Category / REF Subjects

ADRC presented latest results at two conferences in Germany

Jan Wiener, Ramona Grzeschik and Chris Hilton represented the Ageing & Dementia Research Centre (ADRC) at the 40th European Conference on Visual Perception (ECVP) 27–31 August 2017 in Berlin and the 20th Conference of the European Society for Cognitive Psychology (ESCoP) 3-6 September 2017 in Potsdam.

The ECVP is an annual meeting that brings together researchers from Psychology, Neurosciences, Optics, Computational Sciences and more. Besides vision, other modalities are represented as well as their interaction (multisensory perception). The conference of the ESCoP is being held once every two years. The society’s mission is “the furtherance of scientific enquiry within the field of Cognitive Psychology and related subjects, particularly with respect to collaboration and exchange of information between researchers in different European countries”.

Ramona represented the ADRC at both conferences with her ESRC-funded project on Dementia-friendly environments. In particular, she presented a poster with the latest results of her wayfinding experiment where she investigated the route learning abilities and eye movements of young and old participants.

At the ESCoP conference, Jan gave a talk on “What can eye-tracking tell us about the cognitive mechanisms underlying successful navigation?” where he introduced a couple of experiments that investigated eye movements during route and place learning in Virtual Environments.

Chris presented his results at the ESCoP as well. His poster titled “An exploration into the effects of ageing on general control of attention during route learning in a complex environment.” escribed his experiment using a natural looking virtual environment called “Virtual Tübingen”. He investigated attentional engagement during a route learning task in young and old participants.

HE policy update for the w/e 8th September

international, REF Subjects

Well, Parliament is back and we have had a lively start to the autumn.

REF 2021

On 1st September 2017 HEFCE published the initial decisions on REF 2021. This does not include decisions regarding submitting staff, output portability or the eligibility of institutions to participate in the REF. There is another consultation on those issues and BU’s response is being prepared by RKEO – please contact Julie Northam if you would like to be involved. Thanks to Julie for these highlights of the announcement:

Assessment weightings:

  • Outputs 60% (down from 65%)
  • Impact 25% (up from 20%)
  • Environment 15% (same but now includes impact strategy)
  • HESA cost centres will not be used to allocate staff to UOAs. Responsibility for mapping staff into UOAs will therefore remain with institutions.

UOA structure:

  • Total UOAs reduced from 36 to 34
  • Engineering will be a single UOA – UOA 12
  • REF 2014 UOA 17 will be restructured to form UOA 14: Geography and Environmental Studies and UOA 15: Archaeology
  • ‘Film and Screen Studies’ will be located and included in the name of UOA 33: Music, Drama, Dance, Performing Arts, Film and Screen Studies
  • HEFCE will continue consulting with the subject communities for forensic science and criminology to consider concerns raised about visibility. A decision is expected this autumn.

Timetable:

  • Impact: Underpinning research must have been produced between 1 Jan 2000 – 31 Dec 2020 andimpacts must have occurred between 1 Aug 2013 – 31 Jul 2020.
  • Environment: Environment data (such as income and doctoral completions) will be considered for the period 1 Aug 2013 – 31 Jul 2020.
  • Outputs: The assessment period for the publication of outputs will be 1 Jan 2014 – 31 Dec 2020.
  • The draft REF 2021 guidance will be published in summer/autumn 2018 and the final guidance will be published in winter 2018-19. The submission will be in autumn 2020.

Outputs:

  • Interdisciplinary research:Each sub-panel will have at least one appointed member to oversee and participate in the assessment of interdisciplinary research submitted in that UOA. There will be an interdisciplinary research identifier for outputs in the REF submission system (not mandatory).There will be a discrete section in the environment template for the unit’s structures in support of interdisciplinary research.
  • Outputs due for publication after the submission date: A reserve output may be submitted.
  • Assessment metrics: Quantitative metrics may be used to inform output assessment. This will be determined by the sub-panels. Data will be provided by HEFCE.

Impact:

  • Impact will have a greater weighting in REF 2021 (25% overall plus impact included in the environment template and therefore weighting).
  • The guidance on submitting impacts on teaching will be widened to include impacts within, and beyond, the submitting institution.
  • Impacts remain eligible for submission by the institution in which the associated research was conducted. They must be underpinned by excellent research (at least REF 2*).
  • The number of case studies required – still not confirmed – HEFCE are exploring this in relation to the rules on staff submission and the number of outputs.
  • Case studies submitted to REF 2014 can be resubmitted to REF 2021, providing they meet the REF 2021 eligibility requirements.
  • The relationship between the underpinning research and impact will be broadened from individual outputs to include a wider body of work or research activity.

Institutional-level assessment (impact case studies): HEFCE will pilot this in 2018 but it will not be included in REF 2021.

Environment: The UOA-level environment template will be more structured, including the use of more quantitative data to evidence narrative content. It will include sections on the unit’s approach to:

  • supporting collaboration with organisations beyond HE
  • enabling impact – akin to the impact template in REF 2014
  • supporting equality and diversity
  • structures to support interdisciplinary research
  • open research, including the unit’s open access strategy and where this goes beyond the REF open access policy requirements

Institutional-level assessment (environment):

  • Institution-level information will be included in the UOA-level environment template, assessed by the relevant sub-panel.
  • HEFCE will pilot the standalone assessment of institution-level environment information as part of REF 2021, but this will not form part of the REF 2021 assessment. The outcomes will inform post-REF 2021 assessment exercises.

Jo Johnson’s UUK speech – the next steps for regulation

Jo Johnson gave a speech at the Universities UK annual conference on Thursday –prefaced by a deluge of press coverage. See the BBC, the Guardian, the Telegraph, for a sample.  He started with a summary of the current state of the national debate on universities:

“Recent criticisms of higher education in the UK fall into two distinct camps: we might call them the Statists and the Pessimists. The Statists direct their criticism at student finance. They argue that the most important thing we can do is to abolish tuition fees.” and “The second group of critics, the Pessimists, have an altogether bleaker view of Higher Education. They argue that university is inappropriate for many students, that student numbers should be significantly reduced and that students should pursue other types of post-18 education”.

The Minister rejected the calls for a change to the fee structure, consistent with other speeches over the summer (see the Policy Update for the w/e 21st July 2017).   He said that the “Statist” approach is “bad for social mobility, bad for university funding, bad for taxpayers”. [ See the UUK announcements on this below. In the FT on 8th September, it is reported that Theresa May is soliciting views on tuition fees policy in an attempt to close the generational gap, with Lord Willetts attending a meeting at No 10. So despite the regular assurances of no change, this is still one to watch.] To the Pessimists, his message was that “Post-18 education is not a zero-sum game, where to improve further education we must restrict and ration higher education to a privileged few”. But he said that there must be a strong economic return from a “mass system of higher education”. He highlighted graduate salaries, an increase in GDP and national productivity. [see below for the UUK position on fees and funding]

The Minister referred to concerns about value for money and used the same words as when launching the Green Paper, talking about “patchy teaching”. He also attacked the sector for grade inflation: “There has been a significant increase in the proportion of people receiving firsts and 2:1 degrees over the past five years that cannot be explained by rising levels of attainment. Grade inflation is tearing through English Higher Education. On the face of it, the facts are shocking….Grade inflation can fuel disengagement on both sides – if students know that 80-90 per cent will get a 2:1 or first from a high-reputation provider, there is less incentive to work hard – and less incentive by the provider to focus on teaching.” The Minister attacked league tables for encouraging grade inflation by using first degrees as a metric.

And he listed 5 measures that would deliver value for money:

  • The TEF – including subject level TEF (see more below in the TEF update)
  • A focus on grade inflation – as part of the TEF (see below), and be requiring the OfS to report on degree classifications and challenge providers to explain any data that suggested grade inflation, and calling on the sector to take action themselves, for example by developing a sector-recognised minimum standard. This is something that will no doubt be the subject of debate in the months to come. This could have parallels in some PSRB accreditation systems – an analogy that may be worth exploring.
  • Student contracts -this was also discussed in the July speech (see the Policy Update for the w/e 21st July 2017). This time, the Minister said that the Competition and Markets Authority guidance was only “patchily observed”. The OfS will be asked to “embed in the system student contracts that are clear, quantifiable and fair”. There is a consultation to follow on making this a registration condition.
  • Accelerated degrees – we are waiting for the formal response to the call for evidence last year but a consultation will be taking place on the new fee cap that would be required to support this – allowing providers to charge more than £9250 per year (but with a lower overall cost for the whole programme).
  • VC Pay – the OfS to introduce a new condition of registration that they publish salary data for the top earners and provide a justification, supported by guidance. The OfS will analyse and publish this data. The Minister called for the Committee of University Chairs to develop a new Remuneration Code.

UUK position

In a blog on 5th September 2017, Chris Hale, the Director of Policy of UUK responded to the debate over the summer, referring to a report from UK2020 that was published this week and repeated allegations of the sector operating a cartel to fix prices for degrees.  In a speech presumably written without advance knowledge of what the Minister was going to say, and trailed in the press on Tuesday, the new President of UUK, Professor Janet Beer, VC of Liverpool University did call for changes to undergraduate funding. She referred to “vexed issues and opportunities” and gave a staunch defence of the sector and its contribution to health, happiness and the economy.

On student finance, Professor Beer said that the system was not broken but that it needed to feel fairer, and highlighted three areas for action:

  • Targeted maintenance grants
  • Lower interest rate for low and middle-income earners. [On this point it is interesting to note that this is how it already works – see the blog from Martin Lewis on MoneySavingExpert.com which he tweeted again to respond to this story and the clip below]
  • Ensuring that the benefits of the current system are better understood – e.g. 35% of the cost of educating students is contributed by the government and 75% of students have some of their debt written off.

UUK have now published a Parliamentary briefing on the funding issues.

On senior pay:

  • “It’s understandable that high pay is questioned and it is right to expect that the process for determining pay for senior staff is rigorous and the decision-making process is transparent. It is also reasonable to expect that decisions are explained and justified.”, and continuing:
  • “However, the current debate has lost sight of the facts and shows little understanding of the role that present-day vice-chancellors play not only in their own university, but in their communities, regions and on the national and international stage. The role of the vice-chancellor has evolved from leading a community of scholars, to leading large, complex, global organisations; organisations with multi-million pound turnovers, with thousands of staff working in a variety of roles, and which play an increasingly prominent role in the economic prosperity of our regions and nations. First-rate leadership is necessary for a university to be successful, and competitive remuneration is needed to attract the best leaders with the skills to lead these complex global organisations.
  • There have also been questions raised about the pay of our leading researchers and senior professional staff. We should remember that senior staff are choosing to work at our universities to deliver public good when they might otherwise choose to work in the private sector, attracting far higher remuneration. We must not let them be put off by comments that they are not worth it or their contribution is not valued.”

Nick Hillman of HEPI also writes in response that autonomy is more important than regulation in this area: “Just a few months ago, when the Higher Education and Research Act was still in short trousers, there was widespread concern that the Office for Students would not have due regard to university autonomy. Insisting they tackle vice-chancellors’ pay as one of the most urgent priorities (and before they have taken charge) will not assuage such concerns.”

Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) update

In his speech at the Universities UK annual conference on Thursday, Jo Johnson referred to a lessons learned exercise that the government has carried out on year 2 of TEF. This used the UK survey we referred to in the Policy Update w/e 1st September 2017 as well as feedback from a range of stakeholders and desk based research of the metrics. The full report plus the specification are due to be published later in September 2017. These changes will also be included in the subject level TEF pilot. The UUK review is also discussed on Wonkhe here.

  • A new metric on grade inflation (see context in Jo Johnson’s speech above). This will be a supplementary metric which will not form part of the core metrics and the process of assessing the initial hypothesis, but will be considered by the assessors while considering Rigour and Stretch (TQ3). This will be based on a provider declaration and will “record the proportion of firsts, 2:1s and other grades as a percentage of all classified degrees at that provider 1, 2, 3 and 10 years before the year of assessment”.   If the data shows that there has been grade inflation the provider will presumably have to use their written submission to demonstrate how it is being addressed. Also, the number of firsts and 2:1s cannot be considered as evidence for the quality of teaching.
  • Changes to the NSS weighting – these are interesting – particularly as there was no formal weighting for any metrics in the TEF guidance before, and no specific weighting for metrics v the written submission either. That was why there was so much interest when the Chair of the TEF Panel, Chris Husbands, suggested that the role of the NSS in the decisions on TEF should be downplayed. The paper describes this in more details in Annex B – this is a change to the way that the “initial hypothesis” (based on metrics) will be formed.
  • Changes to address the NSS boycott, by averaging the scores across the three years or simply omitting 2017.
  • Part-time providers (those with over 35% part-time students) will also be able to provide additional information relating to their part-time students and a separate assessment will be formed for part-time students.
  • Absolute values: in a change which has been flagged as a nod to the Russell Group providers who received Bronze awards in the TEF (and who, in some cases, complained about the benchmarking process), alongside the benchmarking, the top and bottom 10% values for each metric will also be highlighted (with stars and exclamation marks). This will reinforce a positive or negative flag but can also be taken into account by the assessors – although a star will be ignored if there is a negative flag or a negative flag for a split metric (so that high performing institutions with negative flags for disadvantaged groups cannot benefit). Exclamation marks will be ignored if there is a positive flag.
  • Longitudinal Education Outcomes data (LEO) will be included as “supplementary” data – this will not affect the initial hypothesis but will be considered alongside the submission. The metrics to be included are the proportion of graduates in sustained employment or further study three years after graduation and the proportion of graduates in sustained employment earning over the median salary for 25 – 29 year olds (currently £21,000) or in further study
  • “Gaming” – the Director for Fair Access will be given an opportunity to comment on “gaming” has taken place (defined as “a significant alteration in a provider’s student profile since the last TEF assessment, that involves a reduction in the proportion of students from disadvantaged groups”. In extreme cases, this might lead to disqualification.

Separate from all this a research paper by Camille Kandiko Howson of Kings College and Alex Buckley of the University of Strathclyde has been published which looks at the UK Engagement Survey – something that was tipped to be a potential metric for TEF if it was more widely adopted.

Widening Participation

Justine Greening announced that the new Director of Fair Access and Participation when the Office for Students if formed will be Chris Millward, who has been Director of Policy at HEFCE. The new role will have a focus on progression and outcomes as well as access for disadvantaged and under-represented groups in Higher Education.

Brexit

In the meantime, the Brexit negotiations continue and a flurry of papers have been published by the UK government and the EU.  The most interesting one is the one on Collaboration on Science and Innovation. The paper has lots of warm words on collaboration but little detail on what a future arrangement with the EU might look like.  On Horizon 202, the paper suggests that the UK will be seeking “associated” status (it says “associated countries have the same level of access to Horizon 2020 as EU Member States. Associated countries do not have a formal vote over the work programme, but can attend programme committees, which provides them with a degree of influence. Terms of association (including financial contributions) vary, and are determined by international agreements with the EU.“)

The overall conclusions are:

  • “The UK wants to continue playing a major role in creating a brighter future for all European citizens by strengthening collaboration with European partners in science and innovation.
  • To this end, the UK will seek to agree a far-reaching science and innovation agreement with the EU that establishes a framework for future collaboration. There are a range of existing precedents for collaboration that the UK and the EU can build on, but our uniquely close relationship means there may be merit in designing a more ambitious agreement. The UK hopes to have a full and open discussion with the EU about all of these options as part of the negotiations on our future partnership.
  • The UK would welcome dialogue with the EU on the shape of a future science and innovation agreement, reflecting our joint interest in promoting continued close cooperation, for the benefit of UK and European prosperity”

Of course, the other interesting Brexit story was the paper we weren’t meant to see – the leaked draft on migration (read more in the Guardian report). The draft proposed work permits for EU citizens with a two year limit, language tests for EU students and ensuring that they have sufficient funds before they come to the UK (which implies that they will not qualify for student loans). None of these things is particularly surprising even if unwelcome – essentially the same type of restrictions would apply as apply currently to international students. What is most interesting about this is the reaction and the timing – Amber Rudd has only just announced a review of the impact of international students and a review into the social impact of Brexit – both of which will not report until September 2018. Damien Green on the Today programme said that the real paper would be launched “in a few weeks” – at the Conservative Party Conference?

Other interesting reading

The Higher Education Policy Institute published:

  • a blog on graduate entrepreneurs and what universities could do to support them
  • a report on the crisis in the creative arts in the UK – looking at what has happened in schools and suggesting that the increased and simplistic focus on graduate employment outcomes will impoverish education and damage outcomes (see the TEF report above).

JANE FORSTER                                            |                       SARAH CARTER

Policy Advisor                                                                     Policy & Public Affairs Officer

65111                                                                                 65070

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

Congratulations to Dr. Jane Fry & colleagues

international, open access, Publishing, Research Ethics, Research Integritiy, writing

Congratulations to Jane Fry, Janet Scammell and Sue Barker  in the Faculty of Health & Social Science on the publication of their latest paper ‘ Drowning in Muddied Waters or Swimming Downstream?: A Critical Analysis of Literature Reviewing in a Phenomenological Study through an Exploration of the Lifeworld, Reflexivity and Role of the Researcher’.

This innivative paper proceeds from examining the debate regarding the question of whether a systematic literature review should be undertaken within a qualitative research study to focusing specifically on the role of a literature review in a phenomenological study. Along with pointing to the pertinence of orienting to, articulating and delineating the phenomenon within a review of the literature, the paper presents an appropriate approach for this purpose. How a review of the existing literature should locate the focal phenomenon within a given context is illustrated by excerpts from the literature review within a descriptive phenomenological study. This article was recently published in the Indo-Pacific Journal of Phenomenology.  Click here for freely available copy online.

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH

European angst over Tourists: Do Codes of Conduct Help?

After recent media exposure about overcrowding at tourist destinations and local-tourist conflict, destination authorities have sought to introduce codes of conduct across European tourist destinations. From Hvar in Croatia,  towns near Amsterdam, and Venice, there is a belief that the tourism system, like the financial system, is not working for everyone. Local residents are starting to feel like they’re receiving less than they’re giving. Therefore, authorities have stepped in with codes, with the aim to assign rules to make tourists more sensitive to local residents and protect natural, cultural, historical and other resources.

Tourists planning to go to the beach

Venice Code of Conduct

Michael O’Regan, PhD from the Department of Events & Leisure, is exploring whether these codes work, and whether the introduction of these measures really protect tourism resources. Taking a critical approach, Michael argues that such codes work at different levels, from marketing strategies, as local politicians and businesses gain reputational capital by scapegoating tourists to their role in smarter governance models. Read more on the Conversation UK.

Link: http://theconversation.com/tourist-codes-of-conduct-are-a-bad-idea-heres-why-82676

How did an archaeologist become a Research Assistant in the Faculty of Management?

Awarded & submitted bids, conferences

My name is Shannon Birch-Chapman and I am currently a Research Assistant in the Faculty of Management at Bournemouth University, working on a QR funded project titled Trust Repair in the Service Sector.

 

Our team is investigating how organisations can repair trust following trust erosion, focussing on three highly publicised cases: 1) the treatment of staff at the main Sports Direct Warehouse in Derbyshire; 2) the Alton Towers rollercoaster crash that caused two women to have leg amputations; and 3) the mis-selling of PPI by banks. These are diverse case studies with different causes and severities of trust erosion and as such, our team consists of people with diverse backgrounds: two in finance (Dr Julie Robson and Samreen Ashraf), two in leisure and hospitality (Dr Caroline Jackson and Dr Elvira Borat), two in retail (Prof Juliet Memery and Dr Jason Sit) and me: an archaeologist!

Figure 1. Excavating on the Bournemouth University Durotriges Project in 2013.

“How did an archaeologist become a Research Assistant in the Faculty of Management?” I hear you ask. Well, as any archaeology graduate knows, finding steady employment in archaeology following your degree (or in my case, an undergraduate degree, an honours degree, a masters and a PhD!) is almost impossible. The great thing about studying archaeology is that we learn a wide range of transferrable skills and are particularly good at sifting through large volumes of quantitative and qualitative evidence, and synthesising this to make informed conclusions. We are essentially the detectives of the past and, as such, make meticulous researchers.

Figure 2. Surveying the architectural remains at the Pre-Pottery Neolithic site of Ba’ja in Jordan in 2015.

In this project, I have put my previous skills to good use, conducting literature searches; compiling and writing background information for our case studies, conference presentations and journal articles; devising the conceptual framework and hypotheses for our project, and linking these to the current theories; analysing data; and writing and presenting results.

I have also developed several new qualitative research skills, particularly relating to the gathering of data through consumer focus groups, stakeholder interviews and questionnaires. As someone who had never done qualitative research of this kind, it was an interesting process working out how to devise the right questions to ask. I hadn’t ever given much thought to how much effort goes into constructing these and analysing the outputs.

One of the most challenging and rewarding aspects of the research to date has been learning how to use NVivo: a program for analysing qualitative data. Our team attended a two day workshop with Ben Meehan from QDA Training, which was tailored for our project. It was then my job to ‘code’ and analyse the data from the consumer focus groups and some of the stakeholder interviews. I used a combination of template and thematic approaches, whereby participant responses were ‘coded’ into pre-existing and emerging themes. The themes related to definitions of trust, the cause and severity of trust erosion, specific trust repair strategies and the success of these for trust repair. Running queries on the coded data, we were able to determine the trust repair strategies that were most successful for each of our three case studies.

The project started around February this year and we have already had the opportunity to present our research at the 3rd International Colloquium on Design, Brand and Marketing (ICDBM) in April and at Bournemouth University’s Festival of Learning in July. We are presenting at the 3rd International Colloquium on Corporate Branding, Identity, Image and Reputation (COBIIR): Current and Future Trends, Developments and Challenges in September and have two journal articles in preparation. We are hoping that our results will guide best practice in industry and the team will be looking to work more directly with practitioners in the next stage of the research.

Figure 3. Presenting at the ICDBM conference in 2017 (left to right: Shannon Birch-Chapman, Caroline Jackson, Julie Robson and Samreen Ashraf).

As for me, I am nearing the end of my contract at Bournemouth University. Being a research assistant here has enabled me to apply and develop even stronger research skills beyond my discipline that I am sure will help me in my search for future employment. I wonder what interesting things I will be researching next…

 

To follow Trust Repair project, tweet at @TrustRepairBU

 

Conference papers

Bolat, E., Robson, J., Ashraf, S., Birch-Chapman, S., Sit, J., Memery, J. and Jackson, C., 2017. Corporate brand rehab: Diagnosing trust repair mechanisms in the service sectors. Paper to be presented at the 3rd International Colloquium on Corporate Branding, Identity, Image and Reputation (COBIIR): Current and Future Trends, Developments and Challenges. 7th-8th September 2017.

Robson, J., Memery, J., Jackson, C., Sit, J., Bolat, E., Ashraf, S., Birch-Chapman, S., 2017. Trust Me: I’m no longer a damaged brand. Paper presented at the 3rd International Colloquium on Design, Brand and Marketing (ICDBM), Bournemouth University, 5th Apr 2017.

 

 

REF & TEF: the connections – 11th October 2017

BU Challenges, Centre for Excellence in Learning, conferences, Guidance, Info Days, Publishing, REF Subjects, Research assessment, Training

The outcomes of this year’s Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) and the direction for the Research Excellence Framework (REF) as set out in the 2017 consultation response are likely to have significant implications for the higher education sector.  The links between research and teaching are likely to become ever more important, but set against the context of increasing emphasis on student experience, how should the sector respond and where should it focus?

REF & TEF: the connections will be hosted at Bournemouth University and will bring together some of the leading experts in higher education in both research and teaching policy.  During the morning, attendees will have the opportunity hear from experts from across the higher education sector, as they share their insights into the importance of the links between teaching and research.  The afternoon will feature a number of case studies with speakers from universities with a particularly good record of linking research and  teaching.

Speakers confirmed to date include Kim Hackett, REF Manager and Head of Research Assessment, HEFCE and John Vinney Bournemouth University, William Locke University College London, Professor Sally Brown Higher Education Academy.

For more information or to book on visit: https://reftef.eventbrite.co.uk

Save the Date: Energy Info Days 2017

Info Days

 

This year the Energy Information Days will present the new funding opportunities and innovative schemes offered by Horizon 2020’s Work Programme 2018-2020. Applying for funding is a competitive process, and only the best project proposals will be selected. If you would like to know more about the type of projects we will be looking for, save the date and join us in Brussels next 23, 24 and 25 October 2017.

 This year’s Information Days will:
•    update you on the European Energy Efficiency policy;
•    present you the Energy priorities of the H2020 Energy 2018-2020 calls for proposals;
•    provide you with guidance on how to apply for funding;
•    offer you dedicated workshops for each funding area e.g. Energy Efficiency, with the opportunity to meet the EASME energy team and receive answers to your questions;
•    give you an opportunity to network and find project partners through the National Contact Points Brokerage event.

Opening of registrations

Registrations will open in September 2017. A link will be published in this page after the summer and a notification via the EASME Energy Newsletter.

Who should attend?

More than 700 participants coming from SME associations, businesses, European and national trade associations, chambers of commerce, European institutions, universities, financial institutions, etc. are expected.

Agenda

A detailed agenda with the topics and sessions will be published in September 2017.

Event date and venue

From Monday 23 to Wednesday 25 October 2017 in the European Commission Charlemagne Building, Rue de la Loi 170, 1000 Brussels.  Please read the Privacy statement before registering.

Recordings and presentations

N.B You will be able to watch the sessions live on your computer as well as the recordings. The presentations will also be available for download

HE Policy update w/e 25th August 2017

Funding opportunities, Fusion, innovation, international

Immigration, International Students and Brexit

The government have commissioned a series of assessments and reviews of the impact of immigration policy and Brexit via the Migration Advisory Committee:

  • Call for evidence and briefing note: EEA-workers in the UK labour market – we will be responding on the HE questions via UCEA and UUK and we are considering a regional response, please let Sarah or I know if you have evidence that would be relevant to this – it is looking at EEA migration trends, recruitment practices and economic and social impacts.
  • a detailed assessment of the social and economic impact of international students in the UK. We would expect a call for evidence for this to follow. Looking at both EU and non-EU students, the MAC will be asked to consider:
  • the impact of tuition fees and other spending by international students on the national, regional, and local economy and on the education sector
  • the role students play in contributing to local economic growth
  • the impact their recruitment has on the provision and quality of education provided to domestic students.

The Commissioning Letter from Amber Rudd says: “The Digital Economy Act provides a unique opportunity to improve understanding of the migration data and as part of this work the Home Office will be working with the ONS and other Government departments to improve the use of administrative data. This will lead to a greater understanding of how many migrants are in the UK, how long they stay for, and what they are currently doing. The ONS will be publishing an article in September setting out this fuller work plan and the timetable for moving towards this landscape for administrative data usage”

As well as the post-Brexit future of students, the letter also makes reference to the Tier 4 visa pilot which was launched last year and included a handful of universities. Amber Rudd says “the pilot is being carefully evaluated and, if successful, could be rolled out more widely”.

The pilot covered masters courses at 4 universities:

  • Masters course for 13 months or less at the University of Oxford, University of Cambridge, University of Bath or Imperial College London.
  • Participating in the pilot allowed students to:
    • stay for six months after the end of the course;
    • submit fewer evidential documents with their applications – e.g. previous qualifications and documents relating to maintenance requirements

A deluge of other data and reports gave also been published:

  • The Home Office has published its second report on statistics being collected under the exit checks programme – Exit checks data.
    • For the 1.34m visas granted to non-EEA nationals and which expired in 2016/17, where individuals did not obtain a further extension to stay longer in the UK, 96.3% departed in time (that is before their visa expired)
  • A National Statistics update has been published which gives a breakdown of all the data
  • Additional analysis by Office for National Statistics (ONS) on international students, has been published
  • The Centre for Population Change has published the findings of a survey it carried out in March 2017 in partnership with the ONS and UUK. The survey looked at the intentions of graduating overseas students and found:
  • The majority of students do not intend to stay in the UK for more than a year after finishing their studies (and those that stated they intended to stay were not certain of their post-study plans, particularly non-EU students).
  • Fewer than one in ten international students plan to stay in the UK indefinitely and find a job.

According to UUK:

  • Exit checks data shows that student overstaying is at worst 3% and much of the 3% of undetermined outcomes may be due to individuals leaving via routes where there are no exit checks currently (such as via the Common Travel Area). This means student visa compliance is at least 97%, far higher than previous (incorrect) claims.
  • The Home Office exit checks data provides a more accurate picture (than the International Passenger Survey – IPS) of what non-EU students do after their initial period of leave to study
  • The ONS report suggest that the IPS is likely to underestimate student emigration – therefore any implied student net migration figure is likely to be an overestimate
  • The ONS also commits to working with colleagues across the government statistics service to utilise all available administrative systems to further improve migration statistics. They have also asked for UUK’s input to this work.

Widening Participation

A survey of access agreements has been published this week by the Office for Fair Access. In their press release OFFA note that every university has committed to working with schools to help increase access to HE. The report also notes that universities will focus on improved evaluation of the impact of financial support and an evidence based approach more generally, a specific focus on White working class males and BME attainment, and more support for mental health issues.  The amount universities spend on widening access will rise.

Responding to the survey, UUK Chief Executive, Alistair Jarvis, said: “The enhancements in support provided by universities has helped to increase the entry rate for disadvantaged young people to record levels. All UK universities work hard to widen participation and support disadvantaged students throughout their time at university. It is right to expect a continued focus on support for disadvantaged students to make further progress in closing the gap between different student groups.”

Industrial Strategy

The formal outcome of the Industrial Strategy consultation is still pending. However, there has been a reasonable amount of activity in the meantime and we thought it might be helpful to do a round up.

Clusters – The Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) have set up a Creative Industries Clusters Programme, starting in 2018, to facilitate collaboration between the industry and universities. The pre-call announcement sets out the plan for at least 8 research and development partnerships, each led by an HEI, and a Policy and Evidence Centre. Calls will apparently open in October 2018.

Sector deals – As part of the Industrial strategy green paper, the government announced that there were 5 sector reviews taking place and suggested that they would welcome more.

Other organisations are setting up consultations and other reviews to respond to the Industrial Strategy, such as:

The interim findings of the industrial digitalisation review are interesting – they are working on a final report for the autumn of 2017:

  • It highlights a need for more leadership – with “much stronger marketing and messaging” and proposed the establishment of a Digital Technology Institute and Digital Technology Networks
  • It discusses issues with adoption rates for technology, particularly among SMEs and suggests better support for businesses via LEPs and other organisations, work on skills through interventions such as an Institute of Digital Engineering
  • Innovation – the interim review suggests looking at additive manufacturing and AI – and creating new industries in autonomous operations, but also providing kite marked content for businesses.

Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund – Innovate UK are running the Industrial strategy Challenge Fund – in April 2017 they identified 6 “core industrial challenges”:

Interesting reading

JANE FORSTER                                            |                       SARAH CARTER

Policy Advisor                                                                     Policy & Public Affairs Officer

65111                                                                                 65070

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

Congratulations to Dr. Keen on new Nepal publication

international, open access, PG research, Publishing, student research, writing

Congratulations to Dr. Steve Keen in the Faculty of Health & Social Sciences and BU PhD graduate Dr. Pratik Adhikary on the acceptance today of their paper ‘Risky work: Accidents among Nepalese migrant workers in Malaysia, Qatar and Saudi ‘ by the journal Health Prospect [1].  This is a peer-reviewed public health journal, part of Nepal Journals Online, and the journal is Open Access.  Nepal Journals OnLine (NepJOL) provides access to Nepalese published research, and increase worldwide knowledge of indigenous scholarship.

The Faculty of Health & Social Sciences has a growing number of publications on health and migration research, especially on the health and well-being of migrants from Nepal [2-5].

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

 

References:

  1. Adhikary, P., Sheppard, Z., Keen, S., van Teijlingen, E. (2017) Risky work: Accidents among Nepalese migrant workers in Malaysia, Qatar and Saudi, Health Prospect (forthcoming)
  2. Adhikary, P., Simkhada, P.P., van Teijlingen E., Raja, AE. (2008) Health & Lifestyle of Nepalese Migrants in the UK BMC International Health & Human Rights 8(6). Web address: www.biomedcentral.com/1472-698X/8/6.
  3. van Teijlingen E, Simkhada, P., Adhikary, P. (2009) Alcohol use among the Nepalese in the UK BMJ Rapid Response: www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/339/oct20_1/b4028#223451
  4. Adhikary P., Keen S., van Teijlingen, E. (2011) Health Issues among Nepalese migrant workers in Middle East. Health Science Journal 5: 169-175. www.hsj.gr/volume5/issue3/532.pdf
  5. Aryal, N., Regmi, P.R., van Teijlingen, E., Simkhada, P., Adhikary, P., Bhatta, Y.K.D., Mann, S. (2016) Injury and Mortality in Young Nepalese Migrant Workers: A Call for Public Health Action. Asian-Pacific Journal of Public Health 28(8): 703-705.

What happens when things go wrong in medicine?

Centre for Excellence in Learning, conferences

1-day BU conference/workshop examining what happens when things go wrong in surgery, 8th September 2017

Every day we make mistakes; we pick up the wrong set of keys from the kitchen drawer, pick up the wrong identical suitcase from the airport carousel, or, in the case of the Oscars, a near identical envelope is given to Warren Beatty who then announces the wrong Best Film winner.

What happens when things go wrong in surgery where the consequences can be much more serious?  While attention, quite rightly, focuses on patient need when things go wrong, the aim of this event is to examine how medical professionals can be better supported and trained to cope with these adverse events.

Eminent speakers from around the UK will present the latest research in the area, share insights from their surgical careers and personal experiences and will consider:-

Impact – The personal impact when complications and errors arise in surgery

Resilience – Dealing with stress and maintaining wellbeing

Restoration – what can be done when things go wrong?

While the focus is on surgeons, it is clear that those in other medical professions (e.g. nurses, midwives, GPs) face similar issues in the workplace. Anyone with an interest in the topic is welcome to attend (attendance is free for BU staff).   For further details and to register for the conference please visit www.surgeonwellbeing.co.uk or contact Professor Siné McDougall (smcdougall@bournemouth.ac.uk; ext. 61722).

BU’s PhD student Juan Camilo Avendaño Diaz and Dr. Xun He presented their research at the 7th Joint Action Meeting.

conferences

On July 22-26, Dr. Xun He and Juan Camilo Avendaño Diaz (PhD student) attended the 7th bi-annual Joint Action Meeting (JAM), held at Queen Mary University of London. This meeting brought together researchers from many different fields (psychologists, philosophers, physicists, musicians, engineers and neuroscientists, just to name a few), interested in studying people’s ability to act together (they had a full day covering human-robot interaction as well!).

Dr. Xun He gave a talk titled “A dual-EEG study of the shared attention effect in dyads: Sensory processing or top-down control?”, examining the information processing in the brain when people co-attend to the same spatial locations. Juan Camilo presented the poster “Visual attention in dyads: The role of group membership”, suggesting that co-attending with members of the same vs. different social group could have distinct effects on visual attention.

Attending JAM 2017 was a great opportunity to meet some key figures in the field, and to hear and discuss about the research that is been performed worldwide, including the research carried out at BU.

If you would like to learn more about our research, please do not hesitate to contact me at javendanodiaz@bournemouth.ac.uk

Denyse King’s Health Education England project ‘NoObesity’

Knowledge Transfer

NoObesity

The government’s key priority of reducing childhood obesity through adult education (as announced by Jeremy Hunt in Sept 2015), prompted BU’s Denyse King to write a proposal to Health Education England. Denyse is a Midwifery Lecturer / Public Health Practitioner in the Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health (CMMPH) at Bournemouth University. The proposal outlined her wish to develop a stand-alone mobile learning resource for health workers who care for families of overweight or obese children, and for families who need to identify individual needs to facilitate behavioural changes.

Afbeeldingsresultaat voor childhood obesity statistics uk, 2016

The development of this project pivoted on putting patients and the public in the centre of the process. Patients and the public were engaged through focus groups where insights were gathered to identify the challenges and issues to the problem. A series of online focus groups were undertaken with service users and professionals to understand the key challenges and issues respondents came across when trying to prevent/manage overweight and obesity. Key themes from the focus groups were:

  • Empowering – the solution needs to recognise the experiences people bring and therefore the tools need to be empowering in supporting families to address obesity.
  • Parenting tips – to address challenges with encouraging positive health behaviours with children.
  • Responding to barriers – from parent/carers who are being supported by health professionals.
  • Obesity isn’t a quick fix – recognising that sustained behaviour change takes time and support to overcoming barriers is vital.
  • Healthy snacks and activities – provide easy and simple ideas to support parents/carers and professionals to identify quick ways to support healthier eating and increase activity.
  • Portion size – understanding that portion size is important in addition to eating healthily.

Topic experts were identified and invited to join the project steering group where they provided the governance and steer of the overall development of this project whilst Denyse King wrote the content. The following Apps have been developed as a result and will be available to all as free download in IOS and Android platforms from late September 2017:

  • NoObesity Family Focused App – After consultation with a healthcare worker, families set health goals, identify potential barriers and strategies to overcome them, record their progress towards their goals, earning points and awards as they go. Families are encouraged to link accounts to healthcare professional accounts (see below). The tool also includes parenting tips, games and useful links.
  • NoObesity Professional Focused App– Healthcare professionals can see the goals, barriers, strategies, progress, points and awards of linked families, making them better able to provide tailored advice to the families, to help them achieve their goals. This is based on research findings that ‘one-size- fits-all’ health advice simply doesn’t work for most families. The tool also includes the Wessex MECC-based guidance on how to best support families, how to handle common objections, games and useful links.

Denyse would like to thank Dr. Joanne Newton project proposal support, Felicity Hargreaves and Helen Bingham for approval of the final project proposall. Thanks to all those who contributed to answering the research questions, as well as those who tested and fed back on the prototype, and also to Bournemouth University, University of Southampton, and NHS England for their support of this project.

 

List of the members of the steering group

Name Job Title Organisation Steering Group Role
Em Rahman Head of Public Health Workforce Development Programmes Health Education England (Wessex) Steering Group Chair
Alison Potter Technology Enhanced Learning Lead (South) Health Education England (South) Deputy-Chair
Dr. Jenny Godson (MBE) National Lead for Oral Health Improvement Public Health England Dental and dental aspects of nutrition
Prof. Edwin van Teijingen Professor – Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health Bournemouth University Research supervision and education governance
Dr. Juliet McGrattan General Practitioner Cumbria Medical Chambers GP role governance
Kate King-Hicks Health and Wellbeing Programme Lead Public Health England (South East) Obesity governance
Tony Hewett Intervention Manager and behaviour change specialist Miltoncross Academy School staff role governance
Dr. Jo Walker Consultant Paediatrician Portsmouth Hospitals Trust Consultant doctors role governance
Dr. Wendy Marsh Lead Midwife for Safeguarding Portsmouth Hospitals Trust Safeguarding governance
Kate Lees Consultant in Public Health and Dietitian Lees & Latouze Nutrition governance
Denyse King Lecturer in Midwifery and Public Health Practitioner Bournemouth University Content author and governance

HE Policy update – week ending 4 August **updated**

international

TEF

Wonkhe bloggers imagine alternative ways to run (ideally improve) the TEF in Visions for the AlterniTEF – can we do TEF better?  Ideas ranged from:

  • individual institution-specific targets as a condition of registration OfS (and therefore accountable under the Higher Education and Research Act);
  • metrics produced through relational analyses and cross referencing – this complex idea stemmed from measuring the quality and impact of reciprocal relationships;
  • individual learning statements setting institutional goals which the provider would be measured against – similar to current Fair Access Agreement;
  • ignoring undergraduate TEF and focusing on bringing post-graduate TEF online, including the influence of social capital and the added value of the post-graduate qualification on social mobility. This approach controversially espouses a metrics only approach and abolishes the provider statements.

Wonkhe also continue to unpick the influence of the provider statement in changing an institution’s initial metrics-based TEF rating. Marking the TEF creative writing challenge suggests the panel compensated providers who appeared to be effectively addressing poor NSS scores, took into account a London effect, and rewarded institutions with successful outcomes for part time study.

 

Brexit and Erasmus

A Times Higher article on the alternative to Erasmus post-Brexit highlights the downsides inherent in an Erasmus alternative. The EU exit agreement will determine whether the UK continues to participate in Erasmus, however, the government is currently pursuing a hard line on free movement which decreases the likelihood Erasmus would continue in its current form. An alternative is to establish bilateral agreements to exchange students with key European universities – just as we do now with international institutions. However, the article highlights the negative impact on social mobility – bilateral agreements mean the students must cover their own costs to some extent – decreasing the likelihood lower income students could afford to participate. While the obvious answer (to divert the UK’s contribution to the EU budget which funds Erasmus to a home-grown scheme) seems reasonable the budget required would be in excess of €113 million and the government have yet to confirm this as an option. Furthermore the time and administrative costs for universities to individually negotiate grants and agreements is excessive. The article also touches on lower demand from EU students to come to the UK suggesting exchanges may not be viable.

Parliamentary Questions

Q: Catherine West: What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Education on the future of the UK’s participation in the Erasmus scheme.

A: Mr Steve Baker: The Department has regular conversations with officials and Ministers from other governmental departments about a range of policy issues arising from EU exit. With regards to the Erasmus+ programme, the Government recognises the value of international exchange and collaboration in education as part of our vision for the UK as a global nation. There may be European programmes in which we wish to continue to participate after we exit. This will be considered as part of ongoing negotiations with the European Union

Brexit – staff and students

The Russell Group published 10 points requiring greater clarity in response to the UK Government’s position on EU nationals. This included calling for:

  • ensuring academic and student time abroad for study, training, career development and research purposes does not negatively impact on continuous residency
  • interpreting ‘strong ties’ broadly to ensure academics and students spending 2+ years abroad do not lose their settled status once this has been established
  • EU students starting courses in 2017/18 and 2018/19 should be able to stay and work here after their studies and be eligible for settled status after accruing five years residence
  • ensuring that professional qualifications obtained in either the UK or the EU before the UK’s withdrawal continue to be recognised across borders

 

Education-related exports and transnational education activity

The government released experimental statistics estimating the value of exports from the UK education section, the respective contribution of the higher and further education sectors, and transnational activity for 2010-2014. (Transnational education is education provided in a country different to that of the awarding institution.) The total value was estimated to be £18.76 billion – an increase of 18% against 2010. HE was the main contributor accounting for 92% of the total value, with revenue from transnational education contributing the remaining 8%. The full report is here.

Accompanying the experimental statistics is a report analysing the value of transnational education to the UK (originally published November 2014). The report discusses the benefits of transnational education to UK HE institutions (see page 11 for a summary).

 

Nursing & midwifery places

The Royal College of Nursing spoke out this week highlighting the discrepancy between the Government’s plans to expand the mental health workforce and the significant downturn in nursing applications attributed to the introduction of fees and the withdrawal of the NHS bursary. The Government has earmarked £1.3 billion for mental health services, pledging to treat an additional one million patients by 2020-21 through 24/7 services. The RCN says there is already a dangerous lack of workforce planning and accountability, and warns the Government will need to work hard just to get back to the number of specialist staff working in mental health services in 2010. They state that under this Government there are 5,000 fewer mental health nurses.

Janet Davies, RCN Chief Executive & General Secretary, expressed skepticism at the government’s plans and stated: “If these nurses were going to be ready in time, they would be starting training next month…but we have seen that the withdrawal of the bursary has led to a sharp fall in university applications and we are yet to see funding for additional places.” [The government previously stated the removal of bursaries will mean an additional 10,000 training places for healthcare students could be made available by 2020.]

On the ending of the bursary Jon Skewes, Director, at Royal College of Midwives (RCM) said: ‘We believe this decision is a fundamental mistake by the government and have warned about the wide reaching implications of removing the student midwifery bursary given the existing crisis in our maternity services. In England alone we remain 3500 midwives short. This, coupled with younger midwives leaving, an ageing workforce and the loss of EU midwives post-Brexit, means the RCM has grave concerns for staffing our maternity services. The government has completely ignored RCM advice to make any loans forgivable if students then go to work in the NHS. The axing of the bursary and introduction of tuition in England will without doubt worsen the current shortage of midwives.’

 

Tuition Fees

The Centre for Policy Studies released an Economic Bulletin on tuition fees: Wealthy Graduates: The Winners from Corbyn’s tuition fees plan. It reiterates known messages including increases in disadvantaged pupils accessing HE and the social unfairness of expecting non-graduates to subsidise education for degree students. It also makes the following points:

  • The maximum fee ceiling is charged by most universities, there is little differentiation. This means the intended competitiveness was unsuccessful as there is no clear link between tuition fees paid and job prospects. (See page 8 of the full report for more detail.) While TEF still intends to differentiate fees paid on quality the scale of the difference is limited.
  • It calls on ministers to avoid retrospectively increasing graduate’s fee repayments, to consider reducing loan interest rates, and to incentivise courses linking to labour shortages.
  • It also recommends policy makers consider intergenerational fairness but without abolishing tuition fees
  • Scotland’s previous no tuition fee policy which resulted in a student numbers cap means their social mobility outcomes are lower than England’s.

Widening Participation

Statistics – progression and outcome

The Department for Education have published statistics on the 2014/15 entry cohort –  Widening Participation in HE. These are the regular annual statistics detailing young participation in HE with social background comparisons and graduate outcomes. Headlines:

  • The progression rate of free school meals (FSM) pupils has increased, but so has the gap between FSM and non-FSM. Page 5 has a diagram breaking this down by region.
  • The state school Vs independent school gap in progressing to the most selective HE institutions has widened slightly
  • Graduate outcomes – disadvantaged students employed in the most advantaged occupations is up by 1%, although the gap between most and least advantaged students in these high-end jobs remains static at 6%.

School-age attainment trends

The Education Policy Institute has published Closing the Gap? Trends in Educational Attainment and Disadvantage. The report focuses on school aged children analysing the attainment gaps between children from disadvantaged backgrounds and their peers plus other pupil characteristics. It covers the progress made, the enduring challenges (including magnitude of learning gaps and lack of progress for the most persistently disadvantaged pupils). It recommends an additional 8 local authority districts on top of the 12 Opportunity Areas currently identified by the Department for Education. Finally, it states that without significant acceleration in the rate at which gaps are being addressed it take until 2070 before disadvantaged children did not fall further behind other students during their time in education.

 

UK UG Vs International Student numbers

The Sunday Times led with an article claiming universities recruitment of the financially more lucrative international students was crowding out intake of UK undergraduates: Universities take foreign students ahead of British.

The sector responded on Twitter and Wonkhe set out what is misleading in the Times article in their blog: What the Sunday Times got Wrong. This states that the Times article used inappropriate statistics and reminded that UK school leavers now enter university at the highest ever levels.

David Morris (Wonkhe) writes: when I confronted Gilligan about this on Twitter, his response suggested (to me at least) a realisation that a mistake had been made. He argued that his piece “was mainly about the fact that non-EU undergrads are admitted with lesser qualifications” and that we shouldn’t suggest that part-time and second degree students “don’t count”.

In his critique Morris also acknowledges the difficulty navigating HESA statistics for the uninitiated: HESA’s website is not the easiest to use, and one could easily look at overall undergraduate numbers and make an assumption about a story that simply isn’t there. I would urge HESA to make finding historic data more ‘journalist friendly’ for hacks with a deadline. To write this piece I have had to have six different tabs open on HESA’s website, plus three different Excel sheets and the HESA mobile app. No wonder mistakes can be made.

 

Case Studies

Universities UK have published a directory of case studies illustrating how universities are tackling harassment, violence against women and hate crime. The case studies cover a range of areas including prevention, improving incident reporting procedures, effective responses, student and staff training, and good practice.

 

First PhD in Project Management from the Faculty of Management

PG research, student research

Yogarajah Nanthagaopan has successfully completed the first PhD in Project Management from the Faculty of Management. He was supervised by Dr Nigel L. Williams and Professor Stephen Page and his thesis was titled: A Resource Based Perspective on Project Management in NGOs. Dr Nanthangaopan has returned to his native Sri Lanka and is the current Head of Economics and Management department and Coordinator for the BBM in Project Management degree program at the Faculty of Business Studies, Vavuniya Campus of the University of Jaffna, Sri Lanka.