship that bound researchers and athletes.
Next, after the usual coffè break, it was the time of free communications and oral presentation, where I had the opportunity to attend to the following:
Mr Dray, and his work on the effect of high-intensity interval training on obese men.
Mr Parmar about the difference in maximal aerobic speed in filed-based tests compared to laboratory-based treadmill tests.
Miss McNulty on low-volume, high-intensity priming activity.
Miss White and his work on plyometric training team gym gymnasts.
Mr Addey about the effect of unilateral strength training on recreation runners.
Then, it was the time for poster exhibition, where I presented my research titled: “The effects of 8 weeks of inspiratory muscle training (IMT) on the balance of healthy older people: a randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled trial”.
I was excited, and most important the comments and feedback collected satisfied my expectations.
In particularly I had the chance to discuss IMT with a couple of students from Portsmouth, that today are going to present their works on IMT in athletes.
I also met Mr Tahmosybayat, and his research on 6 weeks of exergaming compare to OTAGO exercise training in healthy older adults and we discussed the outcomes, methods and methodologies of our research.
After there was a range of workshops available from which I chose “a demonstration of how exergaming is used to improve postural control” by Dr Gill Barry at the sport central physiology lab.
Here members of the lab staff showed us their facilities in particular exergame, Kinect, and Biodex BioSway and how they measure balance in frail populations.
At the end of the conference, there was still time for the lectures on “contemporary recovery: translating research to application” by Dr Jonathan Leeder, Dr Jess Hill & Mr Luke Gupta. Who discussed how to optimising recovery following exercises, the efficacy of compression garments on recovery from strenuous exercises and sleep management in elite sports.
Then we moved to the home of Newcastle United FC, where before dinner we had a motivational/inspiring speech by Mr Nick Grantham specialist in athletic preparation, combat sports and strength training.
Concluding, it was a very productive day and I am looking toward tomorrow where there are going to be more lectures, oral presentations and posters oriented on frail populations and nutrition.
The panel, chaired by Professor Lee Miles (Professor of Crisis and Disaster Management) was awarded after a highly competitive submission process. The panel together combined a Professor, a Senior Research Fellow (Dr Henry Bang) and three BUDMC PhD candidates (Michael Clark, Grace Kingsbury and James Stride) to deliver papers on their respective research in disaster management. The panel was distinctive in that the panellists also had significant experience, not just in the academic study of disaster management, but also in working in the field and in the crisis management industry – thereby representing practical examples of co-creation and the thriving research environment at the Disaster Management Centre here in Bournemouth.
The panel called ‘Ruling in Unruly Times? Foreign Policy Dynamics of Disaster Management’ opened with a jointly co-authored paper by Professor Lee Miles, Dr Henry Bang and Michael Clark on understanding resistance factors and enhancing entrepreneurial resilience in disaster management in Ghana that represented unique research findings from the BUDMC’s acclaimed AFRIGATE project. This was followed by research papers delivered by BUDMC PhD candidates on ‘Synthesizing Foreign Policy Considerations and Health Systems Resilience’ in Africa’ (Michael Clark), ‘The International Dimensions of Maritime Disasters’ (James Stride) and a co-authored paper by PhD candidate, Grace Kingsbury and Professor Lee Miles, on ‘The Scandinavian Foreign Policy Collective: Managing Greater Imperatives of Resilience and Safety’ – that each demonstrated the depth of international-focused work undertaken by BUDMC researchers. The panel were subject to notable scrutiny by a discussant, and a vibrant debate; and the papers were warmly welcomed by an international audience of prominent academics from the field of international studies. The papers will form the basis of manuscripts to be submitted to key journals by summer 2018.
#TalkBU is a monthly lunchtime seminar on Talbot Campus, open to all students and staff at Bournemouth University and free to attend. Come along to learn, discuss and engage in a 20-30 minute presentation by an academic or guest speaker talking about their research and findings, with a Q&A to finish. 
Open Access Publication Fund open again to new applications
Closing tomorrow: please complete the Postgraduate Research Experience Survey 2025
Plenary talk by Dr Regmi on Hidden Health Burden of Nepalese Migrants
Conversation article: Wishcycling – how ‘eco-friendly’ labels confuse shoppers and make recycling less effective
Apply now to take part in the 2025 ESRC Festival of Social Science
Horizon Europe 2025 Work Programme pre-Published
MSCA Postdoctoral Fellowships 2025
Update on UKRO services
European research project exploring use of ‘virtual twins’ to better manage metabolic associated fatty liver disease