Participants wanted: Brain Networks of Sharing Attention
Latest research and knowledge exchange news at Bournemouth University
Professor Dinusha Mendis writes for The Conversation about the potential copyright implications of AI as a lawsuit is lodged by the New York Times against the creator of ChatGPT…

Dinusha Mendis, Bournemouth University
On December 27, 2023, the New York Times (NYT) filed a lawsuit in the Federal
District Court in Manhattan against Microsoft and OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT,
alleging that OpenAI had unlawfully used its articles to create artificial intelligence (AI) products.
Citing copyright infringement and the importance of independent journalism to democracy, the newspaper further alleged that even though the defendant, OpenAI, may have “engaged in wide scale copying from many sources, they gave Times content particular emphasis” in training generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools such as Generative Pre-Trained Transformers (GPT). This is the kind of technology that underlies products such as the AI chatbot ChatGPT.
The complaint by the New York Times states that OpenAI took millions of copyrighted news articles, in-depth investigations, opinion pieces, reviews, how-to guides and more in an attempt to “free ride on the Times’s massive investment in its journalism”.
In a blog post published by OpenAI on January 8, 2024, the tech company responded to the allegations by emphasising its support of journalism and partnerships with news organisations. It went on to say that the “NYT lawsuit is without merit”.
In the months prior to the complaint being lodged by the New York Times, OpenAI had entered into agreements with large media companies such as Axel-Springer and the Associated Press, although notably, the Times failed to reach an agreement with the tech company.
The NYT case is important because it is different to other cases involving AI and copyright, such as the case brought by the online photo library Getty Images against the tech company Stability AI earlier in 2023. In this case, Getty Images alleged that Stability AI processed millions of copyrighted images using a tool called Stable Diffusion, which generates images from text prompts using AI.
The main difference between this case and the New York Times one is that the newspaper’s complaint highlighted actual outputs used by OpenAI to train its AI tools. The Times provided examples of articles that were reproduced almost verbatim.
The defence available to OpenAI is “fair use” under the US Copyright Act 1976, section 107. This is because the unlicensed use of copyright material to train generative AI models can serve as a “transformative use” which changes the original material. However, the complaint from the New York Times also says that their chatbots bypassed the newspaper’s paywalls to create summaries of articles.
Even though summaries do not infringe copyright, their use could be used by the New York Times to try to demonstrate a negative commercial impact on the newspaper – challenging the fair use defence.

This case could ultimately be settled out of court. It is also possible that the Times’ lawsuit was more a negotiating tactic than a real attempt to go all the way to trial. Whichever way the case proceeds, it could have important implications for both traditional media and AI development.
It also raises the question of the suitability of current copyright laws to deal with AI. In a submission to the House of Lords communications and digital select committee on December 5, 2023, OpenAI claimed that “it would be impossible to train today’s leading AI models without copyrighted materials”.
It went on to say that “limiting training data to public domain books and drawings created more than a century ago might yield an interesting experiment but would not provide AI systems that meet the needs of today’s citizens”.
The EU’s AI Act –- the world’s first AI Act –- might give us insights into some future directions. Among its many articles, there are two provisions particularly relevant to copyright.
The first provision titled, “Obligations for providers of general-purpose AI
models” includes two distinct requirements related to copyright. Section 1(C)
requires providers of general-purpose AI models to put in place a policy to respect EU copyright law.
Section 1(d) requires providers of general purpose AI systems to draw up and make publicly available a detailed summary about content used for training AI systems.
While section 1(d) raises some questions, section 1(c) makes it clear that any use of copyright protected content requires the authorisation of the rights holder concerned unless relevant copyright exceptions apply. Where the rights to opt out has been expressly reserved in an appropriate manner, providers of general purpose AI models, such as OpenAI, will need to obtain authorisation from rights holders if they want to carry out text and data mining on their copyrighted works.
Even though the EU AI Act may not be directly relevant to the New York Times complaint against OpenAI, it illustrates the way in which copyright laws will be designed to deal with this fast-moving technology. In future, we are likely to see more media organisations adopting this law to protect journalism and creativity. In fact, even before the EU AI Act was passed, the New York Times blocked OpenAI from trawling its content. The Guardian followed suit in September 2023 – as did many others.
However, the move did not allow material to be removed from existing training
data sets. Therefore, any copyrighted material used by the training models up until then would have been used in OpenAI’s outputs –- which led to negotiations between the New York Times and OpenAI breaking down.
With laws such as those in the EU AI Act now placing legal obligations on general purpose AI models, their future could look more constrained in the way that they use copyrighted works to train and improve their systems. We can expect other jurisdictions to update their copyright laws reflecting similar provisions to that of the EU AI Act in an attempt to protect creativity. As for traditional media, ever since the rise of the internet and social media, news outlets have been challenged in drawing readers to their sites and generative AI has simply exacerbated this issue.
This case will not spell the end of generative AI or copyright. However, it certainly raises questions for the future of AI innovation and the protection of creative content. AI will certainly continue to grow and develop and we will continue to see and experience its many benefits. However, the time has come for policymakers to take serious note of these AI developments and update copyright laws, protecting creators in the process.![]()
Dinusha Mendis, Professor of Intellectual Property and Innovation Law; Director Centre for Intellectual Property Policy and Managament (CIPPM), Bournemouth University, Bournemouth University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Yesterday in Nepal we attempted to meet two government ministers to present policy recommendations generated by the study examining the consequences for the health system of Nepal’s move to a federal government structure. This three-year project is UK-funded by the MRC, Wellcome Trust and the FCDO (Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office; formerly DFID) under the Health Systems Research Initiative. Through our collaborating partners in Nepal we had managed to make initial contacts with the Prime Minister’s office and a senior secretary in the Ministry of Health & Population. The timing was significant as yesterday was the last day that UK-based members of our team were in Nepal. The day started with a possible meeting with first the Prime Minister Pushpa Dahal, followed by a possible meeting with the Health Minister Mohan Baladur Basnet. However, as the saying goes ‘timing is everything!’ And, in the end the time was against us.
One of the two principle investigators of our study, Professor Simon Rushton from the University of Sheffield, and got ready early in the morning, only to be told by our Nepalese collaborators that the traffic in Kathmandu was hectic. Having waited for nearly an hour for our transport, we decided to split up with one of us joining some of our Nepalese collaborators trying to see the Prime Minister (PM) and the other one with a team to visit the Minister of Health & Population. Prof. Rushton went to the latter and after a period of waiting he and one of our Nepalese collaborators managed to meet the Minister and his staff. He also managed to hand over our policy recommendations. This offered a nice picture opportunity to illustrate a REF Impact Case Study.
Three other Nepalese collaborators and I, on the other hand, waited for over two hours in the waiting room of the Prime Minister, who turned out to be in an urgent meeting with two senior ministers. After over two hours we had to call off our attempt to see the PM. All I ended up with as ‘evidence’ was a picture of the tissue box in the PM’s waiting room.
In the end I had to rush to Tribhuven International Airport to catch my flight to Qatar, then onward to London Gatwick.
For the team visiting the PM it felt very much like Robert Burns’ poem: “The best laid schemes o’ Mice an’ Men. Gang aft agley.”
Professor Edwin van Teijlingen
CMWH (Centre for Midwifery & Women’s Health)
The BU Research Staff Association (RSA) is a forum to promote research culture at BU. Research staff from across BU are encouraged to attend, to network with others researchers, disseminate their work, discuss career opportunities, hear updates on how BU is implementing the Research Concordat, and give feedback or raise concerns that will help to develop and support the research community at BU.
Recruiting FST and BUBS Faculty Research Staff Representatives
The Faculty RSA reps role is to support the Institutional reps with the running of the BU RSA, attending the Research Concordat Steering Group, and Faculty Research and Professional Practice Committee Meetings, to provide an update on the BU RSA and feedback any comments or concerns.
Eligible research staff are those on research-only contracts – fixed-term or open-ended employment (not PTHP/casual contracts) who have at least one year remaining on their contract at the time of recruitment.
If you are interested in the FST rep or BUBS rep role, please supply a few words to demonstrate your interest, availability in relation to the position to Researchdev@bournemouth.ac.uk by the 14/02/24.
Please contact your Faculty RSA reps to chat about it if you have any queries.
Remember the British Academy/Leverhulme Small Research Grant that we recently secured in September 2023? It is turning into a super cool project, and we want YOU in on the fun!
Calling all UK residents aged 18 and above to jump into the action
by participating in our consumer product evaluation research study
Visit a link and book a slot today
What’s the scoop for you? A £5 voucher, just for spending a quick 10 minutes on a fun online survey in our lab. And here’s the best part – you can cash in that voucher at BU’s food spots on both the Talbot and Lansdowne campuses.
Hold up, there’s more! After the 10-minute experiment session, you get to snag some free fruits and veggies to take home. It’s like a mini grocery haul, just for being a research rockstar!
Participation is a simple three-step process:
Your contribution is a game-changer for us, and we can’t wait to see the impact we make together. This isn’t just research; it’s your chance to be a superhero in the battle against food waste. Your opportunity to contribute is now, and we can’t wait to have you on board!
Interested in being a research participant?
Simply scan the QR code to register or visit a link and book a slot or drop our research team to express your interest: Dr Guljira Manimont gmanimont@bournemouth.ac.uk or Professor Juliet Memery jmemery@bournemouth.ac.uk.
Dr Ola Thomson of BUBS, People and Organisations, is pleased to announce her new book: “Nurturing equality, diversity and inclusion: Support for research careers in health and biomedicine”. The book is available as open access which means you can read it free of charge via Bristol University Press (Policy Press) – link here: https://bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/nurturing-equality-diversity-and-inclusion.
You can also order a hard copy of the book with 50% off until 21 January using code JAN50 at the checkout.
The book is co-authored with Prof. Rachael Gooberman-Hill of the Elizabeth Blackwell Institute for Health Research at the University of Bristol. The volume provides an overview of the state of EDI in research careers in health and biomedicine in the UK, and offers innovative organisational and individual strategies to nurture diversity in research institutions.
Today’s academic and research institutions recognise the importance of diverse research teams in health and biomedical science, in terms of the business case, social justice and the common good. This ‘go-to’ book familiarises readers with the key equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) issues in relation to research careers and researcher development. Bringing together the challenges and solutions to EDI matters with an evidence-based approach in one volume, the book offers practical strategies and interventions for academic and research settings. This is an essential guide for equality planning team members, researchers, HRM officers and managers across academia and research.
This ECR-focused event brings together researchers in Medical and Health Humanities at Bournemouth from across the faculties of Health & Social Science, Media & Communication and Science & Technology, inviting them to highlight and address the main challenges of working within this varied and interdisciplinary field.
It will feature an expert roundtable and open discussion, followed by breakout groups and opportunity for networking activity for ECRs.
Roundtable participants will be invited to speak for 5 minutes, drawing on their experience of research partnerships across disciplines. Suggested topics for speakers to address include, but are not limited to:
This event is for BA ECR Network members only. You can join the network here and book your place through the following linkTickettailor
ECR attendees will be invited to write and submit their questions for the panel in advance of the session, sending them by email to: RKEDF@bournemouth.ac.uk – in the second phase of the event, ECR attendees will be put into breakout rooms to discuss how their own practice might address these challenges, identify areas of future support they require and reflect on their professional identity as an interdisciplinary researcher in this field.
For any further information please contact RKEDF@bournemouth.ac.uk
Anatomy of an Impact Case Study
This workshop is aimed at Academics and Researchers who would like to learn what an excellent REF impact case study looks like and how to start building your own case study from scratch.
We will look at the different sections of a case study and what is required for each one, then examine impact case studies from previous REFs to establish what the panels are looking for. We will then move on to thinking about what you would need to do to start building your own impact case study.
By the end of this session you will be familiar with the structure of an impact case study, what makes an excellent case study and what you will need in order to start building an impact case study from your own research.
Book your place here under ‘Impact Essentials: Anatomy of an Impact Case Study – 22/02/2024’ in the drop-down menu
For any queries regarding this workshop, please contact impact@bournemouth.ac.uk
Work Life Balance
This session is aimed at Academics, Researchers and PGRs with an interest in discussing work/life balance within Academic roles and careers.
The session aims to discuss approaches to setting and maintaining healthy work/life balance whilst also managing the demands of their role.
It will follow an open, discursive model and invite responses from ECRs with input from the Academic leads.
By the end of the session, attendees will have acquired knowledge of models and techniques to healthy professional practice with regards to time management, wellbeing and working practices, and have had the opportunity to discuss their specific circumstances with peers and experienced Academic mentors.
For further information please contact RKEDF@ RKEDF@bournemouth.ac.uk
‘‘Intellectual Property for Academics’’
Wednesday 24th January 10:30 – 12:00, Talbot Campus
A workshop presented by Dr Nicholas Malden, Partner at D Young&Co, a leading top-tier European intellectual property firm and Bournemouth University’s preferred choice for patent advice.
Nick Malden has more than 18 years’ experience in intellectual property specialising in patents, in particular those concerned with electronics, physics, materials, medical devices, and software. Prior to joining D Young & Co he was a research associate at Manchester University, based at the Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron (DESY), in Hamburg, Germany.
Nick Malden will do a ‘grand tour’ of IP for academics, which will include:
This is a unique opportunity to listen to valuable discussions, ask questions and learn ‘‘the need to know’’ from an industry expert about IP from the academic perspective.
Reserve your place here under “Intellectual Property for Academics” in the drop down menu, as soon as possible


MIL Eco-Lab: Media & Information Literacy for Healthy Ecosystems
Cluster Lead: Julian McDougall
This new research cluster, located in SHDC, will generate and support research to inform policy and practice for the role of Media and Information Literacy (MIL) in: promoting societal resilience to misinformation; improving the health of communication ecosystems and supporting better health, science and data literacies.
This new cluster will form an MIL Eco-Lab to support and grow capacity for:
Colleagues who are interested in finding out more about this cluster and discuss how your research can contribute, with no obligation to join, are invited to share your availability here for a zoom workshop later this month. And / or if you would like to chat about this 1-1, just email me and we can set that up.
Thanks for reading,
Julian
Deadline for expression of interest: 12pm on Friday 1st March 2024.

The UKRI Future Leaders Fellowships will grow the strong supply of talented individuals needed to ensure a vibrant environment for research and innovation in the UK. The scheme is open to researchers and innovators from across business, universities, and other organisations and from around the world.
This scheme is looking for early career researchers and innovators who are either:
UKRI are offering funding to support ambitious research or innovation programmes across UKRI’s remit. You must be based at, and have the support of, an eligible academic or non-academic institution.
There is no minimum or maximum award value.
Your project can last for up to four years, with the option to apply to renew for a further three years.
The external deadline for this call is 18th June 2024.
BU internal competition:
For Round 9 we are running an internal process at BU to ensure we support and encourage submissions from the highest standard of candidates. For this round, BU is capped at a maximum of 3 applications.
The focus is to ensure candidates are eligible and have a high chance of success, providing them with comprehensive advice and support, to develop a high-quality programme of research and proposal for submission. Applications are welcome from internal academics (both as prospective fellows and/or mentors of prospective fellows) and external academics to be hosted by BU.
Prospective applicants should complete an Expression of Interest UKRI FLF R9_EOI and send to Research Development by 12pm on 1st March 2024. A panel of subject experts and Deputy Deans of Research will review each EoI and selected applicants will be notified by end of day on 8th April 2024. All documents relating to this internal competition are available on the I Drive here: I:\RDS\Public\FLF Round 9 June 2024
Selected applicants will then be supported to progress with their application and receive internal and external support as required.
A briefing on this call will be held on 7th February 2024 at 12 noon, including an overview of the scheme and a Q&A session. For those who cannot attend on the day, the briefing will be recorded and shared on Brightspace. Please contact us to receive the link.
Process for selecting applications timeline:
| Date | Action |
| 15th January 2024 | Internal Launch of Call |
| 7th February 2024 | Future Leaders Briefing and Q&A for Fellows and mentors – at the Funding Development Briefing. |
| 29th February 2024 | Call opens |
| 1st March 2024 Noon | EoI deadline |
| 4th March 2024 | Applications sent to reviewers |
| w/c 1st April 2024 | Panel Meeting |
| 8th April 2024 | Notify successful FLF/s |
Please contact Eva Papadopoulou or Kate Percival with any queries on the above.

The Chair of the REF Impact Subcommittee (RISC) has an important role to play in supporting preparations for the Engagement and Impact element of Bournemouth University’s (BU) REF2029 submission.
RISC reports on progress in the development of impact case studies and against impact strategies to the REF Committee, sharing intelligence from across BU and the wider HE sector, making recommendations on impact resourcing and ensuring evidence of impact is robustly recorded.
The Chair, who should be a member of the Professoriate, needs an institution-wide perspective on the development of impact case studies and the new impact narratives, and to ensure the subcommittee is effective in reviewing progress.
Key responsibilities include:
Application process:
Research Development and Support (RDS) runs an expression of interest (EoI) call, inviting all those who are interested to put forward a short case (one page maximum) outlining why they are interested and the knowledge, skills and experience they think they could bring to the role. Applications from underrepresented groups (e.g. women, minority ethnic, declared disability) are particularly welcome. The deadline is: 5pm, Monday 29th January.
EoIs are submitted to RDS (impact@bournemouth.ac.uk) and reviewed against the selection criteria detailed below by a gender-balanced selection panel comprising:
In the event of there being just one EoI received for a particular panel member role, the panel will still review it using the selection criteria to ensure the applicant is suitable for the role.
Further details on the role and selection criteria are here:
Chair REF Impact Subcommittee role descriptor
Process and criteria for RISC Chair recruitment
Selection criteria
The panel will give each EoI a score out of 15, based on how well they score against the criteria outlined below. These are equally weighted, with each criterion carrying a total possible score of 5. The panel will offer the role to the applicants with the highest ranked EoIs. A member of the panel will provide feedback to all applicants.
Questions
Any queries regarding the process should be directed to impact@bournemouth.ac.uk. Specific questions about the Chair role should be directed to REF Committee Chair Professor Einar Thorson.
BU is a partner of The Conversation, a news analysis and opinion website with content written by academics working with professional journalists.
As a partner organisation, our academics and researchers can write for The Conversation on their areas of expertise. Conversation journalists are offering one-to-one training sessions for BU academics to understand more about The Conversation, or to discuss and pitch an article to them.
Two training dates are available, on Wednesday 28 February from 2–4pm or Tuesday 19 March from 10:30am – 12:30pm.
You can book a fifteen minute session with a Conversation journalist using the links below:
Book your place for 28 February
The Conversation is a great way to share research and informed comment on topical issues. Academics work with editors to write pieces, which can then be republished via a Creative Commons licence. Since we first partnered with The Conversation, articles by BU authors have had over 9.5 million reads and been republished by the likes of The i, Metro, National Geographic Indonesia and the Washington Post.
You can learn more about working with The Conversation on the Research and Knowledge Exchange Sharepoint site.
Free sessions from Fast Track Impact on preparing for REF2029, scoping an ethics of engagement and impact, integrating impact into your next funding bid and influencing policy. Book soon as some of these events only have a few spaces left.
Date: 5 February, 2024
Time: 10:00 – 13:00
This session will help you monitor, evaluate and evidence your impact.
Date: 26 February, 2024
Time: 13:00 – 14:00
Date: 20 May, 2024
Time: 10:00 – 12:00
Learn how to increase your success rates and integrate impact into your next research proposal
Date: 2 September, 2024
Time: 10:00 – 13:00
This session is based on research by Prof Reed and the latest evidence on how to get research evidence into policy.
Date: 2 December, 2024
Time: 10:00 – 13:00
Find out how you can become significantly more productive as a researcher in a fraction of your current working day.
The PM has confirmed that 2 by-elections will be held in February. (from the FT)
Lifelong learning
All this is coming soon, including changes to the way that fees are calculated and paid to providers so that they are not based on years but on credits. This means that there will be no more special arrangements for accelerated programmes.
But will there be any demand for modular programmes? The OfS ran a big trial:
And the takeup for loans for the short courses was very small. Out of 96 courses offered, only 17 were launched by 10 of the 22 providers, and instead of the 2000 participants planned, there were 240 applicants and 125 enrolments; with only 41 taking up the new student loan product.
The paper includes a lot of recommendations. Wonkhe article here.
Apprenticeships
The government have pledged to increase apprenticeships at the cost, perhaps of “traditional” degrees.
In practice, apart from a lot of bigging them up in speeches and so on, this means that the OfS have been told to fund development of apprenticeships and they have been doing so:
Note the focus on L6. The government have made noises in the past about being unhappy with the volume of L7 apprentices being funded through the levy, especially where these are already senior employees, and this is something that may be addressed through policy changes in the future, e.g. restricting the use of the levy to L6 and below. As noted last week, Labour have suggested repurposing the levy for apprenticeships and skills, which would also probably result in a reduction of the proportion of levy available for L7 apprenticeships, depending on how the changes were implemented, unless the amount available under the levy was increased.
Student experience, wellbeing and finances
We talked about cost of living in last week’s report, there was a December Sutton Trust analysis which makes grim reading.
Here is the December Wonkhe story.
What are the characteristics of students?
Alongside the TEF outcomes published last year (and updated with most of the pending awards just before Christmas, were summaries of the characteristics data for students in the UK for the 4 years to 2020-21. This is interesting to consider, and although some of this might seem obvious, does it hold true for our own cohorts and it is that obvious really?
We tend to talk a lot in the sector about student outcomes in the context of student characteristics, achievement gaps and so on. But the other aspect, which I have been discussing with Shelley recently, is what this means for education practice. A couple of examples – there is more to think about here and BU’s numbers are different from the sector in some ways:
Age on entry:
Part-time students and apprentices are generally older. In particular there is a much higher proportion of apprentices who are over 31, which is not surprising given that many degree level apprentices at L6 and L7 will be people already in work who are being asked by their employers to upskill via an apprenticeship, and this is consistent with the lifelong learning/skills agenda
Disability:
Ethnicity:
Qualifications on entry (UG only):
You will have seen from the policy updates over the last year the negative rhetoric around “poor quality” courses: of course we all agree that we don’t want those. Some noses were put out of joint by the Autumn Statement’s only reference to HE: “Proposals will be implemented to decrease the number of people studying poor-quality degrees, and to increase take-up of apprenticeships”.
As noted last week, as far as we can tell, this does not mean new measures but continuing to instruct the OfS to use its existing powers of regulation plus a continued focus on funding and promoting apprenticeships.
This House of Commons library research briefing on student number controls from August 2023 is an interesting read.
Here are some extracts from the press release from July 2023 when the final bit of the Augar changes (no sector wide student number caps or minimum entry levels):
And none of this is helped by the increasing cost to the government of funding the HE system. The IfS published a report on 9th January: ”higher long-term inters rates and the cost of student loans”.
The debate around funding student loans has largely focused on what share of student loans will be repaid, and what share of the cost will need to be picked up by the taxpayer. Much less attention has been paid to the government cost of financing student loans that do get repaid. In this report, we investigate how the cost of student loans including these financing costs has changed as a result of increases in government borrowing costs over the past two years.
Quality
This crackdown on perceived low quality has so far consisted of several waves of OfS quality assessments, last week I highlighted the first published outcomes of the first waves of assessments in business and management and computing: the regulatory consequences of these assessments are yet to be announced (with concerns only confirmed at 2 of the 6), but where problems are found the OfS can do lots of things including a combination of these:
Another interesting point to note: providers have to pay fees to cover the cost of the investigation if they are subject to a regulatory investigation by the OfS unless they are completely exonerated.
This Wonhke article from July 23 describes when the OfS has already imposed licence conditions relating to B3: most of these required improvement plans and most (other than 2) related to colleges or alternative providers rather than universities.
It is worth reading the article which includes a response from Burton and South Derbyshire College. Their main point is that the OfS is using very old data: the latest OfS dashboard data is for continuation for students starting in 2020-21, and of course graduate outcomes and completion data is by definition for students who started much longer ago than that; and who are following a programme which is likely to have change quite a lot since they started. Just as a counter-balance to that, for existing providers (rather than newly registered providers) sanctions will usually follow an investigation, so although the outcomes data may be old, the practice and actions taken by the provider that the OfS are reviewing is current. Before imposing a restriction, the OfS would need to form a view that those current actions and other steps were not likely to be adequate on their own to address the issues flagged by the (old) data.
The latest quality assessments have focussed on two subjects, and have looked at a wide range of student outcomes and experience in the context of the B licence conditions. Often discussions of the B conditions focus on B3 (minimum absolute levels of student outcomes), but there is a lot more to the B conditions than those.
These were covered extensively when the consultations about these new conditions were ongoing several years ago, but as a lot has happened since then, here is a reminder.
I’ll talk more about the TEF and some of these conditions and other licence conditions in future updates.
Student numbers and admissions
This from Wonkhe in the daily update on Friday 12th January makes interesting reading in the light of all the concerns from the OfS about risky dependence on international student numbers
There has been a lot of press about financial sustainability and a lot of providers have been in the press for their efforts to manage financial gaps, arising from a whole range of issues as discussed last week.
To add to the doom and gloom here are some articles on the topic:
FT article 11th Jan 24: Senior leaders at four English universities told the FT in December they were experiencing a slowdown in international recruitment, driven in part by renewed competition from the US and Australia, which closed their borders during the Covid-19 pandemic. Data collected by the Enroly web platform that helps international students through the bureaucratic process of joining universities has indicated a sharp drop-off in enrolments from Nigeria and India. The company said a representative sample from more than 68,000 applicants to small and large UK universities found that overall deposit payments were down by 37 per cent for the January 2024 intake when compared with the previous year.
Research Professional article 5th Jan 24: universities at risk of insolvency in 2024
ITV news: November 2023 Higher education sector in ‘existential crisis’ as one in four universities make losses
Universities UK report: sustainable university funding, September 2023
The House of Commons library research briefing on student number controls from August 2023 referred to above also describes the upcoming cap on fees for some foundation years from the 2025/26 academic year: we are awaiting a consultation on the detail of this
It’s not easy in Wales or Scotland either, see recent articles from Wonkhe at the links.
There are OfS licence conditions about financial sustainability too: OFS licence conditions: financial sustainability and student protection in the case of a risk of market exit.
Minimum service levels
Something you may have missed in the run up to the holiday was the announcement of a consultation on minimum service levels in education (consultation closes 30th January 2024):
In the consultation document the section on HE starts on page 27
Yesterday, Sunday 14th January, I was invited by Bournemouth University’s former PhD student Dr. Pratik Adhikary to run a three-hour methods session on semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions at the Nepal Injury Research Centre (NIRC). The workshop was based on work normally presented as part of BU’s Doctoral College Researcher Development Programme.
The audience comprised PhD students based at NIRC, as well as at Kathmandu Medical College (KMC), and Nepal’s oldest and largest university, Tribhuvan University. Participants were involved in research into many different research questions, ranging from road traffic accidents to sexual health and the well-being of migrant workers. NIRC was established with funding from the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Global Health Research Programme and it is a partnership between KMC and the University of the West of England, Bristol (UWE).
Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen
Centre for Midwifery & Women’s Health (CMWH)
Two days ago Professor Edwin van Teijlingen from BU’s Faculty of Health & Social Sciences was interviewed by the national television channel News24 in Kathmandu, Nepal. His interview covered some more personal questions, including the question how Edwin became involved in research in Nepal two decades ago, followed questions about recent research projects. The latter involved questions about the nearly completed project “The Impact of Federalisation on Nepal’s Health System: A longitudinal Analysis’. This project, launched in 2020 at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, is led by the University of Sheffield, in collaboration with BU, the University of Huddersfield, Canterbury Christ Church University, PHASE Nepal and MMIHS (Manmohan Memorial Institute of Health Sciences). This nearly four-year project is UK-funded by the MRC (Medical Research Council), the Wellcome Trust and DFID (now called the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office [FCDO]) under the Health Systems Research Initiative.
There were also questions about the health and well-being of Nepal’s migrant workers, partly related to a recently finished study on kidney health of migrant workers funded by The Colt Foundation and a new project led by La Isla Network in the United States of America (USA). La Isla Network, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health (in the USA) , Nepal Development Society and Bournemouth University are leading the first-ever international effort to research and address trafficking among Nepalese labour migrants. The work is funded by a $4 million cooperative agreement awarded by the U.S. Department of State’s Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, International Programs. 
The television company has already put the half-hour interview on YouTube, to watch it click here!