Yearly Archives / 2022

Research Integrity and Institutional Support

Integrity should be integral throughout the whole project life cycle, from planning (design/proposal), study set up (methods, collaborations, data management), project management (finance, compliance, data collection), reporting (publication, impact & public engagement) to data sharing (closing your project).

BU is committed to maintaining the highest standards of research integrity in all aspects of its research.  To support Researchers in this endeavour we provide our research community with relevant policies & processes to appropriate codes of practice, robust review processes (compliance) and training opportunities.

We also provide contacts for those who might need confidential advice on concerns relating to research integrity.

Polices & Procedures

Navigating through the project life cycle can bring up many challenges and to support the research community we have a number of policies & guidance documents available.  These documents should be referred to at the very start, not just when a problem arises or for a particular milestone such as an ethics review.

For example….

Research data management is very important, particularly if you intend to collect personal information from a research participant.  You need to have a clear idea on the type of data do you intend to collect.  In this case, a data management plan is an invaluable tool which ensures the integrity of the data you want to collect.  There is a BU template available for you to use (see DMP online – link below).

Publication and authorship e.g. recognition of contributors, authorship, declaration of any conflicts of interest, meeting requirements for open access should also be considered early.  Having an open dialogue can prevent issues later down the line.

Ethics Review Process

Another way the University demonstrates a commitment to promoting and upholding the highest quality academic and ethical standards is to ensure we have a robust ethics review process in place.

The ethical design and management of research is the responsibility of the researcher and the task of the Reviewers/central research ethics panels is to ensure that the researcher (staff or student) has met their responsibilities and research will be conducted ethically.

More about the research ethics and why it matters next week!

Training Opportunities

There are numerous training opportunities via the Research & Knowledge Exchange Development Framework. Workshops are available to all academics and researchers.

For postgraduate research students, there are training opportunities available via the Research Development Programme.  See introductory video to the Programme and Researcher Development website for further details.

There are also a number of online resources via the Research Skills Toolkit which is available via the Research Governance & Integrity Website (training opportunities).

As different disciplines will have different issues of integrity, do check with your department as there may be discipline specific guidance on good research practice also available.

Resources

More details about the Concordats can be found on the Research Concordats website, specifically research integrity at  https://www.bournemouth.ac.uk/research/research-environment/research-concordat/concordat-support-research-integrity

Coming later this year

We are planning Integrity Week 2022, when keynote speakers and interactive workshops will be available, giving you the opportunity to find out more about research integrity, how it might impact your research and the opportunity to discuss with others when dealing with issues which can come up in the field or working within your Teams.  This will include both non-clinical and clinical research settings.

So, watch this space for more details.

PGR Supervisory Lunchbites | Important factors for supporting PGRs requiring ALS

Hosted by the Doctoral College, these one hour online lunch bite sessions supplement the regular New and Established Supervisory Development Sessions and are aimed at all academic staff who are new to, or experienced at, supervising research degree students and are interested in expanding their knowledge of a specific aspect or process in research degree supervision.

Each session will be led by a senior academic who will introduce the topic, and staff will benefit from discussions aimed at sharing best practice from across BU. Bookings are arranged by Organisational Development.

This session is focused on expanding individuals’ knowledge on the additional support available to PGRs with disabilities, what reasonable adjustments can be made, and the role of the supervisor. This discussion will be led by Ildiko Balogh, Student Services.

Staff attending will: 

  • have gained additional knowledge of additional support available to PGRs with disabilities
  • have gained additional knowledge of how supervisor can support PGRs with disabilities
  • be aware of the relevant sections of the Code of Practice for Research Degrees

Further details on the session as well as information on future lunchbite sessions can also be found on the staff intranet.

Date: Tuesday 25 January 2022

Time: 12:00 – 13:00, Teams

To book a place on this session please complete the booking form.

Further details and future sessions can also be found on the Supervisory Development Lunchbite Sessions staff intranet page.

Conversation article – what Djokovic row means for unvaccinated elite athletes

Dr Keith Parry answers some of the most pressing questions about what tennis star Novak Djokovic’s deportation from Australia means for unvaccinated athletes in this article for The Conversation

‘We’re entering unprecedented territory’: sports expert Q&A on what Djokovic row means for unvaccinated elite athletes

Keith Parry, Bournemouth University

Tennis star Novak Djokovic is out of the Australian Open after the country’s immigration minister, Alex Hawke, cancelled his visa “on the basis that it was in the public interest to do so”. This follows an earlier quashing of the original decision by Border Force officials to cancel the Serbian player’s visa when he arrived in Australia because he didn’t have a COVID vaccination. Djokovic’s lawyers headed to court to seek an injunction against his deportation, which has now been dismissed.

Djokovic was seeking a tenth title at the event, as well as the world record for men’s Grand Slam wins. At the age of 34, it this makes it harder for him to now be able to fulfil his potential on the court before he retires.

At a time when multiple countries have been introducing restrictions on unvaccinated people, it raises questions about whether other sports stars will run into similar issues. We asked sports management expert Keith Parry about what the visa struggle might mean for sports stars and teams around the world.

Will Djokovic’s visa saga have implications for other sports in Australia?

Yes it will. Now they’ve set the precedent, I think we could see other players fall foul of this system when entering Australia. Clearly the federal government do not want unvaccinated players coming into Australia so it will deter some (unless they agree to isolate for two weeks).

Are significant numbers of sports stars unvaccinated?

In the US the public know if players are unvaccinated because of regulations there. For example the National Basketball Association has released a list of unvaccinated players. There’s no requirement to name players in the UK, but there’s been coverage about Premier League footballers not being vaccinated.

What are other teams likely to do to avoid trouble?

Liverpool FC manager Jürgen Klopp has said that he won’t sign an unvaccinated player. So there’s an implication for players’ livelihoods. Players who are unvaccinated may have limited choice not just in terms of where they can go and travel, but also in terms of the clubs that are prepared to sign them. So we’re entering unprecedented territory now. Other managers may follow Klopp’s lead.

Some managers will see the Djokovic decision as further evidence of the challenge that unvaccinated players pose to clubs. Another challenge for sport managers may be sponsors and partners, who may exert influence on athletes or teams if they have strong views on vaccinations. We see many sponsors end relationships with teams or players if they feel it is bad for their image.

Teams and organisations will also now think carefully about where they play or host matches. Teams will pay even closer attention to the regulations in countries and ensure that they have sufficient time to meet the requirements for isolation or bubbles. Countries that have stricter rules may look less appealing in the future.

Will sports stars worry about their statements on vaccines making a difference to them playing?

Players are very affluent. They’re young and feel indestructible. But they may think twice now about what they say on social media about vaccines. It will be interesting to see how athletes who refuse to be vaccinated are viewed. Will it tarnish Djokovic’s image or, as is often the case, will he be forgiven and the episode written out of his story?

Which countries with upcoming tournaments could be an issue in future?

In Europe, Italy and Germany have vaccine mandates and so tournaments there, or European club competition matches in these countries, may present challenges. France just relaxed its travel rules but unvaccinated players are still required to isolate for ten days. This may be an issue for the Six Nations rugby tournament this spring.

Different state rules around the US may be a challenge for athletes. Kyrie Irving of the Brooklyn Nets, for instance, cannot play in New York because of its regulations, but he can play in the team’s away matches in most other states.

Is this a sign that sports stars can’t always get around the rules?

In the past, organisations like international football association FIFA and the International Olympic Committee have operated outside of borders and outside of the rules. Often no one holds them accountable. Clearly these celebrities do expect to have preferential treatment. So this visa wrangle may be a bit of a shock.

Ordinary people have to go through immigration, fill in forms ourselves and follow the rules. But when you’re idolised by millions around the world, it’s very difficult to think that the rules apply to you. Sports heroes have crossed over into the realm of celebrity but there’s a need for athletes to uphold society’s values.The Conversation

Keith Parry, Deputy Head Of Department in Department of Sport & Event Management, Bournemouth University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

HE policy update w/e 17th January 2022

As the PM tries to focus on policy to reduce the chat about parties, it may be that the levelling up white paper finally sees the light of day fairly soon, and some big OfS consultations are also expected, so hold on to your hats for the next update!  In the meantime, plenty on research priorities.

Parliamentary News

Michelle Donelan gave a ministerial statement on 5 January about reforms to support the government’s skills revolution – ie levelling up by filling skills gaps to boost the economy. Nine more Institutes of Technology were announced (12 already running), T levels announcements were made, and it also covered access to flexible short courses for retraining: More than 20 universities and colleges will offer the courses in subjects where there are skills shortages such as digital, Net Zero, Education, STEM and Healthcare, and offering an alternative to studying a traditional three-year degree. Student finance will be available to students taking the courses, marking the next step in the development of the government’s Lifelong Learning Entitlement which, from 2025, will provide individuals with a loan entitlement to be the equivalent of four years of post-18 education they can use flexibly over their lifetime.

The DfE statement contains more detail.

Education Minister, Nadhim Zahawi, also made a statement. It focussed mainly on schools and Covid issues related to compulsory schooling. However, on international HE students Zahawi stated: We continue to welcome international students to the United Kingdom, and universities stand ready to support any students who are required to quarantine on arrival. Overseas students should not worry, because visa concessions remain in place for international students to allow them to study remotely until 6 April this year.

Research

ARIA: The ARIA Bill has passed through Parliament with limited amendments. Plans for recruitment of the ARIA Chair and Chief Executive are at various stages but it is not known if a preferred candidate has yet been selected. ARIA will have a budget of £800 million over the next four financial years. Wonkhe have a blog.

2022 Ministerial Science Plan: Science Minister George Freeman outlined his core missions and priorities for 2022 on Twitter. Here’s the basics:

  • Horizon: push for final sign-off on the UK’s Horizon Europe membership (£80.5bn). As political disputes continue to hold up membership in Brussels the Minister stated he is still working on a “bold Global Britain Plan B” should Horizon membership fall through.
  • Research Ecosystem: implementing the Nurse, Grant and Tickell reviews which address the research landscape, UKRI, and research bureaucracy. All three reviews are expected to be published this year.
  • ARIA: Establishing the £800m Advanced Research and Invention Agency as the UK’s “science satellite” to ensure the UK “stays on the frontline of exploring new ways of doing new science”. The Bill is now awaiting Royal Assent.
  • Science Cabinet: Establishing the new National Science & Technology Council, which Freeman calls the “Science Cabinet”. The Council, which was announced last year, will be chaired by the PM and the chief scientific adviser Patrick Vallance. Freeman also committed to establishing an R&D inter-ministerial group to provide a “joined-up cross-Government” approach to R&D policy.
  • Funding: Allocating the £20bn R&D funding promised by 2024-25 at the last spending review to help reach the government’s target of increasing R&D spend to 2.4% of GDP. He also commits to work with the Chancellor, Treasury, and industry to “take forward” the Patient Capital Reviewon supporting business to scale-up to “unlock great UK pension and fund investment” in high-growth companies.
  • Regulation: Freeman also commits to support the implementation of the recommendations of the Taskforce on Innovation, Growth and Regulatory Reform– of which he was a member prior to being appointed – which he says will “unlock UK leadership in regulatory innovation for leadership in setting the global standards for fast-emerging new sectors” such as AI and nutraceuticals.
  • Levelling Up: The Minister plans to map and focus on the roughly 30 R&D clusters around the UK as the basis for how science and innovation can support the Government’s level-up ambitions, creating “new jobs, opportunities & companies key to sustainable long term growth.” The Levelling Up White Paper is expected to be published in the first half of this year.
  • Quantum: Developing a ‘UK Quantum Computing Technology and Industrial Strategy’ to “consolidate the UK’s global leadership in the science of advanced computing into commercial leadership in innovation & industry.”
  • Strategies: The Minister committed to implementing the 2021 Life Sciences Visionto “ensure we repeat the successes of our first industrial strategy”, as well as the UK Innovation Strategy to “help create the next high growth sectors”. Plus the UK Space Strategy to develop the £16bn UK space tech sector. Freeman pledges to implement key reforms of the R&D People and Culture Strategy (published by the previous Minister).
  • International: Establishing new Global Britain science fellowships, working with global allies and the National Cyber Security Centre to “ensure research security against hostile industrial and sovereign research espionage and IP theft.”

In response, Hetan Shah, writing for Wonkhe calls for the inclusion of social sciences, arts and humanities in achieving the science minister’s priorities for research and development in 2022.

AI: The Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation has published the second edition of its AI Barometer, analysing the most pressing opportunities, risks and challenges associated with AI and data in the UK. And the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dtsl) has published information on the development of a standard approach for AI and autonomy in networked multi-sensory systems in security and defence.

Research Integrity: The Commons Science and Technology Select Committee met on 15 December as part of the Reproducibility and Research Integrity inquiry. Dods have summarised the session here.

Parliamentary questions:

Research Bureaucracy: The Independent Review of Research Bureaucracy has published its interim findings focusing on the role funders play within the research system. You can read a summary of the interim findings or the full interim report. The final report is due in Spring 2022.   The report sets out themes and the next steps for the review to consider, rather than recommendations, including:

  • How funders might adopt a risk based approach to assurance
  • Streamlining reporting including across concordats and the possibility of collective resources
  • Simplifying applications and moving admin post-award
  • Triaging applications via an expert panel and simplifying assessment criteria
  • Maybe controversially – capping the number of applications an institution can submit to a scheme
  • Reviewing contracting processes, procurement and change processes
  • Digital platforms – portals and interoperability
  • Looking at how individual universities manage research and building case studies – the implication being that a lot of the bureaucracy is self-imposed within universities

There will be consultation and the next report will have recommendations.

Admissions

Exams: Wonkhe tell us that the Times reports that Minister for Education, Nadhim Zahawi, has insisted that school exams will go ahead this summer.

BTECs: The Nuffield Foundation & Oxford Brookes University have issued a press release Students with BTECs are successful across a range of university outcomes. The headlines are drawn from this report (the 60 second summary from page 3 is useful). The political context for this release is the DfE’s intention to cease some BTECs and reduce the number of others offered as the country moves towards the T level curriculum. The results provide balance to previous reports that suggest BTEC students achieve lower outcomes that A level entrants. Key points from the press release:

  • Students who take A levels are less likely to drop out of university and more likely to graduate with a 2:1 or a first than those with BTECs.

However:

  • The majority of graduating BTEC students gain at least a 2:1.
  • BTECs provide the route into university for 1 in 4 young student entrants from England, and they are more likely to be from disadvantaged backgrounds than their A level peers.
  • Over 80% of students with just BTECs stay at university after their first year and over 60% of graduating BTEC students gain a 2:1 or above.
  • However, students who enter with only BTECs are almost twice as likely (11% vs 6%) to drop out before their second year compared to similar A level students. They are also 1.7 times more likely to repeat their first year and around 1.4 times more likely to graduate below a 2:1.
  • BTEC entrants with ‘average’ GCSE results had a 25% chance of graduating below a 2:1 compared with an 18% chance for A level entrants with the same GCSE grades and similar other characteristics.
  • There are differences in university outcomes between entrants with a combination of A levels and BTECs compared with just A levels, but they are smaller than the differences between those entering with only BTECs and only A levels.
  • Analysis of data from one university providing detailed module scores suggests that those with BTECs perform less well on exam-assessed than coursework-assessed modules.  Since recent reforms, BTECs must have a proportion of external assessment which may prepare BTEC students better for university exams – the research subjects predated these reforms.
  • The type of A levels (e.g. traditional) and whether an A level in the degree subject was held had an impact on degree outcome read more in the report and press release on the above links.

Dr Dilnot (report author) said: Reform of level three qualifications is high on the Government’s agenda, with the publication of a policy document in July 2021 on the defunding of large BTECs in the context of introducing a more clearly two pronged approach to further study and training, with A levels on the one hand and T-levels on the other.  We welcome the planned postponement of the removal of funding for most BTECS and would encourage further consideration of their future. It’s very important to note that although there are differences between outcomes for BTEC and A level students, the overwhelming majority of students entering with BTECs or combinations do not drop out, and the majority of those graduating do so with at least a 2:1.

Dr Wyness (report author) commented: It is clearly important to address the differences in university outcomes between those with A levels and BTECs…But it should be remembered that, without the availability of BTECs, many disadvantaged students might not have attended university at all.

Access & Participation

First in Family – part 1: The Nuffield Foundation & UCL published First in family: higher education choices and labour market outcomes highlighting that women who are the first in their family to graduate from university earn 7% less in their mid-20s compared to female graduates whose parents attended university. They are also less likely to attend an elite institution, 4% more likely to drop out than those with graduate parents and female first in family students often face multiple disadvantages. The report is set against the recent political backdrop whereby the Government is pushing universities to reduce dropout rates and introduce new targets which support disadvantaged students through university and into highly paid, skilled jobs.

On the female multiple disadvantage the report finds the first in family female (FiFF) pay gap is impacted by:

  • Unlike first generation male graduates, FiFF graduates have, on average, lower pre-university educational attainment than their female peers with at least one graduate parent.
  • FiFF are less likely to attend a more selective university;
  • FiFF tend to work in smaller firms, and in jobs that don’t require a degree;
  • FiFF are more likely to become mothers by the age of 25;

Moving forward lead author, Dr Morag Henderson, said: Universities should target first generation students in their recruitment and ensure that there are systems to support them while at university. We recommend that universities target some of their successful mentoring schemes specifically to first in family students to reduce the risk of dropout among this group…And while it is encouraging to hear the government suggesting that university is ‘as much about getting on as it is about getting in’, their new plans to reduce dropout rates and set targets for entry into well-paid jobs among disadvantaged graduates should consider those who are first in their family to attend university.

Other recommendations within the report are:

  • Use Contextual Admissions to make offers to students which consider socioeconomic status, individual characteristics and type of school attended. It remains all the more important that universities are able to identify students who have a high potential to succeed, irrespective of their background.
  • Given that first in family status is an important indicator that could be key in efforts to widen participation at universities: we recommend that University College Admissions Service (UCAS) increase its efforts to improve measurement and validity of the first in family measure.
  • We recommend that early intervention among the potential first in family group is important, where there should be more coordination and resource to raise attainment [and non-cognitive skills] among this group throughout schooling to ensure that students are able to pursue higher education should they choose to.
  • We recommend that efforts are made by graduate employers to support the Widening Participation agenda beyond higher education. By targeting these groups in their graduate training programmes and recording first in family status data in applications through to recruitment, they can ensure a diverse workforce.

First in Family – part 2: Meanwhile HEPI published: New report finds ‘first-in-family’ status flawed as a way of helping disadvantaged students. It states with over two-thirds of students able to be classified as first in family it cannot be a useful indicator for widening participation activities, particularly because it is self-declared and unverifiable. The report argues only a tighter first in family indicator should be considered and only for lower stakes widening participation activities. For higher stakes activities, such as contextual offers at highly selective universities, it should be used only as part of a basket of measures. Overall the paper agrees with the data mentioned in the Nuffield study above and the short version is the authors recommend first in family be used in combination with other measures to target support (such as free school meals). While this HEPI report and the above Nuffield study seem to disagree ultimately they both recommend a granular approach acknowledging multiple deprivations and organisations working together to enhance the validity of the looser measures. So the same messages that have been around for several years.

Drilling down further the HEPI paper also recommends:

  • delivering outreach for the parents of groups that are under-represented in higher education, and:
  • providing student mentors for first-year undergraduates to help them build networks.

Nick Hillman, Director of the Higher Education Policy Institute, said: This research has changed my thinking on “first-in-family” students. It is a description of majority status that has been masquerading as a description of minority status.

Harriet Coombs, the author of the report, stated: The first-in-family problem is, at root, a fair access one rather than a widening participation one…the bigger problem is not getting more first-in-family students into higher education, but rather getting more first-in-family students into highly selective institutions. Further to this, highly selective universities now need to ensure they retain first-generation students as well as just recruit them.

Student transfers: Parliamentary Question on the background of students changing HE provider; (context: the proportion of higher education students who transfer between higher education institutions in any given year; and the assessment of the socio-economic backgrounds of those students). Edited answer:

  • 9% of students who entered the first year of a full-time first degree in England in the 2018/19 academic year had transferred to a different provider one year after entry.
  • The statistics are disaggregated by student characteristics, including two measures of disadvantage. These show that:
    • 4% of students from Participation of Local Areas (POLAR4) [1] quintile 1 (lowest higher education participation) backgrounds had transferred to a different provider one year after entry, compared to 3.0% for those from quintile 5 (highest higher education participation);
    • 8% of students from Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD)[2] quintile 1 (most deprived) backgrounds had transferred to a different provider one year after entry, compared to 2.5% for those from quintile 5 (least deprived).

Rebooting Widening Access: Another offering from HEPI written by NEON Director Professor Graeme Atherton Giving widening access a real reboot argues that if the government really wants to move the widening access agenda forward then it needs to be more radical than was suggested by the Minister for Higher Education in November last year. A ‘real’ reboot of widening access to higher education would:

  • Revise graduate outcomes targets to make them both broader to encompass both other measures of success alongside income and also local/regional as well as institutional.
  • Move away from the POLAR measure as a tool to orientate the work of outreach and access work.
  • Initiate collaboration across the student lifecycle.
  • Make the Office for Students more outward facing.
  • Link outreach to careers work through a change in the admissions system.

Old Vs New Advice: Finally Wonkhe report on The Centre for Global Higher Education’s working paper written by former OfS director of fair access and participation Chris Millward, reflecting on his experience working in higher education access. On Wonk Corner, Jim Dickinson notes sections that shed light on Millward’s views on universities being asked to raise attainment in schools – which he approached with “caution” given questions over how “appropriate” such advice would be for the regulator of higher education.

Degree Apprenticeships

The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education has reported the responses to their consultation on reforming degree apprenticeships. You can read a summary here. There was support for the planned changes to how degrees are included in apprenticeships. This included further integration of on-the-job and off-the-job training, aligning the end point assessment with the final assessment of the degree, and the alignment of all degrees within apprenticeships with the occupational standards (the employer-defined knowledge, skills and behaviours that must be learned to prove occupational competency) to avoid existing degrees being re-badged as apprenticeships.

Separately this parliamentary question has warm words from the Minister on degree apprenticeships.

International

The Department for Education has updated the Covid-19 guidance for international students before they travel to the UK.

Parliamentary Question: International students are permitted to start a course from overseas through distance learning without a visa.

Wellbeing

Wonkhe report on a National piece which highlights new research from Glasgow University on the wellbeing of Postgraduate Researchers. The research, which surveyed PGRs across 48 UK institutions, found that “almost a quarter of respondents (23 per cent) had considered suicide or self-harm in the past two weeks”.

Wonkhe also have a wellbeing blog – In difficult times communications can enhance or erode student wellbeing. Sunday Blake talks to student welfare officers to learn the lessons of the pandemic for connecting with students.

Sexual Violence

UCU published a new report on eradicating sexual violence in tertiary education. The report calls on employers to do more to tackle sexual violence. UCU found in the last 5 years:

  • 12% of women and 5% of men had directly experienced workplace sexual violence
  • 52% of those who directly experienced sexual violence did not disclose or report it to their employer
  • 70% of those who directly experienced sexual violence experienced it as an ongoing pattern of behaviour rather than a one-off incident
  • Staff on non-permanent contracts were 1.3 times as likely to experience direct sexual violence than those in permanent roles
  • Staff on insecure contracts, those with disabilities, those who are trans & non binary, those in racialised minorities and those with a sexual orientation other than heterosexual are all at significantly greater risk of sexual violence

PQs

Other news

Free speech:

  • Wonkhe report that Education secretary Nadhim Zahawi has saidon Twitter that he will consider supporting a new amendment to the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill, proposed by Jesse Norman, that would require universities to declare all overseas contributions of more than £50,000 to the Office for Students (OfS). The amendment, also supported by education select committee chair Robert Halfon, would see OfS publishing a searchable database of such donations annually and would require institutions to report all applicable contributions made since April 2013. The bill is currently awaiting a date for report stage debate in the House of Commons.
  • A new short Wonkhe piece on students’ self-censoring their viewpoints and commenting on a You Gov survey which polarises opinion between prioritising free speech or preventing hate speech.
  • PQ on Guidance to accompany the Free Speech Bill for HE sector and a consultation will be published in due course (0.24% events cancelled on campus – not necessarily due to free speech issues).

National Security (& research):

  • Business Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng has made an announcement on new laws to strengthen national security coming into effect: The National Security and Investment Act came into force this week, granting the Government powers to scrutinise and intervene in certain acquisitions made by anyone, including businesses and investors, that could harm the UK’s national security, better reflecting the threats we face today.
  • The government now has the power to block deals ranging from research projects for foreign corporations and funding of PhDs to the establishment of joint research centres and the purchase of spinout companies
  • The government will also be able to impose certain conditions on an acquisition or, if necessary, unwind or block it – although it is expected this will happen rarely and the vast majority of deals will require no intervention and be able to proceed without delay, in the knowledge that the government will not revisit a transaction once cleared unless false or misleading information was provided.
  • The new regime is more transparent about the types of deals the government could examine, and requires businesses and investors to notify the government of certain acquisitions across 17 sensitive areas of the economy, including Artificial Intelligence and Civil Nuclear.
  • The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has published guidance to help higher education institutions, other research organisations and investors in this area to understand the scope of the NSI Act, which came into force on 4 January 2022.

Appointments:

  • Department for Environment, Food and Rural AffairsEnvironment Agency – Sarah Mukherjee and Mark Suthern appointed as Non-executive Directors to the Board from 10 January to 9 January 2026; Natural England – Tony Juniper CBE reappointed as Chair for a second term from 23 April to 22 April 2025.
  • Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport: John Edwards appointed as Information Commissioner for five years from 3 January; BBC – Muriel Gray appointed to the Board as Scotland Nation Member from 3 January to 2 January 2026; Charity Commission – Ian Karet’s term as Interim Chair extended from 27 December 2021 to 26 June 2022, whilst the appointment process for a permanent Chair is conducted. Household name Laura Kuenssberg is to stand down as BBC Political Editor after seven years in the job, she will remain in the post until Easter; Deborah Turness appointed as CEO, BBC News and Current Affairs.
  • Government Equalities Office: Equality and Human Rights Commission – Akua Reindorf appointed as a Commissioner and Board Member.
  • Department of Health and Social Care: NHS Business Services Authority – Silla Maizey’s re-appointment as Chair extended from 1 January to 31 March; Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority – Margaret Gilmore’s and Ruth Wilde’s re-appointment as Non-executive Members extended for three months from 1 January; Anne Lampe’s re-appointment as Non-executive Member extended for three months from 1 February

Interest Groups:

  • Beaver Trust – Sandra King appointed as Chief Executive.
  • The Clink Charity – Yvonne Thomas appointed as Chief Executive.
  • Crisis – Matt Downie MBE appointed as Chief Executive.

Student Engagement Tech: Wonkhe report that Jisc and Emerge Education have released a new report on how technology can be used to improve student engagement. The report presents several case studies of technology being used to enhance engagement across the sector and suggests that both digital strategies and working with students should be adopted by institutions. On Wonk Corner Will Awad has some thoughts on what’s next for technological advancements in the sector.

Doctoral recruits: Wonkhe inform that The Natural Environment Research Council has published best practice principles for recruiting doctoral candidates. The aim of the principles are to assist Centres for Doctoral Training (CDTs) and Doctoral Training Partnerships (DTPs) to improve their diversity, equality and inclusion. The CDTs and DTPs need to be implementing the principles from October 2022 if they have not already begun.

HE reputation: Research Professional – University reputations ‘at risk’ from Office for Students’ focus on compliance. England’s regulator risks accidentally damaging higher education’s reputation by not focusing on positive examples, Universities UK has warned.

Subscribe!

To subscribe to the weekly policy update simply email policy@bournemouth.ac.uk. A BU email address is required to subscribe.

External readers: Thank you to our external readers who enjoy our policy updates. Not all our content is accessible to external readers, but you can continue to read our updates which omit the restricted content on the policy pages of the BU Research Blog – here’s the link.

Did you know? You can catch up on previous versions of the policy update on BU’s intranet pages here. Some links require access to a BU account- BU staff not able to click through to an external link should contact eresourceshelp@bournemouth.ac.uk for further assistance.

JANE FORSTER                                            |                       SARAH CARTER

VC’s Policy Advisor                                                              Policy & Public Affairs Officer

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

Research process seminar this Tuesday at 2pm on Zoom. Applying Conversation Analysis to media texts. All welcome

You are warmly invited to this week’s FMC research process seminar. This week we are covering conversation analysis. Applied through examples of media texts but applicable across other disciplines too.

Applying Conversation Analysis to media texts – by Dr Spencer Hazel (Newcastle University)

​​This session will consider synergies between the work of the Conversation Analyst and the work of those in the media and/or performing arts tasked with producing representations of social interaction for an audience. We’ll consider both the possibilities and limitations of applying CA to media texts, and also how we can extend the field of CA by considering more closely the work that goes into producing dramatisations of social interaction.

Tuesday 18th January 2pm-3pm on Zoom

https://bournemouth-ac-uk.zoom.us/j/9292103478?pwd=UzJnNTNQWDdTNldXdjNWUnlTR1cxUT09

Meeting ID: 929 210 3478

Passcode: rps!4fmc

Hope to see you there

 

Concordat to Support Research Integrity

This week we focus on research integrity, and specifically on the Concordat to Support Research Integrity and why it matters.

Why is it important?

Integrity includes principles about the conduct of researchers, such as the practices of authorship, publication practices, peer review practices and the way in which research data is managed. It also includes the informed consent process. Good research practice instils public trust in our outputs and helps prevent research misconduct.

BU has adopted the Concordat to Support Research Integrity (2019) as a framework.  The Concordat contains basic commitments that underpin a research environment where best practice can thrive, and our Code of Good Research Practice interprets this in a practical way to highlight issues a Researcher may come across as part of the project life cycle.

The framework is top level, as good research practice can mean different things in different disciplines but by adopting these principles, it means the same standards apply across the board, but with freedom of implementation.

Definition of Research Integrity (as described in the concordat)

Honesty in all aspects of research, including in the presentation of research goals, intentions and findings; in reporting on research methods and procedures; in gathering data; in using and acknowledging the work of other researchers; and in conveying valid interpretations and making justifiable claims based on research findings.

Rigour, in line with prevailing disciplinary norms and standards, and in performing research and using appropriate methods; in adhering to an agreed protocol where appropriate; in drawing interpretations and conclusions from the research; and in communicating the results.

Transparency and open communication in declaring potential competing interests; in the reporting of research data collection methods; in the analysis and interpretation of data; in making research findings widely available, which includes publishing or otherwise sharing negative or null results to recognise their value as part of the research process; and in presenting the work to other researchers and to the public

Care and respect for all participants in research, and for the subjects, users and beneficiaries of research, including humans, animals, the environment and cultural objects. Those engaged with research must also show care and respect for the integrity of the research record.

Accountability of funders, employers and researchers to collectively create a research environment in which individuals and organisations are empowered and enabled to own the research process. Those engaged with research must also ensure that individuals and organisations are held to account when behaviour falls short of the standards set by this concordat.

More about the Concordat to Support Research Integrity

The Concordat (published by the Universities UK (UUK) provides the principles and commitments to ensure that research produced by, or in collaboration with, UK universities, research institutes and others undertaking research is underpinned by the highest standards of rigour and integrity. The Concordat was first published in 2012 and revised in 2019 in response to the recommendations set out in the Science and Technology Committee’s report on research integrity.

The Commitments

By acting in accordance with this concordat, members of the research community can demonstrate that they[1]:

  1. uphold the highest standards of rigour and integrity in all aspects of research
  2. ensure that research is conducted according to appropriate ethical, legal and professional frameworks, obligations and standards
  3. support a research environment that is underpinned by a culture of integrity and based on good governance, best practice, and support for the development of researchers
  4. use transparent, timely, robust and fair processes to handle allegations of research misconduct when they arise
  5. work together to strengthen the integrity of research

During this week the spotlight will also focus on:

  • BU’s Commitment to creating an environment that promotes an understanding of responsible conduct
  • Researchers’ responsibilities
  • Integrity as it relates to Clinical Research
  • Research Misconduct

 

[1] Concordat to Support Research Integrity

REF 2021 feedback – views sought by Research England

As part of the Future Research Assessment Programme, the four UK higher education funding bodies (Research England, Scottish Funding Council, Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, and Department for the Economy, Northern Ireland) seek to understand the impact of the REF 2021 on the research community.

The real-time REF review report (pdf) collected attitudes to the REF as UK institutions prepared their submissions. Now the funding bodies aim to find out to what extent the views identified in the report are representative of the wider UK research community.

Although the REF is not an assessment of individuals, this survey looks at how unit-level assessment impacts individual researchers. Responses to this consultation are invited from any individuals with an interest in REF 2021. Only responses received through the online form will be reviewed and included in our analysis. All responses made through the online form by the deadline will be considered.

The survey will remain open until noon on 26 January 2022.

Take part in the survey here: Individual feedback survey on the REF 2021 | Jisc 

New BU publication on academic writing

Congratulations to Dr. Orlanda Harvey in the Department of Social Sciences & Social Work, Dr. Pramod Regmi in the Department of Nursing Science and FHSS Visiting Faculty Jillian Ireland, Professional Midwifery Advocate in Poole Maternity Hospital (UHD/University Hospitals Dorset NHS Foundation Trust) whose paper ‘Co-authors, colleagues, and contributors: Complexities in collaboration and sharing lessons on academic writing‘ was published today.[1] 

The paper argues that academic writing, especially in the health field, is usually an interdisciplinary team effort. It highlights some of the trials, tribulations, and benefits of working with co-authors. This includes collaborations and co-authorship between academics from different disciplines, academics of different level of careers, and authors from countries of varying economies i.e., high-income countries (HICs) and from low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). This paper also provides advice in the form of several useful tips to lead authors and co-authors to support collaborative working.  Our other co-authors are: Aney Rijal, postgraduate student and Executive Editor of the journal Health Prospect based in Nepal, and Alexander van Teijlingen postgraduate student in the Department of Pure and Applied Chemistry (University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland).

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health

 

Reference:

  1. Harvey, O., van Teijlingen, A., Regmi, P.R., Ireland, J., Rijal, A., van Teijlingen, E.R. (2022) Co-authors, colleagues, and contributors: Complexities in collaboration and sharing lessons on academic writing Health Prospect 21(1):1-3.

Free event – Q&A about engaging with Parliamentary Select Committees

If you would like your research to have policy impact, this free event being run by UCL is a great opportunity to find out more about  select committees and how to engage them with your research.

“This year marks the 120th anniversary of the IOE, UCL’s Faculty of Education and Society, and we will be bringing experts, senior academics, doctoral students and early career researchers together online on 27 January 2022 at 12.30pm to discuss effective ways researchers and the professionals who collaborate with them can work with Select Committees, engage policy makers with their scientific findings and achieve real-world change!

Join us for an insightful talk and Q&A with:

Much of the work of the UK House of Commons or House of Lords takes place in committees. There is a Commons Select Committee for each government department, examining three aspects: spending, policies and administration. These departmental committees have a minimum of 11 members, who decide upon the line of inquiry and then gather written and oral evidence. Findings are reported to the Commons, printed, and published on the Parliament website. The government then usually has 60 days to reply to the committee’s recommendations.

This interactive session consists of a brief introduction of the work of Select Committees, before sharing inside knowledge on how best to translate research findings into actionable recommendations that are included in their evidence reports, and launching into a Q&A session. Audience members are free to submit questions prior to and during the session.”

Places are limited and will be allocated on a first come, first served basis. Sign up to guarantee your ticket below:

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/ioe-impact-meet-ups-online-working-with-uk-parliament-select-committees-tickets-229339248867

Postgraduate Researchers and Supervisors | Monthly Update for Researcher Development

Postgraduate researchers and supervisors, hopefully you have seen your monthly update for researcher development e-newsletter sent earlier this week. If you have missed it, please check your junk email or you can view it within the Researcher Development Programme on Brightspace.

The start of the month is a great time to reflect on your upcoming postgraduate researcher development needs and explore what is being delivered this month as part of the Doctoral College Researcher Development Programme and what is available via your Faculty or Department. Remember some sessions only run once per year, so don’t miss out.

Please also subscribe to your Brightspace announcement notifications for updates when they are posted.

If you have any questions about the Researcher Development Programme, please do not hesitate to get in touch.

Natalie (Research Skills & Development Officer)
pgrskillsdevelopment@bournemouth.ac.uk 

Free Impact Event with Mark Reed

Professor Mark Reed from Fast Track Impact is running a free online impact event:

Monitoring and Evaluating Impact, with invited guest case study and discussion (with Mark Reed, Poppy Townsend (UKRI) and Rachel Blanche (QMU)): 09.30-11.00 UK time, 28th February 2022.

Evidencing impact from research remains a huge challenge. This workshop will build on Mark Reed’s paper, “Evaluating impact from research: A methodological framework” (recommended reading prior to the workshop) to consider methods for evidencing impact in three particularly challenging areas: capacity building, policy and cultural impacts. Three speakers will provide case studies, methods and tips from their own experience of evaluating impact. Rachel Blanche (Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh) will outline methods from the arts and humanities that have been used to evaluate the cultural impacts of professional practice in the arts. Poppy Townsend (UKRI) will consider how to evaluate capacity building impact from data services. Mark Reed will discuss the evaluation of policy impacts. The session includes significant time for group interaction, and participants are encouraged to bring their own evaluation challenges to the group for discussion.

You can Book your place here.

REMINDER: Charity Impact Funding available – apply now !

WOULD YOU LIKE TO COLLABORATE WITH A CHARITY? ARE YOU AN EARLY OR MID-CAREER RESEARCHER?

free image from charity clip art @ clipground.com

If you can answer both these questions with a resounding YES, then now is your opportunity to apply for funding to contribute towards a collaborative research project. BU has a small fund available to facilitate engagement and research with charitable organisations. The purpose of the funding is to:

  • Increase Early career researcher (ECR – no more than 10 years within receipt of doctorate) /Mid career researcher (MCR – no more than 15 years from within receipt of doctorate) engagement with charities in order to further the impact of BU’s research
  • Increase the amount of ECR/MCR research undertaken collaboratively with charities
  • Encourage future interdisciplinary funding bids led by ECRs/MCRs with charitable partners

The fund can be used flexibly, providing a strong case can be made and the assessment criteria are met. You will find this guidance with the application form (link below)

Funding could be used to fund travel, equipment, merchandise or event costs etc., but all funding will need to be spent by 31 July 2022.  

Eligibility

The fund is open to all ECR and MCR researchers across Bournemouth University, including those who are already working with charitable organisations and those who would like to build up new networks.

Amount and Requirements

Funds of up to £2,000 can be applied for. The applicant must be able fully to justify the amount claimed, which is intended either to facilitate new relationships and projects with charities, or to build on existing research collaborations.

Applicants will require a supporting statement from the charity they intend to work with.

Application process

To apply, please click on, carefully read and complete the Charity Impact Funding application form.

Applications must be submitted to charityimpact@bournemouth.ac.uk by 5pm on Monday, 17 January 2022.

If you have any questions about your application please email charityimpact@bournemouth.ac.uk. 

BU’s Research Principles

Putting the Charity Impact Fund into strategic context, under BU2025, the following other funding panels operate to prioritise applications for funding and make recommendations to the Research Performance and Management Committee (RPMC).

There are eight funding panels:

  1. HEIF Funding Panel
  2. GCRF Funding Panel
  3. Research Impact Funding Panel
  4. Doctoral Studentship Funding Panel
  5. ACORN Funding Panel
  6. Research Fellowships Funding Panel
  7. Charity Support Funding Panel
  8. SIA Funding panel

Please see further announcements regarding each initiative over the coming weeks.

These panels align with the BU2025 focus on research, including BU’s Research Principles. Specifically, but not exclusively, regarding the Charity Impact Funding Panel, please refer to:

  • Principle 5 – which sets of the context for such funding panels,
  • Principle 6 and Outcome 9 – which recognises the need for interdisciplinarity and the importance of social science and humanities (SSH).

Please kindly declare any CONFLICT OF INTEREST you may have in respect of this application should you have any. If so, in your covering letter kindly detail any steps towards mitigation of the conflict to ensure transparency and fairness in both the application process and implementation of any award granted.

Share your Views on Impact in Research Applications

UKRI are reviewing their systems to better understand the effectiveness of approaches to supporting impact across the Research Councils.

In order to achieve this they have launched a consultation to gather feedback on how impact development activities are being embedded into proposals by applicants. The aim is also to determine the levels of stakeholder involvement, and how impact development activities within proposals are reviewed and assessed. The results from this consultation will be used to make improvements to UKRI’s processes and will be central to the development of a new reference guide on the topic of ‘maximising impact’ within applications, as well as being used as an evidence base for continuous improvement, cross UKRI policy and other UKRI programmes.

They are asking for input from:

  • academics
  • university research office staff
  • users of research
  • project partners (such as social enterprises, charities, non-governmental organisations, business)
  • other stakeholders.

You can access the survey until 4 February 2022 here.

HEIF Funding – Additive Manufactured Multiaxial Specimens for Ultrasonic Fatigue Testing

Summary

Bournemouth University has a small amount of HEIF (Higher Education Innovation Fund) funding available to facilitate and enhance research and development collaboration with external partners.

Dr Diogo Montalvão, Professor Phil Sewell and Ms Abi Batley have been awarded £2,710 HEIF funding in July 2021 with the aim to pump-prime research through getting the engagement and commitment from industry in a future research grant application we intend to submit to the EPSRC under the Manufacturing the Future Scheme. The proposal intends to develop UK capability in Multiaxial Ultrasonic Fatigue Testing (UFT) to get predictability of advanced material properties, namely metal AM (additive manufacturing) materials.

This HEIF funding has been pivotal on the demonstration of our advanced manufacturing and testing capability.

 

Our Mission

Having as primary SIA Sustainability, Low Carbon Technology & Materials Science, our mission is to contribute to reducing global waste by extending the life and enhancing the optimisation of any engineered systems through incorporating novel advanced materials tested under ultrasonic fatigue for quick and reliable predictability of properties to extend their lives. Therefore, the project addresses the UN sustainability goals of Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure; Responsible Production and Consumption; and, Climate Action.

 

Background

The Design & Engineering Innovation Centre has acquired a Metal Additive Manufacturing 3D printer (figure 1) that is capable of printing steel, aluminium, cobalt, nickel and titanium based alloys. The machine was commissioned in July 2021 and this HEIF funding is promoting the very first case study where metal 3D printed parts are produced with a purpose.

Figure 1. Orlas Creator Metal Additive Manufacturing machine in the Design & Engineering Innovation Centre.

 

 

Ultrasonic Fatigue Testing (UFT) in a nutshell

Little is known about the lifetime properties of novel advanced materials, such as metal 3D printed ones. Knowing that approximately 90% of all metallic failures are due to cyclic loadings (a layman’s example would be what happens with a paper clip when we bend it many times – it will eventually snap), we are leading global research into the application of ultrasonics for fatigue testing of advanced materials. This is the only method to quickly determine the predictability of material properties that will be subjected to cyclic loading: Ultrasonic fatigue testing (UFT) enable tests to be extended to 1 billion cycles in just a few days compared to months or years (figure 2). This allows engineering products with confidence to last for extended lifetimes, which was not so easy in the past.

Figure 2. Comparison between the duration different fatigue testing methods need to be completed, assuming tests can run uninterruptedly.

One example of specimens that have been used to determine material properties are specimens that are cruciform, as they account for loads in two different directions to better replicate real working conditions in the lab. The PI, Dr Diogo Montalvão, has been leading research in adapting these specimens to ultrasonic fatigue testing (figure 3) and, under this HEIF, has redesigned them to be produced, for the very first time ever, by additive manufacturing (i.e., on a 3D printer) rather than by subtractive manufacturing (i.e., from machining in a CNC mill)..

Figure 3. Ultrasonic fatigue testing equibiaxial cruciform specimens (i.e., enable testing two equal loads in two perpendicular directions).

Results

It took about 18 hours to 3D print the specimen represented in figure 3 on the right in the Orlas Creator printer in the Design and Engineering Innovation Centre. Material used was a stainless-steel alloy. According to Mr Richard Glithro (CAD Demonstrator) and Ms Abigail Batley (Additive and Virtual Manufacturing Technician), this very first specimen did push the envelope during the manufacturing process as it was designed to fit the maximum available space in the machine chamber (the specimen occupies the area of a circle with 100 mm diameter).

 

Video 1. 3D printing in progress in the Design and Engineering Innovation Centre: .

One interesting result, which corroborates the hypothesis that metal additive manufacturing is more eco-friendly with up to 4 times lower scrap material generated in parts manufactured, is that the buy-to-fly ratio was 1.25:1 only for the part in figure 3 on the right, with the produced part produced weighing 191 gf (a little bit under the 223.8 gf initially predicted due to some defects discussed below), whereas the scrap material was measured to weigh 47.4 gf. When the machined part represented in figure 3 on the left was produced (from subtractive manufacturing), the buy-to-fly ratio was determined to be 3.85:1, producing 3.1 times as much waste (in proportion) when compared to the metal additive manufactured counterpart.

 

Challenges and Future steps

There were a few problems with the printing with large defects appearing in one of the arms. While it is not yet known what the issue(s) is(are), Mr Richard Glithro and Ms Abigail Batley are determined to get a “perfect” part and are investigating what parameters need to be changed in the printing (or design) process. A new part is being sent to manufacturing and, once the intended design specification is achieved, specimens are meant to be tested in Ultrasonic Fatigue Testing. That will be done within the ADDISONIC research project that has been funded this Summer by the University under the Strategic Investment Areas game changing call.

The ADDISONIC is a project that counts with the International collaboration from the University of Lisbon in Portugal. Betta Della Giustina and Ryan Mappledoram are two BEng (Hons) Mechanical Engineering students who are driven by research and who have embraced projects in this exciting field as their final year projects. We expect that their contributions will bring valuable insights into the project’s future.

As an external outreach goal, which was part of HEIF’s initial objectives, it is expected that the outcomes from this work will attract local as well as Nationwide businesses who are concerned with the life of their products.