/ Full archive

Building Ventures from Bricks: Why LEGO® Serious Play® Belongs at the Heart of Entrepreneurship Education

BU Challenges, Business Engagement, Knowledge Exchange, Student Engagement

There is something quietly radical about placing a box of LEGO bricks in front of an entrepreneurship student and asking them to build what it feels like to start a business as a woman. It looks playful. It feels unfamiliar. And that is precisely the point.

Gendered barriers to enterprise, unequal access to networks and capital, and the legitimacy penalties faced by women founders are not peripheral concerns — they are central to how entrepreneurship actually works. Yet they are among the hardest things to surface in a conventional classroom. Lectures can name them; discussions can debate them. But neither easily reaches the experiential, affective layer where structural disadvantage is felt and processed. LEGO® Serious Play® (LSP) –  a structured, facilitated methodology in which participants construct physical models as a vehicle for thinking and sense-making – offers a compelling answer.

The theoretical roots of LSP lie in constructionism (Papert & Harel, 1991 cited in Imholz and Petrosino, 2012), extending Piaget’s Constructivism, the premise that humans learn most powerfully when actively making something shareable. In entrepreneurship, this matters enormously. The field is inherently uncertain, relational and situated (Neck & Greene, 2011), demanding that practitioners navigate ambiguity and construct meaning from incomplete information — precisely what traditional pedagogies rarely train students to do.

LSP addresses this through embodied cognition — the well-established view that cognitive processes are rooted in the body’s interactions with the world (Barsalou, 2008; Wilson, 2002). When students physically manipulate bricks, they activate neural pathways associated with memory, association and imagination, surfacing tacit knowledge that verbal reasoning cannot access. The cognitive and reflective processes generated map directly onto the experiential learning cycle entrepreneurship education has long sought to replicate (Kolb, 1984).

Nowhere is LSP’s capacity to make the invisible visible more valuable than when the subject is gender and structural disadvantage. When a student is asked to build what barriers look like — giving them height, weight and spatial relationship — something categorically different becomes possible. The model externalises and legitimises the experience: it makes the barrier an object in the room for collective examination, rather than a contested assertion subject to instant pushback.

The LSP rule that the meaning of a model belongs only to its creator — and that no one may impose their own interpretation (Gkogkidis & Dacre, 2021) — creates protective distance between the student and their experience, allowing difficult realities to be surfaced through metaphor before being verbalised. Reduced perceived risk is precisely what enables more diverse voices to emerge (Gauntlett, 2011). Benesova’s (2023) study at the University of Leeds evidences this: students from high power-distance cultures reported that building gave them expression, bypassing the social hierarchies of the seminar, with one noting it was “much easier to build it than say it.”

The Entrepreneurial Learning Case

Fox et al. (2018) identify active, reflective, situated, and crisis-based learning as the key dimensions that effective entrepreneurship pedagogy must address, finding that digital simulations perform poorly on the affective and reflective dimensions and almost entirely fail to simulate failure and uncertainty. LSP does not share these limitations. Ball et al.’s (2021) case study from Northumbria University saw students complete a LEGO task with pieces deliberately missing — simulating resource constraints and ambiguity — and subsequently identify 68 distinct entrepreneurial skills and competencies including risk-taking, creativity and leadership. Creativity here means recombining knowledge, recognising patterns and imagining alternatives (Fillis & Rentschler, 2010) — and material, exploratory engagement of the kind LSP provides is precisely what develops creative confidence and problem-solving capability (Rauth et al., 2010). Zenk et al. (2018) went further still, designing an entire innovation course around LSP — guiding students through ideation, prototyping, pivot questioning and pre-mortem analysis in ways conventional course design cannot match.

Where LSP makes its most distinctive contribution is in the quality of reflection it generates. Gkogkidis and Dacre (2023) frame the four-step core process — pose question, construct, share meaning, reflect — as a pedagogical architecture that operationalises constructivist learning values. For universities seeking to embed entrepreneurial thinking across their culture, active, reflexive pedagogies of this kind are central to the entrepreneurial university mission (Guerrero & Urbano, 2012). When students have physically constructed the systems that disadvantage them, the subsequent reflection is grounded in something concrete and shared, allowing a group to move from “do these barriers exist?” to “here they are — now what do we do?” That shift, from debate to design thinking, is precisely the mode entrepreneurship demands.

In conclusion, gender, network access and legitimacy inequality do not sit comfortably in a traditional seminar. They are too personal, too politically charged, too easily deflected. LSP creates conditions in which these conversations happen differently: externalising structural barriers, equalising participation and protecting less powerful voices. For entrepreneurship educators serious about structural inequality, the bricks are doing serious work.

References

Ball, S., Quan, R., & Clegg, S. (2025). A case study of experiential entrepreneurial learning through LEGO® play. 20(1), Proceedings of the 20th European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Northumbria University.         https://doi.org/10.34190/ecie.20.1.3942        

Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59(1), 617–645. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639

Benesova, N. (2023). LEGO® Serious Play® in management education. Cogent Education, 10(2), 2262284. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2262284

Fillis, I., & Rentschler, R. (2010). The role of creativity in entrepreneurship. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 18(1), 49–81. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218495810000501

Fox, J., Pittaway, L., & Uzuegbunam, I. (2018). Simulations in entrepreneurship education: Serious games and learning through play. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 1(1), 61–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515127417737285

Gkogkidis V., and Dacre N. (2023). The educator’s LSP journey: creating exploratory learning environments for responsible management education using Lego Serious Play. Emerald Open Research, 1(12) No Pagination Specified, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/EOR-12-2023-0004

Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2012). The development of an entrepreneurial university. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(1), 43–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-010-9171-x

Imholz, S. and Petrosino, A. (2012) Teacher Observations on the Implementation of the Tools of the Mind Curriculum in the Classroom: Analysis of Interviews Conducted over a One-Year Period. Creative Education, 3, 185-192. doi: 10.4236/ce.2012.32029.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall.

Neck, H. M., & Greene, P. G. (2011). Entrepreneurship education: Known worlds and new frontiers. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2010.00314.x

Rauth, I., Köppen, E., Jobst, B., & Meinel, C. (2010). Design thinking: An educational model towards creative confidence. In T. Taura & Y. Nagai (Eds.), DS 66-2: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Design Creativity (ICDC 2010). The Design Society.

Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 625–636. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196322

Zenk, L., Hynek, N., Schreder, G., Zenk, A., Pausits, A., & Steiner, G. (2018). Designing innovation courses in higher education using LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY®. International Journal of Management and Applied Research, 5(4), 244–263. https://doi.org/10.18646/2056.54.18-019

 

Four BU students at national midwifery conference

conferences, PG research, Women's Academic Network

This week four postgraduate midwifery students from Bournemouth University attended the Royal College of Midwives annual Education & Research conference in London.  Their contributions included studies on: (1) ‘A Unique Approach to Smoking Cessation During Pregnancy’ by Ph.D. student Louise Barton; (2) Investigating how women make decisions about prescribed psychiatric medication use during pregnancy by M.Res. student Jessica Correia; (3) Harnessing midwives’ research delivery expertise to encourage medics’ participation in research’ by M.Res. student Susara Blunden; and (4) ‘Personalised care for women of advanced maternal age, from conception to postnatal care: A mixed-methods study’ by Ph.D. student Joanne Rack. Joanne was also at this conference in her capacity of the newly appointed Editor-in-Chief of The Practising Midwife. 

Congratulations to these postgraduate students and their supervisors.

Profs. Vanora Hundley & Edwin van Teijlingen

 

Ethical review of methodology

Research Ethics, Research Ethics Panels, Research Integritiy, student research

As members of a Research Ethics Panel at Bournemouth University, we frequently discuss, both within the Panel and with researchers, the Panel’s role in reviewing applications. This discussion usually focuses on the balance between reviewing issues which clearly have ethical implications and methodological considerations. Ultimately, the question is ‘Should research ethics committees take methodological issues into consideration when reviewing an application seeking ethical approval?’

Research ethics committees are often seen as guardians of participant welfare, ensuring that studies are conducted safely, respectfully and in accordance with established ethical principles. Their focus is sometimes perceived as limited to issues such as informed consent, confidentiality and risk management. However, ethical review cannot be meaningfully separated from methodological scrutiny. Research ethics committees should, and indeed must, consider the quality and appropriateness of research methodology when reviewing applications, because flawed science is, at its core, unethical.

At the heart of ethical research lies respect for participants’ time, contribution and trust. Individuals who agree to take part in research, whether patients, students, professionals or members of the public, do so believing that their involvement will contribute to generating new knowledge. If research is poorly designed, inadequately powered or methodologically flawed, it cannot answer the predetermined research questions. Participants may therefore experience inconvenience, burden or even risk without the possibility of contributing to meaningful research findings. This represents a failure of ethical responsibility as much as it is poor science.

Research ethics and methodology are therefore inseparable. A consent process cannot be truly informed if the study itself is incapable of delivering what it promises. Participants are entitled not only to understand what will happen to them, but also to know that their involvement has purpose and value. Reviewing methodology allows research ethics committees to ensure that the social and scientific justification for the research is sound.

To return to the earlier question, research ethics committees are not fulfilling their primary function if consideration of methodology is not part of their decision-making process.

For more information about the ethical review of research at Bournemouth University visit https://www.bournemouth.ac.uk/research/research-environment/research-governance-research-ethics-integrity

INRC book roundtable/presentation by Drs Jonathan Cole and Catherine Talbot, Wednesday 22/04/2026, 13:00h, P426

Knowledge Exchange, REF Subjects, Research assessment, Research themes

Dear colleagues,

We warmly invite you to the event organised by the Interdisciplinary Neuroscience Research Centre on Wednesday, the 22 of April 2026, from 13:00 h to 15:00 h at P426 (Poole House).

The exciting event will focus on the interface between clinical and social neuroscience from the standpoint of new neuroscientific and technological leaps. The schedule is:

13.00 – 13.45 Dr Jonathan Cole (Visiting Professor, Bournemouth University) book presentation and roundtable: Hard Talk – When speech is difficult.

13.35 – 14.00 Coffee break.

14.00 – 14.45 Dr Catherine Talbot (Senior Lecturer, Bournemouth University) talk: Dementia in the digital age: the promise and pitfalls of social technologies.

If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact Ellen Seiss, eseiss@bournemouth.ac.uk or Emili Balaguer-Ballester, eb-ballester@bournemouth.ac.uk.

Thank you very much; we are looking forward to debating with you there.

The 4th INRC symposium: “From Clinical Applications to Neuro-Inspired Computation”, took place last Wednesday, 16th of January 2026. Thank you very much for your interest and especially to the fantastic speakers. It was great to see you there, and we hope you enjoyed it.

Kind regards,

Ellen and Emili, on behalf of all of us.

Why peer review matters

writing

During my time as a journal editor, first at ‘Nurse Researcher‘ and for the past 12 years at the ‘Journal of Clinical Nursing‘, there is one challenge that has become increasingly difficult: finding peer reviewers. Like many editors, I often need to invite multiple potential reviewers before securing the two needed to assess a manuscript. This is a growing concern and one that reflects wider pressures on academic workloads.

Most academics recognise the importance of peer review, yet it often sits low on a long list of competing priorities.  Reviewing is rarely formally recognised in workload models and is often undertaken outside working hours. As a result, invitations are frequently declined or unanswered. With delays in identifying peer reviewers, publication timelines lengthen and the dissemination of new knowledge can be delayed. In health research, this can have implications for the implementation of new and potentially life-changing interventions.

Engaging in peer review also offers important benefits for academics themselves. Reviewing manuscripts exposes scholars to emerging research before publication and can sharpen critical appraisal skills. It provides insight into how papers are constructed, how arguments are strengthened and how methodological weaknesses are addressed. Many academics find that peer reviewing improves their own writing and helps them better understand what journal editors and reviewers look for in submissions.

Peer review is therefore both a collective responsibility and a professional development opportunity. When we undertake peer review, we support the scholarly community that ultimately evaluates our own work. The sustainability of academic publishing depends on all of us contributing our expertise when we can. Engaging in peer review should also be supported by academic institutions, which also benefit from their employees undertaking peer review.

If you would like to know more about peer reviewing for the ‘Journal of Clinical Nursing’ please contact me at lgelling@bournemouth.ac.uk.

New Accessibility/disability and Tourism Paper just published, focusing on humanising travel experiences Devis-Rozental C, Buhalis D, Bello BO, Darcy S (2026;), “Reframing accessible tourism through the humanising framework”. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,  https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-05-2025-0632

Industry collaboration

New Accessibility/disability and Tourism Paper just published, focusing on humanising travel experiences

Devis-Rozental C, Buhalis D, Bello BO, Darcy S (2026;), “Reframing accessible tourism through the humanising framework”. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,  https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-05-2025-0632

Abstract 

Purpose – This paper aims to explores the dehumanised lived experiences of disabled travellers with mobility needs, identifying areas for improvement in tourism practice and suggesting ways for humanised and dignified experiences for accessible tourism. Semi-structured qualitative interviews and a thematic analysis identified four themes underpinned by the Humanising Framework. 

Findings – Four key themes emerged: barriers for disabled travellers create traumatic, inhospitable experiences; uncertainty during travel causes anxiety; staff attitudes and accessibility awareness shape experiences; and “nothing about us without us” underscores the need to hear disabled travellers’ voices. Accessible facilities, infrastructure and accurate information are essential to avoid dehumanising encounters. Developing hospitable attitudes among tourism and hospitality staff encourages participation and dignity. Co-creating experiences with disabled travellers promotes inclusion and humanised practices. Applying the Humanising Framework helps identify complex needs and supports collaborative design, ensuring accessibility is relational, ethical and central to improving tourism and hospitality experiences. 

Social implications – Disabled travellers still experience dehumanising experiences, making them feel negatively about themselves and discouraging them from participating in travel. This impacts their wellbeing, independence and agency and their desire to socialise in hospitality environments. Humanising tourism for disabled travellers through the REC model can have positive impacts on both individuals and the broader community, fostering social justice, offering mutual benefits for travellers, businesses and society, and increasing inclusivity. 

Originality/value – Applying the Humanising Framework highlights the importance of recognising lived experiences as key sources of knowledge, making a meaningful contribution to inclusive tourism theory and practice. People investing and working in hospitality have an ethical and legal responsibility to design accessible and inclusive environments and to provide clarity about limitations and how to minimise them. Based on the findings, the paper introduces The REC Model for inclusivity in Hospitality as an alternative for improving customer experience, satisfaction and loyalty for all. 

Keywords Social justice, Accessibility, Lived experiences, Disabled travellers, Humanising practice

Accessible tourism Disabiliity travel humanising
Accessible tourism Disabled Travel

 

 

Prof Marahatta promoting BU-Nepal collaboration

international, Publishing, writing

On Monday 9th March Prof. Sujan Marahatta visited Bournmouth University (BU) to speak about ‘Strengthening BU-Nepal collaboration AND Nepal’s experience of competency-based health professional education’.  Prof. Marahatta is the Director of the Medical Education Commission in Nepal overseeing the education of health professionals in 15 areas including Medicine, Physiotherapy, Nursing and Midwifery. He spoke about long partnership between Manmohan Memorial Institute of Health Sciences (MMIHS) and BU.  This partnership is formalised in a Memoradum of Agreement (MoA) and over the years it has included joint research projects, staff-student exchanges (funded by ERASMUS+ and Turing scheme) and offering guest lectures at each others institutions.

One of the jointly conducted studies which Prof. Marahatta highlighted was the work on CPD (Continuous Professional Development) in nursing and midwifery in Nepal.  Research on CPD started a decade ago and culminated in several papers [1-4]. The research was combined with sustained advocacy and stakeholder engagement, and resulted in the Nepal Nursing Council (NNC) formally introduced mandatory CPD as a requirement for nursing and midwifery re-registration earlier this year (15 January 2026).  The National Guideline on Continuing Nursing and Midwifery Education (CNME) CPD for Nurses and Midwives refer to our work conducted by academics based at Bournemouth University.  This is the foundation for one of BU’s REF Impact Case Studies for 2029.

Amongst other studies, Prof. Marahatta also highlighted a recent publication which was  jointly authored between BU’s professors Clark and Hundley and himself on pain catastrophising in nulliparous women in Nepal, the importance for childbirth [5].  Prof. Marahatta’s  visit was held in the Faculty of Health, Environment & Medical Sciences (HEMS) in the Bournemouth Gateway Building.

References:

  1. Simkhada B, Mackay S, Khatri R, Sharma CK., Pokhrel T, Marahatta SB., Angell C, van Teijlingen E, Simkhada P. (2016) Continual Professional Development (CPD): Improving Health Prospect15 (3):1-3.
  2. Khatri, RJ, van Teijlingen, E, Marahatta, SB, Simkhada, P, Mackay, S and Simkhada, B. Exploring the Challenges and Opportunities for Continuing Professional Development for Nurses: A Qualitative Study with Senior Nurse Leaders in Nepal. Journal of Manmohan Memorial Institute of Health Sciences. 2021 7(1):15-29. 
  3. Simkhada B, van Teijlingen E, Pandey A, Sharma CK, Simkhada P, Singh DR (2023) Stakeholders’ Perceptions of Continuing Professional Development among Nepalese Nurses: A Focus Group Study Nursing Open.10(5).
  4. Simkhada B, van Teijlingen E, Sharma C, Pandey A, Simkhada P. (2023) Nepal needs Continuing Professional Development for Re-registration in Nursing and Midwifery Journal of Nepal Health Research Council, 21(60):541-42.
  5. Clark CJ, Marahatta SB, Hundley VA. (2024) The prevalence of pain catastrophising in nulliparous women in Nepal; the importance for childbirth. PLoS ONE 19(8): e0308129. https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pone.0308129.

3C Online Social: Research Culture, Community & Can you Guess Who? Thursday 26 March 1-2pm

The Doctoral College invites BU’s research community to a relaxed online social centred on Culture, Community, and Connection

This 3C event offers a playful break from the academic routine with a “Guess Who?” game where your work takes centre stage. Submit an image that best represents your research along with a 7-word description of your work, then join us online to see who can match the clues to the right researcher.

Whether you contribute, or join as an audience member, it’s a fantastic way to share your work creatively and spark new collaborations

Event Details

Thursday 26 March

1-2pm

Online

Find out more and register here

We’re looking forward to seeing you there!

If you have any questions about the event, please get in touch with the Research Development & Culture Team: researcherdevelopment@bournemouth.ac.uk

Final Call: UKCGE Recognised Research Supervision Programme – Deadline Monday 16 March

The deadline is approaching for BU staff to apply for national accreditation via the UK Council for Graduate Education (UKCGE) Research Supervisor Recognition Programme

This programme provides a formal mechanism for supervisors to evaluate their practice against the Good Supervisory Practice Framework. To date, over 30 BU supervisors have achieved this recognition, identifying strengths and establishing clear pathways for professional growth.

Key Benefits Include:

Methodological Evaluation: Analyse your supervisory methods and decision-making processes.

National Benchmarking: Map your practice against established UK standards of excellence.

Professional Advancement: Identify clear routes for improvement at both Full and Associate award levels.

Award Level 

The Research Supervisor Recognition Programme offers two levels based on your current experience:

Recognised Supervisor (Full Award): For those who have supported doctoral candidates through to final examination and completion.

Recognised Associate Supervisor (Associate Award): For those who have not yet seen a candidate through to completion, or who supervise in an informal capacity.

Application Requirements

1. Reflective Account

Complete a reflective account of your supervisory practice aligned with the Good Supervisory Practice Framework.

Recognised Supervisor Reflective Account Form 

Recognised Associate Supervisor Reflective Account Form 

Find out more about structured self-reflection

2. References and Documentation

To authenticate your account, you must provide the following:

For the Full Award: A reference from a former doctoral candidate AND a reference from a colleague (e.g., a co-supervisor).

For the Associate Award: A reference from a colleague AND a Supervision Observation report.

Personal Reference Form

Supervision Observation Form (Associate award only)

3. Formal Approval

Along with your application, a formal approval email must be sent from your Associate Dean Research, Innovation and Enterprise directly to researcherdevelopment@bournemouth.ac.uk

Key Information

Peer-reviewed feedback: Applications are reviewed by a two-person panel; you will receive actionable feedback regardless of the outcome.

Fully funded: The Doctoral College covers the full cost of applications for all BU supervisors.

Support: Access guidance and tips from our recent Supervisory Lunchbite workshop here.

FAQs: UKCGE | Frequently Asked Questions

Deadlines

Internal BU Deadline: 9am Monday 16 March 2026

UKCGE Deadline: Friday 20 March 2026

Expected Outcome: June 2026

Submission

Complete applications should be submitted to Julia Taylor (Doctoral College) researcherdevelopment@bournemouth.ac.uk

Interdisciplinary research: Not straightforward?

Fusion themes, international, Publishing, REF Subjects, writing

Worldwide there is a growing interest in interdisciplinary research, especially to help deal with large questions in life, the so-called wicked problems.  These wicked problems (or questions) include climate disasters and global warming, globalisation, the drop in biodiversity, inequalities and international conflicts.  Interdisciplinary research increasingly popular and widely promoted by grant-giving bodies, the UK REF (Research Excellence Framework), research councils and universities, to name but a few stakeholders.

However, it is often ignored, that interdisciplinary research presents significant challenges for discipline-specific experts.  Doing interdisciplinary research requires specialised skills, team-player personality traits, and the ability to transcend one’s own academic boundaries.  We have highlighted in the past that common barriers include managing conflicting research philosophies, navigating, and overcoming, methodological, and communication differences [1].  Those who have been involved in interdisciplinary research will agree that is not an easy option for the individual discipline expert. It requires individual skills, ability to see beyond one’s discipline and perhaps personality characteristics such as a great team player. Interdisciplinary research may involve a mixed-methods approach underpinned by conflicting, and according to some incommensurable, research philosophies.

It is also the case that some disciplines are perhaps more familiar with interdisciplinary working, disciplines such as Public Health [2] are traditionally less theory focused and more solution driven.  But even in Public Health as a broad-ranging discipline covering sub-disciplines such as epidemiology, health education, law, management, health psychology, medical statistics, sociology of health & illness and a wide-range of research methods, conducting interdisciplinary research is not necessarily easy [3].

 

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen & Dr. Pramod Regmi both are in the School of Health & Care, and Dr. Shanti Farrington, who is based in the School of Psychology.

 

References:

  1. Shanker S, Wasti SP, Ireland J, Regmi PR, Simkhada PP, van Teijlingen E. (2021) The Interdisciplinary Research Team not the Interdisciplinarist. Europasian Journal of Medical Science. 3(2):111-5.
  2. Wasti, S. P., van Teijlingen, E., Simkhada, P. (2020) Public Health is truly interdisciplinary. Journal of Manmohan Memorial Institute of Health Sciences, 6(1):21-22.
  3. van Teijlingen, E., Regmi, P., Adhikary, P., Aryal, N., Simkhada, P. (2019). Interdisciplinary Research in Public Health: Not quite straightforward. Health Prospect, 18(1), 4-7. https://doi.org/10.3126/hprospect.v18i1.19337

Building Your Own Ecosystem: Why Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy Might Matter More Than the Perfect Network

Industry collaboration, Knowledge Exchange, Student Engagement

Entrepreneurship often begins with a deceptively simple act: reaching out to someone you do not know.

During the first week of our MBA Technology Entrepreneurship unit at Bournemouth University, a final year engineering student entrepreneur, Atanas Burmov, spoke to the class about building his venture from scratch. He arrived in Bournemouth at 18 to study software engineering. Within months he had established a mathematics and programming society to create peer support for students navigating the demands of their degree. Soon afterwards, he began contacting academics, technologists and organisations—sometimes completely cold—seeking advice and collaboration for a technology idea he was developing.

At that stage he had no venture capital, no established network, and no formal ecosystem behind him. What he had instead was something more fundamental: the belief that he could learn, build, and navigate uncertainty. He simply started reaching out to people. Those early emails and conversations eventually became the foundations of the collaborations that now support the growth of his venture. But at the beginning, it was not about partnerships or strategic alliances. It was about initiative.

His story is simply an illustration which shows a much larger phenomenon in entrepreneurship research: the role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy in enabling individuals to act under conditions of uncertainty and constraint ( McGee et al., 2009; Zhao et al., 2005).

The concept of self-efficacy originates in Albert Bandura’s social cognitive theory. Bandura defines self-efficacy as an individual’s belief in their capability to organise and execute the actions required to manage prospective situations (Bandura, 1977; Bandura, 1997). In other words, it is not simply about possessing knowledge or skills. It is about believing that those capabilities can be applied effectively in uncertain circumstances. Entrepreneurship is inherently uncertain. New ventures rarely begin with stable structures, predictable markets or guaranteed resources. In such environments, internal judgements of capability become critically important. A substantial body of research shows that entrepreneurial self-efficacy is strongly associated with entrepreneurial intention, persistence and opportunity pursuit (Chen et al., 1998; Zhao et al., 2005; McGee et al., 2009).

Individuals who believe they can navigate uncertainty are more likely to act despite incomplete information. They are more willing to experiment, to approach new contacts, to persist after rejection and to mobilise resources creatively when conventional pathways are unavailable. This becomes particularly relevant when entrepreneurs begin under conditions of constraint. Many founders start without financial capital, established networks or institutional legitimacy. Research on entrepreneurial bricolage shows how entrepreneurs often respond by recombining the resources already available to them in creative ways (Baker & Nelson, 2005). Similarly, the theory of effectuation highlights how entrepreneurs begin with the means they already possess—who they are, what they know and whom they know—and gradually build ventures through partnerships and experimentation (Sarasvathy, 2001).

Technical expertise can reinforce this process. Founders with deep domain knowledge, particularly in technology-based ventures, often possess greater confidence in their ability to solve problems. This confidence can strengthen entrepreneurial self-efficacy and increase the likelihood that individuals will attempt to translate ideas into ventures (Marvel et al., 2016). Yet confidence does not emerge in isolation. Bandura himself emphasised that self-efficacy develops through interaction with social environments. Mastery experiences, encouragement from others, observing peers succeed and working within supportive communities all contribute to the strengthening of self-efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1997).

This is one reason why institutional environments such as universities can play such an important role in the entrepreneurial journey. Universities increasingly operate as entrepreneurial institutions, supporting venture creation alongside their traditional roles in research and teaching (Etzkowitz, 2003; Guerrero et al., 2016). For students, universities offer more than academic instruction. They provide access to laboratories, intellectual property expertise, mentoring networks, entrepreneurship societies, careers services and communities of peers who are also experimenting with ideas. These infrastructures matter because they help transform tentative initiative into sustained entrepreneurial action. When students know that expertise, resources and encouragement exist around them, their willingness to act increases.

The role of place also deserves attention. Entrepreneurship discourse often focuses heavily on global innovation hubs such as London or Silicon Valley, where capital and talent are highly concentrated. These ecosystems undoubtedly provide significant advantages. Yet they also involve intense competition and high barriers to visibility for early-stage founders.

Research on entrepreneurial ecosystems suggests that smaller regions can offer different but equally important advantages. In regional contexts, social networks are often more visible and accessible, and relationships between ecosystem actors may form more quickly (Stam, 2015; Spigel, 2017). Studies of regional entrepreneurial networks show that such environments frequently display dense relational ties and higher levels of trust, which can lower barriers for new entrepreneurs seeking advice, introductions or collaboration (Granovetter, 1985; Feldman & Zoller, 2012). In these ecosystems, universities frequently function as anchor institutions. They concentrate knowledge, talent, infrastructure and legitimacy within a particular place, often acting as catalysts for regional innovation and venture creation (Goddard & Kempton, 2016).

For student entrepreneurs, this combination of place-based networks and institutional support can be powerful. Access to mentors, academics, laboratories and peer communities can enable ideas to move more quickly from concept to experimentation.

Returning to the story that opened this article, the venture did not begin with a fully formed ecosystem. It began with initiative: sending emails, asking questions and seeking conversations. Over time those conversations developed into collaborations that now support the growth of the business.

What began as individual initiative gradually evolved into a network. Entrepreneurship research often focuses on funding, scaling and investment. Yet the earliest stages of venture creation frequently occur long before these elements appear. They occur in moments that are almost invisible: an email written, a conversation initiated, a question asked despite uncertainty.

Self-efficacy plays a critical role in these moments. It allows individuals to act before legitimacy, capital or networks are fully in place. But sustaining entrepreneurial action requires more than individual belief. It requires environments that recognise initiative and respond to it. Universities, mentors, regional ecosystems and institutional infrastructures all contribute to creating contexts where entrepreneurial action becomes possible.

Sometimes the most important entrepreneurial resource is not capital or connections. It is the quiet confidence to begin.

References

Baker, T., & Nelson, R. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 329–366. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2005.50.3.329

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioural change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.

Chen, C., Greene, P., & Crick, A. (1998). Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers? Journal of Business Venturing, 13(4), 295–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(97)00029-3

Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: The invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy, 32(1), 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00009-4

Feldman, M., & Zoller, T. D. (2012). Dealmakers in Place: Social Capital Connections in Regional Entrepreneurial Economies. Regional Studies, 46(1), 23–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2011.607808

Goddard, J., & Kempton, L. (2016). The civic university: Universities in leadership and management of place. Available from https://www.ncl.ac.uk/mediav8/centre-for-urban-and-regional-development-studies/files/the-Civic-University.pdf

Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510. https://doi.org/10.1086/228311

Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., & Fayolle, A. (2016). Entrepreneurial activity and regional competitiveness: Evidence from European entrepreneurial universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41, 105–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-014-9377-4

Marvel, M., Davis, J., & Sproul, C. (2016). Human capital and entrepreneurship research: A critical review. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 40(3), 599–626. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12136

McGee, J., Peterson, M., Mueller, S., & Sequeira, J. (2009). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: Refining the measure. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(4), 965–988. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00304.x

Sarasvathy, S. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 243–263. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4378020

Spigel, B. (2017). The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(1), 49–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12167

Stam, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy: A sympathetic critique. European Planning Studies, 23(9), 1759–1769. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2015.1061484

Zhao, H., Seibert, S., & Hills, G. (2005). The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1265–1272. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1265

BU academics in the news in Nepal

international, PG research, Publishing, writing

Yesterday (5th March) Dr. Pramod Regmi and Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen published a topical piece in an online newspaper in Nepal called ‘NepaliLink.  This newspaper article coincided with the national elections taking place in the country.  This is the first general election since Gen Z protests overturned the Government of Nepal in the autumn of 2025.  Migrant labour is key to Nepal’s economy as no country in the world relies so much on workers going abroad to work and sending money home.  The latter is called remittance and the total amount sent home comprises more than a quarter of the national income.

Dr. Regmi and Prof. van Teijlingen have conducted a great number of studies on the health and well-being of migrant workers from Nepal. This includes a paper ‘A comparison of chronic kidney risk among returnee Nepalese migrant workers in the countries of Gulf and Malaysia and non-migrants in Nepal: a population-based cross-sectional study’ whixh was recently accepted for publication in BMC Nephrology. With a grant from the COLT Foundation, our BU team led the first large-scale population-based interdisciplinary study examining kidney health among Nepalese migrants. Conducted in mid-2023 in one of Nepal’s highest out-migration districts, the forthcoming study compared risks between migrants and non-migrants from the same community [1].  Our study identified significantly higher rates of hypertension, diabetes, and obesity among male migrant workers compared to non-migrants. Interestingly, smoking and alcohol consumption were more common among non-migrant men. However, one in seven male migrants reported consuming potentially hazardous counterfeit or home-brewed alcohol while abroad. The findings suggest that both adverse working environments and lifestyle factors may contribute to increased heart disease among migrant workers.

Both Dr. Regmi and Prof. van Teijlingen are based in the Faculty of Health, Environment & Medical Sciences (HEMS) and in the last five years alone they have published over twenty publications about the health and well-being of migrant workers [2-21].

 

References

  1. Aryal, N., Regmi, P., Sedhain, A., Bhattarai, S., KC, R.K., Mishra, S.K., Caplin, B., Perce, N., van Teijlingen E. (2026) A comparison of chronic kidney risk among returnee Nepalese migrant workers in the countries of Gulf and Malaysia and non-migrants in Nepal: a population-based cross-sectional study, BMC Nephrology 1186/s12882-026-04872-7 (forthcoming)
  3. Paudyal, P., Wasti, S.P., Neupane, P., Sapkota, J.L., Watts, C., Kulasabanathan, K., Silwal, R., Memon, A., Shukla, P, Pathak, R.S., Michelson, D., Beery, C., Moult, A., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E., Cassell, J. 10, (2025) Coproducing a culturally sensitive storytelling video intervention to improve psychosocial well-being: a multimethods participatory study with Nepalese migrant workers, BMJ Open 15:e086280.
  4. Regmi, P., Aryal, N., Bhattarai, S., Sedhain, A., KC, R.K., van Teijlingen, E. (2024) Exploring lifestyles, work environment and health care experience of Nepalese returnee labour migrants diagnosed with kidney-related problems. PLoS ONE 19(8): e0309203.
  5. Paudyal, A.R., Harvey, O., Teijlingen, E. van, Regmi, P. R., Sharma, C. (2024). Returning Home to Nepal after Modern Slavery: Opportunities for Health Promotion. Journal of Health Promotion, 12(1), 125–132. https://doi.org/10.3126/jhp.v12i1.72713
  6. Regmi, P., Aryal, N., van Teijlingen, E., KC, R.K., Gautam, M. and Maharjan, S. (2024). A Qualitative Insight into Pre-Departure Orientation Training for Aspiring Nepalese Migrant Workers. Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease, 9 (7).
  7. Aryal, N., Regmi, P., Adhikari Dhakal, S., Sharma, S. and van Teijlingen, E. (2024). Moral panic, fear, stigma, and discrimination against returnee migrants and Muslim populations in Nepal: analyses of COVID-19 media content. Journal of Media Studies, 38 (2), 71-98.
  8. Simkhada, P.P., van Teijlingen, E., Gurung, M., Bhujel, S., Wasti, S.P. (2024) Workplace harassment faced by female Nepalese migrants working aboard, Global Health Journal 8(3): 128-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.glohj.2024.08.001
  9. Mahato, P., Bhusal, S., Regmi, P.,  van Teijlingen, E. (2024). Health and Wellbeing Among Nepali Migrants: A Scoping Review. Journal of Health Promotion, 12(1): 79–90. https://doi.org/10.3126/jhp.v12i1.72699
  10. Regmi, P., Aryal, N., Bhattarai, S., Sedhain, A., KC, R.K. and van Teijlingen, E. (2024) Exploring lifestyles, work environment and health care experience of Nepalese returnee labour migrants diagnosed with kidney-related problems, PLoS One 19(8): e0309203. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0309203
  11. Khanal, S.P., van Teijlingen, E., Sharma, M., Acharya, J., Sharma, C., Kharel, S., Gaulee, U., Bhattarai, K., Pasa, R.B., Bohora, P. (2024) Risk Perception and Protective Health Measure Regarding COVID-19 among Nepali Labour Migrants’ Returnee from India. KMC Journal, 6(1): 313–330
  12. Chaudhary, M.N., Lim, V.C., Faller, E.M., Regmi, P., Aryal, N., Zain, S.N.M., Azman, A.S. and Sahimin, N. (2024). Assessing the basic knowledge and awareness of dengue fever prevention among migrant workers in Klang Valley, Malaysia. PLoS ONE, 19 (2).
  13. Chaudhary, M.N., Lim, V.C., Sahimin, N., Faller, E.M., Regmi, P., Aryal, N. and Azman, A.S. (2023). Assessing the knowledge of, attitudes towards, and practices in, food safety among migrant workers in Klang Valley, Malaysia. Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease, 54.
  14. Gyawali, K., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E.R., Manandhar, S., Silwal, R.C. (2023). Sexual Harassment Among Nepali Non-Migrating Female Partners of International Labor Migrant Men. Journal of Health Promotion, 11(1): 22–31
  15. Adhikari, Y., Regmi, P., Devkota, B. and van Teijlingen, E. (2023). Forgotten health and social care needs of left-behind families of Nepali migrant workers. Journal of Health Promotion, 10, 1-4.
  16. Regmi, P., Dhakal Adhikari, S., Aryal, N., Wasti, S.P., van Teijlingen, E. (2022) Fear, Stigma and Othering: The Impact of COVID-19 Rumours on Returnee Migrants and Muslim Populations of Nepal, International Journal of Environmental Research & Public Health 19(15), 8986; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19158986
  17. Regmi, P., Simkhada, P., Aryal, N., van Teijlingen, E. (2022) Excessive mortalities among migrant workers: the case of the 2022 FIFA World Cup. Europasian Journal of Medical Sciences, 4:31-32. https://doi.org/10.46405/ejms.v4i0.455
  18. Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E. and Regmi, P. (2022). Migrant Workers in Qatar: Not just an important topic during the FIFA World Cup 2022. Health Prospect: Journal of Public Health, 21 (3), 1-2.
  19. Aryal, N., Sedhain, A., Regmi, P.R., KC, R. K., van Teijlingen, E. (2021). Risk of kidney health among returnee Nepali migrant workers: A survey of nephrologists. Asian Journal of Medical Sciences, 12(12), 126–132. https://doi.org/10.3126/ajms.v12i12.39027
  20. Aryal, N., Regmi, P.R., Sedhain, A., KC, R.K., Martinez Faller, E., Rijal, A., van Teijlingen, E. (2021) Kidney health risk of migrant workers: An issue we can no longer overlook. Health Prospect 20(1):15-7
  21. Simkhada, B., Sah, R.K., Mercel-Sanca, A., van Teijlingen, E., Bhurtyal, Y.M. and Regmi, P. (2021). Perceptions and Experiences of Health and Social Care Utilisation of the UK-Nepali Population. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 23 (2), 298-307.

New CMWH paper on maternity care

NHS, Publishing, Women's Academic Network, writing

The editor of Frontiers in Public Health have accepted our latest article from the EPPOCH study.  This latest paper ‘Prenatal substance use during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: Associations with depression, anxiety, and pandemic stressors‘ focuses on the use of substances in pregnancy in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic [1].  Our previous EPPOCH paper, in line with several other population-based studies, highlighted that COVID-19 was associated with high levels of depression and anxiety during pregnancy in the UK [2].

This new publication reports on a cross-sectional analysis of baseline EPPOCH data (n = 3292; June – Nov. 2020). Participants reported alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, and illicit drug use before and after recognition of pregnancy, alongside validated measures of depression, anxiety, pregnancy-related anxiety, and pandemic stressors. Linear regression models examined associations between mental health, COVID-19 stressors, and substance use after pregnancy recognition. A qualitative thematic analysis of 380 open-ended responses explored perceptions of substance use post-pregnancy recognition. Results: Alcohol was the most commonly used substance before pregnancy. Following pregnancy recognition, tobacco (8.75%) and alcohol (8.60%) were the most frequently reported substances, followed by cannabis (1.49%) and illicit drugs (0.12%). Tobacco use after pregnancy recognition was associated with higher levels of depressive symptoms and pandemic stressors, including perceived personal health threat and not receiving necessary care. Prenatal co-use of substances was associated with higher depressive symptoms and pandemic-related financial difficulties. Qualitative themes included continued substance use until pregnancy detection, vaping as a perceived safer-use strategy, and midwifery advice influencing prenatal substance use decisions.

In this large UK pregnancy cohort recruited during the COVID-19 pandemic, substance use following pregnancy recognition – particularly tobacco – was linked to depression and pandemic-related stressors. These findings highlight the importance of equipping midwives and other healthcare professionals with clear, evidence-based guidance on prenatal substance use, particularly during global health crises.

This interdisciplinary project is led by Dr. Melanie Conrad in Germany.  The lead author for the paper is Ph.D. candidate Swarali Datye, whilst three members of the Centre for Midwifery & Women’s Health (CMWH): Dr. Latha Vinayakarao and Prof. Minesh Khashu both working in University Hospitals Dorset NHS Foundation Trust (UHD) and both Visiting Faculty at BU and Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen are team members and co-authors on this paper.

 

References:

  1. Datye, S., Peters, E.M.J., Windhorst, A.C., van Teijlingen, E., MacRae-Miller, A., Vinayakarao, L., Khashu, M., Fahlbusch, F.B., Conrad, M.L. (2026) Prenatal substance use during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK: Associations with depression, anxiety, and pandemic stressors Frontiers in Public Health. (forthcoming)
  2. Datye, S., Smiljanic, M., Shetti, R.H., MacRae-Miller, A., van Teijlingen, E., Vinayakarao, L., Peters, E.M.J., Lebel, C.A., Tomfohr-Madsen, L., Giesbrecht, G., Khashu, M., Conrad, M.L. (2024) Prenatal maternal mental health and resilience in the United Kingdom during the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic: A cross-national comparison, Frontiers in Psychiatry, 15 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1411761

Accessing Sign Language for Better Communication

Awarded & submitted bids, international

We warmly invite you to a two‑day workshop/symposium funded by the British Council’s International Science Partnerships Fund (ISPF). The event will open on Monday afternoon (9 March) with two introductory British Sign Language (BSL) taster sessions led by professional BSL teachers from the Wilts & Dorset Deaf Association (WDDA). This will be followed by a full day of talks on Tuesday, featuring academics, professionals, and researchers discussing sign language history, recognition, and the role of AI in supporting inclusive communities.

Venue: Student Hall, Talbot Campus

Event Schedule is as follows:

Monday (9th March)

12:30  Registration

12:50  Opening address

13:00 – 14:30 BSL session – BSL teachers: Lynn Preston & Richard Neale

14:30 – 15:00 Break

15:00 – 16:30 BSL session – BSL teachers: Lynn Preston & Richard Neale

16:30  Closing

 

Tuesday (10th March)

9:30     Registration

9:50     Opening address

10:00 – 11:00 AI Translation between Sign and Spoken Language

Presenter: Richard Bowden is Professor of Computer Vision and Machine Learning within the Centre for Vision Speech and Signal Processing at the University of Surrey. He is also co-founder of Signapse. His research centres on the use of computer vision to locate, track, and understand humans with a specific interest and focus on sign languages. Having worked on many areas of computer vision, including robotics, autonomous vehicles and the tracking and analysis of humans. He has been developing computational approaches to sign language recognition and translation for over 30 years. Over the last few years Richard has refocused his entire research group on Sign Language Translation, with recent funding including a large grant from Google to reduce the cost of translation through AI and SignGPT, which aims to develop the next generation of AI tools for sign languages.

11:00 – 11:15 Break

11:15 – 12:00 A History of the Development and Access to British Sign Language

Presenter: George Raggett has been deaf from the age of eight through a yet undiagnosed hereditary condition. George acquired good speaking and reading skills prior to his hearing loss and prefer to communicate using these methods, supplemented by hearing aids and naturally developed lip-reading skills. George has developed Sign Language skills since 1987 and has been teaching Sign Language and Deaf Awareness & Communication courses to all ages since qualifying as a teacher in 2002. In 2007, George became a trustee of The Wiltshire and Dorset Deaf Association, a charity set up to promote and support the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Communities of both counties, in 2004

12:00 – 13:30 Break

13:30 – 14:15 Relevant Annotation for Multimodal Interaction Analysis: AI Bridging Interaction Studies of Gestures and Signs

Presenter: Mayumi Bono is an Associate Professor at the National Institute of Informatics (NII), Tokyo, Japan. She received her Ph.D. in Applied Linguistics from Kobe University in 2005. In her Ph.D. project, she demonstrated how to build a machine-readable model of the ‘Participation Framework,’ initially provided by Canadian-American sociologist Erving Goffman. After receiving her Ph.D., she got a position in informatics at ATR Media Information Science Laboratories, Kyoto University, and the National Institute of Informatics based on fruitful collaborations with engineering and informatics researchers. Currently, she is conducting several research projects of building sharable spoken and sign language multimodal corpora in an open science framework for all academic researchers interested in human communication using artificial intelligence techniques such as machine learning.

14:15 – 14:45 J-Shuwa: A Large-Scale Web-Collected Japanese Sign Language-Japanese Parallel Corpus

Presenter: Junwen Mo is a PhD candidate in the Nakayama Lab at the University of Tokyo. His research focuses on sign language understanding, with an emphasis on Japanese Sign Language translation. Recently, he has also developed an interest in alternative computational paradigms for artificial intelligence.

14:45 – Break

15:00 – 15:30 Between Representation and Embodiment: Perspectives on Sign Language Avatars

Presenter: Yi Wen is a first-year PhD researcher at Bournemouth University, where she previously completed her Master’s in Artificial Intelligence. She has a background in the game industry, working on large-scale production pipelines and collaborative projects. Her current research interests include sign language avatars, particularly exploring how different representational approaches may influence how signing is generated and experienced.

15:30 – 16:00 Continuous Sign language Recognition (CSLR): Feature Extraction from an Image Procesing Perspective

Presenter: Xinyu Zhang is an artificial intelligence researcher working at the intersection of medical imaging, representation learning, and algorithmic alignment. Her research advances contemporary medical AI by promoting approaches that reduce dependence on clinical expert teams and high computational resources, thereby enhancing scalability, reproducibility, and accessibility.

16:30 Closing

From Sustainable Research to Sustainable Research Lives: Reflections from the SPROUT Network Event

Supported by the ECR Research Culture and Community Grant, the SPROUT Network hosted its second collaborative hybrid event at BU’s Fusion Building on Tuesday 17 February 2026. What does it mean to be a “sustainable” researcher? Does it refer to the topics being studied, or the way researchers live their lives while conducting that work? The session brought together PGRs, ECRs, and supervisors from Bournemouth, Cardiff, and Durham Universities to tackle these very questions.

Building Momentum: The Three Pillars

Following the foundation laid during the network’s inaugural session in November, this second event moved the conversation forward. Shifting the focus from what is researched to how researchers work and sustain themselves.

The organisers structured the day around three core pillars:

  1. Sustainability as Practice: Exploring how research is designed and carried out, from initial focus and methodology to eventual impact
  2. Sustainability as Culture: Examining how research environments and institutional structures shape what is possible and what is valued within academia
  3. Sustainability as Research Lives: Focusing on the human element, sustaining the “researcher self” and professional communities over the long term

Keynote Insights: Practice and Resilience

The network was honoured to welcome two keynote speakers who offered unique, complementary perspectives.

Professor Fiona Cownie framed sustainability as an active choice enacted through doctoral work. Introducing the “Sustainability Triangle,” challenging researchers to balance their Choices (topics and methods) against external Constraints (time and resources) and the necessity of Compromise without losing professional integrity.

Professor Emerita Fiona Cownie introducing the 'Sustainability Triangle,' a framework designed to help researchers balance methodology with institutional constraints

Keynote speaker Professor Fiona Cownie discussing the vital role of sustainability in doctoral research practice during the SPROUT Network hybrid event

Professor Sara Ashencaen Crabtree then explored the human realities of academic work, arguing that sustainable research depends on sustainable research lives. Sharing a moving reminder from poet William Stafford: “There’s a thread you follow… While you hold it you can’t get lost,” emphasising the need for a stabilising sense of purpose to navigate the pressures of contemporary research culture.

Professor Sara Ashencaen Crabtree sharing reflections on care, resilience, and the 'researcher self' during her keynote session

Professor Sara Ashencaen Crabtree sharing reflections on care, resilience, and the ‘researcher self’ during her keynote session

A Milestone for Organisers: Leadership and Growth

For the SPROUT team, coordinating a multi-institutional, hybrid event was a significant milestone in professional development.

The session was led by a dedicated team:

PGR/ECR Leads: Mosopefoluwa Akinrinmade, Ibrahim Awawdeh, and Kasongo Shutsha.

Academic Leads: Dr Tahani Mohamed (Bournemouth), Dr Julie Gwilliam (Cardiff), and Rosalind Beaumont (Durham).

Reflecting on the impact of the grant, Dr Tahani Mohamed noted:

“The funding enabled the network to deliver a high-impact event that moved beyond ‘business as usual.’ It allowed the team to create a generous and thoughtful space where ECRs and PGRs felt safe to discuss the structural and personal factors that shape their careers. Facilitating these ‘deep conversations’ has significantly increased our confidence in leading research culture initiatives.”

Managing the grant funds and coordinating across three universities provided the leads with invaluable experience in leadership, multi-site logistics, and cross-university advocacy.

Impact and Future Growth

The event demonstrated a clear interest for community-based research culture initiatives. Feedback from the community highlighted the importance of this space:

“I am so thankful for such a group existing within BU… which focuses on sustainability in research. The meeting was really valuable and the two speakers were inspirational.”

The SPROUT community continues to grow because researchers find value in returning. Future sessions are already being planned to cover sustainable funding strategies, research methods, and interdisciplinary collaboration.

Stay Connected

To join the SPROUT mailing list or Teams group, please contact sprout@bournemouth.ac.uk or reach out to Dr Tahani Mohamed at tmohamed@bournemouth.ac.uk

Apply for the ECR Research Culture and Community Grant

Do you have an idea for an event or initiative that could strengthen the research culture at BU? We invite you to follow in the Sprout Team’s footsteps and apply for funding to bring your project to life.

Find out more and submit your application here: Research Culture and Community Grant

Closing Date 4pm, Monday 9 March 2026

If you would like to discuss your ideas before submitting your application, please contact Enrica Conrotto, Researcher Development Manager, at researcherdevelopment@bournemouth.ac.uk