BU Research Blog | Archive | Bournemouth University

/ Full archive

20 September 2021

Improving Interagency Collaboration: Innovation and learning in Criminal Justice Systems

We are pleased to announce the publication, via Open Access and print, of this research volume stemming from our EU MSCA Rise project Improving Collaborative practice between correctional and mental health services or the COLAB project. Improving Interagency Collaboration: Innovation and Leanring in Criminal Justice Systems is edited by our former Social Sciences and Social Work colleague Prof Dr Sarah Hean and other partners in the project this Open Access edited collection seeks to build on our cross-European research and improve collaboration between criminal justice and welfare services in order to help prepare offenders for life after serving a prison sentence. It examines the potential tensions between criminal justice agencies and other organisations which are involved in the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders, most notably those engaged in mental health care or third sector organisations. It then suggests a variety of different methods and approaches to help to overcome such tensions and promote inter-agency collaboration and co-working, drawing on emerging research and models, with a focus on the practice in European and Scandinavian countries. For academics and practitioners working in prisons and the penal system, this collection will be invaluable.

The book contains chapters from former Centre for Seldom Heard Voices PhD student Dr Will Dugdale and current PhD student Jo Wells, alongside Faculty of Health and Social Sciences academics, Dr Vanessa Heaslip, Dr Angela Turner-Wilson, Dr Richard Heslop, Prof Dr Sara Ashencaen Crabtree and myself, Prof Dr Jonathan Parker. Our work contributes to the Centre for Seldom Heard Voices drive to include the marginalised and voiceless. We explore the contested concept of vulnerabilities in the context of criminal justice and mental health and into which people in contact with criminal justice systems are usually placed without critique. Normative positions that suggest vulnerability is something that offenders possess in themselves, because of certain characteristics they own, is critiqued as limited and indicative of structural power relations and an alternative consideration of vulnerability as something constructed within and by social structures and processes is offered. Drawing on aspects of an action learning approach, previous research evidence and research undertaken during the COLAB project an ‘etemic’ understanding (both insider and outsider) of vulnerability that allows an integration of agentic and structural factors is presented. We call for the inclusion of offenders in the design and conduct of services as a more humane and mature approach at a time in which current Government directives become harsher, ideological and dismissive of humanity.

20 September 2021

HE policy update for the w/e 17th September 2021

international, Student Engagement jforster

Mid-week parliamentary excitement as Boris reshuffles his ministers. Williamson is out…

The UPP Foundation have a new report challenging the Government’s metrics which work against the regional levelling up agenda. The Free Speech Bill continues its march through the Commons and …

Cabinet Reshuffle

After months of on/off speculation about a reshuffle, we finally got one last week. It started slow, with just three high profile ministers moved or removed – Gavin Williamson out completely (now that this year’s exam cycle is finished), Dominic Raab moved to Justice from the Foreign Office after the Afghanistan chaos, and Robert Buckland out, seemingly to make way for Raab.

But then it got more wide ranging with a lot of moves at a more junior level. The Institute for Government website has a chart showing the extent of the moves (they also have lots of analysis of experience, gender etc).

But the headline for us is that Nadhim Zahawi is the new Education Secretary, Michelle Donellan has stayed in place and added post-16 education and skills to her job and will also attend Cabinet, and Amanda Solloway has also gone (to be a whip) and has been replaced by George Freeman.

You can read the Wonkhe article about the new Secretary of State here and the Research Professional one here.

Free Speech

The HE Freedom of Speech Bill was treated to three days of evidence and debate this week. Various amendments were considered and written evidence has been published.

Wonkhe blogs;

The potential for confusion, duplication, conflicting rights and remedies for the same issue does not appear to be being addressed. What will result is a lot more guidance and probably not a lot of change. Not that it is clear that change was needed…..

Staying local post-graduation

The Bridge Group and the UPP Foundation published Staying local: understanding the value of graduate retention for social equality. Set within the context of the Government’s focus on LEO data (longitudinal education outcomes data) and the current Government focus on defining the value of courses by the salary the graduates earn this report highlights the failing of both the aforementioned metric – the local context. Both metrics fail to acknowledge the regional salary disparities, socio-economic background of the area in which a HE institution operates, and the students for whom other factors are more important that moving to a lucrative position in a big company in a big city.

The report tackles the definition of a successful graduate outcome. It makes familiar arguments over the geographic-social role of a university – stemming the graduate brain drain away from the area, providing talent for economic and cultural growth, improving the health and wellbeing of the area. The civic agenda is as expected, after all the UPP Foundation did set up the Civic University Network which brings the place based agenda and values the role of universities as anchor institutions.

Universities cannot simply be job factories, important though their role is in creating the workforce of tomorrow. To focus on graduate salary alone as a benchmark for success has the potential to create the perverse outcome of incentivising graduate mobility away from the very towns in which they were educations, and have the potential to contribute to. Rt Hon Chris Skidmore MP (former Universities Minister).

As you’d expect the report has much to say on the importance of the retention of the graduate workforce for levelling up of workforces and opportunities across the country. And it predicts:

The importance of commuter students and addressing their needs, often overlooked in salary data, will also be a key policy agenda for the future. Rt Hon Chris Skidmore MP (former Universities Minister).

51% of graduates remain local post-graduation. This includes commuter students and those originally from another area, although some were from the wider regional area.
Graduates who stayed on in the region post-graduation were more likely to be from lower socio-economic backgrounds, more likely to be first in family to attend university and more likely to be a mature students.
Commuter students who stay within the same area share the same characteristics as described in the bullet point above and are more likely to be from a Black, Asian or other ethnic minority background.
The report states that graduates who stay in the region have different priorities and think about success in alternative ways than are captured by the current performance metrics. Salary was not their first consideration in choosing where they work and live.
Wellbeing, financial independence and health were all important considerations to graduates who stay on in the region. Capitalising on lower living costs and using social networks to achieve social mobility and secure graduate employment were reasons to stay. Interviews also revealed graduates were pursing meaningful employment and living in environments that appealed to them.
Staying in the region of study post graduate was an active choice. Although some remained because they could not afford to undertake unpaid internships or risk not being able to cover living costs in higher earning/higher cost of living areas.
The report states that a university agenda which aims to encourage social mobility should be wary of using metrics that inadvertently weight the success of graduates from higher socio-economic backgrounds over the successes of graduates from lower socio-economic backgrounds.
The report states that the LEO salary metrics can act as a disincentive for universities to support their graduates from staying on in the region – which is contrary to the Government’s levelling up agenda.
The report also makes recommendations for employers encouraging them to challenge their assumptions that the majority of graduates want to move away from the area.

As you’ll have spotted above former Universities Minister Chris Skidmore wrote the foreword for the report and he has separately blogged about the findings for HEPI: Now is the time to recast universities’ relationships with their local areas.

Research Professional have excellent coverage of the report:

…failing to account for differences in regional salary levels could make certain universities appear to offer students poorer value for money. “[We want to] ensure that when someone who went to the University of Leeds moves to Sheffield, their value-for-money score isn’t damaged—because at the moment, if they went to London, their value-for-money score is going to be far higher
the use of graduate salary metrics “fails to capture the broad ways in which graduates understand their own success stories” and “needs to be addressed, if universities and their graduates are to increase their contribution to the levelling-up agenda”

Richard Brabner, UPP Foundation Director, said: Universities have been criticised for pulling talent away from the regions and towards metropolitan cities, but the reality is much more nuanced. All universities play a key role in their local economies, and should be judged on the basis of meeting the values and expectations of their graduates, rather than simply crude salary data.

Research Professional conclude: With the spending review now set for the end of October, to be accompanied by the government’s full response to Augar, it would be an optimistic gambler who put any money on the government moving away from crude salary data as a proxy measure of course quality. Expect more references to ‘pockets of low quality’ rather than a celebration of those hard-working graduates who are doing so much for their local communities.

Research

ESRC will continue to fund the Administrative Data Research UK project with a further £90 million investment. The project provides access to accredited researchers to de-identified data from government departments, local authorities and health authorities. It aims to enable better-informed policy decisions that address major societal challenges and improve public service provision across a range of areas including education, healthcare and crime, ultimately linking policy and research more closely. See more on ADR UK.
Research Professional (RP) – The UK’s national research funder has responded to an open letter, written over a year ago by 10 prominent Black female academics and campaigners, criticising its approach to the representation of Black researchers and their participation in research.
RP – The Campaign for Science and Engineering publishes a five-point roadmap to make the UK a science superpower.
Better science communication and public engagement push spearheaded by ECRs (RP article).

Students

Suicide: The OfS published Working together on suicide prevention in HE. There is a compilation of resources and a topic briefing which draws out some of the advice from the Suicide Safer Universities guidance and presents examples from providers detailing their approaches to suicide prevention. The examples also highlight the benefits of working with the local community, including involvement in regional suicide prevention networks and community response groups. The briefing draws on the 2018 Office for National Statistics suicide research. Data:

The number of identified students in higher education who died by suicide between 2000-01 and 2016-17 was 1,330.
The rate of deaths by suicide in the higher education student population remained at 4.7 deaths per 100,000 students between the 12 months ending July 2015 and the 12 months ending July 2017. The number of suicides in the higher education population in the 12 months ending July 2017 was 95.
The rate of suicide for female students was significantly lower than the rate for male students. This was observed when looking at overall student suicides, as well as looking at the difference in studying part- or full-time, whether studying at undergraduate or postgraduate degree level, and the undergraduate year of study.
83% of deaths by suicide (1,109) were among undergraduates and the remaining 17% (221) were among postgraduates.

The ONS data also analysed student deaths by suicide compared to the general population and found:

For each age group, the suicide rate was significantly higher in the general population than in the student population
For the 12 months ending July 2013 to the 12 months ending July 2016, higher education students made up approximately 37% of the general population for those aged 20 years and under, 17% in those aged 21 to 24 years, 6% in those aged 25 to 29 years, and 2% in those aged 30 years and over.

Tax: Research Professional have an interesting article on the implications of the Government’s national insurance increase of 1.25%. Here are the implications for graduates:

From next April, anyone with a student loan and income above the repayment threshold will see 49.8 per cent of any increase in pay from their employers taken away in income tax, national insurance and student loan repayments, as a Financial Times analysisshowed last week. In other words, any pay rise for graduates will now be taxed at nearly 50 per cent.
That is an extraordinary position for a Conservative government to find itself in. It’s not so great for graduates, either.
This is before we consider a likely lowering of the loan repayment threshold as a result of the comprehensive spending review. Imagine being a young lecturer or early career researcher looking at increased national insurance and pension contributions plus bigger student loan repayments.
Let’s take the example of a lecturer in their first job on a starting salary of £33,000 who, after years of graduate study, is finally able to start repaying their loans [the example pretends they don’t have postgraduate loans to repay]… Should their salary go up by £1,000, they will have to pay £200 in extra income tax, £132.50 more national insurance, and £90 in additional student loan repayments. Their university employer will also have to pay £150.50 in national insurance, making a total tax grab of £573, or 49.8 per cent, on the combined £1,150.50 of employment costs. That is a level of taxation that previously only applied to the personal allowance for those earning over £100,000, at which point every £1 in £2 earned is taken in tax.
One of the justifications for the introduction of £9,000 tuition fees by the coalition government was that graduates earned on average £100,000 more than non-graduates over their working lifetime. In the example above, that ‘graduate dividend’ would be entirely dissipated in additional tax take—and then some—over the 30 years of student loan repayments.

Admissions

The Education Policy Institute (EPI) published a report on the narrowing of the 16-19 curriculum breadth and employment outcomes. The proportion of students with A and AS levels from at least three of the main subject groups such as humanities, sciences, maths and languages, has halved since 2010. Despite the narrowing graduates with greater subject diversity at A level saw a boost to their earnings in their 20s. The report notes that England has one of the narrowest curricula in the developed world as students specialise in only a small number of subjects from age 16, the specialisation then continues as the student progress into HE.

EPI state:

The research also reveals those groups of students who are more or less likely to study a broader range of subjects. Students who perform well at GCSE are far more likely to go on to study a greater mix of subjects at A level. Conversely, disadvantaged students are much more likely to narrow their choices.
Students from Chinese and Indian backgrounds are shown to study the broadest range of A level subjects, while Black Caribbean and Gypsy/Roma students study the narrowest range.
Reforms introduced by the government around 2013, such as the decoupling of AS and A2 levels, are likely to have contributed significantly to the narrowing of A level choices seen today.
The fall seen in funding for 16-19 education also seems to have played an important role. Falls in real terms funding for sixth forms and colleges since 2010 may have led to fewer qualifications being taken, which in turn have contributed to narrower student choices.
To prevent a further narrowing of 16-19 education, the report calls on government to undertake a wholesale review of 16-19 funding, including reducing cuts, offering more targeted support for disadvantaged students, and ensuring that the funding system no longer discourages the take up of smaller qualifications, such as levels.

Also this week – the Independent Assessment Commission has published a report on the future of assessments and qualifications in England

Parliamentary Question: The effect of the high level of A*s at A-level on university admissions for students – this received a factual response.

Access & Participation

Deaf Students: The National Deaf Children’s Society released data over the summer highlighting the gap between deaf and hearing students.

34% of deaf students received two A-levels or equivalent in the 2020 exams compared to 55% of hearing students. The gap has increased from previous years.

The National Deaf Children’s Society stated that deafness is not a learning disability and the gulf between deaf and hearing students is an injustice now ingrained in the education system; they call on the Government to act swiftly.

Care & Estranged Voices: Portsmouth University produced the ‘From Our Experience’ podcast miniseries. Each podcast was created by current students with their own lived experiences of care or estrangement, the podcasts are all about the student’s own voices. The students chose the podcast topics and content. A rare opportunity to listen to the student voice in an easily accessible format.

Graduate Outcomes

During the summer the Higher Education Statistics Agency published HE graduate outcomes: open data 2018 to 2019. The difference in earnings between men and women remains stark, at 15 months post-graduation:

5,075 women earned £45,000 (7,410 men).
Only 5.2% of women were in the three highest-earning categories (men 10.8%)
60% of women earned salaries below £27,000 (men 50%)
Graduates earning between £24,000 to £26,999 most strongly felt their work was meaningful (58%).

The statistics are caveated by noting that the response rate for the Graduate Outcomes survey isn’t as high as would be liked yet (c 40-50% response).

Meanwhile, this week, the Behavioural Insights Team have published updated evidence on what works to reduce the gender pay gap for employers.

International

Two new HEPI blogs:

Parliamentary Questions

Sexual harassment

Inquiries and Consultations

Click here to view the updated inquiries and consultation tracker. Email us on policy@bournemouth.ac.uk if you’d like to contribute to any of the current consultations.

Other news

Creative diversity imbalance: Wonkhe – The All Party Parliamentary Group for Creative Diversity has launched a report in partnership with King’s College London and the University of Edinburgh examining equity, diversity and inclusion in the creative sector. The Creative Majority finds that those from middle class backgrounds are twice as likely to be employed in the creative sector than those from working class backgrounds. The report presents policy options for how to address this imbalance such as not using unpaid interns.

Subscribe!

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

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

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

JANE FORSTER | SARAH CARTER

VC’s Policy Advisor Policy & Public Affairs Officer

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

19 September 2021

Postdoc Appreciation Week – thank you to BU’s amazing postdocs

Becca Edwards

This week is UK Postdoc appreciation week (PAW), a celebration of the fantastic contribution postdocs and researchers make towards research and academic life in general. It’s a special time to showcase, recognise, and celebrate their efforts, and thank them for all they do!

Originally an initiative from the National Postdoc Association in the USA (National Postdoc Appreciation Week), it is now also celebrated in the UK, with the first ever UK/ROI-wide events organised in 2020 by a consortium of UK and Irish Universities.

In 2021, it is taking place from Monday 20 September to Friday 24 September.

During PAW, please use #LovePostdocs and #NPAW2021 in your Tweets!

Online participation is encouraged, so please celebrate the postdocs in your life, or if you’re a postdoc, share your profile.

And on behalf of RDS, can I say a huge thank you to our amazing postdocs at BU; you are a critical component of our research ecosystem and inspire our department every day.

16 September 2021

Health Research Authority – new final report requirements

Guidance, NHS, Research Ethics Suzy Wignall

Please see below for an update from the HRA –

Changes to the way you submit your final report

The Health Research Authority has implemented changes to final study reporting requirements. The changes apply to all studies across the UK which require ethics approval and which have not yet submitted a final report.

The Make It Public strategy set out our commitment to make transparency easy, make transparency the norm and make information public. We have now developed a standard dataset on research transparency which will be collected in the study final reports. Coupled with changes we have already made to help you plan at the start of a study how you will inform participants at the end, these changes are steps towards fulfilling that commitment.

In the future we will be able to see more clearly what proportion of studies are fulfilling transparency requirements, including information about study registration, publication of results, informing participants of the outcome of the study and the sharing of data and tissue (if applicable).

In standardising the information we request from you and the form for collecting this, we hope it will be easier for you to know what is expected.

See the new final report form.

If you have any questions, please email research.transparency@hra.nhs.uk

Read the news story on our website.

16 September 2021

Expression of Interest

mfancy

We are seeking Expressions of Interest in participating in an NIHR funded project to develop a patent protected mobile phone-based app to monitor impairment of sensory nerve function. The project will involve the development of a phone attachment device to couple vibrations from the phone to the body to assess nerve function. The developed phone attachment device will be used in a clinical study of diabetic patients.

The position holder will participate in or wholly undertake research and technical development of the mobile phone attachment. Using 3D printed parts, the position holder will model and develop innovative attachments of different morphology and complexity that can alter the vibration characteristics of mobile phones transmitting as a probe. Good 3D modelling knowledge and skills will be required together with experience of specific software packages (e.g. Solidworks), 3D scanning of shapes and 3D printing. The vibration characteristics of mobile phones with standardised devices will be evaluated and refined to automatically calibrate different phone vibrations and provide consistent readings. The post holder would contribute or be wholly responsible for producing printed parts and liaising with project/business partners and clinicians across the team and be involved in project management and dissemination of findings.

This position will be of interest to those who have relevant experience in software modelling, a mechanical/electronics engineering background with relevant technical skills. Experience of working in a multi-disciplinary team with experimental aptitude would be an advantage.

Key Objectives:

Work within a team and effectively support the technical development of the project
Develop attachment probes for different mobile phones using 3D technology
Design, model and print parts on 3D printing machines and test their functionality
Attend research meetings and project management meetings
Disseminate research findings through joint publications

Project management:

Assist the management of the project and communicate effectively with project team and partner Liaise with project partners across hospitals and industrial partners
Work with stakeholders from the Healthcare sector and user community
Comply with General Data Protection Regulation, Research Governance and

The post is remunerated and can be either P/T (2 years) or F/T (1 year) for suitably qualified candidates such as a PDRA or a PhD student who has completed their project work and is writing up/finished.

The closing date for EoIs is 29^th September 2021. If you are interested and wish to make a formal application or want to know more about this exciting project, please contact:

Professor Tamas Hickish

Tamas.hickish@uhd.nhs.uk

Mobile: 07702255509

16 September 2021

BU researchers launch Olympic and Paralympic analysis report

Knowledge Exchange, open access, Publishing Daniel Jackson

We are delighted to announce the publication of Olympic and Paralympic Analysis 2020: Mega events, media, and the politics of sport

Edited by Daniel Jackson, Alina Bernstein, Michael Butterworth, Younghan Cho, Danielle Sarver Coombs, Michael Devlin and Chuka Onwumechili

Featuring 114 contributors from leading academics from around the world – including several from BU staff and PGR students – this publication captures the immediate thoughts, reflections, and insights from the 2020 Olympic and Paralympic Games from the cutting edge of sport, communication and media research.

Published in the wake of the Tokyo 2020 Games, these contributions are short and accessible. Authors provide authoritative analysis of the Olympics and Paralympics, including research findings and new theoretical insights. Contributions come from a rich array of disciplinary influences, including media, communication studies, cultural studies, sociology, political science, and psychology.

As always, these reports are free to access.

The report can be found onhttps://olympicanalysis.org

Direct pdf download is available at:

https://bit.ly/Olympic_Paralympic_Analysis-2020_large

https://bit.ly/Olympic_Paralympic_Analysis-2020_small

The table of contents is below.

Section 1: Tokyo & Mega-Events

1. The typhoon games (Toby Miller)
2. A green Olympic legacy for future generations? (Brett Hutchins and Ben Glasson)
3. The rise of critical consciousness in Japan: An intangible and unintended legacy of the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games (Koji Kobayashi)
4. Host city and mega-events: Olympic legacy in Japan (John Horne)
5. Lessons from Tokyo: the impact of the Paralympics in Japan (Dennis J. Frost)
6. Let’s play! Inspiring an inclusive mindset with a hands-on Paralympic experience for children and teenagers in Japan (Olga Kolotouchkina and Carmen Llorente-Barroso)
7. The Olympic & Paralympic sponsorship without category exclusivity: Background of sponsorship exclusivity in Olympic and Paralympic Games (OPG) (Shintaro Sato)
8. Power sharing: Olympic sponsorship and the athlete’s personal brand (Bettina Cornwell)
9. What happened to Rule 40 at Tokyo 2020? (John Grady)
10. The Olympic Games and ambush marketing via social media (Gashaw Abeza)
11. The soft power of the Olympics in the age of Covid 19 (J. Simon Rofe)
12. Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games, nationalism, identity and soft power (Gayle McPherson and Solomon Ilevbare)
13. Tokyo 2020, East Asian geopolitics and Olympic diplomacy (Jung Woo Lee)
14. Cultural programming at Tokyo 2020: the impossible Olympic festival city? (Beatriz Garcia)
15. Anti-sex beds? Fake news! : why this video went massively viral? (Maki Hirayama)
16. Counting cases, counting medals: Containing the Olympic contagion during the Tokyo Games (Courtney M. Cox)
17. Public relations as the key in the 2020 Tokyo Olympic and Paralympic Games (Argyro Elisavet Manoli and Sungkyung Kim)
18. The Tokyo 2020 Organizing Committee’s veil of effective public relations to help save itself and the start of the Games (Karen Hartman)
19. Environmental leadership showcased in the Olympic Games (Brian P. McCullough)
20. Simone Biles and prioritizing athlete well-being (Kathleen Bachynski)
21. Pride and burden of striving for perfection at the Olympics (Wycliffe Njonorai)
22. Deliver a medal or apologize: A daunting task imposed on Japanese Olympians (Hatsuko Itaya)

Section 2: Media Coverage & Representation

23. What place is this? Tokyo’s made-for-television Olympics (David Rowe)
24. How do we truly interpret the Tokyo Olympic ratings? (Andrew C. Billings)
25. ‘A Games like no other’: The demise of FTA live Olympic sport? (Raymond Boyle)
26. The fleeting nature of an Olympic meme: Virality and IOC TV rights (Merryn Sherwood)
27. Tokyo 2021: the TV Olympics (Peter English)
28. The Olympic Channel: insights on its distinctive role in Tokyo 2020 (Xavier Ramon)
29. Reshaping the Olympics media coverage through innovation (José Luis Rojas Torrijos)
30. Temporality of emotionalizing athletes (Sae Oshima)
31. New Olympic sports: the mediatization of action sports through the Olympic Games 2020 Tokyo (Thomas Horky)
32. Media wins medal for coverage of athletes as people, instead of entertainers (Ryan Broussard)
33. Reporting at a distance. Stricter working conditions and demands on sports journalists during the Olympics (Jana Wiske)
34. Nigeria: Olympic Games a mystery for rural dwellers in Lagos (Unwana Akpan)
35. Tokyo 2020: A look through the screen of Brazilian television (William Douglas de Almeida and Katia Rubio)
36. Equestrian sports in media through hundred Olympic years. A roundtrip from focus to shade and back again? (Susanna Hedenborg and Aage Radmann)
37. An Olympic utopia: separating politics and sport. Primary notes after analyzing the opening ceremony media coverage of mainstream Spanish sport newspapers (Xavier Ginesta)
38. “Everything seemed very complicated”: Journalist experiences of covering the Tokyo 2020 Paralympic Games (Veronika Mackova)
39. “A ceremony for television”: the Tokyo 2020 media ritual (Andressa Fontes Guimarães-Mataruna, Adriano Lopes de Souza, Renan Petersen-Wagner, Doiara Silva dos Santos, Leonardo José Mataruna-Dos-Santos and Otávio Guimarães Tavares da Silva)
40. The paradox of the parade of nations: A South Korean network’s coverage of the opening ceremony at the 2020 Tokyo Olympics (Ji-Hyun Ahn)
41. Simone Biles, journalistic authority, and the ideology of sports news (Michael Mirer)
42. Representing high performance: Brazilian sports journalists and mass communication professionals discuss their philosophies on producing progressive Paralympic coverage (Fernanda Silva and John Watson)
43. How digital content creators are shaping meanings about world class para-athletes (Carolyn Jackson-Brown)
44. Is the Paralympic Games a second-class event? (Tatiane Hilgemberg)
45. Representations of gender in media coverage of the Tokyo 2020 Paralympic Games (Toni Bruce)
46. Reshaping the superhuman to the super ordinary: Observations on the Tokyo 2021 Paralympic games through Australian broadcasting coverage (Simon Darcy and Tracey J. Dickson)
47. Super heroes among us: A brief discussion of using the superhero genre to promote Paralympic Games and athletes (Cody T. Havard)
48. ”Unity in Diversity” – The varying media representations of female Olympic athletes (Riikka Turtiainen)
49. Why we need to see the “ugly” in women’s sports (Erin Whiteside)
50. Twitter conversations on Indian female athletes in Tokyo (Kulveen Trehan)
51. Between sexualization and de-sexualization: the representation of female athletes in Tokyo 2020 (Jörg-Uwe Nieland)
52. Megan Rapinoe: The scary Bear for many Americans? (Molly Yanity)
53. Representations of gender in the live broadcast of the Tokyo Olympics (Toni Bruce)
54. “The gender-equal games” vs “The IOC is failing black women”: narratives of progress and failure of the 2020 Tokyo Olympics (Cheryl Cooky)
55. The male and female sports journalists divide on the Twittersphere during Tokyo 2020 (Haim Hagay and Alina Bernstein)

Section 3: Performance & Identity

56. ‘The Games they are a-changin’’: footnotes on Olympic athletics in transition post-Tokyo 2020 (Christopher D. Tulloch)
57. Tokyo 2020: athlete welfare and coping with new anxieties (Emma Kavanagh and Keith D. Parry)
58. Tokyo Olympics: When athletes are faced with the impossible (Dikaia Chatziefstathiou)
59. Twitter helps normalize discussions on mental health beyond athletes (Yuya Kiuchi)
60. Communication of athlete risk with head injuries in the 2020 Olympics (David Cassilio)
61. Racist slurs, stubborn animals, and colonial fear (Karsten Senkbeil)
62. Tokyo 2021 and the LGBTQ athlete (Rory Magrath)
63. The media coverage of the Tokyo 2021 Paralympic Games: Visibility, progress and politics (Emma Pullen, Laura Mora and Michael Silk)
64. It’s complicated: Disability media and the Paralympic Games (Katie Ellis)
65. Companies escape attention as debate on women’s uniform rages (Steve Bien-Aime, Melanie Formentin and Michelle Crowley)
66. Policing the uniforms and sportswear of Tokyo 2020: Commercialism in the name of competition (Linda Fuller)
67. Despite “Gender Equal Olympics,” focus still on what women are wearing (Adrianne Grubic)
68. Black women and Tokyo 2020 games: a continued legacy of racial insensitivity and exclusion (Manase Kudzai Chiweshe)
69. Naomi Osaka Bearing the Torch for a Mixed Race Japan (Jennifer McClearen)
70. Bodies of change: Women’s artistic gymnastics in Tokyo 2021 (Carly Stewart and Natalie Barker-Ruchti)
71. How the female athletes of the Tokyo Olympics are reframing the way we think about motherhood (Kim Bissell and Tyana Ellis)
72. When women aren’t women enough to compete (Anne Osborne)

Section 4: Fandom & National Identity

73. Home advantage in the Summer Olympic Games: evidence from Tokyo 2020 and prospects for Paris 2024 (Girish Ramchandani)
74. Fans as MVP, or the need for sensuous audiences in sport (Meredith Bagley)
75. Silence in the stands: Does it matter for fans? (Dorothy Collins)
76. Red, white, and rivalry: A brief discussion of United States rivalry at the Tokyo Olympic Games (Cody Havard)
77. Empty stadiums and the other sites of Olympic fandom (Lou Antolihao)
78. Sports betting and the branded purity of the Olympics (Jason Lopez)
79. National and ethnic Chinese identities on the Indonesian badminton court (Friederike Trotier)
80. How much is too much home-nation focus in Olympic coverage? (Andrew Billings)
81. The Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games: British imperial identity affirmed (Edward Loveman)
82. Communicating corporate social responsibility at the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games (Jake Kucek)
83. Americans on ideological left more engaged in Summer Olympics (Darin W. White)
84. South Korea’s changing status and perspective on Japan (Seok Lee)
85. The Men’s 1500 metres: Not quite erasing the ghosts of history (Garry Whannel)
86. Ghana: Poor local organizing, and absence of football team dampens interest (Ernest Acheampong and Ralph Frimpong)
87. Historical disputes, national identity, and the South Korea-Japan summit that did not happen (Guy Podoler)
88. Pop culture diplomacy: Japan’s use of videogames, anime to promote the Olympics and appeal to younger audiences (Adolfo Gracia Vázquez)
89. At the intersection of COVID-19 and Tokyo Olympics 2020: Vlogs and the expression of Chinese nationalist sentiments (Tianwei Ren)
90. Fandom and digital media during the Tokyo 2020 Olympic Games: A Brazilian perspective using @TimeBrasil Twitter data (Renan Petersen-Wagner, Andressa Fontes Guimarães-Mataruna, Adriano Lopes de Souza, Doiara Silva dos Santos, Leonardo José Mataruna-Dos-Santos and Otávio Guimarães Tavares da Silva)
91. National hierarchy in Israeli Olympic discourses (Ilan Tamir)

Section 5: Politics of Sport

92. At Tokyo Games, athlete activism takes front row seat despite IOC’s attempts to silence athletes (Yannick Kluch, Nina Siegfried, Mary A. Hums and Eli A. Wolff)
93. Transgender participation at the Tokyo Olympics: Laurel Hubbard and a media tempest (Holly Thorpe, Shannon Scovel and Monica Nelson)
94. The sacred space of the Olympics (Anthony Cavaiani)
95. Media frames and the ‘humanity’ of athletes (Adam Rugg)
96. We want reform (Shaun M. Anderson)
97. In search of voice: behind the remarkable lack of protest at the Tokyo Paralympics (Filippo Trevisan)
98. The revolt of the Black athlete continues (Letisha Engracia Cardoso Brown)
99. WeThe15 shines a spotlight on disability activism (Damian Haslett and Brett Smith)
100. Will #WeThe85 finally include #WeThe15 as a legacy of Tokyo 2020? (Simon Darcy and Tracey J. Dickson)
101. Activism starts with representation: IPC Section 2.2 and the Paralympics as a platform for social justice (Nina Siegfried, Dr. Yannick Kluch, Mary A. Hums and Eli A. Wolff)
102. The colonization of the athletic body (Billy Hawkins)
103. Forced hijab and female athletes in postrevolutionary Iran (Shahrzad Enderle)
104. Pay equity & the Tokyo 2020 Olympics (Ellen Staurowsky)
105. Equal remuneration for a Paralympian (Mark Brooke)
106. Rooting for U.S. Olympians: Patriotism or polarization? (Amy Bass)
107. Anti-Olympics activism (Jules Boykoff)
108. The new kids on the block: Action sports at the Tokyo Olympic Games (Holly Thorpe and Belinda Wheaton)
109. Is there space on the podium for us all? (Jan Burns)
110. Softball’s field of Olympic dreams (Pamela Creedon)
111. Now you see them, now you don’t: Absent nations at Tokyo Paralympic Games (Nancy Quinn and Laura Misener)
112. The Tokyo Paralympics as a platform for change? Falling well short of sport and media ‘opportunities for all’ (Gerard Goggin and Brett Hutchins)
113. Tokyo 2020 Paralympics: inspirations and legacies (David McGillivray)
114. What social media outrage about Sha’Carri Richardson’s suspension could mean for the future of anti-doping policies (Natalie Brown-Devlin, Gary Wilcox, and Kristen Leah Sussman)

15 September 2021

Last Chance to attend Free Webinar on VR for Stroke Rehabilitation

vdubey

Registration for this event is now closed due to bumper turn out but you can still join this event directly following this link:

EU Interreg AiBle – VR Games for Stroke Rehabilitation Workshop Webinar, Thu 16 Sep 2021 13:00 -17.30

https://teams.microsoft.com/l/meetup-join/19%3ameeting_YzI1YzI4ZmQtZmRhZC00MTlmLThmYmMtNzZmMGNmMWNjODlj%40thread.v2/0?context=%7b%22Tid%22%3a%22ede29655-d097-42e4-bbb5-f38d427fbfb8%22%2c%22Oid%22%3a%2223912e64-5936-4adc-a7af-c052f91862d9%22%7d

See you there!

15 September 2021

Are you a mother working in Academia? Your assistance is needed!

Sara Ashencaen Crabtree

Are you a mother working in Academia? Do you know of mothers who are?

If so, then we need your assistance! The unforeseen Covid-19 pandemic has resulted in great professional and personal challenges for all academics but particularly mothers. Working from home, home-schooling and periodical closure of schools, nurseries and other childcare settings is the ‘new normal’, which is why we are keen to hear your unique experiences.

Our BU research team is passionate about developing interventions and strategies to support mother’s wellbeing, work life balance, and career progression.

Subsequently we are currently running a short online survey is to collect information to help further understand the experiences of mothers with young children (aged 0-16) working in paid positions in academia during the Covid-19 pandemic. We would love you to share your experience and support by completing the survey (if eligible) and/or sharing the link to the survey with your academic networks. The survey should only take 10 minutes, and findings will inform interventions and strategies to support women’s wellbeing and work-life balance.

We would like to invite you to take part if you meet the following inclusion criteria:

You identify as a woman and as a mother;

You have a child/children (that you identify as the mother of) living at home aged 0-16 years,

You are employed in a paid academic position (including funded research degree/post-doctoral researcher).

The link to the survey is https://bournemouth.onlinesurveys.ac.uk/exploring-the-experiences-of-mothers-with-young-children

If you would like more information, please access the Participant Information Sheet.

We do, however, acknowledge that the role of motherhood extends from the moment a woman sees or identifies herself as a mother and spans fully across the life course. Whilst women at all stages of motherhood have experienced vast challenges during this time (from having fertility treatment put on hold either permanently or temporarily, to being separated from their adult children) this survey will explore the experiences unique to those with young, dependent children, and the challenges associated with working in academic positions whilst caring and home-educating them.

We would really appreciate if you could share this information with your academic networks as the more responses we receive the better for understanding the experiences of motherhood and academia in the pandemic.

Thank you!

Joanne Mayoh, Sukanya Ayatakshi Endow and Abier Hamidi

Research Leads

15 September 2021

Visiting Postgraduate Researchers – Academic Mentor Roles and Responsibilities

PG research tstroud

Postgraduate Researchers (PGRs) visiting other Higher Education Institutions to undertake specific research as part of their research degree is a well-established practice across the sector. This is of benefit not only to the individual PGR, who is able to extend their research experience under the supervision of subject experts outside their own institution and undertake additional professional and personal development, but also helps to establish and enhance the academic links between Bournemouth University and other institutions which may lead to further collaborative research opportunities.

“Having a Visiting Postgraduate Researcher (VPGR) at Bournemouth University helped to further contribute to our Departments growing expertise base and cemented the Department and Faculty of Science and Technology as an internationally recognised and attractive place to study. The Visiting Postgraduate Researcher’s presence also enriched the Faculty’s current PGR community through the sharing of approaches and perspectives and helped to forge closer links between BU and colleagues from the VPGRs home institution”.

Academic, Faculty of Science and Technology

All VPGRs will be allocated an individual mentor, within their specific subject discipline who will act as the key contact during their visit, encouraging the PGR to achieve their full potential, and to complete their research project within the allotted timescale. Following enrolment, the academic mentor should:

Play a key role in inducting the VPGR into the Faculty, including providing introductions to relevant staff and students in the department and informing the VPGRs of activities in which they might to wish to participate in (e.g. Departmental Seminar Series, Research Development Programme etc)
Have regular contact with the VPGR, at least on a monthly basis and record attendance on ResearchPAD. For VPGRs on a Student Route visa, academic mentors must ensure that engagement is recorded on ResearchPAD every 59 days to compile with Home Office regulations
Agree upon a clear set of aims and objectives for the VPGR for the period of their stay
Ensure that VPGRs are aware of BU regulations, specifically 8A Code of Practice for Research Degrees
Ensure VPGRs have completed all Bournemouth University Health and Safety Requirements.

Although the primary source of academic support will be the academic mentor, the Doctoral College and Faculty Postgraduate Research administrators are also there to support the VPGR throughout their time at BU. The Doctoral College is committed to inspiring and mentoring the postgraduate community at BU, including VPGRs, through its role in PGR Student Experience. In addition, the Doctoral College has the central role of overseeing the development, implementation and quality assurance of BU research degrees, including the provision for VPGRs. The Faculty Postgraduate Research Administrators are also an important source of administrative advice and support and will be a key contact throughout the VPGR period of study.

For further information on this scheme, please visit our page on the staff intranet. If you have a had an enquiry from a potential Visiting PGR, you can signpost them to the application page on our website.

If you have any further questions about the VPGR scheme please contact PGRadmissions@bournemouth.ac.uk for new applications or the relevant faculty postgraduate research administration team for current VPGRs:

BUBS PGR Admin: bubsresearch@bournemouth.ac.uk

FHSS PGR Admin: fhssresearch@bournemouth.ac.uk

SciTech PGR Admin: scitechresearch@bournemouth.ac.uk

FMC PGR Admin: FMCresearch@bournemouth.ac.uk

14 September 2021

REMINDER: RDS Funding Development Briefing tomorrow – spotlight ERC

Funding opportunities apekalski

Reminder: The RDS Funding Development Briefing will be tomorrow at 12 noon. The spotlight will be on the European Research Council (ERC) funding.

We will cover:

Overview of the new schemes
How to apply
Q & A

For those unable to attend, the session will be recorded and shared on Brightspace here.

Invites for these sessions have been disseminated via your Heads of Department.

13 September 2021

BU Early Career Researchers Network 2021-22

Post-award, Public engagement, Publishing Theresa

At BU we have an established network of Early Career Researchers (ECRs) across the faculties which meets on a monthly basis.

This provides support for Early Career Researchers from the experienced academic leaders of the network, Dr. Sam Goodman, and Prof. Ann Hemingway, as well as from peers. It’s also a great forum for networking and making connections that can be of great benefit to an academic’s research career.

We plan to continue holding our monthly networking events online for the time being, with a view to trialling at least a couple of hybrid events later in this academic year. Following on from your feedback, we have more themed discussions this year, although there will always be time for some more general Q&A during the meetings. Our events remain scheduled on Wednesday afternoons, in anticipation that the teaching workload is a little lighter at that time.

Date	Title	Start	End
22/09/2021	Introduction to the Research Concordat	15:30	16:30
20/10/2021	ECR Career Development	16:00	17:00
24/11/2021	Introduction to NIHR	16:00	17:00
12/01/2022	Open Surgery	13:00	14:00
09/02/2022	ECR Showcase	16:00	17:00
09/03/2022	Dealing with Rejection	16:00	17:00
20/04/2022	Pay, Performance, Progression	16:00	17:00
11/05/2022	Publishing	16:00	17:00
08/06/2022	Public Engagement	16:00	17:00

Please book via the staff intranet page.

BU is committed to the UK Research Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers, which aims to make Universities provide a supportive employment structure and offer researchers career development opportunities. BU also holds the European Commission HR Excellence in Research award. The Early Career Researcher Network is supported as part of the Research and Knowledge Exchange Development Framework (RKEDF), providing training and development to BU academics at all stages of their research careers.

Are you an Early Career Researcher ?

For the purposes of this friendly support network, anyone who wishes to conduct academic research, particularly externally-funded research, but who feels they may be lacking in experience, is welcome to come and join the network.

If you have any queries about being an Early Career Researcher at BU, or the support BU provides to Early Career Researchers, please contact us at RKEDF@bournemouth.ac.uk.

13 September 2021

Reflections on an Academic Fellowship with the Parliamentary Office of Science & Technology (POST).

Business Engagement John Oliver

An Academic Fellowship with POST provides a unique opportunity to work with a range of teams and committees within the UK Parliament. Whilst much of the description of this role focuses on writing briefings for parliamentarians, assisting with a select committee inquiries or carrying out research -my own experience was very different. So, my advice would be to not limit your aspirations and thinking about what a fellowship entails.

Having made it through the first Open Call Application stage, I was invited to produce a more detailed application which also involved a helpful telephone call with one of the staff to discuss my application in more detail. It is worth noting that at every stage of the recruitment process, the application forms and FAQs were very clear.
Why did I apply for an Academic Fellowship?

My aim is to produce research that has an impact on business performance and policy. As such, my motivation for the fellowship was:
• to gain an understanding and experience of working life at the House of Commons;
• to develop new working relationships and grow my professional network;
• to develop new research impact opportunities with parliamentary stakeholders for my research.

An engaged and friendly working environment
One aspect of the fellowship that did take me by surprise was how engaged and friendly every member of staff was with me and my project. Everyone I met provided me with time and showed a genuine interest in what I was doing. The POST Fellowships are a way for UK Parliament to ‘open its doors’ to a range of people from outside its normal sphere of influence in order to draw on their expertise and think about new ways of working. Importantly, this knowledge exchange process has been mutually beneficial and I have learned a lot from using my knowledge and expertise in a working environment significantly different to what I’m used to!

Opening doors I never knew existed!
My fellowship ‘centred’ on developing a co-created a scenario plan with the Library Services team that envisioned a future library service provision that is fit for purpose in the long-term. Given that the £6bn restoration and renewal programme for the Palace of Westminster would result in significant challenges for parliamentarians and house staff, my original proposal provided a timely opportunity to contribute to the Library Service team’s strategic deliberations on its future size, shape and provision.

I deliberately used the term ‘centred’ because the fellowship gives you access to a range of other areas and activities, that at the start of process I couldn’t even have imagined. In particular, I was able to disseminate a broad range of research findings to various committees and individuals that previously I would not have been aware of nor had access to. POST also send around details of training courses and events that will help you develop new knowledge and skills, from producing infographics to the detailed workings of inquiries and how to track research impact.

Looking ahead
I have no doubt that the contacts and relationships that I have made in UK Parliament will form an important part of my professional network for some time. I have also been asked to join a new parliamentary committee and co-publish an academic paper with my POST supervisors on the project. Further ahead, I’m hoping that these activities will develop significant impact opportunities based on my scenario planning research.

Many thanks to Sarah Carter, BU Policy And Public Affairs Officer, for her support and guidance during the entire fellowship!

NB. A version of this blog post first appeared on the University Policy Engagement Network website.

13 September 2021

The Institute for Modelling Socio-Environmental Transitions is going to COP26!

fcoward

Even given everything that’s been going on in 2021 so far, somehow the fact that the UN Climate Summet COP26 is taking place in Glasgow in November has still figured significantly in news agendas. In fact, much of what’s been happening in 2021 – heat ‘domes’ in Northwest Coast North America and freezing weather in the American Southwest, devastating floods in Germany, heatwaves in Siberia, rain on the Greenland Ice Shelf, to name just a few recent headlines – has raised the profile of, and expectations for, COP26. While of course not immune to criticism and skepticism, the conference represents a vital opportunity for climate scientists and other researchers to discuss the issues with policymakers and stakeholders from across the globe. At the Institute for Modelling Socio-Environmental Transitions (IMSET), we’re ensuring that the huge time-depth of knowledge and data on environmental change and human responses that archaeology, palaeoecology and related historical disciplines can provide are taken seriously and contribute to a better understanding of how and why climates change, their effects on human societies, and how we can mitigate the worst of those effects. We’re delighted to announce that IMSET has now been officially recognised by the UNFCC as an observer organization, and several members of IMSET will be attending COP26 in Glasgow. Are you working on climate and environmental change and/or its effects on human societies and would like to know more? If so, we’d love to hear from you! Drop us a line at IMSET@bournemouth.ac.uk.

The UN Climate Change conference UK 2021 is going ahead in Glasgow this November (https://ukcop26.org/)

13 September 2021

NEW PUBLICATION ‘Barriers and enablers to implementing ‘DEALTS2’ simulation-based train-the–trainer dementia training programme

jonesc

Many congratulations to Dr Michelle Heward, Dr Michele Board, Ashley Spriggs, Dina Blagden and Prof Jane Murphy from the ADRC for their new publication ‘Barriers and enablers to implementing ‘DEALTS2’ simulation-based train-the–trainer dementia training programme in hospital settings across England: a qualitative study” in BMC Health Service Research freely available now via this open access link: https://rdcu.be/cxuRO

The team was commissioned by Health Education England (HEE) to develop and evaluate ‘DEALTS 2’, a national simulation-based education toolkit informed by the Humanisation Values Framework, developed at Bournemouth University and based on an experiential learning approach to facilitate positive impacts on practice. This paper reports on qualitative data collected from trainers nationally across England on the barriers and facilitators they faced when implementing the DEALTS2 dementia training toolkit in their employing Trusts.

This builds on other papers about DEALTS2, outlining:

(i) the impact of the DEALTS2 training on trainer knowledge of dementia and confidence to deliver innovative training approaches: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0260691720315446

(ii) the protocol for evaluating the impact of this intervention on practice across England: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-psychogeriatrics/article/abs/design-and-evaluation-protocol-for-dealts-2-a-simulationbased-dementia-education-intervention-for-acute-care-settings/0D6D58EB6D24257F6454E6AB0AF69E7D

13 September 2021

HE policy update – w/e 10th September 2021

Industry collaboration, innovation, international, open access jforster

Hello everyone! After a long (not always hot) summer, we are pleased to be back with a catch up of all the summer news to get you ready for the exciting policy things we have to look forward to. Some of it was highlighted in the Secretary of State’s speech at the UUK conference this week (see more on this below). Back in May we did a horizon scan (here for BU readers) which covers most of it. A quick reminder of the things we have to look forward to:

The two big bills: the Skills bill and the Freedom of Speech bill.
Outcome of the PQA consultation run by the Department for Education – GW was not specific about when we can expect it, but it could be relatively soon. Questions still remain about the mechanism for change, as it’s not within the current remit of the OfS, and the plans they were consulting on couldn’t be implemented without a sector wide big bang approach. “Persuasion” would seem to be the most likely approach, with a threat of legislation if not. It’s controversial because universities have autonomy (at the moment) on admissions.
On that point about autonomy, we can expect the response to Augar (finally) with the Comprehensive Spending Review, which is now planned for 27^th And strong hints from GW that minimum entry requirements will be part of that. Billed as a way of controlling the spiralling cost of the student loan book, they can actually implement that one despite the autonomy thing, by saying that it’s fine, they just won’t fund student loans for those who don’t meet the requirements. Although headline grabbing, it is unlikely to make a huge difference to actual student numbers across the UK. And of course it will be challenged as a retrograde step for social mobility and levelling up.
So while we’re talking about social mobility, GW had things to say about that too, using had some dodgy data on outcomes to remind us that he believes that the growth in student numbers is supported by recruitment onto low quality courses that just shouldn’t be allowed. The current OfS consultation on licence condition relating to quality is part 1 of two, the second consultation due in the Autumn will be about absolute minimum baseline standards. Taken together, these changes to the regulatory framework are very significant, not just in the implications for potential future funding arrangements but also in terms of the internal quality assurance and governance implications.
And linked to all that, we are also expecting a consultation on a new TEF framework in the Autumn.

You must have missed all this? No?

Freedom of Speech Bill

Evidence on the HE Freedom of Speech Bill was heard in Parliament as part of the Committee Stage consideration of the Bill. This is a controversial Bill partly because the sector claims there isn’t a significant problem and commonly-cited example are either misrepresentations or overstate the problem. Also, in practice, implementation of the legislation will be very difficult given the scope for conflicts with other bits of legislation. One person’s legitimate protest might be seen as an attack on another person’s right to speak freely, just as one person’s expression of free speech can be experienced by another person as a hateful attack linked to identity. Where the lines will fall and who will draw them will be extremely controversial.

If you are interested in some of the thorny difficulties do read Research Professional’s coverage of this week’s sessions here, and this article features an academic who is in favour of the Bill.

There was also a separate parliamentary exchange on freedom of speech – content followed the Government’s favoured lines.

One of the witnesses presenting evidence to Parliament was Smita Jamdar, Partner and Head of Education at a law firm. She has written a short and informative blog calmly highlighting the drawbacks and limitations of the Bill. It is worth a read. Snippets:

If there is a dispute whether speech is or isn’t ‘within the law’ how can a body like the OfS judge that? That is and should be a matter for the courts. Interestingly, in the US, when the Trump administration proposed withholding funding from institutions that did not protect the constitutional right to free speech, it ultimately concluded that there would need to be a court decision that the constitutional right had been infringed before a regulatory or funding body could impose a penalty.
…the new Director of Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom… [should] be able to demonstrate impartiality…At the moment it will be an appointment of the secretary of state. There should be more safeguards around the appointment process.
The bill defines free speech as the freedom to express views without ‘adverse consequences’, and this is both practically and philosophically absurd to try to enforce by legislation. We cannot legislate human nature, so while universities can facilitate free speech, they cannot and should not police people’s reactions to it, except to the extent that those reactions breach expected standards of conduct.
I think all they [universities] can do is ensure they facilitate the right to speak and to act where anything is done that constitutes a breach of its disciplinary codes. They cannot be responsible for as abstract a concept as ‘adverse consequences’.

Spending Review, Fees & Student Loan rates

On Tuesday the Chancellor launched the 2021 Spending Review (SR21), which will conclude on 27 October 2021 alongside an Autumn Budget. The three-year review will set UK government departments’ resource and capital budgets for 2022-23 to 2024-25 and the devolved administrations’ block grants. Here’s the letter.

The Spending Review is significant for the HE sector as we are awaiting the official Government response to the Augar Review, particularly on which elements might be adopted. Since the report Augar has distanced himself from the fee cuts which made all the headlines, however, the Government is looking to reduce the cost of funding HE and student loans in particular, as well as seeking to refocus its contribution towards its national priorities.

As this parliamentary question highlights changes may come in a number of forms including changing the terms of student loans retrospectively. Wonkhe have a blog – Will Westminster ministers dare to lower the student loan repayment threshold after a week of concern about the tax rates facing graduates? Jim Dickinson reads the runes. As mentioned above, requiring a minimum level of prior achievement to qualify for a student loan has also been on the cards since GW dragged it out of the back of the Augar report in January. Having a GCSE in English may be part of that after stories of a scandalous approach to grammar and spelling in university assessments hit the headlines earlier this year – that has found its way into the OfS quality regime now as well.

If you enjoy the speculation around the Budget you may like to read this Resolution Foundation briefing note which explores the Chancellor’s choices ahead of the autumn spending review.

Returning to student loans, Universities Minister Michelle Donelan, has issued a written ministerial statement announcing a temporary reduction in the (Plan 2 & postgraduate) maximum student loan interest rate due to the recent decline in the prevailing market rate for comparable unsecured personal loans. The maximum Post-2012 undergraduate income contingent repayment student loan interest rate and the postgraduate income contingent repayment student loan interest rate will be 4.1% between 1 October and 31 December. From 1 January 2022, the Post-2012 undergraduate and postgraduate income contingent repayment student loan interest rates will revert to the standard rate +3%. Further caps may be put in place should the prevailing market rate continue to be below student loan interest rates. More details in the DfE press release.

Meanwhile the House of Commons Library have published one of their lovely briefings on undergraduate student finance.

If your work interests cover student loans you’ll probably want to take in the full paper. He’s a teaser on living costs:

How much do students spend on living costs?

The 2021 Student Money Survey from Save the Student found that:

On average, students across the UK spent £810 per month on living costs. Just over half of this figure was spent on rent.
Spending was below average in Scotland (£781 per month), Wales (£800), and Northern Ireland (£756). Within England costs varied from £751 per month in the North West to £896 in London.
66% of students worked part-time to help fund their education. This is lower than in previous surveys due to the pandemic’s impact on businesses.
65% of students received a maintenance loan, 38% received some form of grant scholarship or bursary.
66% of students received some support from their parents. On average this was worth £121 per month.
76% worried about making ends meet, 60% said their maintenance loan was not large enough, and 43% said they had not been made aware of the full range of funding options available to them such as scholarships, grants, and bursaries.

Research

Open Access. UKRI published its long-awaited Open Access Policy, determining which route to publication the funder will support with its £8 billion annual budget. Under the new rules, any UKRI-funded articles submitted for publication after 1 April 2022 will need to be made openly available with immediate effect on publication. The policy is not without controversy. The announcement follows a two-year consultation period with institutions, researchers and publishers—some of whom have criticised the plan, citing worries about profits and freedom for researchers to publish in their venue of choice. It also includes a new requirement for monographs, book chapters and edited collections published from 1 January 2024 to be made open access within 12 months of publication. UKRI will provide increased funding of up to £46.7m per annum to support the implementation of the policy.

For peer-reviewed research articles, key requirements of the new policy include:

immediate open access for research articles submitted for publication on or after 1 April 2022
either via the version of record in a journal or publishing platform, or by depositing the authors accepted manuscript (or if permitted by the publisher the version of record) in an institutional or subject repository
CC BY licence and CC BY ND by exception, including a requirement to notify publisher of licensing at the point of submission.

Key requirements of the new policy for monographs published on or after 1 January 2024 include:

the final version of a publications or accepted manuscript being made open access via a publisher’s website, platform or repository, within a maximum of 12 months of publication
CC BY licence preferred, but NC and ND licences are permitted.

To support successful implementation of the policy UKRI will work with the sector to put in place supporting interventions, including:

substantially increasing UKRI funding support for open access in recognition that this is required to meet the new policy intent and the extension of our policy to long-form outputs
dedicated funding to Jisc in support of sector open access negotiations, with guidance and infrastructure to aid the up-take of UKRI compliant open access options
continuing our work to support culture change around publication, in that research should be recognised for its intrinsic merit rather than where it has been published.

R&D Spend. The Office for National Statistics published the annual estimates of research and development performed and funded by business enterprise, higher education, government, UK Research & Innovation and private non-profit organisations:

Expenditure on research and development (R&D) that was performed in the UK rose by £1.3 billion (3.4%) to £38.5 billion in 2019; but this was the lowest percentage growth since 2013.
The largest components of R&D expenditure were the business sector at £25.9 billion (67% of the UK total), followed by the higher education sector at £9.1 billion (24%).
Total R&D expenditure represented 1.74% of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2019; the long-term trend has been for very small growth over time with the value up from 1.59% in 2008 and 1.72% in 2018.
Funding of UK R&D from overseas increased by 4.1% to £5.6 billion in 2019 compared with 2018; this was 0.8% higher than the peak in 2014 of £5.5 billion.
The UK spent £577 per head of population on R&D in 2019; this is up from £561 in 2018.

ODA. Universities UK International (UUKi) published the findings from their ODA survey 2021 which set out to understand the impact of ODA R&D funding on UK universities and how the UK can continue to use ODA R&D with developing countries in support of the UN SDGs and UK strategic priorities. Recommendations:

There must continue to be significant public funding available for research on global challenges as defined by the UN SDG framework in partnership with LMIC partners, whether as part of the ODA budget or the R&D budget

ODA-funded R&D schemes such as GCRF and Newton have helped UK HEIs to engage with global challenges and create partnerships with researchers and institutions in LMICs.
Universities and their partners want to continue working to address global challenges. The source of funding is less important than the activity which it supports.

Funding for research programmes, once confirmed by a UK funder, must be guaranteed for the life of the project to ensure that legal commitments are met.

Policy and funding stability are critical to developing long-term, sustainable and impactful research partnerships.
The impact of mid-project grant terminations or cuts on LMIC partners is acute. The UK’s reputation as a trusted partner is severely undermined by such actions.

Future global challenges funding should include dedicated support for universities to build LMIC partnerships through mobility and other career development opportunities, laying the foundations for successful projects further down the line.

Universities have benefitted from a flexible funding mechanism (GCRF QR/institutional/block awards) which has allowed them to build fruitful partnerships through pump-priming and career development activity.
These types of activities are a key part of research and development but are now at risk. Funders should consider how these activities will be supported in future allocations.

Equitable partnerships should remain a core principle of any future funding for global challenges.

LMIC partners should not be overburdened by administrative requirements.

Quick News

The Government announced in injection of £113 million for the UKRI Future Leaders Fellowships scheme, in total the Future Leaders scheme is promised £900 million over a 3-year period. Science Minister Amanda Solloway: Supported by £113 million, the Future Leaders Fellowships will equip our most inventive scientists and researchers across the country with the tools to develop and bring their innovations to market quickly – all while helping to secure the UK’s status as a global science superpower.
Wonkhe blog: Alternative metrics that better reflect the attributes of good-quality research are needed.
The Regulatory Horizons Council has published a new report on the future of technological innovations and how regulation can act as an enabler. The paper evaluates the future socio-economic context in which technological innovations will be delivered from 2021-30. The results are based on a series of interviews with experts focused on engineering and energy, health and life sciences, and digital data and cyber technologies.
UKRI announced support for 200 doctoral students to work on pressing research challenges with UK businesses through a £24 million investment. The studentships are through ICASE – Industrial Co-operative Awards in Science and Technology.
Researcher organisation Vitae, supported by UKRI, has published their latest survey results on the impact of the pandemic on researchers and research activities. Familiar themes emerge – poor mental health, increased bullying and Covid caring responsibilities and shielding had a big negative impact, but regaining the commute time and unexpected opportunities were positives. It also questioned the perception of researchers on their future careers:
- 24% predicted a very negative impact of COVID-19 on their career prospects (this rises to 34% of postgraduate researchers and 28% of research staff)
- 60% predicted a negative impact or a very negative impact on their career prospects. This rises to 65% for those with child-caring responsibilities and 62% for female researchers.

UKRI say: One of the key action points highlighted in this survey is for UKRI to drive ahead with our work to improve research culture. We will continue to work collaboratively to promote and support an inclusive, respectful and safe working culture, including through our ongoing implementation of the recently launched People and Culture Strategy.

Innovate UK funding competition winners for 2021 by combined authority area.

Williamson speaks…

Gavin Williamson, Secretary of State for Education, spoke at the UUK annual conference this week. Below are the key points, none of which are new news, although chilling in terms of tone. The content was as per the Research Professional predictions.

There has been relentless parodying of GW on twitter and in the press after he spoke about the importance of face to face contact – through a video link. Wonkhe have entertaining coverage of the speech. Post-event Research Professional’s short write up was cynically entertaining too.

Quality:

We need to recognise that just sending kids with low academic achievement into universities isn’t going to magically change them into highly mobile graduates – indeed, it’s more likely to lead them to failure and poor outcomes. And that there is no substitute for the hard grind of driving up standards.
Quality is what will deliver a meaningful qualification that offers the right skills and preparation for a working life. And quality is what will justify the huge investment that students are making to study. But quality covers more than teaching. Quality extends to the value of the degree. You represent the best of the best but to keep that reputation for excellence, you must be vigilant in showing that the degrees awarded to students are a reliable indicator of academic achievement.
Students and employers need to know that a degree means something. And not all degrees are created equal. There have been too many instances where pockets of low quality have undermined the teaching or value for money that students and taxpayers rightly expect.
…It is so disappointing to see some in the field of higher education cling to the myth that the quality of a course or degree makes no difference to a student’s outcomes. While it may be comforting for some institutions, what it is actually saying is that they don’t believe in education.

Back to campus:

I think all of us would agree that every student is entitled to expect a high-quality, rich learning experience. As they plan their futures, they will be asking themselves how best they can get it… The [Student Academic Experience Survey] survey shows that in-person teaching is now one of the top three areas singled out for improvement by students. This is something we cannot ignore. While the switch to online teaching was a necessary and vital way of keeping young people learning in as safe a way as possible, we have now moved on and students quite rightly expect that they can study in person alongside other students
…What I do want to make clear is that I do not expect to see online learning used as a cost-cutting measure. If there’s a genuine benefit to using technology, then it should be done – and Sir Michael Barber’s Digital Teaching and Learning Review sets out some of the opportunities. But that is not an excuse to not also deliver high quality face-to-face teaching…And let’s face it, in this new era of choice students don’t have to settle for poor value.

Admissions: The last two years have emphasised the importance of delivering on our plans for PQA – not only to stabilise the system but to empower students to have the very best opportunities to succeed. That is why I am determined to accelerate our plans to bring forward this important reform

Access & Participation:

Working with schools is still in favour, higher level technical provision remains a goal – disappointing that Williamson links it with a statement on disadvantage (i.e. it’s for other peoples’ children), and are SpLD students to be further disadvantaged? Note alternatives such as assistive technology are not mentioned by Williamson.

…we will shortly be appointing a new Director of Fair Access and Participation…. I’d like to see our access regime re-centred on the principles of equality of opportunity and high standards, and to see higher education providers working in partnership with schools to drive up attainment.

A confusing bit on technical education:

I believe more universities should be more willing to carve out expertise in more technical fields, excelling on a different set of axes to those used by the traditional league tables. Too often, this can be interpreted as meaning ‘everyone must have prizes’, or that all universities and courses are equal. This is not what I mean: Professor David Phoenix’s Social Mobility Index demonstrates that some universities, such as my old university of Bradford, Aston and Imperial College and others, perform particularly strongly at transforming students from disadvantaged backgrounds into highly employable graduates. A real-world focus is not about lowering aspirations, but achieving excellence through a focus on STEM, applied research, close links with employers and a ruthless focus on employability.
Lowering the bar for certain groups of students serves no one. It is patronising to expect less from some students under the guise of supporting them. Effective academic writing requires good spelling, punctuation and grammar from every student.

Wonkhe on Access:

Millward is leaving, and will shortly be replaced by someone that DfE appoints who Williamson is confident will: [From the speech]“See our access regime re-centred on the principles of equality of opportunity and high standards, and to see higher education providers working in partnership with schools to drive up attainment.”
That’s code for ‘less equality of outcomes, please’ – handy if your access outcomes would be affected by OfS causing the shuttering of some provision based on the where the baseline is – and to drive home the point, he also said this about subjects with a proceed figure of under 50%: [From the speech]“Students recruited on to such courses should not be able to be counted against a university’s access targets for access.” That’s actually a pretty significant statement. We all know that some subjects ‘carry the weight’ on access in some universities – and it’s long been argued that it’s bizarre that OfS doesn’t publish APP data at subject level by provider, a problem if you’re trying to understand social mobility in medicine or law or whatever. Looks like that will shortly change.

Wonkhe correcting the line on apprenticeships –

Williamson’s speech was largely a collection of the government’s greatest hits…and repeats of dodgy lines like this one on apprenticeships: “Five years after completion, the average Higher Apprentice earns more than the average graduate.”
That that’s a stat skewed by a very small number of high level apprenticeships in “leadership” that are primarily taken by people already in well-paid jobs – something in other speeches he’s appeared keen to put a stop to – was not mentioned.
And confusingly we got both “we need to do something for the 50% that don’t go to university” and “we need to change the choices of many that do”. Young people deserve to have choices, but only ones approved by DfE. Who is it that the government’s reform agenda is designed to address again?

Research Professional weren’t impressed with Williamson: The rest of the speech bordered on incomprehension and mutual contradiction as the education secretary said that “sending kids with low educational attainment to university will not turn them into high-flying graduates” before going on to praise David Phoenix’s social mobility index, which demonstrates precisely the ways in which universities turn disadvantaged entrants with poor results on paper into [checks notes] “high-flying graduates”.

Culture wars:

Yet too often, some universities seem more interested in pursuing a divisive agenda involving cancelling national heroes, debating about statues, anonymous reporting schemes for so-called micro-aggressions and politicising their curricula. Vice-chancellors who allow these initiatives to take place in their name must understand that they do nothing but undermine public confidence, widen divisions, and damage the sector.
I call on you to help bring our nation together, instead of driving our nation apart. Rather than manufacturing offences from the past, let us instead come together to tackle injustice and promote equality for the students and staff on today.

University spending: The Augar review concluded that the amount spent on teaching seemed low, while around £1,000 was spent per student on corporate activities and around £500 per student on marketing…I remained concerned that the sector isn’t doing enough to shift more of its income towards direct activity that improves learning outcomes or vital services like mental health support, and less on its own administration…As recipients of tens of billions of pounds of public money, universities have a duty to be careful stewards of taxpayers’ money. Our world reputation is built on the confidence we have in our academics, in their passion, their drive and their commitment to the pursuit of knowledge. We need to free them to do what they do best.

Also covered in the full speech: Lifelong loans, short course funding, something confusing about “modules”, antisemitism.

Rethinking HE

Education think tank EDSK published Value-able lessons. Here’s a teaser-

The debate over ‘low value’ HE has reached a stalemate. Numerous government ministers both past and present and the independent review of post-18 education…have criticised universities for delivering degree courses that do not offer sufficient ‘value’ – primarily in the form of higher graduate salaries and better employment prospects.
… The level of outstanding student loan debt was an eye-watering £161 billion at the end of 2019/20 and is set to grow by £15-20 billion every year for the foreseeable future. It is no wonder, then, that the Government is keen to reduce the cost to taxpayers of the Higher Education (HE) system, which is why bearing down on supposedly ‘low value’ courses is a tempting proposition.
… it is difficult to see how an HE institution (HEI) can confidently identify, let alone reduce, the provision of ‘low value’ courses if they are not privy to how ‘value’ is being defined. This may explain why HEIs have largely dismissed the accusations of ‘low value’ degrees while also questioning the metrics and approaches being employed to justify such criticism. In doing so, the HE sector has inadvertently given the impression that they are keener to defend the status quo than they are to put forward any alternative solutions to the Government’s financial predicament.
… the ‘value’ of an institution or course is ultimately a subjective judgement
… Neither the HE sector nor the Government are blameless in the debate over ‘low value’. The sector has been quick to criticise the Government’s stance on ‘low value’ courses and institutions without offering alternative solutions. At the same time, the Government has focused too much on what it doesn’t want from HE without explaining what it does want instead. If the Government continues to rail against ‘low value’ HE without describing a clear vision for what a ‘high value’ sector looks like, there can be few complaints from ministers if universities continue down their present path. What’s more, the notion that politicians and civil servants can judge the ‘value’ of any course or institution across the country based on little more than graduate salaries, employment outcomes or drop-out rates is not a tenable proposition from either a policy or statistical perspective. The DfE and OfS should acknowledge that the subjectivity surrounding the concept of ‘value’ is precisely why they must allow the choices of students, employers and other stakeholders to drive out ‘low value’ HE rather than trying to intervene themselves.

If you’ve read this far you’ll probably feel this all seems quite reasonable. Click here and scroll down to a succinct version of Recommendations – they certainly suggest a shake up of the HE sector.

Admissions

Record high numbers of students were accepted for undergraduate full time programmes in 2021-22 – UCAS: This means 37.9% of the entire UK 18 year old population is due to start a full-time undergraduate course, also a new high and surpassing last year’s equivalent figure of 36.4%. The number of disadvantaged students accepted has increased from 22.6% in 2020 to 23.5% in 2021. EU students numbers continue to plummet while non-EU international student numbers are up 5%. Less students (34% less) were placed through Clearing likely because record high grades meant more students were confirmed for their first choice programme. Overall, across all ages and domiciles the volume of students accepted is slightly down (less than 2%) on 2020 – however, Clearing remains open and final figures will be announced before Christmas.

UCAS have updated their interactive stats dashboards with the new data, and if you prefer words to hard numbers there is also a blog from UCAS’ Head of Data on Wonkhe.

Exam results – Education Select Committee (held 7 September)

Schools minister, Nick Gibb, was question by the Education Select Committee about the 2020-21 grade inflation. The Committee Chair asked if the Department was responsible for the widespread grade inflation and wanted to know what the driving factors were. Gibb responded that they were talking about a teacher assessed system, with very clear quality assurance processes in place. They had a lot of long conversations with stakeholders to get the best system that they could for their assessments. Gibb added that all exam results were backed up by the evidence that teachers had produced. He thought that teachers were the best people to estimate what grades their students should get.

On the gender based attainment gap in the exam results Gibb stated they were taking any attainment gap seriously and addressing it. The reasons for the differences were peculiar to this year and last year and were not an attainment trend. Gibb said that he did not think that it was right to draw wider conclusions about the education policies in place based on this attainment gap between boys and girls.

On private versus state education Gibb was questioned whether the grades actually represented the gap between the independent and state sector because of the differential learning loss that happened. Gibb responded that the independent sector was largely selective and was getting very high grades in general. The percentage increase actually showed trends that were existent even pre-pandemic. Gibb finished by saying that they had always tried, through reforms, to make the state sector competitive with the independent one and the gap between the two was narrowing each year before the pandemic.

On future exam results a Committee member asked what process was in place to balance fairness for future cohorts and maintain assessment standards.

Ian Bauckham (Interim Chair of Ofqual) stated that the decisions for 2022 would be slightly different than those taken for 2021. There were a range of risks and considerations that they would take into account, including the significant rise in high grades that they had seen in previous years, as well as fairness towards students. Bauckman ensured the Committee that they would reach a view that balanced all their interests and was cognisant of the risks involved while also being fair. It was stated that decisions on the 2022 exam system would be publicised in October. With a consultation to be launched imminently on what information would need to be gathered in the event that in-person exams cannot go ahead in 022. Gibb stated that his view was to assume exams would go ahead but to also prepare for the worst. Information on current appeals (relating 2021 results) will be published in December. The Chair asked if the grade inflation for 2021/22 would be compared to that in 2019 or that in 2020/2021. Gibb replied that this was a very technical and difficult decision that they would make public in October.

In Education Questions this week Nick Gibb stated the grading system would remain the same and that rumours of A** grades were just rumours.

Exam Results

Statistics from the DfE on A-level results day showed that:

Comparison of grades between this year and last year showed no notable changes in historic disparities between groups of students and types of school; 88.4% of grades are A* to C at A level, compared to 87.8% in 2020.
There was a 15.8% increase relative to last year in the proportion of grades at A and A* in academies, compared with 15.2% in independent schools. That represents a 5.7pp increase in the proportion of grades at A and A* from last year in academies, compared with a 9.3ppt increase in independent schools.
In real terms, this means there are 1.21 times more A and A* grades in academies, compared to 1.17 times more A and A* grades in independent schools, in 2021 compared to 2020.
Maths remains the most popular subject at A level with a 3.8% increase in entries this year;
4% increase in STEM subjects, with 1.9% more girls taking A levels in Maths and 8.3% more in Physics, building on significant progress in this area since 2010.
Over 340,000 certificates awarded to a wide range of students who have undertaken Level 3 vocational and technical qualifications, with results broadly similar to previous years.

Access and Participation

Research Professional report on the IPPO review – details below.

The coronavirus pandemic has caused widespread disruption to universities’ widening participation initiatives, according to a report commissioned by the Department for Education.
A “rapid evidence review” carried out by the International Public Policy Observatory, a collaboration between think tanks and universities, found that Black, Asian and minority ethnic school leavers and those from lower socioeconomic groups had achieved lower grades in 2020, after changes to exams caused by the pandemic, than their benchmark cohort in 2016.
Working-class school leavers were also more likely, as a result of the pandemic, to be rethinking their plans to attend university, while the training of teachers and healthcare workers has been particularly badly hit by education closures.
The study, undertaken after a recommendation by the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, is one of four evidence reviews relating to the pandemic’s impact on different levels of education.
It suggests that mentoring, plus financial incentives and support with university entrance applications, could help mitigate some of the negative effects on students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

You will also be interested in the potential changes ahead for Access and Participation mentioned in Gavin Williamson’s speech above.

Parliamentary Question – what steps he is taking to ensure students from low socio-economic backgrounds can progress to university following the removal of BTEC courses.

International

Parliamentary Questions: International Student vaccinations; International students quarantine hardship: International students facing significant financial hardship as a result of the requirement to quarantine in a managed quarantine facility can apply for hardship arrangements, including deferred payment plans. In exceptional circumstances reductions and waivers may be granted. We will continue to keep our hardship policy under review.

International students were also mentioned several times in this short Q and A debate. Minister Williamson side stepped the questions on quarantine and hardship.

International student recruitment: Why aren’t we second? Part 2: UUK International (UUKi) published analysis stating that UK universities are losing ground in the race for international students because of high costs, visa difficulties and limited marketing in the face of rising competition from other countries. The report makes a series of recommendations for cementing the UK’s global popularity as a study destination and achieving the UK government’s ambitions for international student number growth. UUKi say the analysis draws on in-depth research and focus group interviews with prospective students, alumni, and recruitment agents in eight recruitment markets in three categories: where the UK should maintain its position (Nigeria, Saudi Arabia), regain its standing (India, Pakistan) and develop its recruitment (Brazil, Indonesia, South Korea, Vietnam).

The study reveals that students consider cost effectiveness, return on investment and career options when choosing a study destination abroad. The factors influencing their decision most include affordability (especially scholarship availability), post-study work opportunities, welcome and safety, and the quality of education.

The costs and benefits of International student to the UK economy: HEPI published a major international student report along with Universities UK International (UUKi) this week updating their previous in-depth analysis. Dods summarise the report:

Every part of the UK is financially better off – on average by £390 per person – because of international students. The research finds that just one year’s intake of incoming international students is worth £28.8 billion to the UK economy.

Economic benefits

The tuition fee income generated by international students studying in the UK, as well as the knock-on (or ‘indirect’ and ‘induced’) effects throughout the UK economy associated with UK universities’ spending of this international fee income on staff, goods, and services;
The income associated with the non-tuition fee (i.e. living cost) expenditure of international students, and the subsequent knock-on effects of this expenditure throughout the wider economy (i.e. the indirect and induced effects); and
The income associated with the spending of friends and family visiting international students whilst studying in the UK. Again, this expenditure leads to subsequent knock-on (indirect and induced) effects throughout the UK economy.

Public costs

The teaching grant costs incurred by the Office for Students, the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, the Scottish Funding Council, and the Department for the Economy for Northern Ireland to fund higher education institutions’ provision of teaching and learning activities (for EU students only);
The costs associated with the tuition fee support (through loans and/or grants) provided to EU students studying across the home nations; and
The costs associated with the provision of other public services to international students or their dependants. This includes the costs associated with public healthcare (net of the NHS Immigration Health Surcharge); housing and community amenities; primary and secondary-level education received by dependent children; social security; public order and safety; defence; economic affairs; recreation and culture; environmental protection, and other general public services. We also include the costs associated with ‘non-identifiable’ public expenditure incurred by the UK Exchequer on behalf of the UK as a whole (e.g. expenditure relating to the servicing of the national debt), as well as expenditure on overseas activities (e.g. diplomatic activities etc.). This approach underestimates the economic benefits and overstates the economic costs associated with hosting international students in the UK. As such, the estimates of the net economic impact and the benefit to cost ratios should be considered at the lower end of the plausible range.

Soft Power: HEPI also published their annual Soft-Power Index for 2021 considering the impact of world leaders who were educated in countries other than their own.

Student Mobility: Turing

The Government has published which institutions will receive funds under the new Turing Scheme for 20212/22:

363 projects funded (out of 412 applications)
At a total fund cost of £96,215,683
For 40,032 placements
8% of the placements are for participants from disadvantaged backgrounds

Student Voices

Wonkhe have been listening to the incoming Student Union Officers across the country and have an interesting new blog highlighting 7 similarities in the Officers’ manifestos and concerns. They suggest it clues the sector in on key concerns for the current student body. The blog is worth a read and here are the 7 factors to watch out for in short form:

Focus on diversity.
Volume of complaints.
Access to people and things on a “course”.
Consistent standards/fairness – “how is it allowed or tolerated that one module leader can return your email in a week and another six – and nobody even says sorry”. Also there’s renewed interest in the courses that subsidise other courses.
Done to/authoritarianism – the lack of a plan or any meaningful monitoring behind big policy issues at many universities. “I asked what the actual plan was to close the gap and I was told to discuss that ‘offline’” and “the target is two weeks but they never publish the data” are the sorts of comments that have come up with fascinating regularity.
Students as activist consumers – It is about people responding to emails, tackling pockets of manifestly poor teaching and reducing wait times to see mental health triage. This is the most interested in education – its regulation, its economics and the system that underpins its delivery – I can ever remember SU officers being. Increasingly, it feels more and more like they want students to be treated like humans in a mass higher education system – which will need more than pockets of goodwill and a policy review, and much faster feedback cycles than the NSS.
Deep concern over learning loss, grade inflation and mental health – proactive clubs, reaching out, early identification and academic and mental health support

Meanwhile HEPI have a collection of essays – What is the student voice? Thirteen essays on how to listen to students and how to act on what they say. It includes:

Students as governors: walking the tightrope and shouting into the void
What do students think and how do universities find out?
Disabled students: the experts we forget we need
Using surveys to represent the student voice and demonstrate the quality of the experience
The virtuous loop: capturing the student voice through course and module evaluation
The student voice at the heart of the system (but only when they’re thinking what we’re thinking)
The Office for Students’ Student Panel in their own words
The importance of the NUS for representing the voices of students
Restoring the real student voice
Students’ voices in curriculum design
The student voice and accommodation
Mature students: a silent or a silenced voice?
International students in the UK – perspectives put in context

Parliamentary Questions

Ethnicity degree outcome gap
Antisemitism – Adoption of the IHRA definition is only a first step, and while the government considers that adoption of the definition is crucial, it is not enough on its own. That is why I will continue to work with the sector to ensure it better understands antisemitism and does more to end it.
Students not benefiting from the 30 hours free childcare provision because not classified as working.

Inquiries and Consultations

Click here to view the updated inquiries and consultation tracker. Email us on policy@bournemouth.ac.uk if you’d like to contribute to any of the current consultations.

There have been a myriad of new consultations and inquiries over the summer. The above document contains only those relevant to general HE matters. Academic colleagues will likely wish to peruse the wider list of specialist consultations and inquiries that may be relevant to their research interests. This is shared each week through the policy influence digest. Contact us if you are not a subscriber but wish to access this list.

Other news

Online learning: Wonkhe report – Two-thirds of students rated their experiences with online learning positively, but only a third felt that universities were listening to their concerns. That’s according to Jisc’s annual student digital experience insight survey, which found that just over half (51 per cent) of students received support in their transition to digital learning. With a majority of students reporting barriers such as poor wifi connection and a lack of specialist software, Jisc calls on universities to better support students through digital infrastructure and online-specific course design.

Inclusion & academic confidence: The UPP Foundation Student Futures Commission published their interim report – read the key points in this Wonkhe blog which set out priorities for supporting student success post-Covid.

Complaints: The Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIA) published their third set of case studies outlining complaints about changes to course delivery and assessments, accommodation, and disciplinary action arising from the impact of the coronavirus pandemic. It includes examples where the HE provider has agreed to settle the student’s complaint because of the OIA’s decision in a similar case.

Nursing: Nursing workforce (very short) debate in Parliament (Lords) on 8 September.

Cyber security: Wonkhe blog – Offering flexible working conditions to skilled IT professionals could mean the difference between flunking and surviving a cyber-attack, says John Chapman.

NSS: Wonkhe – The Office for Students has published data for its key performance measure 10, which tracks the proportion of students who responded positively to the National Student Survey question on overall satisfaction. This number dropped 7.4 percentage points compared to the 2019-20 academic year, reaching an all-time low of 74.9 per cent. OfS says it is “working on a target for this measure”.

Subscribe!

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

JANE FORSTER | SARAH CARTER

VC’s Policy Advisor Policy & Public Affairs Officer

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

11 September 2021

Research Professional unavailability – today (11/9)

Jo Garrad

Research Professional service will be unavailable from 9am to 3pm GMT today (11 September, 2021) due to a scheduled release roll out.

10 September 2021

Dr. Ann Luce honoured in Malaysia on World Suicide Prevention Day

Fusion, Knowledge Exchange aluce

Dr. Ann Luce, Associate Professor in Journalism and Communication in FMC and her colleague, Dr. Ravivarma Rao Panirselvam, a psychiatrist in the Ministry of Health at Hospital Miri were honoured by The Honorable Dato Sri Hajah Fatimah Abdullah, Minister of Welfare, Community Wellbeing, Women, Family and Childhood Development in Sarawak, Malaysia earlier today (September 10th) for their work in creating guidelines for police on how to speak with journalists about suicide deaths and suicide attempts.

The guidelines were launched at a World Suicide Prevention Day event where policy makers, Members of Parliament and the Sarawak State Assembly learned about suicide prevention and discussed the decriminalisation of suicide within the country.

The guidelines, and an accompanying Z-fold flyer for police duty belts, have been distributed to officers within the Royal Malaysia Police in Sarawak. The guidelines advise police to identify a single point of contact (spokesperson) to discuss suicides with journalists and advise them on what type of information they should share with journalists and how to do this safely and responsibly. The guidance also states that police should avoid talking about specific suicide methods and locations of deaths. The guidelines also advise police to provide helpline information so journalists can educate the general population that suicide is a public health issue and not a criminal one.

While Malaysia’s crude suicide rate is about 5.6 per 100,000 inhabitants and below the global crude rate of 10.6 per 100,000 people, suicide rates in Malaysia have been steadily climbing since 2010. With only one psychiatrist for every 200,000 residents in the country, Malaysia falls short of the World Health Organisation recommendation of one psychiatrist to 10,000 residents. Coupled with social stigma regarding mental health and growing mental health problems amongst young people, there is a push within the country to now decriminalise suicide.

Malaysia is believed to be one of about 20 countries around the world that still treats suicide as an illegal act. There are a further 20 countries which follow Islamic or Sharia Law where suicide or suicide attempts are illegal and can be punished with jail sentences.

9 September 2021

University of Cape Town hosts International Summit on the SDGs in Africa 13-15 September

sarahprice

The University of Cape Town will be hosting an International Summit which seeks to accelerate progress towards the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and mobilise action behind the African Union’s ‘Agenda 2063: The Africa We Want’ framework.

This three-day virtual Summit will connect stakeholders from across the world and foster meaningful and lasting relationships among government, business, academia and civil society, to develop new solutions and approached for meeting the continent’s development needs.

More information about this free event can be found here.

BU’s collaboration with the University of Cape Town has been formalised through a partnership agreement in early 2020. The partnership with the University of Cape Town is based on a longstanding collaboration between the BU Orthopaedic Research Institute (ORI) through Professor Rob Middleton and Associate Professor Tom Wainwright and Dr Delva Shamleyat the Division of Clinical Anatomy and Biological Anthropology at the University of Cape Town.

/ Full archive

Cabinet Reshuffle

Free Speech

Staying local post-graduation

Research

Students

Admissions

Access & Participation

Graduate Outcomes

International

Parliamentary Questions

Inquiries and Consultations

Other news

Subscribe!

Changes to the way you submit your final report

Freedom of Speech Bill

Spending Review, Fees & Student Loan rates

Research

Williamson speaks…

Rethinking HE

Admissions

Access and Participation

International

Student Mobility: Turing

Student Voices

Parliamentary Questions

Inquiries and Consultations

Other news

Subscribe!

Other services

Don’t miss a post!

Recent posts

Search by Category

Search by popular post topics