Latest research and knowledge exchange news at Bournemouth University
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
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:
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
Universities are increasingly recognised as anchor institutions within entrepreneurial ecosystems, shaping how innovation emerges and how new ventures develop. Beyond research and teaching, universities now act as hubs where ideas, talent and industry intersect to support venture creation and technological innovation (Guerrero et al., 2014). In the context of technology entrepreneurship, this role becomes particularly significant.
A guest session within the MBA Technology Entrepreneurship unit at Bournemouth University Business School highlighted this intersection between academic learning and real-world venture building. Andrew Olowude, Chief Technical Officer of Xenet AI, joined MBA students to discuss the realities of building AI-driven ventures. Yet the central lesson from the session was not about algorithms or computing architectures. It was about entrepreneurial mindset.
Technology entrepreneurship is often misunderstood as being driven primarily by technological breakthroughs. In practice, many ventures fail because founders focus on what technology can do rather than what markets actually need. Entrepreneurship research consistently shows that venture creation requires iterative learning and market discovery, where founders test assumptions and respond to user feedback in uncertain environments (Fisher, 2012; Shepherd & Gruber, 2021). During the discussion with students, one idea captured this principle particularly well: listening to the market with intention. Rather than attaching technology to an idea simply because it exists, entrepreneurs must identify whether there is genuine market pull for the solution. In this sense, technology becomes an enabler of value creation, not the starting point of the venture.
Understanding how innovations spread is therefore essential to technology entrepreneurship education. One of the most influential frameworks explaining this process is Everett Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovation theory, which describes how innovations move from early adopters to mainstream users, the early majority. Building on Rogers’ work, Geoffrey Moore (1991; 2014) introduced the concept of “Crossing the Chasm,” describing the difficulty many technology ventures face when attempting to move from early adopters to the broader market. The transition requires a shift from technological enthusiasm to clear problem- solution fit and demonstrable value. For technology entrepreneurs, the lesson is simple but powerful: innovation does not succeed because technology works; it succeeds because people adopt it.
The rapid rise of artificial intelligence has also brought renewed attention to the ethical dimensions of technology entrepreneurship. Increasingly, scholars argue that founders must consider the societal implications of the technologies they create, including issues of bias, transparency and social impact (George et al., 2021; Markman et al., 2016). Technology entrepreneurship therefore sits at the intersection of technical capability, market understanding and responsible innovation. Entrepreneurs must not only build technologies that function, but technologies that contribute meaningfully to society.
This is precisely where universities play a vital role. Entrepreneurial universities help shape innovation ecosystems by mobilising knowledge, talent, partnerships and infrastructure to support venture creation (Löfsten, 2025; Wang, 2026). Through incubators, industry collaborations and entrepreneurship programmes, universities increasingly act as innovation hubs that connect research with market application.
Equally important is how entrepreneurship is taught. Traditional lecture-based approaches are increasingly being complemented by experiential learning environments where students engage directly with real-world problems, industry partners and venture creation processes (Motta et al., 2023; Monllor et al., 2024). Such approaches mirror how entrepreneurs actually learn — through experimentation, reflection and iteration. Guest engagements with founders and technology leaders therefore become an important part of entrepreneurship education. They help students see beyond theoretical frameworks and understand the lived realities of venture creation: uncertainty, pivoting and the constant need to align technological possibility with market demand.
As artificial intelligence and digital technologies continue to reshape industries, the responsibility of universities within entrepreneurial ecosystems will only deepen. Preparing students for this environment requires more than teaching technological tools. It requires cultivating entrepreneurial judgement ;the ability to interpret market signals, recognise ethical implications and translate technological potential into meaningful innovation. Technology entrepreneurship, ultimately, is not about technology alone. It is about people, problems and the thoughtful application of technology to solve them.
References:
Audretsch, D.B., Belitski, M. & Caiazza, R. (2021). Start-ups, Innovation and Knowledge Spillovers. Journal of Technology Transfer, 46, 1995–2016 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-021-09846-5
Fisher, G. (2012). Effectuation, causation, and bricolage: A behavioral comparison of emerging theories in entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(5), 1019–1051.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2012.00537.x
George, G., Merrill, R. K., & Schillebeeckx, S. J. D. (2021). Digital sustainability and entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 45(5), 999–1027.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258719899425
Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., Cunningham, J. A., & Organ, D. (2014). Entrepreneurial universities in two European regions: A case study comparison. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(3), 415–434.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-012-9287-2
Löfsten, H. How Entrepreneurial are Universities? (2025). A Typological Analysis of Swedish Higher Education Institutions. Higher Education Policy, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-025-00428-w
Markman, G. D., Russo, M., Lumpkin, G. T., Jennings, P. D., & Mair, J. (2016). Entrepreneurship as a platform for pursuing multiple goals. Journal of Management Studies, 53, 673-694. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12214
Monllor, J., Michels, N., & Adderley, S. (2024). Pivoting an Entrepreneurship Experiential Learning Module Online: Applying a Concrete Experience Framework. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 7(4), 416-438.
Motta, V. F., & Galina, S. V. R. (2023). Experiential Learning in Entrepreneurship Education: A Systematic Literature Review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 121, Article 103919.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103919
Moore, G. A. (2014). Crossing the chasm (3rd ed.). Harper Business.
Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. 3rd ed Free Press.
Shepherd, D. A., & Gruber, M. (2021). The Lean Startup Framework: Closing the Academic–Practitioner Divide. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 45(5), 967-998.
Wang, Q., Kim, N., Thrush, B. C., & Ochoa, R. (2026). Minority-Serving Institutions as Entrepreneurial Universities: Evidence from an Underserved Region. The Professional Geographer, 78(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2025.2581610
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
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.
On the last day of 2025 Dr. Chloe Casey appeared on Sky News in a piece with the heading ‘Nutrition key in new alcohol abuse rehabilitation scheme to fight addiction‘. The media coverage was for the project Nourish the New You which looks at the science behind how better nutrition can prevent relapses during withdrawal. Dr. Chloe Casey from Bournemouth University is working with the drug and alcohol charity We Are With You and the Friendly Food Club to deliver cooking courses. Chloe is Lecturer in Nutrition and Behaviour and she conducts her research in the Centre for Midwifery & Women’s Health (CMWH) in the Faculty of Health, Environment & Medical Sciences.
Well done!
Professor Edwin van Teijlingen
Centre for Midwifery & Women’s Health
It feels like only yesterday that I was writing a research blog reflecting on social impact entrepreneurship amongst students at Bournemouth University Business School (BUBS) in the Faculty of Business and Law. A year on, this work continues to evolve, offering further evidence of how entrepreneurship education can act as a catalyst for social impact, inclusion and sustainable development.
This year’s final-year 20-credit module on the Entrepreneurship pathway, called Entrepreneurship and Business Ventures, ran yet another elevator pitch event, resulting in 22 new mentoring opportunities for students developing socially and environmentally minded business ideas. This builds on 24 mentoring opportunities created the previous year, highlighting not only the consistency of outcomes but also the growing strength of the entrepreneurial ecosystem surrounding BU.
The module has now been running for over seven years and has undergone deliberate pedagogical redesign during that time. It now operates as an in-class incubation and ideation space for social and impact entrepreneurship, rather than a traditional lecture-led module. Students are supported in developing, testing, and refining venture ideas within a structured environment that prioritises both business viability and social impact.
Central to the unit’s design is the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs). Rather than treating the SDGs as abstract global ambitions, students are encouraged to use them as a practical framework for opportunity recognition. The SDGs help students to identify real-world problems, consider systemic impacts, and design business models that create economic, social and environmental value simultaneously. In this sense, sustainability is positioned not as an ethical add-on, but as a source of legitimacy, resilience and competitive advantage.
Across two days of live elevator pitches, final-year students presented a diverse range of ideas addressing challenges at local, national and global levels. The quality and ambition of the pitches demonstrated a notable shift in entrepreneurial mindset. While financial feasibility remained central, many students framed entrepreneurship in terms of long-term value creation, legacy and responsibility, with profit understood as a means to enable impact rather than an end in itself.
As a module-level assessment, this activity could have been delivered entirely within the classroom. However, entrepreneurship is inherently experiential and relational. Each year, the assessment is therefore designed as a live engagement exercise, with students pitching to an external panel of judges drawn from industry, policy and practice. The panel provides immediate feedback and, crucially, offers mentoring and access to professional networks. These outcomes are particularly significant in relation to inclusive entrepreneurship practice at BU. By embedding incubation, mentoring, and ecosystem engagement within a credit-bearing module, access to entrepreneurial opportunities is expanded. Students do not need prior entrepreneurial experience, social capital or financial resources to participate. Instead, all students on the pathway are given structured access to support, feedback and visibility.
Inclusive entrepreneurship is also evident in the nature of the ideas themselves. Many ventures draw directly on students’ lived experiences, cultural backgrounds and community contexts, demonstrating how diversity can be a driver of innovation. The breadth of the judging panel—including expertise in sustainability, inclusive enterprise, ethnic minority entrepreneurship and venture coaching—further reinforces inclusive role modelling and challenges narrow stereotypes of who entrepreneurs are and what they do. None of this would be possible without the entrepreneurial ecosystem that supports this work. Over seven years, that ecosystem has grown significantly, reflecting shared commitment to impact-driven and inclusive entrepreneurship. The sustained willingness of external partners to mentor students demonstrates that meaningful inclusion is built through relationships and trust, not rhetoric alone.
Reflecting on these outcomes raises an important question for higher education more broadly. If such impact—mentoring, confidence building, inclusive participation and SDG-aligned venture development—can be achieved within a single 20-credit module, what more might be possible with structured, longitudinal support for student social entrepreneurs? At Bournemouth University, this module offers a practical example of how entrepreneurship education can contribute to inclusive growth and sustainable development, aligning teaching, research and external engagement with the Global Goals.
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.
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
Saturday 8th November was the final day of the national Festival of Social Sciences (FoSS), which was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). Many universities across the Uk organised a wide-ranging set of events. 
Bournemouth University (BU) organised six events, and on the last day it put up a public-engagement event around its Sonamoni research project at the Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI) building in Poole. 
Drowning is the leading cause of death for children aged 6-24 months in Bangladesh, yet it rarely receives the same attention as other global health issues. The Sonamoni project, led by Bournemouth University and the Centre for Injury Prevention and Research, Bangladesh (CIPRB), is an interdisciplinary collaboration with the University of Southampton, the University of the West of England (UWE), the RNLI, and Design Without Borders (DWB) in Uganda. 
This £1.6m project has been made possible thanks to a grant from the UK’s National Institute for Health & Care Research (NIHR) through its Research and Innovation for Global Health Transformation programme. Sonamoni is in the process of developing practical, community-based solutions to reduce drowning among 6-24 months’ old children.
The FoSS event at the RNLI earlier this month was presented by BU academics John Powell and Edwin van Teijlingen with a major contribution from BU’s PhD student Md. Shafkat Hossain, whose doctoral studies focuses on the local community’s understanding of, and engagement with, the Human-Centred Design element of the Sonamoni project. Prof. van Teijlingen, from BU’s School of Health & Care, introduced the project and he highligthed the harmony between the different social science disciplines of the members of the international research team as well as the interdisciplinary nature of this collaboration. The FoSS event was prepared and supported by BU’s Yasemin Oksel Ferraris and Claire Fenton.
One of the ideas generated by the Sonamoni project, which involves local community involvement at all stages of the study, is a low cost playpen to keep young children save. John Powell MBE outlined the Human-Centred Design process and the eight potential solutions it generated. The FoSS event on the Saturday morning focused particulary on the design stages of the playpen, from concept to a model that could be tested in the field in rural Bangladesh. The colourful first batch of playpens in the photo are ready to be taken to families to be tested in the two field sites. The audience of the FoSS event was particularly interested ways the researchers in Bangladesh managed to get and keep the community involved in this very applied research.
Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen
Centre for Midwifery and Women’s Health
LGBTQIA+ Experiences of Gambling-Related Harms: Conference and Think-Tank Event
It’s Safer Gambling Week – and what better way to deepen our understanding and drive change than by joining an event focused on a group too often overlooked in this conversation.
Academics across the university are warmly invited to a special one-day conference exploring gambling-related harm within LGBTQIA+ communities, taking place Monday 24th November 2025 (9:30am–4.00pm) at the Bournemouth Highcliff Marriott Hotel.
Hosted by Bournemouth University’s Gambling Research Group, this free event brings together researchers, lived experience experts, support organisations, and policymakers to deepen understanding of how gambling harm affects LGBTQIA+ individuals in the UK and globally. The day features new findings from BU, powerful lived experience narratives, international insights, and a collaborative think-tank designed to co-create practical, inclusive solutions.
Highlights include:
This event forms part of a Bristol Hub for Gambling Harms-funded project led by Dr Reece Bush-Evans, and offers a unique opportunity for academic colleagues to contribute expertise, connect across disciplines, and support impactful, community-informed research.
Register for free:
Eventbrite link: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/lgbtqia-experiences-of-gambling-related-harms-tickets-1795320133849?aff=oddtdtcreator
Registration closes 5.00pm on Friday 21 November.
I was recently invited to perform at the prestigious acousmatic music festival L’Espace du Son, held at the Marni Theatre, Brussels from 15–19 October 2025. Now in its 32nd year, L’Espace du Son is one of the world’s leading electroacoustic music festivals, dedicated to acousmatic works. It features a loudspeaker orchestra of 110 speakers, enabling live projection and spatialisation of music to create truly immersive listening experiences.
Soundcheck view of the speaker system
My ‘Portrait’ concert included both stereo and multichannel pieces drawn from my album Espaces Éphémères (released on label Empreintes DIGITALes), and it was a fantastic opportunity to work with a system that allowed for new spatialised interpretations of my music.
Earlier concert intro with François Bayle
The festival’s programme was outstanding, showcasing an inspiring range of works by internationally renowned composers and emerging artists in the field. It was an absolute privilege to be part of such a rich and diverse lineup.
Many thanks to Annette Vande Gorne and the team at Musiques et Recherches for the invitation and their warm welcome.
Yesterday we received the postcards to advertise our Festival of Social Sciences (FoSS) ‘Sonamoni’ event which will be held in the beautiful RNLI building on West Quay Road in Poole on Saturday 8th November. This public event focusing on drowning prevention in Bangladesh is free and can be booked online, click here! The FoSS is a UK-wide festival every autumn. It is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) to promote social science research with the general public. The FoSS comprises events ranging from exhibitions, lectures and panel debates through to performances, guided walks and workshops. We would like to thank the ESRC for its support for its support, which includes producing the postcards, and the coffee and teas to be served at the RNLI on Saturday November 8th.
The Sonamoni Project is dedicated to reducing drowning deaths among newly mobile children (under 2 years) by working closely with rural communities in Bangladesh. Using human-centred design (HCD) techniques, the project is identifying solutions, developing prototypes, and assessing their effectiveness. This exciting project is funded by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) using UK aid from the UK government to support the improvement of global health through high-quality research.
Sonamoni is coordinated by Bournemouth University in collaboration with our partners: the University of the West of England (Bristol), the University of Southampton, and the Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI), Design Without Border (DWB) in Uganda and the Centre for Injury Prevention and Research, Bangladesh (CIPRB).
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:
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
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:
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
BU staff can login below:
Deadline Approaching: Submit your Poster for the Research Conference by Monday 27 April
BU academics publish in Nepal national newspaper
New BU Physiology paper
Gender and street names
Help Shape the Future of Research at BU: Postgraduate Research Experience Survey 2026 Now Open
3C Event: Research Culture, Community & Cherry Blossom – Tuesday 14 April
ECR Funding Open Call: Research Culture & Community Grant – Apply now
ECR Funding Open Call: Research Culture & Community Grant – Application Deadline Friday 12 December ECR Funding Open Call: Research Culture & Community Grant – Apply Now
MSCA Postdoctoral Fellowships 2025 Call
ERC Advanced Grant 2025 Webinar MSCA Postdoctoral Fellowships 2025 Call ERC Advanced Grant 2025 Webinar MSCA Postdoctoral Fellowships 2025
Update on UKRO services
European research project exploring use of ‘virtual twins’ to better manage metabolic associated fatty liver disease
Research Information Network