Latest research and knowledge exchange news at Bournemouth University
If you are applying to this year’s round of the Global Visiting Fellowship Scheme (Round 3), with a closing date of 18th March 2022, we have just noticed that in some communications, the link to the application form is going to an old form. Please note the round three application form can be found here.
The main change is to the date fields for expenditure. If you have any queries, please contact researchfellowships@bournemouth.ac.uk
A few weeks ago I was invited as Associate Editor for BMC Pregnancy & Childbirth to draft a few paragraphs about how my research links to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). BMC Pregnancy & Childbirth is an international scientific journal published by Springer. The edited version of my draft was put online earlier today, click here for access.
Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen
CMMPH (Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health)
Introducing the BMC Series SDG Editorial Board Members: Edwin van Teijlingen
We will have an online event in hourner of the Internaitonal Women’s Day on the 8th March 2022.
This event is open to all.
11:00-11:10 Opening remarks & Agenda of today Dr Hiroko Oe & Dr Khurshid Djalilov
11:10-11:30 Keynote Dr Angela Turner-Wilson ‘Respect for cultural values and differences’, Faculty of Health & Social Sciences
<<Round tables>>
11:35-12:00 PGR forum: Nanret Dawuk; Sitsada Sartamorn; Gideon Adu-Gyamf
12:00-12:15 Next generation: Rajshree Talukdar and Tarun Chandrashekar
12:15-12:30 Collaborative testimonials from MBA students; Kayoko Hainsworth, Chrissie Hillyer, and Sharon Kajotoni
12:30-12:40 Comments Associate Professor, Dr Marta Głowacka (Uniwersytet Wrocławski, Poland) Panel leader
12:40-12:50 Supporting messages
– Ms Nicola Bennet, a policy maker (Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and ommunications, Australia)
– Ms Suzuko Ohki, a former director of Ministry of Education, ex Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, Japan
12:50-12:55 Future plan proposal from Dr Hiroko Oe
12:55-13:00 Closing remark and messages to the ECRs and PGRs (Helen O’Sullivan, DHOD, MS&I, the Business School
*****
it is online by ZOOM. Please contact for details: hoe@bournemouth.ac.uk
Welcome to The Friday Prof-ile – a chance to get to know some of our recently appointed Professors and Associate Professors a little better. Every Friday, we’ll be asking a different person the same set of questions to get an insight into their life, work and what makes them tick.
This week, we’re chatting with Professor in Orthopaedics Tom Wainwright.
Tom Wainwright
What are your research interests? What made you want to study these areas?
Primarily I am interested in helping to improve the treatment of patients with hip and knee arthritis. Firstly, looking at strategies and interventions that can help patients avoid the need for surgery, and then secondly, when surgery is indicated, looking at how surgical recovery can be optimised. Arthritis is a significant socioeconomic and health burden, and at a patient level can have a hugely detrimental effect on a patient’s quality of life and daily activities. It is therefore, in my opinion, both an interesting and important research topic.
What has been your career highlight to date?
Being the lead author of the highly cited/downloaded ERAS Society international consensus guidelines for hip and knee replacement surgery. I was the first, and I am still, the only non-surgeon to ever lead the formation of an international ERAS Society guideline.
What are you working on at the moment?
I am currently leading a number of externally-funded research studies. These include a trial of how best to provide physiotherapy for patients with hip arthritis, and two studies that will reveal brand new insights into the post-operative functional recovery trajectories of patients following hip and knee replacement.
If you weren’t an academic, what would you be doing?
I would probably be working clinically as a physiotherapist.
What do you do to unwind?
Spend time doing activities outdoors with my family and friends. I like to run, bike, and spend time in the sea. I love to snowboard and surf, and play cricket and football. I also like to cook and travel.
What’s the best thing about Bournemouth?
The beach and surrounding coastline and countryside. We are so lucky to live in such a beautiful spot.
If you could pick any superpower, what would it be and why?
To be able to teleport! I could surf in Portugal before coming to work, and pop to Canada at the weekends to snowboard! It would also save on my carbon footprint and mean I don’t have to do any travel booking paperwork for work trips!
If you were stranded on a desert island, what one luxury item would you take with you?
A piano. I played as kid and would love to have the time to pick it up again and practice.
What advice would you give to your younger self?
Remember to be present, and enjoy the small moments.
When a funding call comes out that matches your own interest or experience, it is easy to get caught up in the whirl-wind of excitement in assembling a team to put together an application. One of the first things most applicants think about is their immediate colleagues, past or current, from the academic world.
Somewhere along the way in the process, non-academic participants are considered. In many cases, approaches are made to outside organisations – sometimes through existing contacts, to join on a proposal. When these organisations are approached, they are often asked to provide a letter of support, often without much substance or specificity when it is a new relationship. Feedback from various funders has demonstrated that what is being looked for is strong, existing relationships, in particular those that provide leveraged (matched) funding or resource. Good applications have been able to demonstrate true partnerships, and not tokenism through a bland letter of support. The RDS can help review draft letters of support to ensure they appear to meet funder need.
Why non-academic partnerships and collaborations?
Research partnerships and collaborations with non-academic experts (whether they be in business, health sectors, NGOs etc.) are likely to contribute in forms that will contribute to ‘real world’ uses, from practical experience.
Who you should approach will vary but it is best to have demonstrable proof of either working together or good strategic alignment with the planned research. The level of involvement will demonstrate a good partnership. A mistake that many make is contacting a ‘big’ company just because they are ‘big’, and not because they are the most appropriate partner for the research.
Support for finding non-academic collaborations
As well as any connections through current sectoral/subject experts within existing networks, at BU, there is support from Ehren Milner (emilner@bournemouth.ac.uk), the Research Facilitator for Industrial Collaborations, and Ian Jones (ijones@bournemouth.ac.uk), the Head of External Engagement. They field queries from organisations looking for collaborations from BU and may know of an organisation that would align with your research.
One of the best methods to build a network is to make yourself, and your research known through networking events. There are a series of collaborations events and STEAMlabs that BU run to help link together academics and external organisations. Many other organisations (e.g. the KTN) run their own networking events. You should think about building your networks years in advance, not days. One piece of advice that has come back from external organisations is that when it comes to leveraged funding, they like to know where their resources are going; so in most cases they wish to spend time getting to know academics first. A poor approach to new connections will start off asking for support before a direct conversation has even been held.
The above link will lead to a guide intended to assist you through the application stage when you intend to lead on an RKE project. The details of the process may vary between funding bodies, but the basic principles are likely to be very similar.
Helpful advice, and a pro forma table, are available to assist with ensuring the integrity of any collaborative relationships. Good luck, and happy networking!
After so many delays that it seemed to have been passed by completely, we finally got the response to the Augar review and the outcome of the Review of Post-18 Education and Funding.
You will recall that the Post-18 review was opened in February 2018 by Theresa May, and the Augar report was published in May 2019.
The reason for the delay is probably that they have been trying to tie it all in with the skills agenda, and the policy paper came out alongside a separate consultation on how to make the lifelong loan entitlement work. Some big questions in there, including how to drive modularity, sort out credit transfer, which was a Jo Johnson priority, and not least build something that will actually work.
The biggest Augar question of all was whether there would be a headline fee cut. And the answer is no, although the impact of the multi-year freeze is that there has been a big real terms cut, of course (Wonkhe suggest £9,250 is predicted to be worth a little over £6,000 by the end of the freeze period). And with the exception of foundation years, which will not be prohibited (as was suggested) but could see a fee cap of £5197, which is a big decrease from £9250. But a headline fee cut has been dropped at the expense of student number controls, which could be applied by subject at different providers, and could be linked to student outcomes such as earnings or highly skilled employment. This links directly to the new regulatory and TEF structures which are being consulted on now.
And of course minimum entry requirements, which have been trailed for a long time and are being consulted on now.
Wonkhe told us that there was criticism in the House of Lords of these new proposals: You can read the full debate on Hansard.
There is a House of Commons Library briefing here.
One thing that is interesting is how open the consultations are – with very open questions about how the student number control might apply and the LLE in particular.
The consultations close on 6th May 2022.
The first announcement is that the work on post-qualification admissions or post-qualification applications will not proceed, following the consultation. The DfE will instead work with UCAS and sector bodies on best practice and steps to ensure fairness in admissions – including reducing the use unconditional offers, improving transparency and reviewing the personal statement.
The second set of announcements, which are not for consultation, relate to changes to student loan arrangements for new students starting in Autumn 2023 and afterwards. The repayment threshold will be frozen for existing students (post 2012) and postgraduate students and the interest rate will not change
For new HE students commencing study from AY2023/24 onwards:
The IFS review is interesting in terms of the impact on lower earners. They have also spotted that there is a subtle change that impacts current borrowers too:
Announcements on HE funding:
Consultation: reintroducing student number controls: The government is considering reintroducing student number controls to “restrict the supply of provision with poorer outcomes”. They are considering:
To support this the government is considering using economic outcomes (earnings, highly skilled employment, continuation or completion), societal factors (e.g. subjects with a public benefit such as healthcare or education) or outcomes linked to strategic priorities (such as subjects that support the net zero objective, levelling up or shortage occupations).
Consultation: minimum eligibility requirements: As has been trailed for a long time, the government is consulting on minimum entry requirements to limit access to HE. They are consulting on a requirements for a pass (grade 4) in GCSE in English and Maths, or the equivalent of 2 E grades at A level. These would not apply to mature students (over 25), part-time students, those with a level 4 or 5 qualification or students with an integrated foundation year or Access to HE qualification. If they apply the GCSE requirement it would not apply to someone who has subsequently achieved A levels at CCC or equivalent.
Technical Education
Lifelong Learning Entitlement consultation: This separate consultation incudes questions about how to implement changes to support lifelong learning accounts and support the provision of modules of study at levels 4-6 for this purpose. The consultation includes questions about how such a system should work, how to ensure that it is fair, what should be covered, how to define a module and set prices according to credit, what restrictions would apply (e.g. linked to age), how to support maintenance costs in such a system, and how to support credit recognition and transfer.
Analysis:
On Wonkhe, Gavan Conlon and Andrew McGettigan look at how the government make it all add up:
Also on Wonkhe, Steve West notes the impact of the freeze on the tuition fee cap and SNCs.
Before the announcement that post-qualification admissions is dead (see above) the Universities Minister hinted at the alternative approach set out in the policy announcements – i.e. a big focus on ensuring fairness by other means. The Minister gave a speech at a UCAS event championing quality, fair access and transparency. The Minister suggested that the sector was playing a defensive game “we cannot expect to be able to sit back and quietly polish our world-class reputation in a globalised higher education market”.
Which led onto, you guessed it, stamping out complacency. The usual stat about 25 providers with less than half their students both completing and going into highly skilled employment or study. But this time we get more:
So far, so familiar. Except that this time the focus has moved away from arts and humanities, which is interesting.
But “today, I am announcing a further important innovation in our drive toward better quality and transparency to put students in the driving seat enabling them to make informed choices”.
What could this be? It’s about advertising.
And there’s more:
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
An insight from Associate Professor in Archaeology/Director of IMSET- Dr. Emma Jenkins
In recent years the Department of Archaeology and Anthropology have actively sought to recruit and support ECRs. This reaps benefits not just for the individuals concerned but also for the department; it’s great to have academically young and enthusiastic colleagues who are at the cutting edge of research and bring new expertise and collaborations. It’s basically a win/win situation! That being said, as a department we take the development of our ECRs seriously and are generally a supportive bunch. With ECRs who are submitting to an external funder such as the British Academy or the Leverhulme Trust, this starts with us working with them on their initial proposal. We provide constructive feedback and help them to write a fundable application going as far as to regularly Skype with overseas colleagues to provide feedback back in the distant days pre the pandemic when no one had ever heard of Zoom! We also pick them up and get them back on track if they are initially unsuccessful and encourage them to apply elsewhere or to apply again in the next round.
Once a position has been secured, we continue that support. We try and ensure that our ECRs take advantage of the training and other opportunities that BU offers for example by getting a departmental mentor, attending writing workshops, and training schemes such as the Research Council Development Scheme and applying for additional funding for example the Acceleration Of Research & Networking fund (ACORN) which is aimed specifically at ECRs and allows them to gain leaderships skills. We also encourage them to apply for additional external prizes that would enhance their CV, for example the Philip Leverhulme Prize. Where appropriate we provide opportunities for teaching and student supervision that fall within their remit of research expertise and encourage them to take on light departmental administrative duties such as being responsible for the departmental social media posts-something which the ‘young-uns’ are much better at anyway! The bridging fund offered by the university which provides the salary of an existing ECR for up to six months if they are awaiting the outcome of a further funding proposal is also invaluable for retaining good ECRs. In summary I would say that the efforts that the department has made to make the department a welcoming and supportive environment for ECRs has paid off enormously with a sizeable increase in our ECR numbers which in turn has made the department a much more fun and dynamic place to work.
Are you an established research degree supervisor?
Would you like your supervisory practice acknowledged at national level? Join a growing number of BU staff who have gained recognition.
The UK Council for Graduate Education (UKCGE) has developed the Good Supervisory Practice Framework and the Research Supervision Recognition Programme to allow established supervisors to gain recognition for this challenging, but rewarding, role.
Details of how to apply can be found here.
In line with the UKCGE guidance, individuals should send their completed application to the Doctoral College (fknight@bournemouth.ac.uk) before the BU Window Closing date below:
The key dates for the next application windows and review outcome dates are:
| BU Window Closes | UKCGE Window Closes | Expected Outcome |
| 22 March 2022 | 25 March 2022 | July 2022 |
| 25 October 2022 | 28 October 2022 | February 2023 |
A session providing an introduction to the scheme will be run as part of the Supervisory Development Lunchbite Sessions will be held on Monday 16 May 2022.
RESEARCH CAPACITY TRANSFORMATION SCHEME – Call for expressions of interest
Apply now for a cluster of postgraduate researchers and postdoctoral research fellows – closing date for EoIs on 7th March
Bournemouth University’s (BU) recognises that postgraduate researchers (PGRs) and postdoctoral research fellows (PDRFs) are critical to a high performing research environment. Working under the direction of academic research leadership, they provide academic staff with research capacity, which enables the production of research outputs, strengthens research impact, and increases grant bidding.
Key information
The Research Capacity Transformation Investment Scheme is focused on building capacity to undertake cutting-edge research securing external research funding. A cluster hiring approach will be used to appoint inter- and/or multi-disciplinary teams of PDRFs and PGRs that focus on a common theme to create “clusters” undertaking strategically important and targeted research. The scheme will invest in:
The clusters need to build critical mass in areas of research strength and provide a team-based, fused experience for PDRFs and PGRs that is anchored in one or more existing high performing entities, such as Research Centres or Institutes. Applications must include external match-fund partners for the PGR studentships.
Full details of the scheme, including the policy document, can be found on BU’s staff intranet.
Application Process
The application process will be in two stages:
To ensure there is timely progress, Research Development & Support and the Doctoral College will manage the funding application process 2022, with oversight of the recruitment process.
The indicative timetable for the 2022 allocation and recruitment is as follows:
| Date | Action |
| Monday 7th March 2022 | Closing date for submission of EoIs (see Appendix 1) at 12 noon |
| Monday 21st March 2022 | Successful applicants invited to provide a full application form (see Appendix 2)
Unsuccessful applicants notified |
| Monday 25th April 2022 | Closing date for submission of full applications at 12 noon |
| w/c Monday 16th May 2022 | Successful outcomes announced and recruitment to commence
Unsuccessful applicants notified |
| June 2022 | Adverts for positions to close |
| July 2022 | Interviews and selection |
| From 1st September 2022 | Successful PDRFs to start (funding available from 1 September 2022) |
| From 26 September 2022 or 23 January 2022 | Successful PGRs to start (funding available from 26 September 2022 with an alternative start date of 23 January 2023) |
Submission Deadline:
Before completing the EoI or full application form, please ensure that you have read all the relevant guidance (including the policy document) and information available on the Staff Intranet.
Applications should be emailed to researchcapacitytransformation@bournemouth.ac.uk before the following deadlines:
Monday 7th March 2022 Closing date for submission of EoIs at 12 noon
Monday 25th April 2022 Closing date for submission of full applications at 12 noon
Supporting Documentation
Recruitment of PGRs will be in line with the BU Match-Funded Studentship Allocative Process .
For additional queries, please email researchcapacitytransformation@bournemouth.ac.uk
FAQs
Dr. Alina Dolea, Principal Academic in Media, Communication and Politics, has been selected 2022-2024 Research Fellow of the Center on Public Diplomacy at the University of Southern California. She is currently the Chair of the Public Diplomacy Interest Group and member in the Board of Directors of the International Communication Association, that gathers more than 4,500 members in 80 countries and is officially associated with the United Nations as a non-governmental association. Alina’s research is situated at the intersection of public diplomacy, migration, media and communication studies, with a focus on discourse and her 2022–24 CPD Research Fellowship project is titled “Diaspora diplomacy, emotions and disruption”.
https://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/story/welcoming-2022%E2%80%9324-cpd-research-fellows
Her project aims to explore the neglected role of emotions in the study of diaspora diplomacy, especially in a COVID-19 context that legitimized diaspora as a transnational actor in its own right in public diplomacy. More importantly, diasporas have emerged as disruptors, challenging their more traditional roles of agents, instruments, and partners in PD. Conceptually, the project brings together strands of literature in public diplomacy, migration and diaspora studies, as well as international relations with a focus on emotions to answer the key research question of “how can we integrate studies on emotions in diaspora diplomacy to understand their enabling but also their disruptive role?”. While emotions have started to be studied in PD, exploring systematically the role of emotions in diaspora diplomacy can actually offer new insights into the wider current debate on the public as a problem, as well as shed light on questions regarding disruption in PD. Methodologically, it proposes an analysis of diasporas from within to unpack the seeming ‘uniformity’ of diaspora and the homeland loyalties conflated in the concept of citizen diplomat, as well as to capture contestation and challenges. Emotions in diaspora diplomacy are operationalized and explored through a series of interviews with representatives of diaspora groups and associations to identify the construction of emotional ties, a typology of roles and identities that diaspora representatives assume. While focused on the Romanian diaspora in the UK, this project can inform studies on other diasporas to trace emergent emotions and their potential disruptive impact. Proposing a critical perspective on emotions and transnationalism of diaspora, this research can ultimately advance the study and policy making in diaspora diplomacy. As such, it is of relevance to policymakers, practitioners, scholars, as well as journalists interested in understanding these increasingly complex diaspora emotional ties.
More details about the USC CPD Research Fellowship program can be found here: Welcoming the 2022–24 CPD Research Fellows | USC Center on Public Diplomacy (uscpublicdiplomacy.org)
Dr Alison Cronin and Prof Christopher Harding’s new book on corporate crime has now been published. This cutting-edge book critically reviews the field of attempted legal control and regulation of delinquent conduct by business actors in the form of exploitative, collusive and corrupt behaviour. It explores key topics including victimhood, accountability, theories of trading and shared responsibility.
The authors reflect on the attempts that have been made globally to use criminal law and other methods of formal legal control, as well as more flexible and innovative approaches under the heading of ‘regulation’, to address the problem of bad business practice. The book argues for a return to first principles and that the possibility of a reconfiguration of economic ordering and market and trading culture should be considered; as business malpractice is largely inherent in the dominant capitalist model, that model is in need of repurposing and reform.
We have a new Read and Publish deal with Cambridge. By entering the location and institution you will see the publishing agreement as below and also have links to eligible journals.
To be eligible, articles must:
Why is evaluation important in public engagement? And how do you do it effectively?
We are delighted to have teamed up with the National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement (NCCPE), who will deliver this bespoke session for BU researchers.
This interactive course will encourage participants to think about why evaluation is important, look at ways to get started, explore different techniques they can use, and consider what findings can tell the participant and their organisation or funder. With an emphasis on how to conduct evaluation, participating in practical activities and discussion as together the workshop facilitators and attendees will demystify evaluation and find the fun in revealing and identifying participants’ effectiveness.
These sessions are aimed at people with experience of public engagement with research; however, the session will be open to all experience levels.
Learning objectives:
By the end of this session, you will:
It is a condition of booking that the attendee agrees that their contact email will be shared with the NCCPE for the purposes of programme administration.
| Workshop | Date | Time | Location |
|---|---|---|---|
| Evaluation: Developing your approach | Tuesday 12th April 2022 | 14:00-16:30 | Online |
To book a place on this workshop please complete the booking form.
For any queries, please contact Organisational Development.
Writing about impact in a grant application can be challenging, but a strong description of the benefits you hope your project will have can make all the difference between getting funded or not.
This refers to Research Impact. Although some projects will have a theoretical scope with no discernible benefit outside academia, these are unlikely to be eligible for external funding.
You can find our A brief guide to impact on Brightspace which explains what we mean by Impact.
The Funding Landscape
Funders consider the whole call when reviewing applications, so think about what is currently big in policy/research/the media etc. The panel review all applications which have been shortlisted and will assess the potential impact of funding a group of them, not just individual projects.
PPI/participatory/engaged research has never been more important. Studies show that effective and meaningful co-production/involvement of beneficiaries enhances impact at every stage of the study so make sure to thread it throughout where appropriate.
A quick note on UK Research and Innovation (UKRI). Recently the Research Councils dropped their required ‘Pathways to Impact’ attachment. This does not mean that impact is no longer important in applications, but that they want to see it woven throughout.
Funder Requirements
Requirements will vary by funder, call, theme, endowment etc., so always read the guidance and speak to your Research Facilitator for advice.
Academic excellence is fundamental. Consider additional collaborators if they would provide a different angle, and include knowledge mobilisers or those who are needed for implementation.
Look out for key words in the guidance that highlight impact: engagement, non-academic partnerships/governance, regional/national significance etc. ‘Value for money’ is also common- potential research is a social return on an investment and cost consequences are scrutinised.
For projects working with developing countries you need to aim for impact on the involved population. Try to demonstrate that the generation of impact will be led by those it most affects.
Impact in the Application
For a standard UKRI application you should be aiming to include impact in each section:
Objectives and Aims: integrate your research goals and your impact goals – funders want to see the need for the research.
Plain English Summary: non specialists need to be able to understand the impact so the panel can assess properly the problems you are solving and the proposed beneficiaries.
Case for Support: most of this needs to contain impact including the background to the project and its potential contribution, methods of research and their relevance/suitability, track record of the team, delivery milestones, monitoring and evaluation, success criteria etc.
Justification of Resources: cost impact in, you are encouraged to! Consider public engagement resources, evaluation costs, staff members – UKRI say that they want to see 10-15% of costs going to impact.
Work Packages (WP): either have an Impact WP, or include some impact in all of your WPs
Fast Track Impact is full of great resources including How to integrate impact into a UKRI case for support
For all funding applications:
Make impact easy to find: use formatting, cross referencing or signposting. This can also help with wordcounts, as flowcharts and diagrams if allowed often don’t count as text.
Involve beneficiaries/stakeholders/end users in the design of the research and impact plan: BU has brilliant resources for involving the public in research, so do contact PIER or VOICE for advice.
Think about the project’s longevity: consider what follow-on support you might need to generate/upscale impact, or how you might leverage further investment after the funding. This is difficult but funders like to see project sustainability and an exit plan.
Troubleshooting
If you have trouble identifying your potential impact, consider:
A Theory of Change model (diytoolkit.org) can be helpful in plotting these concepts.
Finally, remember that embedding impact at the start will improve both the application and your research, and that you should be aiming for game-changing (but realistic) results.
Some useful resources are listed below, and you can always get in touch with your Impact Advisors at impact@bournemouth.ac.uk.
Stakeholder analysis (ODI)
Research Impact toolkit (ESRC)
Impact tracking and evaluation (Matter of Focus)
Impact planning guide + template (Fast Track Impact)
Planning for impact – NIHR toolkit for researchers – ARC (many links)
PiiAF (Public Involvement Impact Assessment Framework)
The Doctoral College and Additional Learning Support, Student Services, are pleased to present this ALS Inclusivity / Disability Awareness Week specifically for those supporting postgraduate research students. There are three sessions, each of which will be focused on providing individuals with an understanding of different disabilities, and to develop an insight into how to best support PGRs with disabilities. The sessions will also address what reasonable adjustments can be made and what is the role of the supervisor.
The following sessions will be run:
Staff attending will:
| Lunchbite Session | Date | Time | Location |
| Supporting PGRs with ADD/ADHD/ Dyspraxia | Tuesday 8 March 2022 | 12:00 – 13:00 | Online |
| Supporting PGRs with SpLD/Dyslexia | Wednesday 9 March 2022 | 12:00 – 13:00 | Online |
| Supporting PGRs with Autism Spectrum Disorder | Thursday 10 March 2022 | 12:00 – 13:00 | Online |
To book a place onto a session please complete the booking form.
Further details and future sessions can also be found on the Supervisory Development Lunchbite Sessions staff intranet page.
Dear colleagues
– Are you an NIHR funded researcher?
– Are you planning to submit a grant application to NIHR?
NIHR Research Design Service East Midlands are hosting a webinar introducing the new EDI (Equality, Diversity and Inclusivity) toolkit and is a valuable starting point for researchers seeking to develop more inclusive research proposals.
The NIHR Research Design Service (RDS) has developed an EDI toolkit to support researchers to consider and embed EDI at each stage of their research project, from inception through to dissemination, implementation and impact.
The 90 minute webinar is on 30th March 2022 at 13.30.
More information and link to book here.
Your local branch of the NIHR RDS (Research Design Service) is based within the BU Clinical Research Unit (BUCRU)
We can help with your application. We advise on all aspects of developing an application and can review application drafts as well as put them to a mock funding panel (run by RDS South West) known as Project Review Committee, which is a fantastic opportunity for researchers to obtain a critical review of a proposed grant application before this is sent to a funding body.
Contact us as early as possible to benefit fully from the advice
Feel free to call us on 01202 961939 or send us an email.
Professor Andy Phippen writes for The Conversation about child safety in virtual spaces…
Andy Phippen, Bournemouth University
In a recent BBC news investigation, a reporter posing as a 13-year-old girl in a virtual reality (VR) app was exposed to sexual content, racist insults and a rape threat. The app in question, VRChat, is an interactive platform where users can create “rooms” within which people interact (in the form of avatars). The reporter saw avatars simulating sex, and was propositioned by numerous men.
The results of this investigation have led to warnings from child safety charities including the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) about the dangers children face in the metaverse. The metaverse refers to a network of VR worlds which Meta (formerly Facebook) has positioned as a future version of the internet, eventually allowing us to engage across education, work and social contexts.
The NSPCC appears to put the blame and the responsibility on technology companies, arguing they need to do more to safeguard children’s safety in these online spaces. While I agree platforms could be doing more, they can’t tackle this problem alone.
Reading about the BBC investigation, I felt a sense of déjà vu. I was surprised that anyone working in online safeguarding would be – to use the NSPCC’s words – “shocked” by the reporter’s experiences. Ten years ago, well before we’d heard the word “metaverse”, similar stories emerged around platforms including Club Penguin and Habbo Hotel.
These avatar-based platforms, where users interact in virtual spaces via a text-based chat function, were actually designed for children. In both cases adults posing as children as a means to investigate were exposed to sexually explicit interactions.
The demands that companies do more to prevent these incidents have been around for a long time. We are locked in a cycle of new technology, emerging risks and moral panic. Yet nothing changes.
We’ve seen demands for companies to put age verification measures in place to prevent young people accessing inappropriate services. This has included proposals for social platforms to require verification that the user is aged 13 or above, or for pornography websites to require proof that the user is over 18.
If age verification was easy, it would have been widely adopted by now. If anyone can think of a way that all 13-year-olds can prove their age online reliably, without data privacy concerns, and in a way that’s easy for platforms to implement, there are many tech companies that would like to talk to them.
In terms of policing the communication that occurs on these platforms, similarly, this won’t be achieved through an algorithm. Artificial intelligence is nowhere near clever enough to intercept real-time audio streams and determine, with accuracy, whether someone is being offensive. And while there might be some scope for human moderation, monitoring of all real-time online spaces would be impossibly resource-intensive.
The reality is that platforms already provide a lot of tools to tackle harassment and abuse. The trouble is few people are aware of them, believe they will work, or want to use them. VRChat, for example, provides tools for blocking abusive users, and the means to report them, which might ultimately result in the user having their account removed.
We cannot all sit back and shout, “my child has been upset by something online, who is going to stop this from happening?”. We need to shift our focus from the notion of “evil big tech”, which really isn’t helpful, to looking at the role other stakeholders could play too.
If parents are going to buy their children VR headsets, they need to have a look at safety features. It’s often possible to monitor activity by having the young person cast what is on their headset onto the family TV or another screen. Parents could also check out the apps and games young people are interacting with prior to allowing their children to use them.
I’ve spent the last two decades researching online safeguarding – discussing concerns around online harms with young people, and working with a variety of stakeholders on how we might better help young people. I rarely hear demands that the government needs to bring big tech companies to heel from young people themselves.
They do, however, regularly call for better education and support from adults in tackling the potential online harms they might face. For example, young people tell us they want discussion in the classroom with informed teachers who can manage the debates that arise, and to whom they can ask questions without being told “don’t ask questions like that”.
However, without national coordination, I can sympathise with any teacher not wishing to risk complaint from, for example, outraged parents, as a result of holding a discussion on such sensitive topics.
I note the UK government’s Online Safety Bill, the legislation that policymakers claim will prevent online harms, contains just two mentions of the word “education” in 145 pages.
We all have a role to play in supporting young people as they navigate online spaces. Prevention has been the key message for 15 years, but this approach isn’t working. Young people are calling for education, delivered by people who understand the issues. This is not something that can be achieved by the platforms alone.
Andy Phippen, Professor of IT Ethics and Digital Rights, Bournemouth University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
One of the great benefits of acting as a reviewer – whether of funding applications or research papers – is being able to learn what is happening at the ‘cutting edge’ of a field, not only in terms of subject knowledge, but also in terms of methodology. Here, we can learn from both good, and not so good practice. Having recently reviewed a number of applications for the funding scheme associated with my own professional body, It was clear that such a task has clearly had a significant impact upon my own understanding of what makes ‘good’ research, and what makes a ‘good’ application for funding.
Perhaps the key term from the latest round of reviews – to me at least – was that of ‘coherence’, and coherence between various different elements of a proposed methodology. Often within applications there is an understandable focus upon ‘methods’ rather than ‘methodology’. To me, this means a missed opportunity to generate such coherence – and subsequently a missed opportunity to justify the key methodological decisions. As one example we can look at the importance of the ontological and epistemological basis of the work (perhaps more relevant within the social, rather than the natural sciences) which is often overlooked, or only briefly addressed. Often, even a relatively brief acknowledgement of these ideas can help to justify choices in terms of methods, sampling and data analysis. This can be taken further with reference to another – often overlooked – detail, that of the research design. Often, whilst research designs are outlined, their role as a ‘link’ between the epistemology of the study and the data collection and analysis methods is often omitted, where again, it can lead to a real sense of coherence within the methodology. The best bids had not only detail about the broader methodology, but also a real coherence between each element, with a consistent story being told, from the philosophical assumptions of the study, which guided the research design, where each method had a clear link both to the broader epistemological issues, and also the subsequent analysis and interpretation of the data.
Finally, and crucially from a reviewer’s perspective, the idea of coherence between researcher, subject and methodology is essential, often being the first question, a reviewer will be required to address. The research itself is not independent of the researcher, and does the study show coherence in terms of not only researcher-subject coherence (does the researcher have an established record in the area) but also researcher-methodology coherence (what evidence is there that the researcher could undertake this methodology successfully), again focusing not just on methods, but the broader methodology as a whole (for example is there coherence between the choice of research design, and the researcher’s own experiences and attributes (often key, for example, in ethnographic designs).
None of these points are ground breakingly original, but it is interesting to see that there is still great variation in how methodologies are constructed. And assessing such methodologies has proved to be of immense value when think about my own work.
BU staff can login below:
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
Photo exhibition happening now at Talbot Campus – Ageing in a digital world
A compassionate approach to Simulation: new national blog post 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
Research Information Network
Horizon Europe 2025 Work Programme pre-Published