Category / Fusion themes

BU Prof Jonathan Parker promoting social work in Malaysia

international, writing

BU Professor Emeritus Jonathan Parker recently discussed his recently published latest edition of the book Newly-Qualified Social Workers: A Practice Guide to the Assessed and Supported Year in Employment to Prof. Denison Jayasooria from Malaysia.  Prof. Parker has a longstanding collaboration with social work researchers in Malaysia, for example in the field of social work education or the inclusion of indigenous people’s voices in the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDG).

New interdisciplinary paper accepted for publication

international, open access, Women's Academic Network

Today we heard from the Editor in Chief of the Europasian Journal of Medical Sciences that our paper ‘Ethical Entrepreneurship in Pharmacy: An Interdisciplinary Solution to a Global Public Health Problem‘ has been accepted for publication [1].  This paper has three Bournemouth academics as co-author: Dr. Pramod Regmi, Dr. Sukanya Ayatakshi-Endow and Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen. The paper is truly interdisciplinary, the six authors have disciplinary backgrounds in: pharmacy, health education, public health, business studies, economics, health services research and sociology. 

This viewpoint offers a different way of looking at the worldwide problem of the increased use of antibiotics and antimicrobial resistance. In low-income countries, such as Nepal, pharmacies have a key role in dispensing medicine, and local pharmacies often provide health care advice in rural communities. However, the way many pharmacies operate can easily lead to unethical practices that are harmful to the health of their recipients, but also to the wider population. Such dangerous business practices involve inappropriate prescription and dispensing of medicine (i.e. antibiotics). Public health professionals have promoted better regulation and education to reduce the use of antibiotics and antimicrobial resistance. These approaches have an important place to play, but in this paper, we propose one particular intervention, namely the training of community pharmacy shop owners in sustainable and ethical entrepreneurship. To offer greater insights into the issue we have produced a theoretical framework. We suggest interventions should be co-created with all relevant stakeholders to change perceptions of entrepreneurship, offer management training, thus promoting an ethical and sustainable business culture, and in the long run, improve pharmacy education in these areas.

The Europasian Journal of Medical Sciences is an Open Access journal, hence freely available to read when it gets published.

Reference:

  1. Regmi, P.R., Ayatakshi-Endow, S., Rajkarnikar, R., van Teijlingen, E., Khanal, D.P., Poudel, R.S. (2026) Ethical Entrepreneurship in Pharmacy: An Interdisciplinary Solution to a Global Public Health Problem?” Europasian Journal of Medical Sciences (EJMS) (accepted July 2026).

LEGO® Serious Play and the Work of Embedding UN SDGs in practice.

Knowledge Exchange, staff profile pages, Training, Women's Academic Network

 

There is a particular silence that falls over a room of academics and practitioners when you put a box of LEGO bricks in front of them and ask them to build what sustainability means in their work. That silence lasts about four seconds. Then someone reaches in.

This afternoon, colleagues from across the University’s Sustainability Academic Network (SAN) sat around a table and did exactly that. The question we had was one that we rarely give ourselves room to think about properly: how do we embed the UN Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) into what and how we teach or work, in a way that means something beyond a line in a validation document or the curriculum? The method was LEGO® Serious Play® (LSP). Facilitated by Stefan Kleipoedzsus and me, it was, by any measure, a generative afternoon.

LSP was developed in the late 1990s by two professors, Johan Roos and Bart Victor, as a way to help senior executives think and talk differently about their organisations (Roos & Victor, 1999; Roos et al., 2004). Its native habitat is adults wrestling with challenging, ambiguous, organisationally-loaded questions, which is a fair description of curriculum design under a sustainability mandate. Released openly in 2010 and now used across start-ups, multinationals and universities alike (Kristiansen & Rasmussen, 2014), the method’s pedigree is corporate strategy, not childhood play with the bricks. Using it with academics is not a gimmick; it returns it to its roots.

But why does it earn its place in staff development?

The cognitive case is well established. Building externalises thinking: when we construct a physical model, we recruit the body’s interaction with the world into our reasoning, surfacing tacit knowledge that talk alone leaves buried (Barsalou, 2008; Wilson, 2002). This is the constructionist premise, that we think most powerfully when we are making something shareable (Papert & Harel, 1991).

But for educators and sustainability practitioners, there is a second, sharper reason. We largely teach as we were taught. If we want colleagues to consider experiential, active pedagogies for their own students, what we can do is have them experience one and then reflect on it. LSP turns staff development into exactly the reflective practice we ask of ourselves as professionals (Schön, 1991); not a lecture about active learning, but the thing itself, felt from the inside. What you do with a method after you have built it with your own hands is a different decision from what you do with one you have only heard described.

Sustainability is a difficult thing to discuss in a room. It is abstract, contested, unevenly understood across disciplines, and easy to deflect with the familiar moves, that’s not relevant to my subject, we already do that, whose definition anyway? A conventional meeting tends to reward whoever is most fluent or most senior.

Building changes the dynamics. When a colleague presents assumptions like height, weight, and form in bricks, it turns into an object on the table, something the group can analyse together rather than a claim to be swiftly rebutted. The convention that a model’s meaning belongs to its creator protects an idea long enough for it to be listened to. Across various faculties and departments with different languages for sustainability, models provided a shared, neutral platform. Statler et al. (2009 and 2011) describe LSP as a way to hold paradox and complexity openly rather than prematurely collapsing them, which is exactly the right approach for the SDGs, where the tensions between goals are not flaws but the core of the work.

But one excellent afternoon is a beginning, not evidence. The trouble with any workshop of this kind is that it generates energy and insight that have evaporated by the following Monday, a memorable session that embeds nothing. It is also true that the people in the room were a self-selecting sustainability network; the method’s more robust test will be the others who are indifferent or unconvinced, and we should not mistake a willing audience for a settled case.

So the test of this work is whether anything in our modules, our assessments and our everyday conversations actually shifts as a result, and whether the alignment with the BU2035 strategy becomes substantive rather than a matter of compliance. What the session did show was where colleagues are, made tacit assumptions visible and shared, and built the cross-faculty relationships that durable curriculum change depends on. We see this as the first move in something larger, and we are already thinking about what a sustained, evidence-based strand of practice looks like beyond a single afternoon. If the method’s history tells us anything, it is that adults do some of their most serious thinking when we let them build.

 

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

Kristiansen, P., & Rasmussen, R. (2014). Building a better business using the LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY® method. Wiley.

Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Constructionism. Norwood, NJ. Ablex Publishing.

Roos, J., & Victor, B. (1999). Towards a new model of strategy-making as serious play. European Management Journal, 17(4), 348–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-2373(99)00015-8

Roos, J., Victor, B., & Statler, M. (2004). Playing seriously with strategy. Long Range Planning, 37(6), 549–568.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2004.09.005

Schön, D. A. (1992). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315237473

Statler, M., Heracleous, L., & Jacobs, C. D. (2011). Serious play as a practice of paradox. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(2), 236–256. DOI:10.1177/0021886311398453

Statler, M., Roos, J., & Victor, B. (2009). Ain’t Misbehavin’: Taking Play Seriously in Organizations. Journal of Change Management, 9, 107 – 87. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697010902727252

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

New chapters published in maternity book on risk

international, PG research, Publishing, Women's Academic Network, writing

A few days ago Palgrave Macmillen published Risk and Uncertainty in Maternity Care: Putting Risk in Its Place.  This edited book examines the way risk is defined and employed in maternity care across the world.  The 25 chapters reflect in different ways on how the management of risk shapes the organization and experience of maternity services. Drawing from investigations of the way risk operates in contemporary society, the authors challenge taken-for-granted understandings of risk in maternity care and early parenting, showing how risk is not simply a value-free assessment of potential harms but is, in fact, a complex social and political way of seeing, knowing about, and performing pregnancy and birth.

This edited volume contains two chapters which have co-authors associated with BU.  Chapter 15 ‘Communicating Maternity Risks Using Social Media in England and Australia‘ is written by Sheena Byrom, Mandie Scamell, Hannah Dahlen, Joanne Rack.  This chapter addresses childbirth in the digital age. Over the last two decades, social media—a group of internet-based applications that facilitate the development and sharing of information—revolutionised the way we connect and communicate. These new media are now an ever-present part of our daily lives. The authors explore how social media shapes the way risk is understood by all of those involved in pregnancy, labour, and birth.Sheena Byrom holds an honourary doctorate from Bournemouth University, and Joanne Rack is doing her for-year Clinical Doctorate in the Centre for Midwifery & Women’s Health (CMWH) specialising in personalised care for women of advanced maternal age. This PhD study is matched-funded by University Hospitals Dorset (UHD) NHS Foundation Trust and Bournemouth University.

Whilst chapter 16 From Uncertainty to Risk: How Mass Media in the UK and the US Generate Fear of Childbirth is co-authored by professors Hundley and van Teijlingen who are co-leads of the CMWH.  This chapter addresses the growing intolerance for the uncertainties associated with childbirth. While research has yet to establish a cause-and-effect relationship between media representations of pregnancy and birth and societal views of the childbirth experience, analysis of mass media accounts of childbirth can help explain why those involved in childbirth—maternity service users and providers alike—increasingly define birth as a site of risk. Existing studies of the representation of birth in mass media allow us to examine how the complex interaction between media, culture, and birth amplifies perceptions of risk. The authors illustrate the ways mass media influence, not just attitudes towards birth, but the way birth is managed.

 

References:

  1. Byrom, S., Scamell, M., Dahlen, H., Rack, J. (2026)  Communicating Maternity Risks Using Social Media in England and Australia [Chapter 15], In: Scamell, M., De Vries, R, Coxon, K. (eds) Critical Studies of Risk and Uncertainty in Maternity Care : Perspectives from Australia, Europe, and the United States, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 309-326.
  2. van Teijlingen, E., Hundley, V., De Vries R. (2026) From uncertainty to risk: how mass media in the UK and the US generate fear of childbirth [Chapter 16], In: Scamell, M., De Vries, R, Coxon, K. (eds) Critical Studies of Risk and Uncertainty in Maternity Care : Perspectives from Australia, Europe, and the United States, Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 327-346.

BU academics publish in Nepal national newspaper

Delicious links, international

Dr. Pramod Regmi and prof. Edwin van Teijlingen had a long article published today related to their work on migrant workers in Nepal.  The article ‘Nepal’s migrant workers: Data the new government can’t ignore’ appeared in both the print edition and the online version of The Kathmandu Post, which is one of the three English-language national papers in Nepal.  Both academics are based in the Faculty of Health, Environment & Medical Sciences.
https://kathmandupost.com/columns/2026/04/15/working-abroad-comes-at-a-cost-to-migrant-workers-health

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

BU Challenges, Business Engagement, Knowledge Exchange, Student Engagement

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Entrepreneurial Learning Case

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Interdisciplinary research: Not straightforward?

Fusion themes, international, Publishing, REF Subjects, writing

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

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

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

 

 

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

 

References:

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

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

Industry collaboration, Knowledge Exchange, Student Engagement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Starting with Uncertainty: Teaching Technology Entrepreneurship Through Civic Immersion

Business Engagement, Centre for Excellence in Learning, Knowledge Exchange, Student Engagement, student research

MBA students on Bournemouth University’s Level 7 unit Entrepreneurship: Technology-Driven Ventures & User-Centred Business Solutions began their learning journey not in a lecture theatre, but in Sherborne, Dorset at the stunning Sherborne Boys School.

Hosted by the steering committee behind the emerging Turing Centre initiative,  our students were immersed in a live civic project inspired by the legacy of Alan Turing. The Turing Centre vision is explicitly future-facing: to inspire young people in digital technology, create an innovation hub and enterprise zone, support pathways into employment and skills, and function as a social, cultural, and economic asset for Sherborne and beyond . Rather than analysing this as a completed case , students encountered an evolving initiative shaped by institutional constraints, funding realities, stakeholder ambitions, and technological uncertainty. After exploring Sherborne’s historical and civic context, they worked in teams on four strategic challenges: translating vision into a viable business model, developing fundraising logic, shaping promotion and positioning, and evaluating financial, economic, and social sustainability. Their proposals were presented directly to members of the steering group.

This was not accidental. It reflects a deliberate pedagogical choice.

Entrepreneurship education has, for some time now, been trying to move beyond the “inspiration” model,  the idea that if students feel energised enough, something entrepreneurial will magically happen. Contemporary scholarship instead emphasises competence, judgement and disciplined practice (Neck & Corbett, 2018). Hägg and Gabrielsson’s (2020) systematic review traces this shift clearly: from knowledge transmission to experiential and practice-based designs. But they also sound a note of caution. Experience alone is not enough. Without theoretical integration, it risks becoming energetic but shallow.

Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning cycle — experience, reflection, conceptualisation, experimentation — is frequently invoked in business education. Yet critics have long warned that “learning by doing” can quietly become “doing without thinking” (Kayes, 2002). Morris (2020) similarly argues that Kolb’s framework is often applied in a simplified manner, neglecting the epistemic depth required for higher-order learning. In other words, activity is not the same as analysis.

The Sherborne engagement was therefore designed not as a field trip in the traditional sense, nor as consultancy theatre, but as structured immersion before interrogation. Students encountered ambiguity first; stakeholder tensions, funding constraints, institutional realities, technological ambition, and only afterwards will they begin systematically analysing what they have seen. Over the two weeks beginning 2 March, that initial immersion will be subjected to scrutiny. Entrepreneurship theory, user-centred design frameworks, and sustainability debates will not sit alongside the experience; they will probe it. Assumptions made in Sherborne will be tested. Enthusiasm will be examined. Gaps in evidence will be exposed.

Assessment design is crucial in holding this intellectual line. Research on authentic assessment demonstrates that tasks resembling professional practice enhance capability only when academic standards remain explicit and evaluative judgement is foregrounded (Villarroel et al., 2018). In this unit, students are required not merely to propose a technology-enabled, user-centred venture, but to justify its feasibility, scalability, ethical implications, and community impact through scholarly argument.

This matters particularly in technology entrepreneurship, where uncertainty, adoption dynamics and unintended consequences are structural features rather than unfortunate accidents. Pittaway and Cope (2007) argue that effective entrepreneurship education must expose learners to uncertainty while supporting reflective sensemaking. The Sherborne visit functions precisely as such a productive disorientation.

For this MBA cohort, Sherborne now becomes an anchor point. They are not beginning with abstract frameworks detached from context. They are beginning with lived complexity. The task ahead is not to apply tools mechanically, but to develop disciplined judgement by integrating technology, commercial logic and community value with intellectual rigour rather than optimism alone.

Experiential learning, when critically structured and theoretically grounded, does not dilute academic depth. It sharpens it.

 

References:

Hägg, G., & Gabrielsson, J. (2020). A systematic literature review of the evolution of pedagogy in entrepreneurial education research. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 26(5), 829–861. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-04-2018-0272

Hägg, G., & Kurczewska, A. (2016). Connecting the dots: A discussion on key concepts in contemporary entrepreneurship education. Education + Training, 58(7/8), 700–714. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-12-2015-0115

Kayes, D. C. (2002). Experiential learning and its critics: Preserving the role of experience in management learning and education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 1(2), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2002.8509336

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

Morris, T. H. (2020). Experiential learning – A systematic review and revision of Kolb’s model. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(8), 1064–1077. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1570279

Neck, H. M., & Corbett, A. C. (2018). The scholarship of teaching and learning entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 1(1), 8–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515127417737286

Pittaway, L., & Cope, J. (2007). Entrepreneurship education: A systematic review of the evidence. International Small Business Journal, 25(5), 479–510. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242607080656

Villarroel, V., Bloxham, S., Bruna, D., Bruna, C., & Herrera-Seda, C. (2018). Authentic assessment: Creating a blueprint for course design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(5), 840–854. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1412396

Seeing the fruits of your labour in Bangladesh

Awarded & submitted bids, international, writing

After several little hiccups in our Sonamoni research project we can now show some of the work.  Sonamoni is a four-year research study led by the University of Bournemouth and the Centre for Injury Prevention Research Bangladesh (CIPRB) with the University of Southampton, the University of the West of England (UWE), the Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI) and Design Without Borders (DWB) to develop a number of interventions to prevent drowning in children under the age of 2 years in rural Bangladesh.  After several stages of well-planned research we worked with local communities and stakeholders to propose six interventions with the prospect of been taken further to a full community-based feasibility study.

These six interventions are being piloted in Bangladesh as I am writing this. This pilot phase is made more difficult at the moment as the country is in the ban of the forthcoming national elections.  These elections are particularly challenging for the people in Bangladesh and CIPRB as the local research partner.  The previous national election resulted in violent changes, and the lead up to this election has been, and still is, a difficult period.

We would like to highlight one of the six interventions in a little more detail, as the Human-Centred Design approach, resulted in a neat, simple and low-cost playpen.  The colourful pictures shows the first batch of flatpack playpens in the CIPRB office and some being delivered to rural villages.  However, getting the first sixty developed in Bangladesh turned out more difficult than expected. Our collagues in Bangladesh approached several small to medium-sized companies in the country with the production capabilities to produce a large number of playpens.  In the end only one way interested to try and this company took much longer than agreed to produce enough for our pilot stage.  The good news is that the first stage of the pilot is underway, although now we have the difficulty of forthcoming national election slowing down our research.

This interdisciplinary study is funded through the NIHR Research on Interventions for Global Health Transformation programme (Ref: NIHR203216).  The Bournemouth University team comprises staff from across the university covering all three faculties: Dr. Mavis Bengtsson, Dr. Kyungjoo Cha, Dr. Mehdi Chowdhury, Dr. Yong Hun Lim, Mr. John Powell, and Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen, and Ph.D. student Mr. Md. Shafkat Hossain.  For more information about our ongoing research in Bangladesh, please visit the NIHR website.

Bournemouth University Cyber Security Researcher Wins Best Poster Award at HISC 2025

PG research

Bournemouth University (BU) is proud to announce that PhD Cyber Security researcher Serdar Akar, has been awarded Best Poster Winner at this year’s High Integrity Software Conference (HISC) 2025, held in Newport, Wales.

HISC is a leading international forum that brings together software engineers and industry practitioners to exchange knowledge, address critical challenges, and strengthen the foundations of a trustworthy software ecosystem.

Serdar’s winning poster, titled “Towards Productive Cyber Resilience and Safety Analysis in Model-Based Systems Engineering (MBSE)”, was showcased in the conference’s Future Zone, which highlights innovative research shaping the future of high-integrity software.

Serdar was also recently named the Winner of our BU’s ‘Business Idea Challenge’, organised by the Students’ Union (SUBU). This award recognises a student-led venture that is not only highly feasible but also carries a strong social impact, aligns with the university’s sustainability priorities, and demonstrates impressive potential for future growth.

Serdar said, “To have my work recognised in both academic and entrepreneurial spheres in such a short time is immensely encouraging. It is a great privilege to be able to contribute to the research and innovation environment here at Bournemouth University.”

Dr Duncan Ki-Aries at Bournemouth University, commented, “These awards reflect the high calibre of research being undertaken at BU. Serdar’s work contributes to advancing cyber resilience and safety in complex systems, and we are delighted to see it recognised on an international stage.”

Prof Huseyin Dogan mentioned, “There are challenges centred on Model Based Systems Engineering in industry, and we are bridging theoretical benefits with practical applications. Serdar’s PhD will contribute to this domain by integrating cyber resilience and safety analysis through software tool support.”

The recognition underscores Bournemouth University’s commitment to pioneering research towards safer, secure, and more resilient digital infrastructures.

If you’re interested in learning more about these impactful projects, please don’t hesitate to get in contact with Prof. Huseyin Dogan and Dr. Duncan Ki-Aries, and others.

New Cyber Security Advisory Highlights Integration of Safety, Security, and Human Factors in Defence Systems

Industry collaboration

Following collaborative research on Secure by Design (SbD) conducted by Bournemouth University (BU) and Mima, with the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl), a new Cyber Security Advisory has been released. This guidance addresses the complex challenge of balancing security, safety, and human factors in requirements practices.

The project, led by Dr Duncan Ki-Aries and Prof Huseyin Dogan centred on developing and evaluating a Minimum Viable Product (MVP) that demonstrates how these critical domains can be effectively integrated into SbD practices. The goal: to enhance the design of secure, resilient, and user-aware systems for defence applications.

Figure 1. The Secure by Design Process Framework

The advisory outlines key findings from the research, explores the challenges of merging safety and human factors into SbD processes, and offers insights into potential improvements. It also signals directions for future projects aimed at advancing this integration.

Ongoing research at BU will continue to build on this foundation, drawing on the combined expertise of BU and Mima in Human Factors, Security, Systems of Systems Engineering, Safety, and Risk Assessment. This work remains committed to strengthening future defence capabilities through a robust Secure by Design approach.

Figure 2. The project team