/ Full archive

Call for Knowledge Exchange & Innovation Panel Members

Expressions of Interest Invited

Following the previous call for membership of the Knowledge Exchange and Innovation Funding Panel, we are now seeking further expressions of interest from the academic community at any career stage. Applicants from the Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, and from Associate Professors, are particularly welcomed in this call.

What is the Knowledge Exchange & Innovation Funding Panel?

The recently formed panel is reinvigorating how we fund knowledge exchange and innovation projects internally; as a group we are developing a more agile approach to funding allocation and management, enabling collaboration with external partners to become more responsive.

The Value of Panel Membership

Membership of a funding panel enables you to be part of an important decision-making process, making a significant contribution to the direction and impact of knowledge exchange and innovation at the institution and beyond. Working individually and as a team, Panel Members evaluate applications to the internal Higher Education and Innovation Funding stream and other related funds. If you have not been a member of a funding panel previously, this offers an opportunity to develop peer reviewing skills and give back to the academic community by drawing on your expertise and insight working with others from across a range of disciplines and career stages. You will need to be confident in evaluating the merit of applications based on the requirement of the fund, the innovation and rigour of the proposal and to share your thoughts effectively and appropriately with the wider Panel meetings and provide feedback to ensure transparency.

By becoming an Panel Member you will be ensuring that internal funding at BU is used for projects that will have real world impact. It’s also a great opportunity to engage with colleagues and learn about research and knowledge exchange happening across the faculties.

What would I commit to as a Panel Member?

You will have to attend a number of Panel meetings per year, typically 5-6, either in person or online, read and review funding applications and occasionally make agreements via email circulation with the Panel when some detailed feedback maybe required.

Sounds interesting? How to apply:

Please send a short expression of interest, around ¾ of a page, outlining why you think you’re suitable to be a panel member. There is no need to provide a long CV of your expertise, just enough to:

– Tell the Chair and the Panel Members about your field of specialism;

– Highlight any experience you have of peer review and/or panel membership;

– A brief description of the type of skills you can bring (e.g. experience of working with external organisations; good with moderating discussions; able to respectfully challenge the status quo; creative innovation leadership etc.)

And perhaps most importantly:

  • Why you want to join the panel . Have you been on a panel before, for example or does your role require you to give feedback on projects? Are you simply keen to be involved? It would be very helpful if you could demonstrate your knowledge of KE, innovation and the impact agenda.

Please email your expression of interest to the Knowledge Exchange Manager, Dr. Wendelin Morrison wsmorrison@bournemouth.ac.uk by 5pm on Wednesday the 24th January.

Applications from individuals from groups generally underrepresented on University committees/panels (minority ethnic, declared disability) are particularly welcome.

Conversation article: How a New York Times copyright lawsuit against OpenAI could potentially transform how AI and copyright work

Professor Dinusha Mendis writes for The Conversation about the potential copyright implications of AI as a lawsuit is lodged by the New York Times against the creator of ChatGPT…

How a New York Times copyright lawsuit against OpenAI could potentially transform how AI and copyright work

Stas Malyarevsky / Shutterstock

Dinusha Mendis, Bournemouth University

On December 27, 2023, the New York Times (NYT) filed a lawsuit in the Federal
District Court in Manhattan against Microsoft and OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT,
alleging that OpenAI had unlawfully used its articles to create artificial intelligence (AI) products.

Citing copyright infringement and the importance of independent journalism to democracy, the newspaper further alleged that even though the defendant, OpenAI, may have “engaged in wide scale copying from many sources, they gave Times content particular emphasis” in training generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools such as Generative Pre-Trained Transformers (GPT). This is the kind of technology that underlies products such as the AI chatbot ChatGPT.

The complaint by the New York Times states that OpenAI took millions of copyrighted news articles, in-depth investigations, opinion pieces, reviews, how-to guides and more in an attempt to “free ride on the Times’s massive investment in its journalism”.

In a blog post published by OpenAI on January 8, 2024, the tech company responded to the allegations by emphasising its support of journalism and partnerships with news organisations. It went on to say that the “NYT lawsuit is without merit”.

In the months prior to the complaint being lodged by the New York Times, OpenAI had entered into agreements with large media companies such as Axel-Springer and the Associated Press, although notably, the Times failed to reach an agreement with the tech company.

The NYT case is important because it is different to other cases involving AI and copyright, such as the case brought by the online photo library Getty Images against the tech company Stability AI earlier in 2023. In this case, Getty Images alleged that Stability AI processed millions of copyrighted images using a tool called Stable Diffusion, which generates images from text prompts using AI.

The main difference between this case and the New York Times one is that the newspaper’s complaint highlighted actual outputs used by OpenAI to train its AI tools. The Times provided examples of articles that were reproduced almost verbatim.

Use of material

The defence available to OpenAI is “fair use” under the US Copyright Act 1976, section 107. This is because the unlicensed use of copyright material to train generative AI models can serve as a “transformative use” which changes the original material. However, the complaint from the New York Times also says that their chatbots bypassed the newspaper’s paywalls to create summaries of articles.

Even though summaries do not infringe copyright, their use could be used by the New York Times to try to demonstrate a negative commercial impact on the newspaper – challenging the fair use defence.

ChatGPT
Giulio Benzin / Shutterstock

This case could ultimately be settled out of court. It is also possible that the Times’ lawsuit was more a negotiating tactic than a real attempt to go all the way to trial. Whichever way the case proceeds, it could have important implications for both traditional media and AI development.

It also raises the question of the suitability of current copyright laws to deal with AI. In a submission to the House of Lords communications and digital select committee on December 5, 2023, OpenAI claimed that “it would be impossible to train today’s leading AI models without copyrighted materials”.

It went on to say that “limiting training data to public domain books and drawings created more than a century ago might yield an interesting experiment but would not provide AI systems that meet the needs of today’s citizens”.

Looking for answers

The EU’s AI Act –- the world’s first AI Act –- might give us insights into some future directions. Among its many articles, there are two provisions particularly relevant to copyright.

The first provision titled, “Obligations for providers of general-purpose AI
models” includes two distinct requirements related to copyright. Section 1(C)
requires providers of general-purpose AI models to put in place a policy to respect EU copyright law.

Section 1(d) requires providers of general purpose AI systems to draw up and make publicly available a detailed summary about content used for training AI systems.

While section 1(d) raises some questions, section 1(c) makes it clear that any use of copyright protected content requires the authorisation of the rights holder concerned unless relevant copyright exceptions apply. Where the rights to opt out has been expressly reserved in an appropriate manner, providers of general purpose AI models, such as OpenAI, will need to obtain authorisation from rights holders if they want to carry out text and data mining on their copyrighted works.

Even though the EU AI Act may not be directly relevant to the New York Times complaint against OpenAI, it illustrates the way in which copyright laws will be designed to deal with this fast-moving technology. In future, we are likely to see more media organisations adopting this law to protect journalism and creativity. In fact, even before the EU AI Act was passed, the New York Times blocked OpenAI from trawling its content. The Guardian followed suit in September 2023 – as did many others.

However, the move did not allow material to be removed from existing training
data sets. Therefore, any copyrighted material used by the training models up until then would have been used in OpenAI’s outputs –- which led to negotiations between the New York Times and OpenAI breaking down.

With laws such as those in the EU AI Act now placing legal obligations on general purpose AI models, their future could look more constrained in the way that they use copyrighted works to train and improve their systems. We can expect other jurisdictions to update their copyright laws reflecting similar provisions to that of the EU AI Act in an attempt to protect creativity. As for traditional media, ever since the rise of the internet and social media, news outlets have been challenged in drawing readers to their sites and generative AI has simply exacerbated this issue.

This case will not spell the end of generative AI or copyright. However, it certainly raises questions for the future of AI innovation and the protection of creative content. AI will certainly continue to grow and develop and we will continue to see and experience its many benefits. However, the time has come for policymakers to take serious note of these AI developments and update copyright laws, protecting creators in the process.The Conversation

Dinusha Mendis, Professor of Intellectual Property and Innovation Law; Director Centre for Intellectual Property Policy and Managament (CIPPM), Bournemouth University, Bournemouth University

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

Recruiting : Faculty Research Staff Representatives 

The BU Research Staff Association (RSA) is a forum to promote research culture at BU. Research staff from across BU are encouraged to attend, to network with others researchers, disseminate their work, discuss career opportunities, hear updates on how BU is implementing the Research Concordat, and give feedback or raise concerns that will help to develop and support the research community at BU.

Recruiting FST and BUBS Faculty Research Staff Representatives

The Faculty RSA reps role is to support the Institutional reps with the running of the BU RSA, attending the Research Concordat Steering Group, and Faculty Research and Professional Practice Committee Meetings, to provide an update on the BU RSA and feedback any comments or concerns.

Eligible research staff are those on research-only contracts – fixed-term or open-ended employment (not PTHP/casual contracts) who have at least one year remaining on their contract at the time of recruitment.  

If you are interested in the FST rep or BUBS  rep role, please supply a few words to demonstrate your interest, availability in relation to the position to Researchdev@bournemouth.ac.uk by the 14/02/24.

Please contact your Faculty RSA reps to chat about it if you have any queries.

 

New book about EDI in health and biomed research careers is out!

Dr Ola Thomson of BUBS, People and Organisations, is pleased to announce her new book: “Nurturing equality, diversity and inclusion: Support for research careers in health and biomedicine”. The book is available as open access which means you can read it free of charge via Bristol University Press (Policy Press) – link here: https://bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/nurturing-equality-diversity-and-inclusion.

You can also order a hard copy of the book with 50% off until 21 January using code JAN50 at the checkout.

The book is co-authored with Prof. Rachael Gooberman-Hill of the Elizabeth Blackwell Institute for Health Research at the University of Bristol. The volume provides an overview of the state of EDI in research careers in health and biomedicine in the UK, and offers innovative organisational and individual strategies to nurture diversity in research institutions.

Today’s academic and research institutions recognise the importance of diverse research teams in health and biomedical science, in terms of the business case, social justice and the common good. This ‘go-to’ book familiarises readers with the key equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) issues in relation to research careers and researcher development. Bringing together the challenges and solutions to EDI matters with an evidence-based approach in one volume, the book offers practical strategies and interventions for academic and research settings. This is an essential guide for equality planning team members, researchers, HRM officers and managers across academia and research.

ECR and Interdisciplinarity in the Medical Humanities

This ECR-focused event brings together researchers in Medical and Health Humanities at Bournemouth from across the faculties of Health & Social Science, Media & Communication and Science & Technology, inviting them to highlight and address the main challenges of working within this varied and interdisciplinary field.

It will feature an expert roundtable and open discussion, followed by breakout groups and opportunity for networking activity for ECRs.

Roundtable participants will be invited to speak for 5 minutes, drawing on their experience of research partnerships across disciplines. Suggested topics for speakers to address include, but are not limited to:

  • Research and knowledge exchange in MH
  • Publishing (choosing the right journal for MH research, collaborative writing)
  • Bidding (where to bid, what for and how to construct productive teams and partnerships)
  • How to work effectively together but also maintain a sense of disciplinary identity
  • What experiences have participants had and how has this affected your research career to date?
  • Imposter syndrome
  • Work/life balance

ECR and Interdisciplinarity in the Medical Humanities

Wed 21 Feb 2024 11:30 AM – 3:30 PM at Talbot Campus

This event is for BA ECR Network members only. You can join the network here  and book your place through the following linkTickettailor

 

ECR attendees will be invited to write and submit their questions for the panel in advance of the session, sending them by email to: RKEDF@bournemouth.ac.uk  – in the second phase of the event, ECR attendees will be put into breakout rooms to discuss how their own practice might address these challenges, identify areas of future support they require and reflect on their professional identity as an interdisciplinary researcher in this field.

For any further information please contact RKEDF@bournemouth.ac.uk

 

RKEDF Workshop- Anatomy of an Impact Case Study

Anatomy of an Impact Case Study

 

This workshop is aimed at Academics and Researchers who would like to learn what an excellent REF impact case study looks like and how to start building your own case study from scratch.

We will look at the different sections of a case study and what is required for each one, then examine impact case studies from previous REFs to establish what the panels are looking for. We will then move on to thinking about what you would need to do to start building your own impact case study.

By the end of this session you will be familiar with the structure of an impact case study, what makes an excellent case study and what you will need in order to start building an impact case study from your own research.

Thursday 22nd February, 13:00 – 15:00 at Talbot Campus

Book your place  here under Impact Essentials: Anatomy of an Impact Case Study – 22/02/2024’ in the drop-down menu

For any queries regarding this workshop, please contact impact@bournemouth.ac.uk

Work Life Balance – ECRN workshop

Work Life Balance 

 

This session is aimed at Academics, Researchers and PGRs with an interest in discussing work/life balance within Academic roles and careers.

The session aims to discuss approaches to setting and maintaining healthy work/life balance whilst also managing the demands of their role.

It will follow an open, discursive model and invite responses from ECRs with input from the Academic leads.

By the end of the session, attendees will have acquired knowledge of models and techniques to healthy professional practice with regards to time management, wellbeing and working practices, and have had the opportunity to discuss their specific circumstances with peers and experienced Academic mentors.

 

Book your place here

under ‘ECRN: Work Life Balance – 07/02/2024’ in the drop-down menu.

For further information please contact RKEDF@ RKEDF@bournemouth.ac.uk

Intellectual Property for Academics – a ‘grand tour’ of IP

‘‘Intellectual Property for Academics’’

Wednesday 24th January 10:30 – 12:00Talbot Campus

A workshop presented by Dr Nicholas Malden, Partner at D Young&Co, a leading top-tier European intellectual property firm and Bournemouth University’s preferred choice for patent advice.

 

A person in a suit and tieDescription automatically generatedNick Malden has more than 18 years’ experience in intellectual property specialising in patents, in particular those concerned with electronics, physics, materials, medical devices, and software. Prior to joining D Young & Co he was a research associate at Manchester University, based at the Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron (DESY), in Hamburg, Germany.

 

Nick Malden will do a ‘grand tour’ of IP for academics, which will include:

  • A brief intro to IP and its value for the holder and wider society
  • Inventorship and ownership – What’s important and what are the considerations in research projects?
  • Third party IP rights – What are the considerations?
  • What needs to go in a patent application?
  • Patent filing versus trade secret versus disclosure – choices and consequences

This is a unique opportunity to listen to valuable discussions, ask questions and learn ‘‘the need to know’’ from an industry expert about IP from the academic perspective.

 

Reserve your place here under “Intellectual Property for Academics” in the drop down menu, as soon as possible

 

For any queries regarding the content of this session, please contact lhutchins@bournemouth.ac.uk, for any other information please email RKEDF @ RKE Development Framework

MIL Eco-Lab: Media & Information Literacy for Healthy Ecosystems

logo - science, health, and data communications research group

MIL Eco-Lab: Media & Information Literacy for Healthy Ecosystems

Cluster Lead: Julian McDougall

This new research cluster, located in SHDC, will generate and support research to inform policy and practice for the role of Media and Information Literacy (MIL) in: promoting societal resilience to misinformation; improving the health of communication ecosystems and supporting better health, science and data literacies.

This new cluster will form an MIL Eco-Lab to support and grow capacity for:

  • Research-informed MIL, working with a theory of change;
  • Education and training in MIL (including for better health and science communications);
  • Designing third spaces for MIL practice;
  • Evaluating MIL for ecosystem health (moving beyond solutionism, for positive consequences and social change);
  • Intersecting with the work of the Media and Information Literacy Alliance charity in advocacy spaces (including health, science and data communications).
  • Fostering productive inter-disciplinary and international environments for doctoral research in MIL and pioneering research in the field, where significant, for health, science and data communications.

Colleagues who are interested in finding out more about this cluster and discuss how your research can contribute, with no obligation to join, are invited to share your availability here for a zoom workshop later this month. And / or if you would like to chat about this 1-1, just email me and we can set that up.

Thanks for reading,

Julian

Future Leader Fellows UKRI Round 9

Deadline for expression of interest: 12pm on Friday 1st March 2024.

 

 

 

The UKRI Future Leaders Fellowships will grow the strong supply of talented individuals needed to ensure a vibrant environment for research and innovation in the UK. The scheme is open to researchers and innovators from across business, universities, and other organisations and from around the world.

This scheme is looking for early career researchers and innovators who are either:

  • looking to establish or transition to independence
  • developing their own original and ambitious plans within a commercial setting.

UKRI are offering funding to support ambitious research or innovation programmes across UKRI’s remit. You must be based at, and have the support of, an eligible academic or non-academic institution.

There is no minimum or maximum award value.

Your project can last for up to four years, with the option to apply to renew for a further three years.

The external deadline for this call is 18th June 2024.

 

BU internal competition:

​For Round 9 we are running an internal process at BU to ensure we support and encourage submissions from the highest standard of candidates. For this round, BU is capped at a maximum of 3 applications.

The focus is to ensure candidates are eligible and have a high chance of success, providing them with comprehensive advice and support, to develop a high-quality programme of research and proposal for submission. Applications are welcome from internal academics (both as prospective fellows and/or mentors of prospective fellows) and external academics to be hosted by BU.

Prospective applicants should complete an Expression of Interest UKRI FLF R9_EOI and send to Research Development by 12pm on 1st March 2024. A panel of subject experts and Deputy Deans of Research will review each EoI and selected applicants will be notified by end of day on 8th April 2024.  All documents relating to this internal competition are available on the I Drive here: I:\RDS\Public\FLF Round 9 June 2024

Selected applicants will then be supported to progress with their application and receive internal and external support as required.

A briefing on this call will be held on  7th February 2024 at 12 noon, including an overview of the scheme and a Q&A session. For those who cannot attend on the day, the briefing will be recorded and shared on Brightspace. Please contact us to receive the link.

Process for selecting applications timeline:

Date Action
15th January 2024  Internal Launch of Call
 7th February 2024 Future Leaders Briefing and Q&A for Fellows and mentors – at the Funding Development Briefing.
 29th February 2024 Call opens 
1st March 2024 Noon EoI deadline
4th March 2024  Applications sent to reviewers
w/c 1st April 2024 Panel Meeting
8th April 2024 Notify successful FLF/s

Please contact Eva Papadopoulou or Kate Percival with any queries on the above.

REF Impact Subcommittee Chair: call for EoIs

Help guide the university’s impact submission

The Chair of the REF Impact Subcommittee (RISC) has an important role to play in supporting preparations for the Engagement and Impact element of Bournemouth University’s (BU) REF2029 submission.

RISC reports on progress in the development of impact case studies and against impact strategies to the REF Committee, sharing intelligence from across BU and the wider HE sector, making recommendations on impact resourcing and ensuring evidence of impact is robustly recorded.

The Chair, who should be a member of the Professoriate, needs an institution-wide perspective on the development of impact case studies and the new impact narratives, and to ensure the subcommittee is effective in reviewing progress.

 Key responsibilities include:

  1. Chairing the quarterly RISC meetings.
  2. Ensuring discussion is fair, open and supportive.
  3. Providing guidance in determining where greatest resourcing and support may be required, according to progress updates from impact champions.
  4. Acting as champion for raising awareness across BU of the importance of REF impact case studies in relation to QR funding for the institution as a whole.

Application process:

Research Development and Support (RDS) runs an expression of interest (EoI) call, inviting all those who are interested to put forward a short case (one page maximum) outlining why they are interested and the knowledge, skills and experience they think they could bring to the role. Applications from underrepresented groups (e.g. women, minority ethnic, declared disability) are particularly welcome. The deadline is: 5pm, Monday 29th January.

EoIs are submitted to RDS (impact@bournemouth.ac.uk) and reviewed against the selection criteria detailed below by a gender-balanced selection panel comprising:

  • Chair of the REF Steering Group
  • Chair of the REF Committee
  • RDS representative

In the event of there being just one EoI received for a particular panel member role, the panel will still review it using the selection criteria to ensure the applicant is suitable for the role.

Further details on the role and selection criteria are here:

Chair REF Impact Subcommittee role descriptor

Process and criteria for RISC Chair recruitment

Selection criteria

The panel will give each EoI a score out of 15, based on how well they score against the criteria outlined below. These are equally weighted, with each criterion carrying a total possible score of 5. The panel will offer the role to the applicants with the highest ranked EoIs. A member of the panel will provide feedback to all applicants.

  • Knowledge and experience of REF and research impact (scored out of 5): The Chair/Deputy Chair are expected to have a thorough knowledge of the REF process, preparations and timeline and the requirements relating to the impact submission for REF2029. Ideally, they will have been involved in preparations for previous REF exercises or submitted an impact case study. It is expected that they will be practising researchers and will have a breadth of understanding of research across BU.
  • Experience of chairing meetings and reaching consensus to ensure sound decision-making (scored out of 5): The Chair/Deputy Chair will need to be able to chair meetings effectively and ensure prioritisation decisions are made in alignment with the requirements of the impact element of BU’s REF submission.
  • Plans for leading the impact agenda across the University (scored out of 5): The Chair/Deputy Chair are responsible for motivating the impact champions of each Unit of Assessment, as well as the wider research community, to optimise BU’s performance in the Engagement and Impact element of REF2029. They should have ideas for how they will do this.

Questions

Any queries regarding the process should be directed to impact@bournemouth.ac.uk. Specific questions about the Chair role should be directed to REF Committee Chair Professor Einar Thorson.

The Conversation: one-to-one training sessions available

BU is a partner of The Conversation, a news analysis and opinion website with content written by academics working with professional journalists. 

As a partner organisation, our academics and researchers can write for The Conversation on their areas of expertise. Conversation journalists are offering one-to-one training sessions for BU academics to understand more about The Conversation, or to discuss and pitch an article to them. 

Two training dates are available, on Wednesday 28 February from 2–4pm or Tuesday 19 March from 10:30am – 12:30pm.

You can book a fifteen minute session with a Conversation journalist using the links below: 

Book your place for 28 February 

Book your place for 19 March 

Why write for The Conversation? 

The Conversation is a great way to share research and informed comment on topical issues. Academics work with editors to write pieces, which can then be republished via a Creative Commons licence. Since we first partnered with The Conversation, articles by BU authors have had over 9.5 million reads and been republished by the likes of The iMetro, National Geographic Indonesia and the Washington Post.

You can learn more about working with The Conversation on the Research and Knowledge Exchange Sharepoint site. 

Free research impact training from Fast Track Impact

Free sessions from Fast Track Impact on preparing for REF2029, scoping an ethics of engagement and impact, integrating impact into your next funding bid and influencing policy. Book soon as some of these events only have a few spaces left.


Preparing for REF2029

Date: 5 February, 2024

Time: 10:00 – 13:00

This session will help you monitor, evaluate and evidence your impact.

Key benefits:

  • Learn about evidence-based principles for delivering research impact when you don’t have much time
  • Discover easy and quick-to-use templates you can use immediately to:
    • Prioritise who to engage with first
    • Create a powerful impact plan that will guarantee your research makes a difference without wasting your time
  • Learn how to monitor, evaluate and evidence impact convincingly in your case study
  • Discover easy and quick-to-use tools to fix problems with significance or reach in case studies
  • Find out what makes a 4* impact case study, based on research into high versus low-scoring cases in REF2014 and a worked example showing the anatomy of a 4* claim from REF2021
  • Discuss impact plans that might develop into REF2028 case studies with colleagues

Scoping an ethics of engagement and impact

Date: 26 February, 2024

Time: 13:00 – 14:00

  • As governments and funders around the world invest in the impact of research as an unquestioned good, there are growing concerns around the ethics of pursuing impact.
  • Should University ethics committees consider engagement and impact plans for projects that are working on controversial topics or with vulnerable groups – even if their research doesn’t involve human subjects and so would not normally fall under their jurisdiction?
  • How should researchers and their institutions manage issues such as:
    • Undeclared conflicts of interest (e.g., arising from funding and promotion outcomes from the Research Excellence Framework in the UK)
    • Positive bias in the presentation of impacts (e.g. research leading to economic impacts via questionable ethical practices that also led to significant harm to the environment or human rights), and
    • Concerns about how vulnerable individuals and groups have been used to generate or corroborate impacts?

Integrating impact into your next funding bid

Date: 20 May, 2024

Time: 10:00 – 12:00

Learn how to increase your success rates and integrate impact into your next research proposal

Key benefits:

  • Discuss insider tips and tricks, and get bid writing tools to help you co-produce your next proposal with the people most likely to benefit from your research. 
  • Discuss examples of impact sections from real cases for support 
  • Learn how to integrate impact convincingly with your proposal, using a mapping approach to ensure your impact goals map onto your impact problem statement, beneficiaries and impact generation activities, whilst managing risks and assumptions. 
  • Power all of this with a systematic stakeholder analysis and impact logic model that will make it easy to articulate specific and credible impacts.

Free training: Influencing policy

Date: 2 September, 2024

Time: 10:00 – 13:00

This session is based on research by Prof Reed and the latest evidence on how to get research evidence into policy.

Key benefits:

  • Discover quick and easy tools you can use immediately to:
    • Prioritise which policy actors to engage with first and how to instantly get their attention
    • Create a powerful impact plan that will guarantee your research makes a difference without wasting your time
  • Discuss how to design an effective policy brief, infographic or presentation 
  • Learn how to get your research into policy, wherever you work in the world, by building trust and working with intermediaries 
  • Be inspired by primary research and case studies

Free training: The Productive Researcher

Date: 2 December, 2024

Time: 10:00 – 13:00

Find out how you can become significantly more productive as a researcher in a fraction of your current working day.

Key benefits:

  • Leave with practical tools you can use immediately to prioritise limited time to achieve more ambitious career goals
  • Gain a deeper understanding of the values that underpin your work, and the reasons why you feel time pressured
  • Identify priorities that are as much about being as they are about doing, and that are stretching, motivational, authentic, relational and tailored to your unique strengths and abilities
  • Turn these into an “experiment” to make practical changes that create a positive feedback loop between your priorities and your motivation, so you can become increasingly focussed and productive

HE policy update 15th January 2024

Politics and Parliament

The PM has confirmed that 2 by-elections will be held in February. (from the FT)

  • The Conservatives on Thursday moved the writ for by-elections to be held in Wellingborough in the east Midlands and Kingswood, near Bristol, both of which were held by Tory MPs. Peter Bone won Wellingborough in 2019 with a majority of 18,540 over Labour but was forced out of the House of Commons after an inquiry upheld claims of bullying and sexual misconduct against a staff member. … The Wellingborough contest has been given additional interest by the decision of local Conservatives to choose Bone’s partner, Tory councillor Helen Harrison, as their candidate.
  • The Kingswood contest was triggered by the resignation of former energy minister Chris Skidmore in protest at Sunak’s plan to promote North Sea oil and gas drilling. Skidmore secured an 11,220 majority over Labour in 2019.
  • The moving of the writs means the contests must be held within 21 and 27 working days; polling in both constituencies is therefore expected to take place on Thursday February 15.

Education

Lifelong learning

All this is coming soon, including changes to the way that fees are calculated and paid to providers so that they are not based on years but on credits.  This means that there will be no more special arrangements for accelerated programmes.

But will there be any demand for modular programmes?  The OfS ran a big trial:

  • In autumn 2021 the Office for Students (OfS) launched the ‘Higher Education Short Course trial’ Challenge Competition, through which higher education (HE) providers bid for funding to develop short courses of 30 or 40 credits at Levels 4-6 in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM), education, digital innovation and healthcare subjects and to help meet skills needs for Net Zero. Employers were to be closely involved in designing and developing the provision.
  • Through this competition, 22 providers received a total of £2 million to develop new short courses. Over 100 new courses were proposed in total, most to commence delivery in autumn 2022, with projections that over 2000 students in total would participate in 2022-23.

And the takeup for loans for the short courses was very small.  Out of 96 courses offered, only 17 were launched by 10 of the 22 providers, and instead of the 2000 participants planned, there were 240 applicants and 125 enrolments; with only 41 taking up the new student loan product.

The paper includes a lot of recommendations.  Wonkhe article here.

Apprenticeships

The government have pledged to increase apprenticeships at the cost, perhaps of “traditional” degrees.

In practice, apart from a lot of bigging them up in speeches and so on, this means that the OfS have been told to fund development of apprenticeships and they have been doing so:

  • The OfS will distribute up to £40 million through a competitive bidding exercise, which is now open for applications from OfS-registered higher education providers. Of the £40 million, up to £16 million will be allocated to projects that will complete before 31 July 2024 and up to £24 million is available for projects that will complete before 31 July 2025.
  • The funding competition aims to:
    • Expand course provision at higher education providers already offering Level 6 degree apprenticeships
    • Increase the number of students on Level 6 degree apprenticeships
    • Expand course provision at higher education providers who are new to offering Level 6 degree apprenticeships
    • Increase equality of opportunity within Level 6 degree apprenticeships

Note the focus on L6.  The government have made noises in the past about being unhappy with the volume of L7 apprentices being funded through the levy, especially where these are already senior employees, and this is something that may be addressed through policy changes in the future, e.g. restricting the use of the levy to L6 and below.  As noted last week, Labour have suggested repurposing the levy for apprenticeships and skills, which would also probably result in a reduction of the proportion of levy available for L7 apprenticeships, depending on how the changes were implemented, unless the amount available under the levy was increased.

Student experience, wellbeing and finances

We talked about cost of living in last week’s report, there was a December Sutton Trust analysis which makes grim reading.

  • Polling by Savanta for the Trust shows that 62% spend less than £37 a week on food, which is the minimum needed for a single person to buy essential food items, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Trussell Trust.
  • Overall, students living at university in England outside of London have median costs of £11,400 a year on essential spending. These essential costs include accommodation (on average 52% of their spending), groceries (12%), and bills (6%). However, the median total loan in England outside of London of £7,000, equivalent to 61% of spend, does not come near to covering these basic needs.
  • And although the median loan in London is higher at £8,500, this is drastically less than the median spending of £17,287 by students in the capital.
  • To make ends meet, two thirds of students reported taking on paid work, with 20% working 16-30 hours per week. 49% have missed classes as a result, and 23% reported that they had missed a deadline or asked for an extension in order to work.
  • The maintenance package in England is now at its lowest value in real terms for seven years, as maximum loan amounts have not kept pace with inflation. Furthermore, fewer students are eligible for maximum loans as the parental earnings threshold has also been frozen since 2008. To secure the maximum loan, a student’s household must earn under £25,000 per year, which captures far fewer households than it did 15 years ago.

Here is the December Wonkhe story.

What are the characteristics of students?

Alongside the TEF outcomes published last year (and updated with most of the pending awards just before Christmas, were summaries of the characteristics data for students in the UK for the 4 years to 2020-21. This is interesting to consider, and although some of this might seem obvious, does it hold true for our own cohorts and it is that obvious really?

We tend to talk a lot in the sector about student outcomes in the context of student characteristics, achievement gaps and so on.  But the other aspect, which I have been discussing with Shelley recently, is what this means for education practice.  A couple of examples – there is more to think about here and BU’s numbers are different from the sector in some ways:

  • Only 52% of full time undergraduate students come in to HE with only A levels: while that is still a lot, 48% is a lot of students with different learning experiences.
  • 40% of full time PGT students are over 25, which suggests that they have had work or other experience since they completed their UG programmes.

Age on entry:

Part-time students and apprentices are generally older.  In particular there is a much higher proportion of apprentices who are over 31, which is not surprising given that many degree level apprentices at L6 and L7 will be people already in work who are being asked by their employers to upskill via an apprenticeship, and this is consistent with the lifelong learning/skills agenda

Disability:

  • A higher proportion of part-time students have declared disabilities than full time -this may be one of the reasons for students choosing to study part-time.
  • A smaller proportion of PG students, full-time and part-time, have declared a disability.
  • A smaller proportion of apprentices have a disability than full time students (for both UG and PG).
  • Cognitive or learning difficulties is the biggest category of disabilities

Ethnicity:

  • There are large proportions of “unknown” ethnicity for full-time PG students; this may reflect the high proportion of PG international students and makes any comparison between full-time UG and PG unreliable.
  • Part-time students and apprentices are much more likely to be white.

Qualifications on entry (UG only):

  • There is a smaller proportion of part-time students with A levels or BTECs, and a larger proportion of part-time students from access or foundation courses or with no, or unknown qualifications. There is also a large proportion (34%) with HE level qualifications undertaking part-time programmes.
  • 52% of full-time UG students have 3 A levels, and 16% have a BTEC or a combination.
  • There is a larger proportion of apprentices with HE qualifications, and also with no, or unknown qualifications.

HE sector sustainability and change

You will have seen from the policy updates over the last year the negative rhetoric around “poor quality” courses: of course we all agree that we don’t want those.  Some noses were put out of joint by the Autumn Statement’s only reference to HE: “Proposals will be implemented to decrease the number of people studying poor-quality degrees, and to increase take-up of apprenticeships”.

As noted last week, as far as we can tell, this does not mean new measures but continuing to instruct the OfS to use its existing powers of regulation plus a continued focus on funding and promoting apprenticeships.

This House of Commons library research briefing on student number controls from August 2023 is an interesting read.

Here are some extracts from the press release from July 2023 when the final bit of the Augar changes (no sector wide student number caps or minimum entry levels):

  • The UK has some of the world’s leading universities, but a minority of the courses on offer leave students saddled with debt, low earnings and faced with poor job prospects. The government wants to make the system fairer for them, but also for taxpayers – who make a huge investment in higher education and are liable for billions of pounds in unrecovered tuition fees if graduate earnings are low.
  • Figures from the Office for Students show that nearly three in ten graduates do not progress into highly skilled jobs or further study 15 months after graduating. The Institute for Fiscal Studies also estimates that one in five graduates would be better off financially if they hadn’t gone to university. [more on those figures below]

And none of this is helped by the increasing cost to the government of funding the HE system.  The IfS published a report on 9th January: ”higher long-term inters rates and the cost of student loans”.

The debate around funding student loans has largely focused on what share of student loans will be repaid, and what share of the cost will need to be picked up by the taxpayer. Much less attention has been paid to the government cost of financing student loans that do get repaid. In this report, we investigate how the cost of student loans including these financing costs has changed as a result of increases in government borrowing costs over the past two years.

  • The cost of government borrowing as measured by the 15-year gilt yield has risen from 1.2% to 4.0% over the past two years. Relative to expected RPI inflation, this is a 3 percentage point increase. As the interest rate on student loans is now the rate of RPI inflation, this means that the government can expect to pay 1.6 percentage points more in interest on its debt than the interest rate it charges on student loans. Two years ago, just before the most recent student loans reform, it could expect to pay 1.4 percentage points less than the rate of RPI inflation.
  • This increase in government borrowing costs translates to an increase in the expected cost of student loans including financing costs of more than £10 billion per year. With borrowing costs as at the end of 2021, the government could have expected to earn a total net profit of £3.2 billion on student loans to the 2023 university entry cohort, arising from the positive spread between the interest it charged on student loans and the interest it paid on its debt. With today’s borrowing costs, this interest rate spread is negative, and the government can expect to make a loss of £7.3 billion. 
  • Concerningly, this extra cost is not reflected in either of the government’s official measures of the cost of student loans. The ONS measure does not take the cost of government borrowing into account at all. The DfE measure that underlies the so-called RAB charge uses a backward-looking measure of borrowing costs, which does not yet capture the sharp rise in gilt yields over the last two years.

Quality

This crackdown on perceived low quality has so far consisted of several waves of OfS quality assessments, last week I highlighted the first published outcomes of the first waves of assessments in business and management and computing: the regulatory consequences of these assessments are yet to be announced (with concerns only confirmed at 2 of the 6), but where problems are found the OfS can do lots of things including a combination of these:

  • launch a formal investigation;
  • apply more frequent or intensive monitoring;
  • impose specific licence conditions on a provider (i.e. specific action that the provider must take (or not take): to note specifically this could include recruitment limits or student number controls for a provider in general or linked to specific subjects;
  • impose a fine;
  • refuse to renew an access and participation plan (note that has consequences for fee caps);
  • suspend aspects of a providers registration, including access to student support funding or OfS grant funding;
  • vary or revoke degree awarding powers or permission to call itself a university; and/or
  • deregister a provider.

Another interesting point to note: providers have to pay fees to cover the cost of the investigation if they are subject to a regulatory investigation by the OfS unless they are completely exonerated.

This Wonhke article from July 23 describes when the OfS has already imposed licence conditions relating to B3: most of these required improvement plans and most (other than 2) related to colleges or alternative providers rather than universities.

It is worth reading the article which includes a response from Burton and South Derbyshire College.  Their main point is that the OfS is using very old data: the latest OfS dashboard data is for continuation for students starting in 2020-21, and of course graduate outcomes and completion data is by definition for students who started much longer ago than that; and who are following a programme which is likely to have change quite a lot since they started.  Just as a counter-balance to that, for existing providers (rather than newly registered providers) sanctions will usually follow an investigation, so although the outcomes data may be old, the practice and actions taken by the provider that the OfS are reviewing is current.  Before imposing a restriction, the OfS would need to form a view that those current actions and other steps were not likely to be adequate on their own to address the issues flagged by the (old) data.

The latest quality assessments have focussed on two subjects, and have looked at a wide range of student outcomes and experience in the context of the B licence conditions.  Often discussions of the B conditions focus on B3 (minimum absolute levels of student outcomes), but there is a lot more to the B conditions than those.

These were covered extensively when the consultations about these new conditions were ongoing several years ago, but as a lot has happened since then, here is a reminder.

I’ll talk more about the TEF and some of these conditions and other licence conditions in future updates.

Student numbers and admissions

This from Wonkhe in the daily update on Friday 12th January makes interesting reading in the light of all the concerns from the OfS about risky dependence on international student numbers

  • International student recruitment from Pakistan has overtaken the “languishing” Nigerian market for the January 2024 intake, according to the latest data from recruitment platform Enroly – which suggests that deposits are down 37 per cent compared to the same period last year, with a similar fall in the number of Confirmation of Acceptance for Studies (CAS) issued.
  • The data, based on a sample of 68,000 international students from the firm’s partner institutions, also shows that CAS issuance for students from India looks to have fallen by over 34 per cent, accompanied by a drop of more than 70 per cent in the Nigerian market – survey data suggests “unfriendly government policies” are playing a role in the decrease. But for students from Pakistan, deposits are up by 22.5 per cent, and CAS issuance by 14.2 per cent.

Financial sustainability

There has been a lot of press about financial sustainability and a lot of providers have been in the press for their efforts to manage financial gaps, arising from a whole range of issues as discussed last week.

To add to the doom and gloom here are some articles on the topic:

FT article 11th Jan 24: Senior leaders at four English universities told the FT in December they were experiencing a slowdown in international recruitment, driven in part by renewed competition from the US and Australia, which closed their borders during the Covid-19 pandemic. Data collected by the Enroly web platform that helps international students through the bureaucratic process of joining universities has indicated a sharp drop-off in enrolments from Nigeria and India. The company said a representative sample from more than 68,000 applicants to small and large UK universities found that overall deposit payments were down by 37 per cent for the January 2024 intake when compared with the previous year.

Research Professional article 5th Jan 24: universities at risk of insolvency in 2024

  • “These issues affect individual institutions in different ways and many universities remain financially secure, but we have a big and diverse higher education sector and a minority of universities are undoubtedly under the cosh financially at the moment,” Hillman said.
  • There are very few recent examples of UK higher education institutions closing down. In July 2019, the private provider GSM London—formerly known as the Greenwich School of Management—went into administration, and earlier that year Heythrop College, formerly part of the University of London, closed permanently. There have also been a number of mergers between providers.

ITV news: November 2023 Higher education sector in ‘existential crisis’ as one in four universities make losses

  • Data seen by ITV News paints a bleak picture of the higher education sector, which experts have described as being in an “existential crisis”.
  • One-quarter of universities are currently making a loss and total losses over the entire sector sits at a staggering £2 billion, a huge increase from the £200 million from the year before.
  • Professor Jenny Higham, from Universities UK, the umbrella body which represents 142 universities across the country, told ITV News an urgent solution was needed or the consequences would be severe.
  • “If [universities] continue not to be able to make up that deficit the end result will be universities will close,” Professor Higham said. “We need to work with everybody who has a vested interest in universities and their output to come up to solution for this problem.”

Universities UK report: sustainable university funding, September 2023

  • While it is not true that international students are displacing home students, it is the case that income from international students mitigates losses in teaching domestic students, and in turn helps grow, and make viable, domestic student capacity. Compared with a £1 billion loss in teaching domestic students, teaching international students brings in a £3 billion surplus. Given losses incurred in teaching domestic students, growth in international student income is needed to help grow domestic student capacity, which is needed as there is an increasing number of 18-year-olds projected in the UK population. It is debatable whether further growth in international student income is feasible, given increased competition from other countries, potential geopolitical risks to this income stream and recent government actions. Without this growth, and no further funding for teaching, it is likely that the chance of entering university for future cohorts will be more restricted than for previous cohorts.

The House of Commons library research briefing on student number controls from August 2023 referred to above also describes the upcoming cap on fees for some foundation years from the 2025/26 academic year: we are awaiting a consultation on the detail of this

It’s not easy in Wales or Scotland either, see recent articles from Wonkhe at the links.

There are OfS licence conditions about financial sustainability too: OFS licence conditions: financial sustainability and student protection in the case of a risk of market exit.

Minimum service levels

Something you may have missed in the run up to the holiday was the announcement of a consultation on minimum service levels in education (consultation closes 30th January 2024):

  • Any minimum service levels regulations we might implement following the consultation would apply on days when strike action is taking place in education services, and help minimise disruption to children and learners across education settings.

In the consultation document the section on HE starts on page 27