/ Full archive

Emerald removes embargo period on all journal articles in open access repositories

BRIAN, PG research

Emerald has today, 26th September 2017, removed the embargo period on all Green open access. Author accepted manuscripts (AAMs or postprints) of journal articles held in open access repositories such as BURO will now be available on publication. This applies not only from today, but also to any Emerald publications currently under embargo in repositories.

Emerald Group Publishing

This is a huge advance for open access as Emerald had previously extended their embargo periods in response to the RCUK/ Finch statements on embargo periods and green open access.

It’s important to keep tourism afloat in areas that experience natural disasters

In 2016, tourism in the Caribbean saw a healthy growth of 4.7% and Mexico earned its place among the top ten tourist destinations. Tourism is an important source of income for both the Caribbean Islands and Mexico. In Mexico, the industry was responsible for 16% of total GDP in 2016, with North America its main source market.

Both the Caribbean and Mexico were recently in the headlines due to a series of natural disasters. Hurricanes Irma and Maria battered the Caribbean, causing widespread destruction and loss of life, and a deadly earthquake hit Mexico on September 19. Some 326 people have so far been reported dead in Mexico. Both the earthquake and hurricanes have left major infrastructural and super structural devastation in their wake. The search for survivors is ongoing. Bodies are being recovered and the significant loss of lives mourned.

How should the tourism industry respond to such disasters? Of course, the interests of holidaymakers are far from important now, but tourism is economically key to these countries. Currently, the mood is certainly not right for tourists to return to either Mexico or the worst-hit Caribbean islands. And besides the lack of infrastructure and security in affected areas means many would not want to go.

At the same time, developing countries such as Mexico need the income, employment opportunities and foreign exchange generated by tourism. If tourists stay away from such destinations the resident population will not only lose loved ones and belongings, they could also lose their livelihood. As such, it is important that the industry is not damaged too much.

The importance of this can be seen from past instances of disaster. Soon after the 2005 Boxing Day tsunami, for example, Thailand started its marketing campaign with Thaksin Shinawatra, Thailand’s prime minister, asking tourists to “stop fearing ghosts” and to return to the region. Similarly, in 2002, following the Bali bombing, the Indonesian minister of culture and tourism asked people to visit Bali, saying “it makes no sense to isolate them” (the people of Bali). So how much should we worry about this in the case of Mexico and the Caribbean?

The Caribbean sands that attract so many tourists.
Maridav / Shutterstock.com

Tourism has proven to be resilient industry, although it can be susceptible to shocks from risk-increasing events. Such disasters sometimes have large initial negative effects, but later these tend to decrease or even disappear. But potential tourists can become used to negative events if they occur frequently enough; the shock factor decreases over time.

This has been evident in the responses to the terrorist attacks in Europe that have occurred in recent years. The impact of shock initially put people off from travelling but in many cases there has been a strong rebound once the threat is perceived to have been removed. Overall, studies have shown that impact and recovery depends on a number of factors including destination and tourist type, the type of event, the frequency and scale of destruction.

An earthquake or a hurricane is quite different to an intentional terrorist attack, however. As such, once it is over the risk associated with it tends to diminish, unless the cause of it is perceived to remain. Therefore, given the strength of Mexico as a destination, the recent hurricanes and the Mexico earthquake may impact tourism less than we might expect.

Natural disasters tend to lead to considerable infrastructural damage which in itself impedes the recovery of tourism, in particular if it damages tourist-related infrastructure. In the case of Fukushima, in Japan, for example, multiple connected crises – an earthquake, causing a tsunami, which in turn triggered a nuclear disaster – resulted in a longer recovery time for the tourism industry. Tourist arrivals in Japan did not exceed their pre-disaster levels until early 2013.

The overwhelming majority of tourists going to Mexico and the Caribbean come from within the region, particularity from North America, they tend to be familiar with the hurricane season, although perhaps not earthquakes. Even though the earthquake in Mexico has affected the capital and around it, many tourists areas in the country remain untouched. It is important to pay respect to people who lost their lives during the earthquake, but as long as the foreign office are not advising against travel to these destinations, there may be more reasons to go than not.

The ConversationThe concept of leisure tourism might be seen as fractious when many people are suffering due to the natural disasters in Mexico and the Caribbean, but staying away and watching the scene on TV will not help Mexico to rebuild lives in affected areas. The tourist economy, however, might.

Yeganeh Morakabati, Associate Professor in Risk and Resilience, Bournemouth University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Lunchtime Talk With Visiting Fellow Marianne Martens

Marianne Martens, recently appointed as a Visiting Fellow in the School of Journalism, English and Communication will be giving a talk based on her current research on Wednesday 27 September at 1p.m in F305. All welcome and you are welcome to bring your lunches! Details below.

For the Love of Harry Potter: Fans’ Activism in Fan Fiction, Festivals, and Charitable Works

First published in 1997, J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter changed the landscape for children’s publishing, in terms of sales figures, bestseller status, and book length.  The Harry Potter books are cross-over titles, which means that even though they are published as children’s books, their appeal extends to adult readers as well. One of the reasons for this, is the rich world-building that exists within the books. This world-building also lends itself exceptionally well to various fan-based activities, from fan fiction, to festivals, to charitable works.  Protective of the books and their characters, J.K. Rowling (and related corporate entities) are not always supportive of such fan activities. Marianne Martens will present her in-progress monograph, which examines how and why fans contribute their labor in support of Harry Potter, and the ensuing tensions between fans and the corporations who own him.

Marianne Martens, Ph.D. is Assistant Professor at Kent State University’s School of Information. Her research covers the interconnected fields of youth services librarianship and publishing, and the impact of interactive reading technologies. Previously, she was vice president of North-South Books in New York. Martens is the author ofPublishers, Readers, and Digital Engagement (Palgrave Macmillan, 2016). You can read more about her work at mariannemartens.org.

More news about the demise of Pirrus

Further to the previous post, there is further information about the closure of the Piirus service:

Piirus (piirus.ac.uk) has proved valuable to the research community with access to networks and value-added content. However, as there are several other platforms now available offering very similar services, we have decided to cease offering our platform so that we can focus on other areas in which we can support the academic community. Therefore, from 31st October 2017, the Piirus network will be withdrawn.

We are letting you know in advance so you can manage any of your data in Piirus that you might need.

When Piirus closes, all of your data will be deleted automatically so you do not need to take any further action, but if you would prefer to delete your account now, please follow these steps:

–        Log in to your Piirus account at www.piirus.ac.uk

–        Select ‘edit my profile’

–        Click through to the final screen, where you will find the option to delete your profile

–        You will then see a message to confirm that your account has been deleted

We are very grateful for the engagement of all of our Piirus members and supporters over the last few years.

We actively encourage all Piirus members to ensure they have an ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor ID) account and use this to access the many digital networking services that are now available. View the ORCID website here.

If you enjoy Piirus’ thought leading content you can continue to access this, as it will be transferred on to our free global ‘jobs.ac.uk’ service, with more useful content coming soon. View our careers advice on jobs.ac.uk here.

Thank you once again for all your engagement and support.

For more information view our FAQ page or if you have any questions please contact us via email.

 

Yours sincerely,

The Piirus team

Building a low-carbon, climate resilient future – 18/10/17 – Places still available

Funding opportunities, Info Days

Don’t miss out – some places are still available at this event:

On Wednesday, 18th October 2017, the National Contact Points for two of the Horizon 2020 Societal Challenges will be visiting BU.

Topics will include:

  • Mobility for Growth
  • Autonomous Road Transport
  • Green Vehicles
  • Sustainable Food Security
  • Rural Renaissance
  • Blue Growth

Arrival will be 10:00 for 10:15 and the event is scheduled to close at 16:15. The venue will be at the Lansdowne Campus, Bournemouth, with the room location confirmed after booking.

The day is open to all within both the academic and non-academic sectors, with an interest in applying for calls forthcoming in Horizon 2020, with a particular emphasis on those from the South East and South West.

To book your place – BU staff and external attendees should contact Dianne Goodman via our RKEDF email account. To ensure a balanced audience, registrations will be assessed and places confirmed by 11th October 2017.

About the National Contact Points:

Ian Holmes is the National Contact Point for Societal Challenge 2:  Food Security, Sustainable Agriculture and Forestry, Marine, Maritime and Inland Water Research and the Bioeconomy

Louise Mothersole is the Horizon 2020 UK National Contact Point for Societal Challenge 4: Smart, Green and Integrated Transport

Helen Fairbairn is the National Contact Point for Societal Challenge 3: Secure, Clean and Efficient Energy    (N.B. Helen is unable to attend this event but is providing materials for attendees and is happy to be contacted by attendees wishing to apply for SC3 calls).

National Contact Points (NCPs) provide impartial advice regarding EU Funding within their specialist area of Horizon 2020. The advice is free and confidential and tailored to your needs.  This is an excellent service for drawing on the experience and knowledge of someone who deals exclusively with a particular scheme or work programme.  If you are interested in testing out project ideas, checking scheme eligibility, discussing the direction of travel of a particular funding stream or just asking some questions on the practicalities of applications they are a great source of help. You can find all of them listed here along with their contact details.

Interreg: Cross-Border Event on Natural & Cultural Heritage on 11th October 2017

Funding opportunities, Info Days, international

Don’t miss out – some places are still available at this event:

BU is proud to announce that the The Interreg France (Channel) England Programme is holding their cross-border event, to support applicants who are interested in applying for EU funding under the Programme’s specific objective 3.1 on natural and cultural heritage, at Bournemouth University. This event will take place in BU’s Executive Business Centre on Wednesday, 11th October 2017. Booking is essential.

The event is a fantastic opportunity to:

  • Understand how to apply for EU funding under the Programme’s specific objective on natural and cultural heritage
  • Hear from experts working in the heritage industry
  • Find out what heritage needs and priorities have been identified in the Channel area
  • Hear from heritage projects already approved by the Programme
  • Network with applicants and project partners from both France and the UK

We look forward to welcoming guests from both France and the UK at this event.

Proximity to Discovery: Industry Engagement Fund 2017- DEADLINE: 7/11/17

The Proximity to Discovery: Industry Engagement Fund enables research organisations to establish academic/industry relationships. Funding of up to £250k, to be spent in up to an 18-month period, is available to support short term people exchanges between industry (relevant to the Medical Research Council) and academia to develop longer term working relationships.

The Medical Research Council encourages creative ways for organisations to develop medical research collaborations with industrial partners through two-way people exchanges.

The closing date for this funding call is 7 November 2017 at 16:00 GMT.

For those interested in applying to this call please contact your relevant faculty Funding Development Officer.

 

 

 

Challenge Led Applied Systems Programme (CLASP) DEADLINE: 7/11/17

The Science & Technology Facilities Council (STFC) External Innovations are running a Challenge Led Applied Systems Programme (CLASP) to aid with the commercialisation of STFC research in key global challenge areas within the healthcare sector.

Key Priority areas include:

  • Informatics and Computing for Physical and Mental Health
  • Early diagnosis and disease detection
  • Remote patient monitoring
  • Cancer Treatment

Applicants will need to demonstrate that they are working closely with industry and clinicians as well as prepare a full business plan.  Please note, lead applicants must be employed within a Research Organisation group previously or currently funded by the STFC core Science Programme.

The closing date for outline applications will be at 16:00 on 7 November 2017.

For those wishing to prepare an application to this funding call please contact your relevant faculty Funding Development Officer.

 

 

Photo of the Week: Archaeology: Hidden Landscapes

Archaeology: Hidden Landscapes

Archaeology: Hidden Landscapes

Our next instalment of the ‘Photo of the Week’ series features Ashely Green’s image which presents one of the key stages in surveying a site- georeferencing.  The series is a weekly instalment, which features an image taken by our fantastic BU staff and students. The photos give a glimpse into some of the fascinating work our researchers have been doing across BU and the wider community.

Ashely’s research is looking at the potential to detect burials prior to archaeological excavation. She is doing this by producing software that automatically detects grave-like responses in geophysical collections of data. The software will use data from sites across Ireland and South-West England to describe the geophysical signatures of medieval burial practices. These sites are surveyed at a high-resolution with a range of techniques to determine what lies beneath the ground surface and how this may affect the detection of burials.  This research aims to lessen the negative impact of modern activities on these burial sites.

This photo presents a key stage in surveying a site – georeferencing, where the survey grids and elevation profile coordinates are recorded to be associated with the corresponding geophysical data.

If you’d like find out more about the research or the photo itself then please contact Ashely.

This photo was originally an entry to the 2017 Research Photography Competition. If you have any other questions about the Photo of the Week series or the competition please email research@bournemouth.ac.uk

Update from Piirus – service transferring to jobs.ac.uk

Announcement from Pirrus:

Unfortunately, we are no longer taking new registrations for the piirus.ac.uk network. On October 31st 2017 Piirus will be absorbed by the sector leading global jobs.ac.uk, where we will continue to provide thought leading content, bringing you research and articles alongside our blogs and social media activity. This decision will enable us to provide a cohesive set of services to you on one platform.

If you don’t already follow jobs.ac.uk, we have much to offer you with regards to careers advice and valuable content to help you achieve your career goals, be it within academia or beyond. Our recent live video Q&A session dealt with our audience’s questions about entering the world of industry after completing a PhD, for example. Our China portal features a variety of articles that give insight into the world of academia in China and tips for making the move there.

The jobs.ac.uk Careers blogs will continue the good work of the Piirus blog and are written by academics and professional university staff members to cover a range of topics, including working in Education, post PhD life, and The Digital Academic. We have a long list of ebooks and infographics available to help you in creating your digital persona, pursuing a postdoctoral career in Norway (with more countries in Europe to come) and how to better organise your career to name just a few of the subjects we delve into. We also publish weekly advice articles offering useful tips, such as steps to networking success and answering killer interview questions.

In 2015, we launched PhD vlogs and we have since followed the lives of thirteen vloggers as they take us along for the ride during their PhD studies. We will expand our vlogs with the introduction of early career researchers and more experienced academics to get a personal insight into what a career in academia can look like.

A huge strength of Piirus was its in-depth blog posts that explored the real-life issues academic face on a daily basis. We want to assure you that, although Piirus will be closing on October 31st 2017, the unique and valuable content will continue under the jobs.ac.uk brand.

jobs.ac.uk shares Piirus’ desire to inspire you and encourage conversation and collaboration between researchers, academic and HE professionals. In entering our community, you are joining a huge network of like-minded individuals who may share your career goals and experiences so far. Our content aims to give people in HE a voice and explore the many diverse routes into HE that our clients offer.

Are you in the Knowledge Transfer Network?

Would you like to know about upcoming InnovateUK events?  Are you interested in the latest funding opportunities for knowledge transfer with industry?  Would you like to know about the latest developments in applied research? All of this information can be found on the Knowledge Transfer Network webpage.

Even better, join the Knowledge Transfer Network e-mail list (here) and this information will come through to you.  It is possible to set filters; so whether you are interested in Biotechnology or Transport, you will only receive the information you want.

For further information, please contact Ehren Milner (emilner@bournemouth.ac.uk)

HE policy update for the w/e 22nd September 2017

Centre for Excellence in Learning

Fees debate

Last week started with the Sunday Times headline suggesting that the government would reduce tuition fees to £7500 and then the debate that has been continuing all summer boiled over briefly. You can read more about it on Wonkhe here.

Headline grabbing policies on tuition fees are apparently fed by the view that all those students who turned out in much increased numbers (and they did) voted Labour (which many of them did) because of their belief in the Labour policy on fees (since denounced as a lie by the Conservatives). As we wrote in our 7th July policy update when we looked at this question specifically, whether this will work to convert all those student votes is very questionable – students are not single issue voters and even if they were, living costs are probably a more immediate issue for many.

Nick Hillman, Director of HEPI, writes in the Guardian that a Government study providing data on student income and expenditure (due to be published 18 months ago) is still being suppressed by Whitehall. Nick calls for this report to be published to underpin the current furore with a robust evidence-base.

Meanwhile living costs remain a hot topic in an article that talks about Labour “hoovering up the student vote”.

The Labour party conference takes place next week and Conservative party conference starts on 1st October so we can expect more on this over the next few weeks. There are still rumours that there will be an announcement on postponing the inflation based fee cap rise for students starting in 2018/19 (now long overdue and expected to be around £9500), that there will be announcements on reducing interest rates or increasing repayment thresholds for student loans, or just possibly something on maintenance grants.

For BU staff: Consultations, intranet and other resources

Did you know that we track sector consultations and calls for evidence and consultations that are relevant to research areas? We provide links to the documents and BU responses on our BU policy intranet pages? Read about current and previous consultations and find all the links, including to the latest tracker.

If you missed our “TEF: Going for gold” workshop with Professor Debbie Holley of CEL recently, you can read more about the latest plans for the Teaching Excellence framework, including subject level TEF, teaching intensity and learning gain on our TEF pages here You can read about the workshop on the CEL blog.

Our intranet pages cover a range of subjects, including the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 and its implications, the Industrial Strategy and Brexit. See our front page here and our “what’s happening” page here.

Industrial Strategy

The Commons BEIS Committee has published the Government’s response to its Industrial Strategy: First Review report, published in March. The Government confirmed that the Consumer and Competition Green Paper will be published in October and will be “consulting on the case for strengthening scrutiny of future overseas investment in some key parts of the UK’s critical national infrastructure. The Green Paper will set out proposals for discussion and consideration, and will invite stakeholders to provide feedback before any proposals become legislation.”

The recommendations from the report and the responses are set out below in summary:

Recommendations 1 and 2 – “The Government should outline a set of clear, outcomes-focussed metrics..”. And 2: “we recommend that the Government publishes annual updates to its action plan …the Government should also create a single dashboard of metrics …on GOV.UK”.

  • Response – “…we are considering the role of metrics in measuring the progress of the Industrial Strategy in meeting its goals. This work is part of ensuring that the Industrial Strategy endures for the long-term.” And (2) “we will be considering the most appropriate mechanisms to update on progress made by the Industrial Strategy and what analysis and data should accompany these updates.”

Recommendation 3 – “We recommend that Government reconsider giving sectoral strategies priority and instead focus on horizontal policies and specific ‘missions’ to meet UK-wide and local public policy challenges.”

  • Response – “We agree with the importance placed by the Committee on horizontal policies…However, there is also advantage in addressing the opportunities and challenges in particular industries and sectors—such as by helping create conditions for a thriving supply chain, and developing institutions in which companies can share in research and development and training. …we have proposed to set an ‘open door’ challenge to industry to come to the Government with proposals to transform and upgrade their sector through ‘Sector Deals’. This will allow us to consider and address sector-specific issues which would not otherwise be addressed through horizontal policies.”

Recommendation 4 –“We recommend that specific support for industry be guided by a targeted ‘mission-based’ approach, channelling the Government’s support towards addressing the big challenges of the future. “

  • Response –“We agree that one of the strengths of an Industrial Strategy is to be able to bring together concerted effort on areas of opportunity that have previously been in different sectors, or which require joining forces between entrepreneurs, scientists and researchers, industries, and local and national government. The Government has announced a new Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund (ISCF)….” [read more in our Industrial Strategy update in the policy update of 25th August.]

Recommendation 5- “We recommend that the Government consider establishing a joint unit bringing together civil servants from BEIS, the Treasury, the Department for Communities and Local Government, and the Department for Education to provide an inter-departmental team to develop and implement the industrial strategy.”

  • Response – “The Industrial Strategy is a Government-wide initiative. …The importance of this is demonstrated by the creation of the Economy and Industrial Strategy Cabinet Committee, chaired by the Prime Minister and comprising the Secretaries of State…….A unit based within the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy coordinates the development of the strategy….We do not believe that establishing a more formal joint unit will provide sufficient added value to justify the disruption to the policy development that this would cause.”

Recommendation 6 “We recommend that the Government improve the transparency of its engagement with business by publishing details of external meetings in a single, searchable database and extending publication to include all meetings ….”

  • Response –“Enhancing transparency and accountability is at the heart of our approach to government –…We have a manifesto commitment to continue to be the most transparent government in the world. …We publish details of Ministers’ and Permanent Secretary meetings with external organisations, including senior media figures, routinely on GOV.UK. Information about meetings between officials, businesses and charities are not currently held centrally and could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. Expanding this approach to include all Senior Civil Servants would be a lengthy and costly process …”.

Recommendation 7 – “We recommend that the Government work with industry and local government to conduct a holistic review of the business services and support it offers with a view to simplifying access to advice on these in order to improve the ‘customer journey’. “

  • Response – “Government plays an important role in signposting businesses to the support and advice that they need to improve, grow and scale-up their business. Through GOV.UK, supported by a Business Support Helpline and Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) led Growth Hubs, businesses are able to receive free, impartial support, which aims to simplify their journey to finding the right advice at the right time. In the Industrial Strategy Green Paper we …highlighted that we would look to identify any potential gaps in current policy, informed by international best practice. We also announced a Scale-Up Taskforce, overseen by the Minister for Small Business, to support high growth scale-up businesses across the UK….”

Recommendation 8 – “We repeat our previous recommendation that the Government should set a target to increase R&D investment to 3 per cent of GDP and implement policies to achieve it.”

  • Response – “This Government has set out its vision to meet R&D investment of 2.4% of GDP within ten years and 3% in the longer-term. Going forward, this ambition will be an important part of our Industrial Strategy and will require a concerted cross-government approach.”

Recommendation 9 – “In line with the Secretary of State’s stated aim to support disruptors and economic innovation, we recommend that the Government review with industry whether additional steps are needed to provide regulatory certainty for emerging business models.”

  • Response – “The Green Paper recognised that new entrants, not just incumbents, play an important role within established sectors of the economy, and that innovative businesses are driving growth in important new sectors. …The Government recognises that, to do this, we must understand key technology trends, foster growth in the new sectors (such as AI and Robotics) that will become increasingly economically significant, and work with established sectors (such as Education and Insurance) as new entrants deploying new technologies and business models emerge and change sector dynamics. In line with the Green Paper commitment the Challenger Business Programme that engages new entrants in existing sectors is being expanded into a Future Sectors team. …”

Recommendation 10 – “We recommend that the Government consider the potential for greater devolution of responsibility and funding for skills to local authorities and Local Enterprise Partnerships….”

  • Response – “We recognise we need to bring forward a new offer on skills and technical education …which is why we’ve set out our ambitions for wide-ranging reforms to technical education in both the Industrial Strategy Green Paper and, more recently, in the Budget set out by the Chancellor in March….Alongside this we are devolving the adult education budget to the mayoral combined authorities, starting with a transition towards devolution in 2018/19. Full transfer of statutory adult education functions to the combined authorities, and delegation to the Mayor of London, will take place in 2019/20, subject to readiness conditions. …We are continuing to work towards devolution deals with England’s largest cities where they don’t have them at present. We will also be setting up Skills Advisory Panels in England that will bring together local employers, providers and LEPs to identify local skills needs and inform delivery to support local growth.”

Recommendation 11 – “we recommend that the Government exclude university students from immigration totals and promote high skilled migration to the UK on an equal “who contributes most” basis to people wishing to invest and innovate in the UK.”

  • Response – “The Government strongly welcomes genuine international students who come to the United Kingdom to study. There is no limit on the number of genuine international students who can come to study in the UK and there is no intention to impose a limit on the number of international students that any institution can recruit.”
  • “Migration statistics are produced by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), the UK’s independent statistical authority. It is for the ONS to determine how statistics are compiled. By including international students in its net migration calculations, the ONS is using the internationally accepted definition of migration, which includes all of those who move for more than 12 months, including students. Other major countries such Australia, Canada and the United States include students in their migration statistics.
  • “Those planning the provision of services need to know who is in this country and, like other migrants, international students have an impact on communities, infrastructure and services while they are here. So long as students are complying with the terms of their visas and returning home at the completion of their studies, the overall contribution of students to net migration should be very small and incremental growth in student numbers, along the lines of that seen in recent years, can be accommodated within the net migration target. The target does not require us to impose restrictions on student numbers and we have no intention of doing so.
  • “We recognise the value of international students and this is why we are commissioning the independent Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) to provide an objective assessment of the impact of international students.
  • “We are considering the options for our future immigration system very carefully. As part of that, it is important that we understand the impacts of different options on different sectors of the economy and the labour market. We will build a comprehensive picture of the needs and interests of all parts of the UK and look to develop a system which works for all. As part of our evidence gathering, we have commissioned the Migration Advisory Committee to consider patterns of EU migration and the role of migration in the wider economy, including how we align our immigration system with the Industrial Strategy. Parliament will have an important role to play in this, and we will ensure that businesses and communities have the opportunity to contribute their views.”

Recommendation 12 – “Fiscal levers can play a key role in shaping business behaviour. We recommend that Government commission an independent review bringing together broad representation to consider whether taxation levers can better be used to boost investment in physical and human capital, research and innovation.”

  • Response –“ The government recognises the role of fiscal levers in shaping business behaviour and is committed to ensuring that Britain has a competitive tax system that encourages businesses to invest. …The government keeps all tax policy under review but we do not see the case for an independent review at this time.”

Recommendation 13 – “We recommend that the Government conduct a fundamental review of the outdated structure of the business rates system….”

  • Response – “The government conducted a review of business rates in 2015. This review concluded at Budget 2016 where the government announced business rates reductions, costing nearly £9bn over the next five years, benefitting all ratepayers. …All ratepayers will benefit from the switch in indexation from RPI to the main measure of inflation (currently CPI) from April 2020. ….In addition, the government has cut the main rate of corporation tax from 28% to 19% from April 2017 and it will fall further to 17% in 2020.”

Recommendation 14 – “The Government should also consider the opportunities to further boost procurement from within the UK as part of its negotiating strategy for withdrawal from the EU.”

  • Response – “We welcome the Committee’s endorsement of our work to maximise opportunities for UK firms to compete in public procurement. The issue of how procurements should be governed following our exit from the EU is being considered as part of the wider [Brexit] process …”

Recommendations 15 and 15 – “…the Government needs to provide much greater clarity and certainty as to what steps it intends to take to intervene in foreign takeover deals and in what circumstances.” And (16) “We recommend that the Government takes steps to ensure it has the power to retain IP benefits in the UK in the event of a foreign takeover”

  • Response [Subject to change if published after the Consumer and Competition Green Paper in October]
  • “…Maintaining a clear, stable and open environment for trade and investment is, and will continue to be, core to our approach. …We will therefore be consulting on the case for strengthening scrutiny of future overseas investment in some key parts of the UK’s critical national infrastructure in order to protect against potential national security risks. The Green Paper will set out proposals for discussion and consideration, and will invite stakeholders to provide feedback before any proposals become legislation.”
  • And (16): “…When companies in receipt of public funds are taken over, Government is able to safeguard public funds by using ‘change of control’ clauses in funding agreements where they exist.”

Recommendation 17 – “The Government needs to provide clarity on the respective roles and responsibilities between national, local and regional institutions. ….While many services may best be designed at a local level, the Government needs to ensure that it avoids creating barriers to cooperation between local institutions or inadvertently introducing perverse incentives that lead to needless and inefficient duplication of services.”

  • Response – “We are conducting a review into strengthening the role of LEPs. This gives us the opportunity to consider how we can support the business voice by bringing it further into local economic decision making…”

Recommendation 18 – “We recommend that the Government set out a clear plan to close per head spending gap on infrastructure, R&D and education between London and the rest of England.”

  • Response – “The Government recognises the importance of spending on infrastructure, R&D and education to support growth across all regions of the UK. …The White Paper will be an important vehicle to consider these issues in more depth…The Green Paper recognised that, although we have world-leading centres of excellence and leading R&D clusters, we need to do more to strengthen areas outside the ‘golden triangle’ of institutions and businesses between Oxford, Cambridge and London. ….We are now considering how different policy approaches might work in the wider funding landscape for regions and places”.

Alternative and niche providers

Higher Education Commission launched its report: ‘One size won’t fit all: the challenges facing the Office for Students’ The report makes recommendations for the OfS, following hot on the heels of those made by the Minister last week – it looks at alternative and niche provision. There’s a Wonkhe article here

Strategic challenges for the OfS:

  • The unintended consequences of policy reform and funding continue to favour the offer of certain modes of study and undermines choice for students
  • The balance between upholding quality and encouraging innovation is not achieved, either damaging the sector’s reputation or meaning the sector does not keep pace with changes in technology and the labour market
  • Innovation and growth in the sector does not effectively align with the industrial strategy or aspirations for regional growth
  • Price variation and two tier provision result in greater segregation across the system damaging social mobility
  • The student experience of higher education is undermined as some providers struggle with competition and funding challenges
  • Institutional decline, and ultimately failure, reduces choice and the quality of provision in certain areas, or damages the student experience or the perceived value of their qualification
  • The Office for Students in its new role as the champion of ‘choice for students’ and ‘value for the tax payer’ must address these challenges. It is hoped that the findings in this report and the recommendations outlined below will aid the new regulator in ensuring the continued success of the sector.

The report includes an interesting overview of how we got to where we are now, and then moves on to look at some knotty issues facing the sector, including alternative models, and a number of themes that arise in that context (such as access, support for students and progression). They look at class and course size, which is interesting given the new TEF focus on “teaching intensity”, practitioner lecturers, industry experience, sandwich degrees and apprenticeships. There is a chapter on funding, costs and fees and of course the report looks at part-time and accelerated courses, also another hot topic for universities as well as alternative providers. The report also examines some of the perceived barriers to innovation which were cited in government papers – validation (which is described a barrier to innovation rather than entry) and retention being a problematic measure for alternative providers.

The consequences of all this start in chapter 4 (page 55) where the report turns to recommendations for the OfS as the regulator.

The recommendations are:

  • Universities should learn lessons from the further education sector to create an environment that feels more accessible to students from low participation backgrounds.
  • The OfS should work with HEIs and alternative providers to identify how personalised and industry-orientated provision can be scaled up and replicated across the system.
  • The OfS, as a principal funder and regulator of the HE sector, should develop ways of incentivising industry practitioner involvement in universities.
  • Universities should consider flexible models of placements for sandwich degrees in order to meet the needs of SMEs.
  • The OfS should closely monitor the impact of degree apprenticeships on sandwich courses and other work based learning provision.
  • The OfS should address cost issues around part-time study and accelerated degree programmes, so as to support wider provision of these non-standard modes.
  • We recommend that the OfS monitors the implications of different delivery costs between HE and FE, not least in terms of enabling entry to part-time and mature students.
  • Research should be commissioned by the OfS to better understand how students, especially from disadvantaged backgrounds, can be encouraged to use sources of information more critically in their HE choices.
  • The Office for Students should provide Parliament with an annual report mapping the diversity of provision across the higher education sector, commenting on trends and explanations for changing patterns of provision.
  • The DfE and the EFSA should consider the viability of allowing employers to use the apprenticeship levy to fund work-relevant part-time HE
  • The DfE should consider the extent to which accelerated and flexible programmes could be supported by changes to the funding based on credit.

Brexit

Question to the Treasury

Q: Stephen Gethins – If he will make an assessment of whether there will be any gap in funding for UK universities during the transition from EU structural and investment funds to the UK Shared Prosperity Fund.

A: Elizabeth Truss – The Government made a manifesto commitment to use the EU structural and investment fund money returning to the UK after the UK leaves the EU to create a UK Shared Prosperity Fund. In October 2016 the Chancellor confirmed that HMT would guarantee funding for all multi-year ESIF projects signed ahead of the point at which the UK leaves the EU. Funding will be honoured provided that the relevant government department considers the project to provide good value for money and be in line with domestic strategic priorities.

Question on Exiting the European Union

Q: Baroness Coussins – When issues relating to the UK’s participation in the Erasmus Programme will be scheduled for discussion as part of the negotiations on exiting the EU.

A: Baroness Anelay Of St Johns – At the start of these negotiations, both sides agreed that the aim was to make progress on four key areas: citizen’s rights, the financial settlement, Northern Ireland and Ireland and broader separation issues. Both sides need to move swiftly on to discussing our future partnership, including specific European programmes we may still wish to participate in. We want that to happen after the October European Council. The UK government does recognise the value of international exchange and collaboration in education and training, and this forms part of our vision for the UK as a global nation.

Other business this week

The Education Policy Institute published Entries to arts subjects at Key Stage 4 noting a sharp decline in the numbers of pupils studying art and design; drama and theatre; media, film, and TV studies; music; dance; and performing arts. In 2016 entry rates to arts subjects at key stage 4 were the lowest in 10 years. There is evidence of a North-South divide with Southern regions more likely to choose arts options. The report also notes substantial gaps in the arts entry rates from pupils with different ethnic backgrounds. Black Caribbean pupils have particularly high entry rates, whilst pupils from Indian and Pakistani backgrounds are much less likely to take an arts option than those from other ethnic groups. The decline in entry to arts subjects will likely have a knock on effect for university applications within the subject areas by 2020. Entry rates peaked in 2014 so the 2018/19 academic year may see a higher volume of applications. The publication discusses the influence of the introduction of the English Baccalaureate (EBacc) and of Progress 8 which may be deterring entry to arts subjects as they are not within the core subjects for the EBacc.

HEPI published The Positive and Mindful University. The report advocates creating a proactive culture where by students and staff develop their capacity to deal with adversity to prevent mental health problems manifesting. The report provides short school-based cased studies and examples from an Australian and Mexican University. Chapter 4 discusses the UK based good practice and UUK’s mental health in HE programme. Chapter 5 (page 41) sets out 10 steps to support students to make a positive transition to university.

JANE FORSTER                                            |                       SARAH CARTER

Policy Advisor                                                                     Policy & Public Affairs Officer

65111                                                                                 65070

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

Student-staff publication in the leading Brazilian tourism journal

Dr. Miguel Moital, Principal Academic in Events Management (FM), has just published a paper co-authored with MSc Events Management graduate Cisil Andirin and Dr. Carla Cardoso, Associate Professor at the Portuguese Catholic University (Braga Campus).

After this publication, Dr. Moital has published a total of 8 outputs with BU Undergraduate and Masters students (7 journal articles and 1 book chapter). Journal articles include publications in the International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, International Journal of Event and Festival Management, Young Consumers and Journal of Fashion Marketing & Management (All Emerald journals), as well as Event Management (a Cognizant journal).

The paper, entitled “Service failures as organizational crises in business travel: origins and operational strategies as perceived by events professionals” was published in the Brazilian Journal of Tourism Research (RBTUR). RBTUR is the leading Brazilian tourism journal edited by the Brazilian Research and Post-Graduation in Tourism Association – ANPTUR. The journal is open access and the paper can be downloaded here.

The paper is based on Cisil’s Masters dissertation and focuses on exploring crisis management perceptions and practices by meetings professionals from two perspectives: origins of crisis and crisis management strategies. Focusing on Turkish meeting planners, the paper found that according to them crises are more about service failures than major disruptive events that question the organisation’s existence as per the traditional definition of crisis. As a consequence, the paper suggests that distinction between the notions of service failure and crisis may be artificial rather than real. Therefore, researchers planning studies on crises-service failure should consider looking at both literatures in order to integrate both bodies of knowledge.

 

BOS Survey Tool unavailable 3-4 October 2017

There are changes to the service delivering the Bristol Online Survey (BOS) Tool as the service is transferring from Bristol University to Jisc.  The transfer of the BOS service from the University of Bristol to Jisc is scheduled to take place during the week commencing October 2, 2017.

To enable the transfer of its database, BOS will be offline from the morning of Tuesday October 3, for a period of up to 48 hours. During this time users will not be able to access BOS and all surveys will be offline.

From Thursday October 5, the service will be supported by Jisc.

Please note that the support email address and telephone number will change after the transfer. These will be advertised on the BOS website.

Users will be able to log in with the same usernames and passwords after the transfer, and should not notice any significant changes. All surveys and survey data will be transferred, and any surveys that were open prior to the transfer will be accessible to participants as soon as the service is restored.

A notification will be placed on all user Dashboards two weeks prior to the transfer to inform them of the upcoming downtime and transfer to Jisc, but please also make every effort to notify your account’s users.

If you have any questions please contact the support team at bos-migration-support@bristol.ac.uk or call on 0117 394 1783.