Category / Fusion themes

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

BU PhD student attending HIV conference on scholarship

conferences, PG research, student research

Congratulations to Tom Weeks, PhD student in the Faculty of Health, Environment & Medical Sciences at Bournemouth University, who has been awarded a scholarship from Gilead Sciences to attend the 2025 British HIV Association (BHIVA) Conference. His PhD research focuses on HIV stigma in the UK.  Tom is supervised by Dr. Pramod Regmi (Principal Academic in International Health) and Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen. The BHIVA conference features key sessions including:

  • What’s happening in HIV in 2025: New guidelines, new data, and new plans
  • Towards zero HIV transmission by 2030: Where are we now and where do we go next?

 Tom is eager to engage with the latest developments in HIV care and contribute to the ongoing dialogue around stigma reduction and equitable access to treatment.

Well done!

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen & Dr. Pramod Regmi

 

New PhD publication on Nepal’s migrant workers

international, open access, Publishing, student research, writing

Congratulations to BU postgraduate student Yagya Adhikari, who has just been informed by the editor of the Journal of Immigrant & Minority Health that his paper “Parental migration for work and psychosocial problems among left-behind adolescents in Nepal” [1] has been accepted for publication.  Yagya’s PhD is based in the Faculty of Health, Environment & Medical Science.  He is supervised by Dr. Pramod Regmi and Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen with support from Mr. Sudip Khanal, Lecturer in Biostatistics, at Manmohan Memorial Institute of Health Sciences (MMIHS) in Kathmandu.  This is the second paper from Yagya’s PhD the first one was published at the start of his PhD studies [2].  Both papers are published in Open Access journals and therefor will be freely available to read by anyone in the world with internet access.

 

References:

  1. Adhikari, Y.R., van Teijlingen, E., Regmi, P.R., Khanal, S., Parental migration for work and psychosocial problems among left-behind adolescents in Nepal, Journal of Immigrant & Minority Health (forthcoming)
  2. Adhikari, Y.R., Regmi, P.R., Devkota, B., van Teijlingen, E.R. (2022) Forgotten health and social care needs of left-behind families of Nepali migrant workers. Journal of Health Promotion, 10(1):1–4. https://doi.org/10.3126/jhp.v10i1.50976

The Toxic Legacy of a Crisis

Why do so many new CEOs fail to turn around struggling companies, even with a fresh strategy? Maybe it’s not just about leadership.

My new book Corporate Trauma:The toxic legacy of a crisis introduces a powerful new concept – the lasting impact of a past corporate crisis. Drawing from the biological field of Epigenetics, the book argues that a significant organizational shock can embed dysfunctional patterns deep within a company’s cultural DNA that leads to decreased morale and productivity, a breakdown of trust amongst investors, employees, leadership, and a culture of fear, blame, and risk avoidance.

This book offers a new lens to diagnose why companies get trapped in a downward spiral. It goes beyond the classic turnaround playbook to identify and address the root cause of persistent failure, offering an invaluable path to strategic renewal and injecting vitality back into any organization. The book is on AMAZON and now available for pre-order.

The foundational research previously informed the UK Government’s ‘Build Back Better: our plan for growth’ and the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy’s Committee’s ‘Innovation Strategy’ in 2021.

If any BU research group would like me to present the research findings, please get in touch with me at: joliver@bournemouth.ac.uk

Top baby names in England and Wales in 2024

Earlier this week the Office for National Statistics (ONS) published its annual list of the most popular baby names for boys and girls.  The top three names for girls were: Olivia, Amelia and Lily and for boys these were Muhammad, Noah and Oliver.  Interestingly two different spellings of Muhammad, namely Mohammed and Muhammed also made it to the top hundred most common names.  There is a clear sociology in the naming of babies.  First, there is an element of culture and religion, but there is also a clear element of fashion.

To make a simple comparison I looked at the top three most common names for girls and boys in neighbouring the Netherlands.  According to Dutch official statistics the top girls’ names were in 2024: Emma, Olivia and Lily, and the top three boys names were: Noah, Luca and Lucas. Interestingly, the top name in England and Wales Muhammad is not even in the top 40 most popular boys’ names in the Netherlands, and neither are Mohammed and Muhammed.  However, whereas England and Wales listed three different spellings of Muhammad, the Netherlands had six different ones (these were names used at least ten times that year): Muhammad, Mohammed, Mohamed, Mohamad, Muhammed, and Muhammad.  All variants together made it the fourth most popular boys name in the Netherlands.

Charles Dickens | Mystery of Edwin Drood | 9780140439267 | Daunt Books

To highlight the fashion element of naming babies, the name Edwin was not listed on either country’s list.  The ONS website also offers historic lists of top 100 names for baby boys and girls for 1904 to 2024 at ten-yearly intervals.  The very last year Edwin was in the top 100 boys’ names was in 1944 when it reached number 89 in the top 100!

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

Professor of Reproductive Health, Centre for Midwifery & Women’s Health