BU Research Blog

Category / Business and economic sustainability

23 April 2026

From Sherborne to the Pitch Room: Why MBA Learning Needs More Reality—and Less Control

BU Challenges, Business Engagement, Fusion Investment Fund, HEIF, Knowledge Exchange, Knowledge Transfer, PG research, Public engagement, REF Subjects Sukanya Ayatakshi

There are milestone moments in teaching that expose, quite starkly, what higher education can be when it stops playing safe. Watching our MBA students present their venture proposals to members of the Turing Centre Steering Group today was one of those moments—not just because the work was strong, but because it was earned under very different conditions from the norm.

This was not the endpoint of a lecture-led module or a polished case discussion. It began with disruption. In late February, students travelled to Sherborne, Dorset, to work directly with the emerging Turing Centre: a civic initiative built around digital skills, regional regeneration, and long-term social value. What they encountered was not a finished project, but one still taking shape—messy, incomplete, and marked by competing priorities. That difference matters. Much of management education still relies on a quiet fiction: that complex organisational problems can be stabilised, analysed, and resolved within the controlled environment of a classroom. Ghoshal (2005) warned that such abstractions risk distorting managerial reality, while Mintzberg (2004) argued that MBA programmes often produce graduates more comfortable analysing than acting. Two decades on, that critique has not gone away. If anything, it has sharpened, with business schools still accused of privileging abstracted managerialism over embedded, socially situated practice (Parker, 2021).

Entrepreneurship education has attempted to respond. The shift towards “entrepreneurship as method” (Neck and Corbett, 2018) and the rise of experiential pedagogies (Hägg and Gabrielsson, 2020) reflect a recognition that uncertainty cannot be taught through tidy models alone. But this shift has its own problem. Experience, on its own, is not a pedagogy. As Nabi et al. (2017) show, the impact of entrepreneurship education is uneven, and often superficial, when activity is not matched by intellectual depth.

The question, then, is not whether students should engage with the real world, but how. The Sherborne project was designed around a simple but demanding premise: immersion should generate inquiry, not replace it. Students entered a live civic initiative and were asked to make sense of it—not retrospectively, but in real time. This required a different kind of thinking: one that is situated, provisional, and responsive to unfolding conditions (Sandberg and Tsoukas, 2011).

Sarasvathy’s (2001) concept of effectuation captures this well. Entrepreneurs do not begin with fixed goals and optimal strategies; they begin with what they have, act under uncertainty, and construct opportunity through iteration. That is exactly the position our students found themselves in. There was no stable problem definition, no guaranteed feasibility—only the expectation that they would build defensible arguments from ambiguity.

This is where the implications for MBA education become harder to ignore. If the degree is to remain credible, it cannot continue to prioritise analysis detached from consequence. Civic immersion offers a direct challenge by relocating learning into place-based contexts where decisions carry visible implications—not just for a grade, but for people, projects, and communities (Goddard et al., 2016; Parker, 2020).

But this only works if the academic design holds its nerve. The unit—Entrepreneurship: Technology-Driven Ventures and User-Centred Business Solutions—was structured so that experience functioned as the beginning of rigorous work, not its substitute. Students were required to identify user-centred problems, engage with wider civic and economic considerations, and develop proposals capable of withstanding external scrutiny. This aligns with principles of authentic assessment (Villarroel et al., 2018), but more importantly with the growing emphasis on evaluative judgement—the capacity to make and justify quality decisions in uncertain contexts ( Ajjawi et al., 2018).

The assessment environment itself mattered. Members of the Turing Centre Steering Group were present throughout—questioning assumptions, testing logic, and engaging seriously with the students’ ideas. This was not performative real-world exposure. It was accountability. The students’ work had an audience beyond the university, and that changed the level of intellectual seriousness in the room.

Students moved more confidently between theory and context, using frameworks not as templates, but as tools. This is much closer to Schön’s (1983) reflective practitioner: someone who thinks within action, not just about it. It is also where many experiential approaches fall short. Kolb’s (1984) model is often reduced to a cycle of activity, with reflection treated as an afterthought. As Kayes (2017) and Morris (2020) argue, this risks producing busyness rather than insight. Well-designed civic immersion does the opposite. It makes thinking harder, not easier.

Pittaway and Cope (2007) describe entrepreneurship education as requiring “disorienting dilemmas.” The Sherborne project delivered exactly that. The Turing Centre resisted neat categorisation—part innovation hub, part educational initiative, part regional strategy. Students could not rely on familiar models without adapting them. They had to engage in sensemaking that was negotiated, incomplete, and contingent (Sandberg and Tsoukas, 2011).

Unsurprisingly, a few of them described the experience as the most valuable part of their student journey. That response is telling. Students are rarely fooled by surface-level “real-world” tasks. What they recognised here was something more demanding: work that required judgement, carried risk, and had consequences beyond assessment. Learning deepens when students create value outside the classroom, not just simulate it within ( Lackéus, 2020).

This raises a question for management education. If the most meaningful learning happens under these conditions, why are they still the exception rather than the norm? Civic immersion is not easy. It requires partnerships, careful design, and a willingness to relinquish some control over the learning process. But it also exposes a deeper issue: that many MBA programmes remain structured around environments that minimise uncertainty precisely when they should be engaging with it.

When students are trusted with complexity—and held to high intellectual standards within it, learning becomes less about mastering frameworks and more about using them under pressure. Less about arriving at answers, and more about making defensible decisions when answers are not obvious. That is not a softer form of education. It is a more demanding one.

Ajjawi, R., Tai, J., Dawson, P., & Boud, D. (2018). Conceptualising evaluative judgement for sustainable assessment in higher education. In D. Boud, R. Ajjawi, P. Dawson, & J. Tai (Eds.), Developing evaluative judgement in higher education: Assessment for knowing and producing quality work (1st ed., pp. 7-17). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324_9781315109251-2.

Ghoshal, S. (2017). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 75–91. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2005.16132558

Goddard, J., Hazelkorn, E., Kempton, L., & Vallance, P. (2016). The civic university: The policy and leadership challenges. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784717728

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

Kayes, D. C. (2017). 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.

Lackéus M (2020). Comparing the impact of three different experiential approaches to entrepreneurship in education. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 26(5), pp. 937–971. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-04-2018-0236

Mintzberg, H. (2004). Managers not MBAs: A hard look at the soft practice of managing and management development. Berrett-Koehler.

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

Nabi, G., Liñán, F., Fayolle, A., Krueger, N., & Walmsley, A. (2017). The impact of entrepreneurship education in higher education: A systematic review and research agenda. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16(2), 277–299. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2015.0026

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

Parker, M. (2020). The Critical Business School and the University: A Case Study of Resistance and Co-optation. Critical Sociology. 47. 089692052095038. 10.1177/0896920520950387.

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

Sandberg, J., & Tsoukas, H. (2011). Grasping the logic of practice: Theorizing through practical rationality. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 338–360. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2009.0183

Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). Causation and Effectuation: Toward a Theoretical Shift from Economic Inevitability to Entrepreneurial Contingency. The Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 243–263. https://doi.org/10.2307/259121

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.

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

16 April 2026

BU academics publish in Nepal national newspaper

Delicious links, international Edwin van Teijlingen

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

https://kathmandupost.com/columns/2026/04/15/working-abroad-comes-at-a-cost-to-migrant-workers-health

20 March 2026

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

BU Challenges, Business Engagement, Knowledge Exchange, Student Engagement Sukanya Ayatakshi

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

8 March 2026

Interdisciplinary research: Not straightforward?

Fusion themes, international, Publishing, REF Subjects, writing Edwin van Teijlingen

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:

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.
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.
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

6 March 2026

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

Industry collaboration, Knowledge Exchange, Student Engagement Sukanya Ayatakshi

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

5 March 2026

Universities as Innovation Anchors: Teaching Technology Entrepreneurship Beyond the Technology

BU Challenges, Business Engagement, Centre for Excellence in Learning, Fusion, HEIF, innovation, Knowledge Exchange, Knowledge Transfer, Public engagement, R & KE Operations, REF 2029 impact case studies Sukanya Ayatakshi

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

26 February 2026

Starting with Uncertainty: Teaching Technology Entrepreneurship Through Civic Immersion

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

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., & 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

5 February 2026

Seeing the fruits of your labour in Bangladesh

Awarded & submitted bids, international, writing Edwin van Teijlingen

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.

16 December 2025

From Classroom to Catalyst: Impact, Inclusion and the UN SDGs in Entrepreneurship Education at Bournemouth University

BU Challenges, Business Engagement, Centre for Excellence in Learning, Fusion, HEIF, Industry collaboration, innovation, international, Knowledge Exchange, Public engagement, REF 2029 impact case studies, Student Engagement, Women's Academic Network Sukanya Ayatakshi

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.

31 October 2025

BU Festival of Social Sciences invite at RNLI

international, Knowledge Exchange, Public engagement, Student Engagement Edwin van Teijlingen

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).

16 September 2025

The Toxic Legacy of a Crisis

John Oliver

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

30 June 2025

Dr. Ashraf cited on ‘Modest Fashion’ in The Guardian

international, Public engagement Edwin van Teijlingen

Earlier this month (15 June) Dr. Samreen Ashraf, was cited in the newspaper The Guardian in an interesting article with title ‘Modest fashion’ headed for mainstream despite political hostility, say experts. The article recognizes that Dr. Samreen Ashraf pioneered UK research into modest fashion. The journalist reporting on this, Chris Osuh, cited Samreen as saying that the growth of modest fashion “was also driven by women’s desire to avoid objectification” and that “the market remained underserved, with issues around clear labeling from big brands and affordability with smaller suppliers”.

Samreen is Principal Academic in Marketing, the Bournemouth University’s Business School.

Congratulations!

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

27 June 2025

Academics write for newspaper in Nepal

innovation, international, open access, Publishing, writing Edwin van Teijlingen

Yesterday the online newspaper Online Khabar in Nepal published an opinion piece in English written by three Bournemouth University academics working with a colleague in Kathmandu. This interdisciplinary piece ‘Resilient through experiences: Unlocking the entrepreneurial prowess of Nepal’s left-behind women‘ brings together ideas gained from many different studies and disciplines. The three authors from Bournemouth University are: Dr. Sukanya Ayatakshi-Endow, Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen, and Dr. Pramod Regmi, and they collaborated with Dr. Rashmee Rajkarnikar who is based at Nepal’s oldest and largest university, Tribhuvan University. The four authors brings insights from economics, business studies, sociology, women’s studies, migration studies and health.

21 April 2025

The Future of Surface Protection: Nanocomposite Coatings Explained

innovation, Public engagement, Publishing, REF Subjects, Research assessment, writing Zulfiqar Khan

Imagine you are trying to protect a ship’s engine from rust, a jet turbine from extreme heat, or a wind turbine from relentless sea spray. All of these challenges have one thing in common: harsh environments that wear down materials over time. That is where nanocomposite coatings come in, doing a big job to make our technology last longer, run smoother, and stay safer.

They are protective layers made from materials that include nanoparticles. Super tiny particles that can enhance strength, reduce wear, and resist corrosion better than traditional coatings. These coatings are applied to surfaces that need to survive tough conditions, such as extreme temperatures, high pressure, salty water, and friction.

Professor Zulfiqar Khan, who leads the NanoCorr, Energy & Modelling (NCEM) Research Group at Bournemouth University focuses on finding smart, sustainable ways to protect machines and components, especially those in energy, aerospace, and marine sectors.

Machines that break down due to corrosion or wear are not only expensive to fix they also waste energy and resources. If we can improve how surfaces handle friction and corrosion, we can: (1) Extend the life of machines and vehicles, (2) Increase energy efficiency, (3) Reduce maintenance costs and (4) Improve safety and reliability.

Nanocomposite coatings are a new frontier in this mission. Researchers like Khan and his collaborators are developing new models to help understand how these coatings behave and fail. This is important because knowing when and how a coating will degrade allows engineers to improve the formula before something goes wrong in the real world.

The Khan-Nazir Models

Two of the most important tools developed by the team are:

Khan-Nazir Model I: Cathodic Blistering

Imagine a protective layer (the coating) on a surface starting to bubble or blister when exposed to water or salt. This model helps predict how that bubbling happens due to pressure under the surface. It looks at things like the coating’s thickness and elasticity to determine when it might fail.

Khan-Nazir Model II: Wear-Corrosion Interaction

This model deals with the damage caused when friction and corrosion happen at the same time as when gears grind under contaminated lubricant or oil mixed with seawater. It calculates how quickly the material will wear down, helping engineers design better coatings to resist it.

The coatings are put through their paces in labs using machines that mimic real-world conditions: (1) Rubbing surfaces together to measure friction, (2) Exposing them to seawater to simulate marine environments, and (3) Combining heat, pressure, and corrosion to see how they react over time.

The results are then plugged into these models to see how accurate the predictions are. This is called experimental validation, and it is how science moves from theory to real-world application.

Work Featured on NIH Gov Website

NCEM work is not limited to mechanical and interacting systems. They have been studying other significant applications in terms of drug delivery systems, “CuO Bionanocomposite with Enhanced Stability and Antibacterial Activity against Extended-Spectrum Beta-Lactamase Strains”. Bacterial resistance to beta-lactam antibiotics is a growing global health concern. As an alternative, scientists have explored metal-based nanoparticles, but their instability has limited their use. In this study, Professor Khan and his team have developed a simple and eco-friendly method to create stable nanocomposites without using harmful chemicals. They combined naturally sourced copper oxide with glycerol and phospholipids from egg yolk in the right proportions.

Tests showed that the new particles were stable, averaging about 59 nanometres in size. The presence of phospholipids helped improve their stability. The antibacterial ability of the nanocomposites was tested against drug-resistant bacteria, and they proved to be effective, even at low concentrations (62.5 µg/mL).

These results suggest that the new nanocomposite could be a promising tool for fighting resistant bacteria and could be useful for delivering antibiotics more effectively in the future. Therefore, due to significant potential in biotechnology applications, Khan and team editorial, “Development of Nanocomposite Coatings”, has been featured on NIH Gov website.

Innovations, Applications, and What’s Next

The research does not stop with just applying a basic coating. Scientists are now:

Embedding graphene and zirconia nanoparticles for extra durability.
Using chitosan (a material from shrimp shells!) for antimicrobial properties and
Applying coatings using plasma oxidation, a high-energy technique that makes coatings super strong and uniform.

Another exciting development is the use of tiny sensors built into coatings. These can monitor damage or degradation in real-time, allowing for predictive maintenance before things go wrong.

Nanocomposite coatings are being used or tested in Oil rigs and marine vessels, Wind turbines and solar panels, Jet engines and spacecraft, Biomedical devices like implants and Industrial pipelines and automotive parts.

Professor Khan’s team continues to explore how to make these coatings smarter, more sustainable, and more adaptable. Their models are being refined to handle even more complex environments, and their lab techniques are helping industries reduce waste, cut costs, and stay competitive in a world where materials need to do more with less.

Nanocomposite coatings might sound technical, but their impact is simple, they protect the things we rely on every day. These advanced nanocoatings are helping industries become more efficient, eco-friendly, and durable, one nano-layer at a time.

21 February 2025

BU-Lush Cosmetics Ltd collaboration to Develop Renewable Zero Carbon Emissions Energy Technology

Awarded & submitted bids, conferences, Industry collaboration, innovation, Knowledge Exchange, PG research, REF Subjects, Student Engagement, student research Zulfiqar Khan

This is a landmark collaborative initiative between BU’s NanoCorr, Energy and Modelling (NCEM) Research Group led by Professor Zulfiqar Khan and team members including Dr Adil Saeed, Dr Mayank Anand and Aerk Dimri and Lush Cosmetics Ltd a major stakeholder in the conurbation. “Born in Poole, Lush offers a range of quirky and unique handmade bathing and cosmetic products with signature ‘Lush’ scents. The brand boasts an extremely ethical promise to consumers with all products being cruelty free, vegetarian and ethically sourced.” [Source]. “Lush Limited is a British cosmetics retailer which is headquartered in Poole, England. It was founded in 1995 by trichologist Mark Constantine, his wife Mo Constantine and five other founders.” [Source].

“We laid the foundation for capitalising on tidal energy sources and providing clean energy solutions for local and regional domestic and commercial applications through Community Interest Company (CIC) / Standard Industrial Classification (SIC), Poole Tidal Energy Partnership (PTEP), more than a decade ago, said Professor Zulfiqar Khan, one of the founding directors of PTEP.

This work led to UK based energy company collaboration in BU’s energy research: capture, conversion and storage through full funding of two PhDs, two Post Docs, one PhD in-kind support, industrial labs resources and funding patent applications, a three quarter of a million pound sterling research portfolio led by Professor Zulfiqar Khan. This has yielded in commercial patents in the US and GB, covering novel nano fluids, energy systems (capture, conversion and storage).

“This recent collaboration with LUSH is a testament of our full commitments to UNSDGs, UK and EU clean energy directives, initiatives which has led to emergence of BU as a global leader in Clean Energy Systems,” Professor Zulfiqar Khan added.

Dr Saeed said, “we provide opportunities for our UG/PGT courses to benefits from our research collaborations to enhance students learning and teaching experience through research informed educational provisions.” Dr Saeed, the Programme Leader of Mechanical Engineering course, said, we currently have three final year projects in energy systems which have been inspired and are linked to BU-LUSH collaborative project.

LUSH Creative Technologist Jim Woodward said, “We look forward to starting this journey with Professor Khan, his colleagues and students at Bournemouth University, researching the potential tidal energy in our beautiful Poole Harbour. We welcome the newly appointed PGR and wish him good luck in this exciting PhD project with us. What a force – Lush a local Poole company working with a fantastic local University.”

14 February 2025

Free Research Event – Wednesday 26th February – A Celebration of Sustainable Consumption Related Research

jmemery

BU Research Centre CSSRC is celebrating its interdisciplinary and intersectoral research around Sustainable Consumption on Wednesday 26th February 2025, 3.15-5.00pm.

The Centre for Sustainable & Socially Responsible Consumption (CSSRC) invites you to attend its research event on Wednesday 26th February 2025 to celebrate its interdisciplinary and intersectoral research around sustainable consumption. After a welcome refreshment this interesting and informative event will comprise of two topical presentation sessions, each lead by a member of CSSRC, as outlined below. Opportunity for discussions and networking over refreshments after the talks will round off the event.

Session 1: Sustainability, Place Brands and congruence- how important are they in student choice?

Professor of Societal Marketing, Chris Chapleo will discuss his current research in relation to two core projects: the first of these concerns the role of sustainability in university communications and branding, and whether sustainability league tables really matter to key stakeholders. He is also looking at sustainable city brands and how this links to universities in these cities. This is a joint project between BU and Pannonia, Hungary. The second, related project is looking at how students choose a university and their ‘congruence’ with city/ university brands. This project is a collaboration between Bournemouth University, University of the West of England, and University of Plymouth.

Session 2: Understanding and encouraging the consumption of pulses

Professor of Psychology Katherine Appleton will present this session and introduce her work in this area. Pulses, including beans, chickpeas and lentils, are healthy, sustainable, low-cost foods, but consumption is low and increased consumption would benefit the health of the population and the planet. I have a programme of work looking at trying to understand why pulse consumption is low, and how we can increase this. I will speak about two studies that were completed last year looking at barriers and facilitators to pulse consumption, with specific foci on the use of recipes, enjoyment and cooking skills in increasing consumption. I will finish by considering our current ongoing study, and where we might be going next.

Provisional Timetable:

3.15-3.30pm – Welcome refreshment

3.30-4.30pm – Presentation sessions

4.30-5.00pm – Discussion, networking and refreshments

This is a free event, but you must register to attend via Eventbrite: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/a-celebration-of-sustainable-consumption-related-research-tickets-1224716332519?aff=oddtdtcreator

About CSSRC

The Centre for Sustainable & Socially Responsible Consumption (CSSRC) aims to promote and advance the understanding of sustainable consumption and socially responsible consumption through developing and delivering internationally renowned research. It provides a hub to explore and address topics that are currently globally relevant, through utilising a strong interdisciplinary focus. Webpage: https://www.bournemouth.ac.uk/research/centres-institutes/centre-sustainable-socially-responsible-consumption

19 December 2024

New research published on Artificial Empathy in the Metaverse

dbuhalis

Dimitrios Buhalis new research published on Artificial Empathy in the Metaverse

Assiouras, I., Laserer; C., Buhalis, D., 2025, The Evolution of Artificial Empathy in the Hospitality Metaverse Era, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Volume 126, April 2025, 104063 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2024.104063

Highlights

Artificial empathy of intelligent agents can be strengthened in the metaverse.
The experimental nature can hinder the development of artificial empathy.
The interoperability is critical for the development of artificial empathy.
Enhanced empathy of AI agents in metaverse will improve customers’ reactions.
Opportunities and challenges arise in the development of human empathy.

Abstract

As hospitality enters the metaverse era, artificial empathy becomes essential for developing artificial intelligence (AI) agents. Using the empathy cycle model, computational empathy frameworks and interdisciplinary research, this conceptual paper proposes a model explaining how artificial empathy will evolve in the hospitality metaverse era. The paper also addresses customer empathy and responses towards AI agents and other human actors within the hospitality context. It explores how metaverse characteristics such as immersiveness, sociability, experiential nature, interoperability, blended virtual and physical environments as well as environmental fidelity will shape computational models and the evolution of artificial empathy. Findings suggest that the metaverse enables AI agents to form a seamless cycle of detection, resonation, and response to consumers’ affective states, facilitating the evolution of artificial empathy. Additionally, the paper outlines conditions under which the artificial empathy cycle may be disrupted and proposes future research questions that can advance our understanding of artificial empathy.

20 November 2024

Academic Conferences Engagement: ISBE 2024

BRIAN, Business Engagement, conferences, Industry collaboration, Knowledge Exchange, Knowledge Transfer, staff profile pages, Women's Academic Network Sukanya Ayatakshi

This November, supported by a BU Women’s Academic Network Small Research Grant and a BUBS QR grant, I presented my paper on Refugee Women, Entrepreneurship and Acceptance and Legitimacy at the Institute of Small Business Entrepreneurship (ISBE) Conference 2024 at Sheffield, UK.

The conference, titled ISBE 2024- Research, Policy and Practice for a More Equitable World, is one of the most significant occasions annually for academics in the UK and beyond whose contributions to the domain of small business entrepreneurship is not only limited to the academic journals but are strongly influential in policy design. The ‘More Equitable World’ in the conference title alludes to the changing nature of the world we inhabit- one where we are recognising more and more every passing day, that the existing economic models are not relevant anymore. Most of the discussions at the conference were connected to the wider global challenges underpinned by UN Sustainable Development Goals.

In the subject domain of entrepreneurship, we talk of the entrepreneurial process- one marked by dealing with uncertainty (Knight, 1921), uncertainty of the perfect kind- one that is not just unknown but unknowable. One might argue- but all uncertainty is like that isn’t it? Not if you look at our own human propensity to ambiguity aversion and risk taking- we are much more likely to contend with known risks then unknown risks. We engage in behaviour most of the time to lower our risks; we like clarity, we like to reduce ambiguity ( Ellsberg, 1961). But expert entrepreneurs, as Saras Sarasvathy suggests, are those who accept the perfectly unknowable nature of the future and yet they are comfortable with the uncertainty that comes with it because they remain open to opportunities, remain flexible, adaptable and open to change.

The Covid-19 pandemic brought with it an acceptance that we cannot, for the best of all the risk assessments undertaken, foresee the future. The smallest of mircoorganisms became the biggest disruptor in the marketplace and for humankind. Overnight, digital transformation was the demand of the marketplace. The acceleration of digitisation expected and demanded of smaller enterprises meant business survival was nigh impossible. But the human spirit, seen through the lenses of entrepreneurial spirit, prevailed. The world witnessed a (re)emergence of entrepreneurial leadership through creation of startups globally, focused on the taking small incremental steps to solving the grand challenges facing the planet and humanity. This had happened before when the 2008-2010 financial crisis occurred– as traditional for-profit businesses took a major hit, we saw in their wake, a growth in startups channelling their energies into creating economically sound business models which support communities and causes.

I reflect on this continually through my taught units in Entrepreneurship at BU and through my research. And I see this reflection in the world of academia and business around me. At ISBE 2024 this year, I had the privilege of engaging with individuals who are making profound impact on policy and society (economy after all must serve the needs of the society- it is not decoupled). Some of the discussions were on Inclusivity in entrepreneurship with focus on neurodivergence and the path of entrepreneurship; gender gap in entrepreneurship; focus on how to make finance equitable for all in the context of business startups; focus on newer economic models relevant to our current times.

My research focus is on marginalisation and entrepreneurship- gender bias in entrepreneurial finance; gendered roles and entrepreneurial experience; refugee crisis and integration into society through entrepreneurship. It was a breath of fresh air to witness how openly policy makers and highly influential academics are talking about how it is high time to stop talking about the problem e.g. Gender Bias and work to a solution that is real. There is no dearth of evidence on the problem of the gender gap in entrepreneurship. The last I checked it was a 3-6% loss to global GDP to the region of nearly USD 5 trillion. Inclusivity, just in the context of the binary gender gap here, is not just an argument of social justice and fairness (which would be a very strong argument) but an economic one.

My participation at the conference was facilitated by funding from the Women’s Academic Network at Bournemouth University (BU) and BU Business School QR funds. The value of the grants was not just limited to the paper presentation at the conference but is poised to lead to bigger outcomes in the form of collaborative research, joint external bid applications and public engagement.

Although I have had papers accepted at conferences in the last few years but this was the first conference I had physically attended (barring an online one in 2023) after a hiatus of nearly 4 years. Those 4 years began with the pandemic lockdown year of course and then life took over. The context of gender issues in entrepreneurship is not dissimilar to that of women or mother academics* or women in other industry sectors. Recently, I came across an interview with Indra Nooyi, former CEO of PepsiCo, who said that the work-life ‘balance’ is problematic; we ought to strive for work-life juggle. Not sure what you make of it, but I hear it from the perspective of a woman academic who wishes to make a positive impact through her work and also create a positive family experience. And in that process, relying on support network(s) and grants such as the ones I had are critically important. As I found through one of my recent research studies, social relationships (within family or externally) provide the much needed ‘propping up’ allowing women ( entrepreneurs) to work towards their (business) aspirations.

Participation at conferences is not just limited to academic feedback on papers; it is way beyond that- it becomes a supportive network; it is inspiration; intellectual stimulation; professional networking; creating a collaborative space for future projects; creating opportunities of PhD candidates; connecting with policy makers and ultimately, human connectedness that we all crave. For women academics like me, I feel it is a priceless experience. One that I would be looking forward to repeating more often.

The blogpost refers to gender in the binary only.

Category / Business and economic sustainability

From Sherborne to the Pitch Room: Why MBA Learning Needs More Reality—and Less Control

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

Interdisciplinary research: Not straightforward?

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

Universities as Innovation Anchors: Teaching Technology Entrepreneurship Beyond the Technology

Starting with Uncertainty: Teaching Technology Entrepreneurship Through Civic Immersion

From Classroom to Catalyst: Impact, Inclusion and the UN SDGs in Entrepreneurship Education at Bournemouth University

The Toxic Legacy of a Crisis

Dr. Ashraf cited on ‘Modest Fashion’ in The Guardian

The Future of Surface Protection: Nanocomposite Coatings Explained

BU-Lush Cosmetics Ltd collaboration to Develop Renewable Zero Carbon Emissions Energy Technology

Free Research Event – Wednesday 26th February – A Celebration of Sustainable Consumption Related Research

New research published on Artificial Empathy in the Metaverse

Academic Conferences Engagement: ISBE 2024

Other services

Don’t miss a post!

Recent posts

Search by Category

Research Information Network

UKRI

Category / Business and economic sustainability

Other services

Don’t miss a post!

Recent posts

Search by Category

Search by popular post topics