/ Full archive

HE Policy Update for the w/e 3rd June 2021

A short update this week in a short week – but we know you’d miss it if we didn’t do an update.  And it’s an interesting one, with gossip and rebellion, and some hard(ish) data too.

Staff changes

It was announced after we published last week that Chris Millward would not be staying on at the OfS as Director for Fair Access and Participation when his contract ends in December.  No reasons are given, but it prompted Research Professional to speculate about Nicola Dandridge’s future as her contract also ends then.  These are political appointments – as RP point out, Chris was appointed in 2017 by then education secretary Justine Greening, then universities minister Jo Johnson and then OfS chair Michael Barber.  Times (and ministers) have changed a lot since then.

Of course there have also been rumours about changes at ministerial level too.  Only recently there was a story about a possible imminent reshuffle (which didn’t happen) in which more women would be promoted, and we have seen stories that Michelle Donelan is tipped for promotion. Meanwhile the Mail reported in April that Gavin Williamson was “desperately pleading” to be reshuffled into the chief whip position.  And that was before this week’s news on catch up funding for schools.

Given that new appointees to all these posts are likely to be very much “party line” people, and the new Chair of the OfS is already in place and setting the tone for the regulator, it would be surprising if changes made a big difference to HE policy.  But we might hope for a change in tone and better communications strategies.  Fewer emails late at night on a Friday, for example.

Development budget rebellion

We haven’t had a good parliamentary bust-up for a while.  Not that we are missing evenings in front of Parliament TV trying to work out how many rebels it would take to pass the various motions on Brexit.  Honestly, we don’t miss it.

The news today was full of a rebellion among conservative MPs over the cuts in the aid budget.  The MPs are using an amendment to the ARIA bill, which starts its report stage on Monday, to reinstate the commitment to spend 0.7% of GDP on international aid.  These sorts of hijacks are rarely successful, partly because to be successful the speaker would first have to select the amendment, which they often don’t in these circumstances because it is deemed to be “outside the scope” of the bill or because it reopens an issue that has been discussed before in another more appropriate context.  But these sorts of parliamentary shenanigans do sometimes encourage the government to promise a rethink rather than risk a very embarrassing defeat in the House of Commons.  Note local MP Tobias Ellwood, who has been vocal on this issue, is among the rebels with his name on the amendment.

If you are interested, the amendment papers are here (they are likely to be updated before Monday) and as well as the aid one, include amendments about ARIA being carbon neutral, one about Ministerial conflicts of interest in financial matters and one reversing the proposal in the Bill that ARIA should be exempt from the Freedom of Information Act and public procurement rules.

Fees, funding and rebates

Augar implementation: Following our coverage over the last couple of weeks on rumours about changes to the fees and funding architecture in England and in particular, the focus on the link between outcomes and funding (see more below on outcomes). HEPI has a blog on “mapping the policy influence of Augar”.  There are some lovely clear graphics which highlight, through their traffic light colour scheme, where government has been focussing.  Not on HE.  Yet.

  • The analysis highlights that the Government has responded in full to 21% (11) of the recommendations with partial responses to a further 30% (16) of them. This leaves 49% (26) that have yet to responded to in public at this current time. When you combine the yes and positive responses you see that we have a slim majority of recommendations that have received some form of response in a policy or practical manner.   

Rebates: The Students’ Unions at LSE and Sheffield University have been leading a campaign for students to receive a rebate for tuition fees for this year.  You can read their letter to Gavin Williamson here.   They commissioned London Economics to review the options.  You can see the analysis here.  It’s complicated, and there are lots of scenarios.  Note that if the rumours are true (see last week’s policy update) and the government are already looking at changing repayment terms to improve their bottom line, adopting these solutions to “pay” for a rebate would reduce their wiggle room to use it to pay for other things.  And one option is increasing the interest rate, when as we reported, there are lots of people arguing to reduce it.

The costs:

  • A notional 30% rebate represents approximately £1.39 billion. Of this total, approximately £0.88 billion is associated with students commencing their studies while £0.51 billion is associated with continuing students.
  • Illustrating the per student estimates, the rebate for a full-time undergraduate and postgraduate international students were estimated to be between £5,200 and £5,300 each.
  • The corresponding estimates for full-time postgraduate English domiciled and EU-domiciled students attending English higher education providers were estimated to be £2,100 and £2,300 respectively.
  • Although eligible for student support (and hence considered in detail in the remainder of the presentation), a 30% rebate for full time English-domiciled and EU-domiciled undergraduate students studying in England corresponds to £2,700 per student (and would total approximately £1.1 billion for all full-time and part-time 1st year students and £1.9 billion for full-time and part-time continuing students).

Some interesting facts:

  • Under the current funding system in 2020-21 (i.e. the Baseline), the Exchequer contributes approximately £10.656bn per cohort to the funding of higher education. In terms of constituent components, given that the RAB charge (i.e. the proportion of the total loan balance written off) stands at approximately 53.9%, maintenance loan write-offs cost the Exchequer £4.019bn per cohort, while tuition fee loan write-offs cost £5.395bn per cohort. The provision of Teaching Grants to higher education institutions (for high-cost subjects) results in additional costs of £1.242bn per cohort.
  • Higher education institutions receive approximately £11.147bn per cohort in net income, made up of approximately £10.093bn in tuition fee income (from undergraduate students), as well as £1.242bn in Teaching Grant income. Against this, institutions contribute approximately £189 million per cohort in fee and maintenance bursaries (predominantly the latter) in exchange for the right to charge tuition fees in excess of the ‘Basic Fee’ (£6,165 per annum for full-time students).
  • From the perspective of students/graduates, the average debt on graduation (including accumulated interest) was estimated to be £47,000 (for full-time undergraduate degree students), while the average lifetime repayments made stood at £34,800 for male graduates and £13,100 for female graduates.
  • We estimate that approximately 88.2% of all graduates never repay their full loan by the end of the repayment period, while 33.0% never make any loan repayment.

Their conclusions:

  • The core cost to the Exchequer of offering a non-means tested tuition fee grant of £2,700 to all undergraduate starting students stands at approximately £1.009 bn (Scenario 2).
  • This can be partially offset (by £782 million) by equivalently reducing tuition fee loans (Scenario 1), or totally offset by extending the repayment period to 36 years (Scenario 3); reducing the repayment threshold to £24,500 (Scenario 4); or increasing the maximum real interest rate to 6.2% (Scenario 5).
  • Depending on the option selected, there are very considerable differences on which graduates are impacted.

Wonkhe covers the proposal, with Jim Dickinson looking at how progressive the proposals are.

  • The important thing that these students’ unions have done for us, via some robust modelling, is to first remind us that maintenance really matters. Putting a cash payment in for students that would hit their actual pocket now would make lots of sense, relieve many of them of some commercial debt, and stimulate economies. And as a gesture of goodwill, it would be inherently fair.
  • But crucially, it also cleverly reminds us that in the debate about making England’s higher education system cheaper that will now follow in the run-up to the Autumn’s Augar response, there are important choices to make about the “balance” between the three options of reducing student numbers, reducing spend per head and making the scheme more efficient – and there are further important choices within “making the scheme more efficient” that would impact different graduates in different ways.
  • Above all, in this Gordian knot shapeshifter of a hybrid system that we have – which presents as a loan one minute and a graduate tax the next – it reminds us that the more we move the system “back” towards a traditional loan scheme, the more regressive such a move would be.

Graduate outcomes

The Ofs have issued new experimental data on local variations in graduate opportunities.  For those of us who have been pointing out for a while that one of the risks of using non-contextualised outcomes data is that it ignores regional differences in employment opportunity and reward, it will come as no surprise that:

  • in England, areas with highest concentration of well-paid graduates (those earning over £23,000) are London, Reading, Slough and Heathrow – where 70 per cent of graduates earn over £23,000 or are in further study three years after graduation
  • areas with the lowest earnings – where 52 per cent of graduates earn over £23,000 or are in high-level study – are mainly in the Midlands, and North and South-West England, with coastal towns facing particular challenges

So, given all this, why is the OfS proposal, energetically supported by the government, to measure quality at university by absolute measures of employment and salary?  It seems bizarre to undermine the messages about levelling up, place-based strategy and local educational needs by encouraging universities through quality measures to send as many graduates as possible away to London or other metropolitan hot spots where they will earn more?  You can explore the data using interactive maps, although they aren’t very interactive (you can zoom, in a clunky way), and hover to check your geographical knowledge.

The full report is here.  It is light on analysis, it is just a presentation of the methodology, but there is one illustration of how the data could be used:

To illustrate how the groupings could be applied, we used the LEO earnings-based grouping to dig deeper into differences in employment outcomes between black and white graduates. We found that:

  • Overall, 60 per cent of white graduates earned above the threshold (around £23,000) or were in higher-level study, compared to 57.5 per cent of black graduates.
  • However, this masks some of the difference between the groups, because black graduates were almost four times more likely to live in the areas with the highest graduate opportunity rates.
  • When only graduates living in top quintile areas were considered, 73.5 per cent of white graduates earned above the threshold or were in higher-level study, compared to 59.9 per cent of black graduates. This gap is significantly larger than the overall gap.
  • Conversely, for black and white graduates in the bottom quintile similar proportions earned above the threshold or were in higher-level study (52.1 per cent compared to 51.9 per cent).

Wonkhe have an article by David Kernohan with graphs, of course.  He starts out with a critique of the data itself and then does what you were probably already doing in your head, and visualising what happens if you overlay the locations of universities on the map.  Overall he concludes that it’s a start for a conversation.

And just because maps are fun to compare, we remind you about this HEPI report on regional policy and R&D from May.  Sadly it doesn’t have any actual maps, but it does have charts of UK R&D and regional business R&D spend (figures 8 and 9).  Not surprisingly the regions in the bottom two thirds on both these tables coincide with the big areas of red on the two previous charts.

Equality of access and outcomes in HE

So while we are on the topic of outcomes, the House of Commons Library has a new research paper on equality of access and outcomes in HE in England. These library reports are written to be politically neutral for the benefit of MPs across the House.  They contain a useful summary of the data, the policy context and a lot of useful links so are a useful reference point.  Here are some of the highlights from the executive summary:

Gender: Women are much more likely to go to university than men and have been for many years. They are also more likely to complete their studies and gain a first or upper second-class degree. However, after graduation, men are more likely to be in ‘highly skilled’ employment or further study just after graduation. Male graduate average earnings are around 8% higher than female earnings one year after graduation. This earnings gap grows substantially over their early careers and reaches 32% ten years after graduation.

Ethnicity:

  • White pupils are less likely than any other broad ethnic group to go to higher education. Pupils from Chinese, Indian and Black African backgrounds have the highest entry rates. Black Caribbean pupils have particularly low entry rates to more prestigious universities.
  • Black students are more likely to drop out from higher education than other ethnic groups and least likely to achieve a first or upper second-class degree. In contrast, White students are least likely to drop out and most likely to achieve a first or upper second-class degree.
  • White graduates have the highest employment rates of any ethnic group. Chinese, Black and graduates from ‘Other’ ethnic groups have the lowest. Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Black Caribbean graduates earn the least, whereas Chinese, Indian and Mixed White and Asian graduates earn the most. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has said subject choice is important when looking at differences in graduate earnings by ethnic group. It said Asian students tend to choose “higher-return subjects than their Black and White peers.”

Disability: Students with reported disabilities are more likely to drop out from higher education and less likely to achieve a first or upper second-class degree. Those who reported a mental health disability have the highest drop-out rates. Disabled students are also less likely to be in highly skilled employment or higher study soon after completing their first degree. Students who reported a ’social and communication’ disability (such as Autistic Spectrum Disorder) have particularly low rates.

Socio-economic status

  • Pupils eligible for free school meals are much less likely than other pupils to go into higher education, particularly to more prestigious universities. They are also almost twice as likely to drop out before the start of their second year in higher education. Graduates who were eligible for free school meals are slightly less likely to be in employment or further study and they earn around 10% less than other graduates.
  • There is a very clear pattern showing that students from areas with higher levels of deprivation are more likely to drop out of university. There are also clear links between deprivation and achievement of first or upper second-class degrees and progression to highly skilled employment or higher study. Students from areas with higher deprivation levels have poorer outcomes than those from areas with low deprivation.
  • Analysis of entry rates shows a clear link between current and past levels of higher education in the area the pupil comes from. The entry rate in the top (POLAR –‘Participation of Local Areas’) group – the areas with the highest levels of participation in the past – is more than twice that in the lowest one. There are also higher levels of drop out and poorer attainment among those from the lower POLAR areas. These students, however, have slightly higher levels of employment and/or further study, than those from higher POLAR areas. However, this does not continue to average salaries which are 16-18% higher in the top POLAR group than in the lowest one at both one year and ten years after graduation.
  • Intersectional analysis White boys eligible for free school meals are less likely to go to higher education than any other groups when analysed by gender, free school meal eligibility and broad ethnic groups. White boys who were not eligible for free meals (and hence from less disadvantaged backgrounds) are also less likely than average to go to higher education.
  • Drop-out rates are higher among minority ethnic groups (combined) than for White students and this does not change based on the level of deprivation in the local areas they come from. The gap in drop-out rates between male and female students was greater for those from more deprived areas, with male students from more deprived areas more likely to drop out.
  • White students from the lowest POLAR groups have a higher level of attainment at university than students from minority ethnic groups. This is true even for those from the top three POLAR groups (combined). The gap between male and female students was greater for those from less deprived areas.
  • The gaps in progression rates (graduates entering highly skilled employment or higher study) between White and minority ethnic students from similarly deprived areas have fallen over the past five years. Progression rates for minority ethnic students are the same for those from both higher and lower POLAR groups at around 70%. Similarly, around 70% of White students from lower POLAR groups have entered highly skilled employment or higher study. Progression rates for White students from higher POLAR groups were higher at around 74%.

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

Take part in day 2 of Telepresence to Teletrust

Telepresence to Teletrust

Call for Expressions of Interest to Participate in day 2 of an Online Symposium 2021. Deadline  midnight (UTC),  18th June 2021.

The Telepresence to Teletrust Symposium is a two-day event focusing on the ,‘third space’ between tangible and mediated presence’.  The event takes place on-line on 8-9th July 2021 and is organised by the EMERGE research centre.

Day 1 is open to the public to enjoy presentations from a rich list of expert speakers.

Day 2 is reserved for a limited number of participants interested in participating in workshops that take a ‘deep dive’ into the subject and designed to expand and intensify research opportunities in this field.

Please take a close look at the outline of the symposium’s principal aims below. If you care to participate in day 2 then send an expression of interest with a brief summary (200-500 words) of how your research or practice relates to the themes by the deadline, midnight (UTC),  18th June 2021.

Please submit expressions of interest to: telepresence2teletrust@gmail.com

Telepresence to Teletrust

Live telepresence through new platforms such as Zoom, Teams, Facetime, Jitsi etc have become fully embedded in our lives. Like it or not this way of being together is here to stay. In the post-Covid push for a zero-carbon economy, international travel will be radically curtailed and remote working will become if not the norm then far more common. Welcome to a world of virtual assemblies and blended communications.

This symposium aims to recuperate the rich resource of spatial and temporal experimentation that artists and creative researchers have developed over many years. Our conviction is that these experiments will help us move towards richer and more embodied forms of virtual encounter. In addition we aim to use the event to crystalise these ambitions in the form of proposals for exhibitions and/or a publication, a critical primer, an ABC of Telepresence, a phenomenology of Telematics.

The talks and presentations are encouraged in but not limited to of the themes of embodiment, society, aesthetics and politics, refracted through the lens of the following questions:

  • How is the proliferation telepresence changing what it means to be reflexively ‘present’ to one another?
  • what scope might there be to shape new directions for these platforms that go beyond the ghostly dance of endless ‘talking-heads’?
  • How we are to avoid the emergence new forms of alienation?
  • Given that billions of live feeds can be seen as just one more stage in a process of endless fragmentation what are the possibilities for creating a third space between tangible and mediated presence, stepping outside the usual binaries of the real and the virtual?
  • How do we provoke creative responses that break the frame and go beyond the limitations of existing platforms?

Practical Information

Day 1 principal speakers will give presentations will be followed by panels and Q&A.

Day 2 will start with a facilitated workshop asking participants to use the one of the existing teleconferencing platforms in imaginative, anarchic, chaotic, collaborative, and unexpected ways modelling new modes of talking and thinking about Telepresence.”  Following this there will be intensive workshops with an aim to generate chapter proposals for a forthcoming critical primer on Telepresence.

Confirmed speakers for day 1:

Prof. Caroline Nevejan, Chief Science Officer City of Amsterdam.  www.nevejan.org

Prof. Paul Sermon, University of Brightonhttp://paulsermon.org/pandemic-encounters/

Ghislaine Boddington is a Reader in Digital Immersion  ,Creative Director, body>data>space  and Women Shift Digital- The Internet of Bodies 

Prof. Atau Tanaka, Professor of Media Computing Goldsmiths, University of London PI for AHRC project Hybrid Live https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=AH%2FV009567%2F1

Ali Hossaini, Co-director of National Gallery X, online gallery  https://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/national-gallery-x

Prof. Maria Chatzichristodoulou Associate Dean Research, Business & Innovation Editor-in-Chief, International Journal of Performance Arts & Digital Media (IJPADM)

Karen Lancel and Hermen Maat Artists and researchers. https://www.lancelmaat.nl/about/about/

New select committee inquiries

The long-term impact of the pandemic on towns and cities | Lords COVID-19 Committee | Deadline for evidence submission: Wednesday 30th June 2021

The Treatment of Contracted Staff for The MOD’s Ancillary Services | Defence Committee | Deadline for evidence submission: Sunday 27th June 2021

Space Defence | Defence Committee | Deadline for evidence submission: Thursday 1st July 2021

Animal Welfare (Sentience) Bill | Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee | Deadline for evidence submission: Monday 5th July 2021

 Contact policy@bournemouth.ac.uk for support if you would like to respond to an inquiry

Academics – we need your help!

BU has a subscription to LinkedIn Learning. This is a brilliant resource for supporting staff in developing all areas of their roles.

As part of the RKE Development Framework, we want to put together a suite of videos that are related to research activities, that can then be made available to all academics. Our first focus will be on all things related to planning research projects and bidding for funding. This will include tips on writing excellent bids, research methods, through to impact, and everything else in between.

As LinkedIn Learning is so huge, we’re asking for suggestions on videos that you have found helpful with the above. Please can you send any suggestions (with their links) to ResearchDev@bournemouth.ac.uk ?

Thank you!

Horizon Europe Consortia Building Events

The UK National Contract Points (NCPs) for Horizon Europe in collaboration with KTN Global Alliance, are inviting potential applicants in the UK, Europe and beyond to participate in their Horizon Europe consortia building event series on 14, 17 and 21 June 2021.

These events are not information dissemination events, but instead will focus on pitching of project ideas and brokering partnerships for European Research and Innovation collaborations and networking.

The events are ideal for those who have identified specific call topics or at areas of interest, are ready to take the next steps, discussing concrete project ideas with potential partners and going forward to a proposal submission.

Themes across the webinars are scheduled as follows:

14 June 2021

  • Cluster 1 – Health.
  • Cluster 2 – Culture, Creativity and Inclusive Society.

17 June 2021

  • Cluster 3 – Civil Security for Society.
  • Cluster 4 – Digital, Industry and Space.

21 June 2021

  • Cluster 5 – Climate, Energy and Mobility.
  • Cluster 6 – Food, Bioeconomy, Natural Resources, Agriculture and Environment.

These are excellent opportunities for researchers to widen their academic network with an aim to apply for EU collaborative grants.

For further information and to register, visit the KTN website.

The UK is expected to soon become an associated country to the EU’s R&I Framework Programme Horizon Europe. The UK will therefore have the same rights and obligations as other
countries associated to the Programme. UK entities can be included in consortia, as if the UK were already associated to the programme, in accordance with the Commission’s guidance.

In a case of further queries related to EU funding, get in touch with RDS Research Facilitator International Ainar Blaudums.

International Confederation of Midwives online conference started today

The ICM (International Confederation of Midwives) planned its tri-annual conference for 2020.  Due to the COVID-19 pandemic this conference was postponed and this year summer it is being held online.  BU’s Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health (CMMPH) has a number of great contributions, starting with today’s Symposium ‘Birth by Design 20 years on- a sociological lens on midwifery in the year of the midwife’.

The following sessions, to which CMMPH academic have contributed, are ones to look forward to over the next month:

  • Uniting the voice of midwifery education in the United Kingdom: the evolution and impact of the role of the Lead Midwife for Education (S. Way & N. Clark)
  • Students’ experience of “hands off/hands on” support for breastfeeding in clinical practice (A. Taylor, G. Bennetts & C. Angell)
  • Changing the narrative around childbirth: whose responsibility is it? (V. Hundley, A. Luce, E. van Teijlingen & S. Edlund)
  • The social/medical of maternity care AND you (E. van Teijlingen)
  • Developing an evidence-based toolkit to support practice assessment in midwifery (M. Fisher, H. Bower, S. Chenery Morris, F. Galloway, J. Jackson & S. Way)
  • Are student midwives equipped to support normal birth? (J. Wood & J. Fry)

 

Research impact at BU: the effects of terrorism on tourism & the benefits of digital reading

A series of posts featuring BU’s impact case studies for REF 2021. (These are edited versions of the final submissions – the full impact case studies will be published online in 2022.)

Understanding and helping to minimise the effects of terrorism on tourism destinations

Research areas: Quantitative Finance, Tourism Management, Retail Management, Quantitative Research Design and Analysis

Staff conducting research: Dr Anna Hillingdon, Professor John Fletcher, Professor Stephen Page, Dr John Beavis, Dr Gregory Kapuscinski

Background: Associate Professor Hillingdon is a leading expert in the area of terrorism and its impacts on tourists and tourism destinations. Her work, funded by both the World Bank and the United Nations World Trade Organisation, has offered a number of key insights:

  • Analysis of international tourism arrivals across the USA, Bali, Spain, UK and India showed that terrorist attacks seem to have a larger effect in developing countries than in large European capitals. Where there is a greater dependence on tourism in GDP terms, it is important to restore tourist confidence through efficient and effective post-crisis communication.
  • Demonstrating infrastructure which can quickly restore safety and order can help restore tourist confidence more quickly.
  • International incidents including terrorism do not necessarily have a long-lasting economic impact on tourism.
  • The willingness to travel to a destination after a terrorist attack differs according to personalities.
  • BU researchers conducted an analysis of 250 case study ‘hybrid threats’ (those which combine conventional military aggression with non-conventional means such as cyber-attacks, espionage and terrorism) and found a key area of threat is ‘economic leverage’. They found governments needed to take measures to counter their susceptibility to this threat by building strong, adaptive infrastructures.

The impact:

Enabling better communication for travellers after terrorist attacks

With global online travel company Travelzoo, Dr Hillingdon worked on the design and analysis of a survey of 6,000 consumers worldwide to investigate consumer perception of safety and security on holiday. Combined with her previous findings about tourists’ risk perceptions, this informed a major media campaign in 2015-2017. In more than 100 interviews with national and international media, Dr Hillingdon conveyed that, while terrorist attacks might contribute to a decline in tourism in a specific region, demand would simply go elsewhere. The research was also published in the White Paper, “State of Play: the Impact of Geopolitical Events on International Tourism in 2017”, which concluded the tourism industry and governments should unite to provide clearer information on the safety and security of tourism destinations. In 2017, the UK Foreign Office announced the removal of the terrorism threat level descriptors used at the time, to be replaced with more information about the predictability, context and mitigation of any threat.

Encouraging countries to invest in tourism after terrorist attacks

Dr Hillingdon worked with the World Bank in 2018 to investigate the effects of terrorism on tourist development and growth in Central Asia. As a result of data collected from a survey of tour operators, as well as her own comparative research on the actions governments can take to mitigate the impact of terrorist activities on their tourism sectors, Dr Hillingdon was able to provide evidence which led to a full risk analysis. The project concluded the impact on tourism of specific terrorist attacks was likely to be negligible unless further attacks took place. The tourist sector in Central Asia was encouraged to continue its development, and it was noted this would reduce the likelihood of future attacks as it would decrease the poverty that makes countries like Tajikstan an easy recruitment target for groups such as ISIS.

Enhancing the UK government’s and NATO’s understanding of hybrid threats

Dr Hillingdon contributed to a major NATO research project aimed at deepening understanding of so-called hybrid threats and exploring how to assess them. This work, together with her focus on the need for a strong, resilient economic infrastructure, fed into a handbook on the most effective ways to counter hybrid warfare, now in use by the UK and 13 other governments worldwide.

Reading on Screen: enhancing the benefits of reading through engaging with digital technologies

Research areas: English, New Media, Communication, Literature

Staff conducting research: Professor Bronwen Thomas, Dr Julia Round

Background:

Researchers at BU have challenged the negative perceptions around digital reading, providing insights into how and why people read on digital platforms. This has led to the development of innovative methods which capture how technology has enriched reading, enabling new social and cultural benefits.

The research was prompted by Thomas’s early work on fanfiction – a form of narrative which has exploded in popularity on the internet, and which enables fans to create their own stories about characters or plots. Thomas applied theories and methods developed by media and cultural studies scholars, revealing how fanfiction challenged boundaries between authors and readers, creation and interpretation. She also extended this approach to the study of online literary communities, using a combination of interviews and analysis to show a thriving, productive virtual culture.

An AHRC-funded project in 2012 investigated how people read online, as well as the insights and opportunities digital platforms provide for education and the creative industries. Some of the findings were that a preference for printed or e-books depended on genre, and that posting creative work in online forums boosted confidence.

The AHRC Research Network Award (2013-2015) brought together 29 academics and consultants from multiple disciplines to review existing scholarly models for researching reading practice. From this, the network developed innovative techniques adapted to analysing digital reading and prioritising engagement with readers both on- and offline. Building on the findings from the network, BU analysed activities in literature forums, detecting behavioural patterns to understand how users interacted with each other. They found that groups connect users with shared interests, allowing them to shape discussions themselves, and that moderators play a crucial role in shaping group identities and maintaining community bonds. Collectively, this work demonstrated how digital platforms have altered yet enriched reading.

The impact:

In 2017/18 Thomas established the Reading on Screen project, with the University of Brighton, the Reading Agency and DigiTales, a participatory media company. Readers from a diverse range of backgrounds aged 18-87 created digital stories capturing their experiences of reading in the digital age. The project demonstrated how engagement with the digital, far from being confined to younger generations, is in fact also delivering extensive benefits for the older population. It also highlighted how both digital and print reading practices and preferences are shaped by local cultures and environments but that these can change through life experiences and intergenerational interactions. The project achieved the following impacts.

Policy change

Thomas worked closely with the ‘Axe the Reading Tax’ campaign led by the Publishers Association, with the Book Trust and the National Literacy, to develop a new campaign strategy based on highlighting how the tax affects the most vulnerable. The Chancellor announced that VAT on digital publications would be removed from December 2020, although it was ultimately removed earlier, on 1 May 2020.

Benefits to organisations and charities

The Reading Agency delivers a range of programmes to more than 1.4 million people a year and applied the insights from BU’s research – particularly how and why people read on digital devices – to their own work. DigiTales runs digital storytelling workshops with young people, refugees, and the homeless. After working on the Reading on Screen project, they adapted their facilitator training and workshop model to reflect the requirements of working alongside academics with specific research questions in mind. The project also directly led to the organisation working with other universities and provided traineeships for two participants.

Enriching lives

For the participants who created the Reading on Screen stories, finding their voice was a transformative experience. An unforeseen impact is the beneficial effect workshops have on participants with complex social/health issues in terms of social inclusion and emotional resilience. They had no prior experience of using digital technologies in creative contexts and described how the project increased their feelings self-worth and achievement, with some developing resilience and others enjoying increased social interaction.

Funding Development Briefing – Spotlight on Knowledge Transfer Partnerships

The RDS Funding Development Briefings occur weekly, on a Wednesday at 12 noon.

Each session covers the latest major funding opportunities, followed by a brief Q&A session. Some sessions also include a spotlight on a particular funding opportunity of strategic importance to BU.

Next Wednesday 9th June, there will be a spotlight on Knowledge Transfer Partnerships (KTPs).

We will cover:

  • Overview of KTPs
  • How to apply
  • Q & A

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

Please email RKEDF@bournemouth.ac.uk to receive the Teams invite for these sessions.

Research seminar is on the Way! 😇Digital archiving by museums and libraries: Japan, the EU, and the UK – 18th June 2021 From 10:00 –11:30 (ZOOM)

Digital archiving by museums and libraries: Japan, the EU, and the UK
18th June 2021 10:00 –11:30

This is a friendly webinar with three experts in digital archiving in Japan, the EU, and the UK. Three keynote speakers will make their talks on the most recent trends and policy agenda for future development.

MC: Dr Hiroko Oe(The Business School, Bournemouth University, Open remarks and a brief introduction of the session with a Japan Model of Education for Sustainable Development)
Keynote speakers:
Dr Ema Tanaka (Meiji University, Japan, Launching ‘Japan Search’ and agenda for further development)
Mr Benjamin White (Centre for Intellectual Property Policy and Management, BU, Chair of Legal Working Group of Ligue des Bibliothèques Européennes de Recherché (LIBER), the UK Intellectual Property Office, Unregistered Intellectual Properties Research Expert Advisory Group, Libraries Archives Copyright Alliance)
Mr Neil Fitzgerald (Head of Digital Research, British Library. Digital scholarship, digital infrastructures, digitisation, product development, digital strategy and advocacy)

Mr Takashi Kubota (Project Research Associate, Research Center for Advanced Science and Technology, The University of Tokyo) will join us as a discussant as well.

The seminar is open to all who are interetsed in the theme. BU ECRs, PhD researchers, and MSc students are also welcome to attend.
*For more details, please email to Hiroko Oe :hoe@bournemouth.ac.uk

Postgraduate Researchers and Supervisors | Monthly Update for Researcher Development

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

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

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

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

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

Research staff coffee break 10th June

A warm ‘hello!’ from your Research Staff Association (RSA) reps. Following the success of the first ‘Research Staff Coffee Breaks’, we are inviting all research staff to the second one on 10th June at 3-4pm.

The details for the coffee breaks are included below including the zoom links and log in details.

Please join us for this session – there’s no need to RSVP!

Unfortunately, we don’t have resources to send out coffee and cake but hopefully you can find something nice and can join us at some or all our breaks. We are looking into more formal provision of space and food and drink for when we are able to meet on campus but until then, we’re looking forward to meeting you virtually soon.

Best wishes

The Research Staff Association Team

Research Professional – all you need to know

Every BU academic has a Research Professional account which delivers weekly emails detailing funding opportunities in their broad subject area. To really make the most of your Research Professional account, you should tailor it further by establishing additional alerts based on your specific area of expertise. The Funding Development Team Officers can assist you with this, if required.

Research Professional have created several guides to help introduce users to Research Professional. These can be downloaded here.

Quick Start Guide: Explains to users their first steps with the website, from creating an account to searching for content and setting up email alerts, all in the space of a single page.

User Guide: More detailed information covering all the key aspects of using Research Professional.

Administrator Guide: A detailed description of the administrator functionality.

In addition to the above, there are a set of 2-3 minute videos online, designed to take a user through all the key features of Research Professional. To access the videos, please use the following link: http://www.youtube.com/researchprofessional

Research Professional are running a series of online training broadcasts aimed at introducing users to the basics of creating and configuring their accounts on Research Professional. They are holding monthly sessions, covering everything you need to get started with Research Professional. The broadcast sessions will run for no more than 60 minutes, with the opportunity to ask questions via text chat. Each session will cover:

  • Self registration and logging in
  • Building searches
  • Setting personalised alerts
  • Saving and bookmarking items
  • Subscribing to news alerts
  • Configuring your personal profile

Each session will run between 10.00am and 11.00am (UK) on the second Tuesday of each month. You can register here for your preferred date:

13th July 2021

14th September 2021

9th November 2021

These are free and comprehensive training sessions and so this is a good opportunity to get to grips with how Research Professional can work for you.

Have you noticed the pink box on the BU Research Blog homepage?

By clicking on this box, on the left of the Research Blog home page just under the text ‘Funding Opportunities‘, you access a Research Professional real-time search of the calls announced by the Major UK Funders. Use this feature to stay up to date with funding calls. Please note that you will have to be on campus or connecting to your desktop via our VPN to fully access this service.

FMC Research process seminar – all staff welcome. Thinking about epistemology. Tues 1 June at 2pm

In the last research process seminar of the academic year, we are delighted to welcome Dr Richard Thomas (Swansea University), who will present the thinking behind his epistemological approach, and challenge us to think about our own research philosophy.

All of us adopt a philosophical position in relation to knowledge in our work – even if we rarely give it any attention. Today we give it the attention it deserves, and in an accessible and friendly atmosphere.

All welcome. Hope to see you there. Details below:

 

Thinking about epistemology – by Richard Thomas at Swansea University. 2pm on Tuesday 1st June
This sort of philosophical thinking is often bypassed as we all dive into our research. But still worth pondering, I think. We will all find some particular approaches to our work are more suitable than others, and more suited to us as people and researchers. This talk sketches out a critical realist approach where we find out what the media does, how it does it, but most important of all – WHY they do it that way. Suitable for researchers, teachers and students.
 
Join Zoom Meeting
Meeting ID: 899 5640 3486
Passcode: 6#tSV+*y