Category / Fusion themes

Innovate UK Grant Support Opportunity

Dear colleague

We understand that Innovate UK will be announcing a Digital Health Technology Catalyst (DHTC) fund competition in the Autumn (likely October). The sums of money available are likely to be significant (last call was looking for projects between £300K and £1M) and of course competition will be intense. The competition needs to be led by a Small to Medium Enterprise (SME), but these companies will need to partner with another organisation and this can be the University. We believe that locally we have the links to industry (SMEs), capability and expertise to be contenders for this award.

Attached below are the 10 questions that Innovate UK regularly ask in their applications.  We are giving you advance warning so that you could put yourselves on the front foot in the application process and give you time to seek and partner with an SME.

We would like to support you and have in place support from Dr Frank Ratcliff and Kevin Brooks of the Wessex AHSN for up to three to five bids which, based on their experience, have the ingredients for success. Kevin will be available to provide guidance throughout the application process and carry out a comprehensive check of your application, against the funder’s criteria, before the applications are submitted.

To registered your interest, and for us to check eligibility, there is a short expression of interest (EOI) form attached below for you to complete. Please send your EOIs to Audrey Dixon (adixon@bournemouth.ac.uk ) by Noon on Friday 29th June 2018.

We are told that the criteria for Round 2 of the DHTC grant is unlikely to change. For your information, and to check the eligibility and scope of your proposed project, click here to view details of the last (now closed) DHTC Round 1

DHTC Expression of Interest Application Form IUK 10 Application Questions

IUK 10 Application Questions

New BU publication: Wisdom & skills in social work education

Congratulations to professors Parker and Ashencaen Crabtree in the Faculty of Health & Social Sciences on the publication of their latest paper ‘Wisdom and skills in social work education. Promoting critical relational social work through ethnographic practice.’

 

Reference:

  1. Parker, J.& Ashencaen Crabtree, S. (2018). Wisdom and skills in social work education. Promoting critical relational social work through ethnographic practice,
     

LAST CHANCE to book for NIHR Grant Applications Seminar & Support Event – 26 June 2018

 

Last chance to book for this with the deadline just over a week away…

Are you planning to submit a grant application to NIHR?

We are holding a one-day event in Bournemouth that is aimed at helping you to improve your chances of success.

The morning seminar session is open to anyone to come and hear Simon Goodwin, RfPB Programme Manager for the South West, and RDS advisers give presentations on what makes a good grant proposal. Topics covered will include:

  • what does the NIHR (and in particular RfPB) look for?
  • the application as a marketing document: selling the topic, selling the method, and selling the team
  • the team
  • clarity of description and explanation
  • feasibility issues
  • identifying and avoiding potential pitfalls.

The afternoon support session of one-to-one appointments is for those who would like to discuss their own proposal with an RDS adviser.

This event is FREE and refreshments and lunch will be provided. Places are limited and will be allocated on a ‘first come, first served’ basis. In order to secure your place please register using our online form by 1pm, 18 June 2018Find out more.

And don’t forget, your local branch of the NIHR Research Design Service is based within the BU Clinical Research Unit (BUCRU) on the 5th floor of Royal London House. Feel free to pop in and see us, call us on 61939 or send us an email.

Creative launch for Responsible Project Management research

Dr Karen Thompson and Dr Nigel Williams, of the Department of Leadership, Strategy and Organisations, are drawing on the creative industries to kick-start research on Responsible Project Management.

They have designed a 2-day interactive workshop that will bring together leading researchers and practitioners from across the UK and Europe.  This inter-disciplinary event will begin to consider how Project Managers can develop sustainability competencies to meet the UN’s 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).  A social learning approach, incorporating ‘Open Space Technology’, will be used to develop new understandings, practices and relationships.  Building on existing literature on Responsible Management, an important objective of this workshop is to identify a future research agenda for Responsible Project Management.

To get participants into a creative mindset, the workshop will be preceded by a relaxed and informative event with multi-award winning singer/songwriter Steve Knightley.  His journey is one of growing a business from grass roots to international fame.  A business that delivers excellence and fosters a warm embracing sense of community, and a journey that has taken him from local pubs to the Albert Hall, and beyond.

Academics and practitioners with a keen interest in sustainability from any discipline are invited to join one or both events.  Booking is essential.

Monday 2 July Growing a Sustainable Business  https://growingasustainablebusiness.eventbrite.co.uk

Tuesday 3 & Wednesday 4 July: Responsible Project Management Interactive Workshop https://responsibleprojectmanagement.eventbrite.co.uk

 

Background and rationale for research on Responsible Project Management

Responsible project management is the concept of incorporating the UN’s 17 Sustainable Goals in Project Management.

Projects and project management are now widely recognized by organizations as being essential to achieving their strategic objectives (Turner 2014).  Project management is a transferable skill, and projects are the engines of change across industries and in many aspects of business.  Research on project management therefore sits at the heart of business, management and education.  Since projects are conceptualized and realized by temporary, heterogeneous groups of individuals, existing management interventions from Operations and Supply Chain Management such as ISO14000 may be of limited value. There is therefore a need for Project Management researchers to develop academic insights that can encourage the application of responsible principles as well as the development of Project Managers with the competencies to deliver projects informed by knowledge of sustainability issues.

Sustainability is formally recognized as a global priority and impacts all aspects of project management (Silvius 2016).  The domain of management has begun to incorporate sustainable principles using the UN Goals which inflenced the Global Compact framework on Human Rights, Labour, Anti-Corruption and the Environment. At BU, Sustainability is a strategic investment area.

There is an emerging strand of research at the intersection of project management and sustainability.  However, the focus of existing research is developing metrics to evaluate project outcomes.  Incorporating sustainability into projects requires project managers to go beyond delivering defined results for specific customers to managing the impact of their activities on society and the environment.

Building on existing literature on Responsible Management, an important objective of this workshop is to identify a future research agenda for Responsible Project Management, with a focus on developing new researchers and practitioners. The workshop will feature organised, cross-disciplinary interaction among researchers and practitioners.

 

BU researchers pick up two awards at International Communication Association (ICA) conference

Bournemouth University researchers picked up two prestigious awards at the International Communication Association (ICA) annual conference held in Prague, 24-28 May 2018. This is the largest communications conference in the world and highly competitive, so receiving recognition in the form of awards is a great honour.

Dr Nael Jebril was recognised for his co-edited book entitled Political Journalism in Comparative Perspectivethat won the Harvard International Journal of Press/ Politics best book award. This is a major honour and awarded by the top journal in the field of media and politics. Dr Jebril received the award with his co-editors, Prof Erik Albæk (University of Southern Denmark), Prof Arjen van Dalen (University of Southern Denmark), and Prof Claes H. de Vreese (Universiteit van Amsterdam).

Dr Emma Pullen, Dr Daniel Jackson, Prof Michael Silkand Dr Richard Scullion won the top faculty paper award for the Sports Communication division of ICA, for their paper entitled Giving Disability the ‘Hollywood Treatment’: Channel 4 and the Broadcasting of the Paralympic Games. This is their first output from the AHRC funded Paralympics project on the cultural legacy of the 2016 Rio Paralympics (grant ref: AH/P003842/1). Keep up to date with their progress via the project website www.pasccal.com, Twitter @pasccalproject, and the BU research blog.

Abstracts

Political Journalism in Comparative Perspective
Prof Erik Albæk, Prof Arjen van Dalen, Dr Nael Jebril, Prof Claes H. de Vreese

Political journalism is often under fire. Conventional wisdom and much scholarly research suggest that journalists are cynics and political pundits. Political news is void of substance and overly focused on strategy and persons. Citizens do not learn from the news, are politically cynical, and are dissatisfied with the media. This book challenges these assumptions, which are often based on single-country studies with limited empirical observations about the relation between news production, content, and journalism’s effects. Based on interviews with journalists, a systematic content analysis of political news, and panel survey data in different countries, this book tests how different systems and media-politics relations condition the contents of political news. It shows how different content creates different effects and demonstrates that under the right circumstances citizens learn from political news, do not become cynical, and are satisfied with political journalism.

Giving Disability the ‘Hollywood Treatment’: Channel 4 and the Broadcasting of the Paralympic Games
Dr Emma Pullen, Dr Daniel Jackson, Prof Michael Silk and Dr Richard Scullion

Studies that have critiqued para-sport broadcasting, particularly through a narrative lens, have almost exclusively relied on textual and/or content analysis of the Paralympic Games as the source of cultural critique. We know far less about the decisions taken inside Paralympic broadcasters that led to such representations. In this study – based on interviews with senior production and promotion staff at the UK’s Paralympic broadcaster, Channel 4 – we provide the first examination of mediated para-sport from this vantage point. We explore the use of controversial promotional devices such as athletes’ backstories – the “Hollywood treatment” – to hook audiences as a vehicle to achieving its social enterprise ambitions of changing public attitudes toward disability. In so doing, we reveal myriad tensions that exist within a Paralympic broadcaster as they attempt to balance the competing goals of key stakeholders with their own desire to make the Paralympics a commercial and socially progressive success.

BU contribution to Routledge Handbook of Well-Being

Congratulations to current and past academics in the Faculty of Health & Social Sciences and the Faculty of Science & Technology who contributed to the newly published Routledge Handbook of Well-Being.  The editor Prof. Kate Galvin was previously based at Bournemouth University.  She is currently Professor of Nursing Practice in the School of Health Sciences at the University of Brighton.

The following four chapters in the edited collection have been authored or co-authored by BU scholars and students past and present:

  • Dwelling- Mobility: An Existential Theory of Well-being Chapter 8 by Les Todres & Kate Galvin
  • Heritage and Well-being: Therapeutic places, past and present Chapter 11 by Timothy Darvill, Vanessa Heaslip & Kerry Barras
  • Embodied Routes to Well-being: Horses and Young People Chapter 20 by Ann Hemingway
  • Eighteen Kinds of well-being but there may be many more: A conceptual Framework that provides direction for Caring Chapter 30 by Kate Galvin & Les Todres.

 

Congratulations to all!

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

HE policy update for the w/e 25th May 2018

Brexit

In the PM’s speech this week referred to below, she mentioned the implications of Brexit for research:

…. since 2010 the number of overseas students coming to study at UK universities has increased by almost a quarter. The UK will always be open to the brightest and the best researchers to come and make their valued contribution. And today over half of the UK’s resident researcher population were born overseas.

When we leave the European Union, I will ensure that does not change.

  • Indeed the Britain we build together in the decades ahead must be one in which scientific collaboration and the free exchange of ideas is increased and extended, both between the UK and the European Union and with partners around the world.
  • I know how deeply British scientists value their collaboration with colleagues in other countries through EU-organised programmes.  And the contribution which UK science makes to those programmes is immense.
  • I have already said that I want the UK to have a deep science partnership with the European Union, because this is in the interests of scientists and industry right across Europe.  And today I want to spell out that commitment even more clearly.
  • The United Kingdom would like the option to fully associate ourselves with the excellence-based European science and innovation programmes – including the successor to Horizon 2020 and Euratom R&T.  It is in the mutual interest of the UK and the EU that we should do so.
  • Of course such an association would involve an appropriate UK financial contribution, which we would willingly make.
  • In return, we would look to maintain a suitable level of influence in line with that contribution and the benefits we bring.

The UK is ready to discuss these details with the Commission as soon as possible.

Some more flesh was put on these bones by a policy paper from the Department for Existing the EU: Framework for the UK-EU partnership Science, research and innovation

AI, data and other Industrial Strategy news

The PM made a speech this week announcing 4 “missions” that sit below the Industrial Strategy with a  focus on AI and data, amongst other things– you can read my blog of the highlights here

In related news, Innovate UK published a report on the immersive economy

And the government issued 4 calls for ideas and evidence on the PM’s 4 missions.  They want new ideas here:

  • AI and data:  “we have one question:  Where can the use of AI and data transform our lives?”
  • Ageing society: “we would like to hear your thoughts on the following: How can we best support people to have extra years of being healthy and independent? 
  • Clean Growth: “we would like to hear your thoughts on the following:  How can our construction industry use its existing strengths to halve energy use in buildings?”
  • Future of mobility: “we have one question:  How can we ensure that future transport technologies and services are developed in an inclusive manner?.

If you’d like to contribute to any of these, please contact policy@bournemouth.ac.uk

Subject level TEF

You can read BU’s response to the subject level TEF consultation here.  We agree with the issues raised below and we advocated a new model because of serious problems with both Model A and Model B.  We also suggested a longer time frame (because of the volume of work involved, not complacency), and disagreed with both grade inflation and teaching intensity metrics.  And we challenged the awards at both institutional and subject level, proposing instead two awards (good and excellent/ excellent and outstanding) with stars for subjects.

Interesting developments for TEF (and more generally), the OfS have published their timetable for NSS and Unistats data for 2018:

  • The Office for Students (OfS) is applying the Code of Practice for Statistics to its data publication in anticipation of its designation as a producer of official statistics by July 2018. This has implications for the pre-publication access that we can grant to NSS outcomes and Unistats data, as these will now be treated as official statistics. As a consequence, we will now publish the NSS public dataset at the same time as providers are able to access their own data 2 on Friday 27 July 2018.
  • There will also be no provider preview as part of the annual Unistats data collection and publication process, and data available in system reports will be limited to that essential for quality processes associated with the Unistats return.
  • In June 2018, we will add earnings data from the Longitudinal Education Outcomes dataset for English providers to Unistats.
  • From September 2018, we will begin to use the Common Aggregation Hierarchy developed for the Higher Education Classification of Subjects to present data on Unistats in place of the current subject hierarchy.
  • The Unistats website will be updated in June 2018 to include Year three outcomes from the Teaching Excellence and Student Outcomes Framework.

And :

  •  Following consultation on the outcomes of the Review of Unistats in 2015, the funding bodies are working together on options for a replacement for the Unistats website. This new resource would draw on the findings from the review about decision-making behaviour and the information needs of different groups of prospective students. We will progress this work in stages – ensuring that it is developed in a way that meets the needs of prospective students across all countries of the UK – and will provide the sector with periodic updates, the first of which will be in summer 2018.

Research Professional have a neat summary of the sector response.

On Wonkhe:

  • panel chair Janice Kay of the University of Exeter reflects on progress made and the challenges – and opportunities – arising from the exercise.  when breaking down the metrics into 35 subjects, cohort sizes can be small”  “ it is clear that the current format of the seven subject groupings poses challenges. For example, while it may reduce the writing load by asking institutions to describe its subjects in a summated way, it has sometimes limited what subjects can say about themselves, making it difficult to identify what happens in individual subjects. And we have heard that the format can increase writing effort, even if volume is reduced… It’s critical during this exercise that the written judgments can continue to do this, and that holistic judgments are not captured by metrics. There is therefore a question whether metric and written submission data can be better balanced in Model B.”  Plus some credibility issues with Model A
  • Melanie Rimmer, chief planner at Goldsmiths, University of London, ponders the likely outcomes of the subject-level TEF consultation.  Model B best meets the primary intention of Subject-Level TEF – that being to provide greater information to students – since it allows for greater variation between outcomes for subjects. However, highlighting variation in provision will only be attractive to institutions where that differentiation is a better rating than the current provider-level rating. If you want to hide weaker performance, then opt for Model A.  The main argument in favour of Model A is that it will reduce the burden of submission and assessment. That will be attractive to institutions which, having been through the exercise once and established their credentials, perceive the requirements of TEF as an unnecessary additional imposition that will deliver minimal return. Solid Golds and Silvers are likely to prefer Model A for this reason. Those at the borders of the ratings, with an eye on how close they are to moving between them, are more likely to see value in the greater effort required by Model B.”  “Those which are unlikely to see their rating change, or indeed which might see their metrics moving in the wrong direction and worry about a lesser rating, will naturally support longer duration awards. Those hoping to gain a shinier medal as a result of improving performance will see value in more regular submissions.”  “There are, however, bound to be areas of common ground on the consultation proposals. Every institution I have spoken to has identified a problem with the subject classifications, highlighting why combining disciplines X and Y makes no sense in their institution. However, in each case the disciplines cited are different because the issues stem primarily from institutional structures.”
  • Stephanie Harris of Universities UK (UUK) looks ahead to the future of TEF and the forthcoming statutory review of the exercise.
  • Claire Taylor of Wrexham Glyndŵr University looks at TEF from a quality enhancement perspective and considers the options for institutions in devolved nations.  “perhaps the very act of putting together the written submission also provides an opportunity for us to engage with an enhancement agenda. By reflecting upon TEF metric performance within the written submission, providers have an opportunity to outline the qualitative evidence base in relation to enhancement, evaluation and impact, within the context of their own overall institutional strategic approach to improving the student experience”.  But: “the introduction of grade inflation metrics during TEF3 is of questionable value. Such a metric does not consider the contexts within which providers are operating. Providers have robust and detailed mechanisms for ensuring fair and equitable assessment of student work, including the use of external examiners to calibrate sector-wide, a system that contributes positively to the enhancement agenda and to which the grade inflation metric adds little value.”, and “The consultation asks for views around the introduction of a measure of teaching intensity. In my view, the proposed measure has no meaning and no connection to excellence, value or quality, let alone enhancement. There is the potential for the information to be misleading as it will need specialist and careful interpretation”
  • with an updated TEF diagram, “The Incredible Machine”, David Kernohan and Ant Bagshaw look at TEF3 and question its compatibility with the earlier versions of the exercise.  “So what – honestly – is TEF now for? It doesn’t adequately capture the student experience or the quality of teaching. It does not confer any benefit – other than a questionable marketing boost – to providers, and there is no evidence that students are making serious use of it to choose courses, universities, or colleges. Internationally, concerns have already been raised that the three-level ratings are confusing – it’s been widely reported that “Bronze” institutions are often not considered to meet the UK’s laudably stringent teaching quality thresholds. And it is not even a reliable time series – a TEF3 Gold is now achievable by an institution that would not have passed the test under TEF2 rules. Later iterations may well be built “ground up” from subject TEF assessments, once again changing the rules fundamentally. Let’s not even mention TEF1 (it’s OK, no-one ever does) in this context.”

From Dods: The Science and Technology Committee have published its report from the Algorithms in decision-making inquiry which acknowledges the huge opportunities presented by algorithms to the public sector and wider society, but also the potential for their decisions to disproportionately affect certain groups.

The report calls on the Centre for Data Ethics & Innovation – being set up by the Government – to examine algorithm biases and transparency tools, determine the scope for individuals to be able to challenge the results of all significant algorithmic decisions which affect them (such as mortgages and loans) and where appropriate to seek redress for the impacts of such decisions. Where algorithms significantly adversely affect the public or their rights, the Committee highlights that a combination of algorithmic explanation and as much transparency as possible is needed.

It also calls for the Government to provide better oversight of private sector algorithms which use public sector datasets, and look at how best to monetise these datasets to improve outcomes across Government. The Committee also recommends that the Government should:

  • Continue to make public sector datasets available for both ‘big data’ developers and algorithm developers through new ‘data trusts’, and make better use of its databases to improve public service delivery
  • Produce, maintain and publish a list of where algorithms are being used within Central Government, or are planned to be used, to aid transparency, and identify a ministerial champion with oversight of public sector algorithm use.
  • Commission a review from the Crown Commercial Service which sets out a model for private/public sector involvement in developing algorithms.

Social Mobility Commission

Under the 10 minute rule, the Chair of the Education Committee Robert Halfon introduced legislation to give greater powers and resources to the Social Mobility Commission (SMC), the body set up to promote social justice.  (Link here at 13.52.09pm).  It will have its second reading on 15th June.

The Committee published a draft Bill in March alongside its report.  In its report, the Committee called for the establishment of a new implementation body at the heart of Government to drive forward the social justice agenda.

And in the meantime, the Government have announced a recommendation for a new Chair.  Dame Martina Milburn has spent 14 years as Chief Executive of the Prince’s Trust, supporting more than 450,000 disadvantaged young people across the country in that time, with three in four of these going on to work, education or training. She is also a non-executive director of the National Citizen Service and the Capital City College Group, and was previously Chief Executive of BBC Children in Need and of the Association of Spinal Injury Research, Rehabilitation and Reintegration.

Immigration

From Dods: Last Friday the Science and Technology Committee announced that it intends to develop its own proposals for immigration and visa rules for scientists post-Brexit. This work follows the Government’s rejection of the Committee’s call for the conclusions of the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) relating to science to be brought forward to form part of an ‘early deal’ for science and innovation.

The Committee published its report on “Brexit, Science and Innovation” in March, and has recently received the Government’s response. The report welcomed the Prime Minister’s call for a “far-reaching pact” with the EU on science and innovation and recommended that an early deal for science—including on the ‘people’ element—could set a positive tone for the rest of the trade negotiations, given the mutual benefits of cooperation on science and innovation for the UK and the EU.

The Committee will draw on the submissions to its previous Brexit inquiry and the sector’s submissions to the MAC to construct its proposals for the immigration system, but further input to this process is welcome on the following points:

  • If an early deal for science and innovation could be negotiated, what specifically should it to contain in relation to immigration rules and movement of people involved with science and innovation?
  • What are the specific career needs of scientists in relation to movement of people, both in terms of attracting and retaining the people the UK needs and supporting the research that they do?
  • What aspects of the ‘people’ element need to be negotiated with the EU-27, as opposed to being simply decided on by the Government?
  • On what timescale is clarity needed in relation to future immigration rules in order to support science and innovation in the UK?

Consultations

Click here to view the updated consultation tracker. Email us on policy@bournemouth.ac.uk if you’d like to contribute to any of the current consultations.

Subscribe!

To subscribe to the weekly policy update simply email policy@bournemouth.ac.uk

JANE FORSTER                                            |                       SARAH CARTER

Policy Advisor                                                                     Policy & Public Affairs Officer

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

 

 

Medical Research showcase at CoPMRE’s Spring Visiting Faculty Day

The Centre of Postgraduate Medical Research & Education (CoPMRE) held its Spring Visiting Faculty Day at the Executive Business Centre.  Fourteen posters (VF Programme Spring 2018) were presented showcasing the breadth of collaborative projects being undertaken by BU and local clinicians.  The Best Poster prize was awarded to Dr Paul Whittington, Department of Computing & Informatics, Faculty of Science and Technology, for his presentation entitled Automatic Detection of User Abilities through the SmartAbility Framework.  Professor Tamas Hickish, judge, felt that all the posters were excellent and address important health care issues.  Paul’s poster was chosen as the research was generated by a deep understanding of disability, the use a mobile phone technology and generalisability to significant areas of health care need such as stroke and frailty. As such his work is scalable and feasible.

Visiting Faculty Days are a great opportunity to share innovative ideas and research.  The event was very well received and links for possible further collaboration have already been formed as a result of networking.  Our next Visiting Faculty Day will be held in December.

Two reviews by BU academics in the American Anthropologist in 2018

The first review by a Bournemouth University academic  in the prestigious  journal American Anthropologist was published in its February issue.  Dr. Sue Sudbury who is Principal Academic in Media Production reviewed the film ‘The Anthropologist’ [1].  She wrote in this Open Access review that this film raises many interesting issues about the role of the anthropologist and deftly illustrates the divide that exists when different cultures come together.   Her conclusion of the review is that ‘The Anthropologist’ is an intriguing and memorable film about environmental anthropologists and the important work they do collecting and telling the stories of people whose lives are being reshaped by climate change. It is also about the relationship between female anthropologists and their daughters. As such, it does an important job of introducing the subject and will no doubt generate discussion, but it is not an anthropological film and doesn’t claim to be.

The second one, a book review this time, appeared this week in the June issue.    Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen in Bournemouth University’s Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health (CMMPH) reviewed the book Midwives and Mothers: The Medicalization of Childbirth on a Guatemalan Plantation by the American anthropologist Sheila Cosminsky [2].  He reminds the reader that some of the work in this book work has previously been published in articles, as clearly stated in the acknowledgments (p. xii).  He highlights that “on reading the book I remembered with joy snippets from some of the articles on Doña María I read nearly thirty years ago while working on my PhD thesis.” Cosminsky does a great job of bringing together a lifetime of anthropological (field)work in a comprehensive and easy‐to‐read book.

It is not often that we see reviews written by BU staff in this impressive journal, let alone two in subsequent issues.

 

References:

  1. Sudbury S. (2018) The Anthropologist Seth Kramer, Daniel A. Miller, and Jeremy Newberger, dirs. 81 mins. English, Russian, Sakha, Kiribati, Spanish, and Quechua with English subtitles. New York: Ironbound Films, 2015, American Anthropologist 120(1): 169-170.
  2. van Teijlingen E. (2018) Midwives and Mothers: The Medicalization of Childbirth on a Guatemalan Plantation by Sheila Cosminsky, American Anthropologist 120(2): 369.

HE policy update for the w/e 18th May 2018

Summit on BME Leadership in HE

This event was hosted by AdvanceHE, the new agency that was formed recently to include the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education, the Higher Education Academy and the Equality Challenge Unit.

Wonkhe have pointed out that:

  • So far only 45 out of 167 higher education institutions have signed the Advance HE Race Equality Charter’s principles [BU is one of them]. Of those 45, only nine have actually been formally recognised for demonstrating evidence of their commitment. The first wave of eight 2015 Charter award holders are reapplying for accreditation this summer.”

Baroness Valerie Amos spoke at this event on 16th May and also wrote in the Guardian. about leadership.

  • “There are deep-seated prejudices and stereotypes which need to be overcome. University leaders need to acknowledge that we are not doing enough. The UK has some of the best universities in the world – but what is the point of that if we are not offering real equality of opportunity?”

Also in the Guardian on Wednesday was an article by Shakira Martin, President of the NUS, who spoke at the same event.

  • “This year has also seen black students fighting back, rising up, taking to the streets, starting campaigns and writing powerful letters, like the three brave students from the University of Exeter, to say enough is enough. However, the onus should not be on them to tackle discrimination. The sector is pretty good at sharing best practice. This is one area where distinct, hardline initiatives are needed in abundance. Institutions must be bold. It only takes one or two to get serious about dealing with the issue head-on and others will follow suit.”

Launch of UKRI

UK research and Innovation have published its Strategic Prospectus which create a research and innovation system that is fit for the future and equipped to tackle the environmental, social and economic challenges of the 21st Century. As the press release outlines, the prospectus is the start of this process and over the next 12 months UKRI and its councils will continue to engage with their communities, the wider public, and undertake research, to further develop individual strategic delivery plans. Please see the following links for more information:

UKRI will work with its partners to push the frontiers of human knowledge, deliver economic prosperity, and create social and cultural impact. It describes four underpinning areas key to delivering this:

  • Leading talent – nurturing the pipeline of current and future talent
  • A trusted and diverse system – driving a culture of equality, diversity and inclusivity and promoting the highest standards of research, collaboration and integrity
  • Global Britain – identifying and supporting the best opportunities for international collaboration
  • Infrastructure –  delivering internationally-competitive infrastructure to ensure we have the best facilities to foster innovation and conduct research

Over the coming months, UKRI will be conducting research and consultation to further develop its approach to working with others and to answer a series of big questions. These include how to grow the economy across different regions of the UK whilst continuing to expand our existing world-leading excellence; how to reduce the gap in productivity and the best approaches to developing talent across the diverse population of the UK, providing the skills needs of the future.

UKRI Chief Executive Professor Sir Mark Walport said:

  • “Our Strategic Prospectus has been developed to ensure that everyone in society benefits from the knowledge, innovation, talent and ideas generated from our funding. UK Research and Innovation builds on the excellence of our individual councils. We will work collaboratively with researchers, innovators and entrepreneurs to develop the most exciting ideas and innovative technologies and bring these to fruition. Delivering this success will take commitment, a collective effort and new, ambitious ways of working.”

Vision: • We will push the frontiers of human knowledge and understanding. • We will deliver economic impact • We will create social and cultural impact by supporting society to become enriched, healthier, more resilient and sustainable.

Values: Collaboration, Excellence, Innovation, Integrity

  • On talent: We will:
    • Seek to increase skills at all levels, to maintain a broad disciplinary skills base, and work with partners to identify key skills gaps and build capacity. We will support vocational education and apprenticeships alongside more traditional pathways through higher education. • Support individuals to move between business and research careers, creating opportunities to develop careers in ways that stimulate creativity and innovation.
    • Back universities to develop vibrant research environments which act as magnets to attract and nurture talent.
    • Support multidisciplinary teams when these are needed to conduct research and innovation. This will require the creation of more highly valued roles for technologists, data scientists and others for the teams that are needed to tackle tough challenges.
    • Promote continuing professional development, accompanied by lifelong learning and training throughout the careers of researchers and innovators.
  • On the system: We will:
    • Drive change, both as an employer and through our research and innovation funding. • Embed equality, diversity and inclusion at all levels and in all that we do.
    • Seek to create a culture that facilitates and safeguards the opportunities for all to be respected and treated fairly.
    • Take an evidence-based approach, commissioning and funding research and evaluations to understand the issues, what interventions work – and what does not work. • Collaborate and engage with partners nationally and internationally, to gather evidence and ideas, to help catalyse and facilitate change.
  • On Research culture: We will prioritise four related areas:
    • Research and innovation ethics – norms that define acceptable behaviour and practice
    • Conduct – the use of honest and verifiable methods in proposing, performing, and evaluating research
    • Reproducibility – the ability to achieve commensurate results when an experiment is conducted by an independent researcher under similar conditions
    • Analysis of funding mechanisms and metrics and their impact on culture
  • On transparency: We will:
    • Identify the highest value areas where UKRI can drive improvements to the open research system in the near to mid-term.
    • Build on the expertise in Councils and the wider community to identify technological innovations that could transform open research.
    • Engage with Government and external groups to ensure the UK continues to play a leading role in the international open research movement

Haldane Principle:

  • “(page 9): 3 In engaging with UKRI, BEIS will have regard to the Haldane principle …..The HER Act defines more precisely how the Haldane principle will apply with respect to UKRI.  For the science and humanities councils…. section 103 sets out that the Haldane principle is the principle that decisions on individual research proposals are best taken following an evaluation of the quality and likely impact of the proposals (such as a peer review process).  Section 97 provides equivalent measures for the activities of Research England. Strategic, long term decision making requires input from both subject matter experts and central government, as explained in the written ministerial statement. This includes investment in large capital infrastructure and research treaties.  The Haldane principle does not apply to the government’s funding of innovation and the activities of Innovate UK.”

Immigration

From Dods, referring to an article in Politico: May intervenes to speed up new UK immigration plan.  The Government have purportedly brought forward plans to publish the Immigration White Paper before the summer recess. This new timetable, if accurate, means the White Paper will be published before the long-awaited Migration Advisory Committee’s report into the economics of immigration, due to be published in September. Formerly, Home Office officials had said this report would inform Government immigration policy, justifying the long delay in publishing the White Paper.

More definitely, the Commons Science and Technology Select Committee have announced a new inquiry into “an immigration system that works for science and innovation”.

  • “The Committee published its report on “Brexit, Science and Innovation” in March, and has recently received the Government’s response. The report welcomed the Prime Minister’s call for a “far-reaching pact” with the EU on science and innovation. We had recommended that an early deal for science—including on the ‘people’ element—could set a positive tone for the rest of the trade negotiations, given the mutual benefits of cooperation on science and innovation for the UK and the EU. The Committee now intends to produce its own proposals for an immigration system that works for science and innovation, with the aim of completing this in advance of the MAC’s report later this year.”

The Committee Chair, Rt Hon Norman Lamb MP, said:

  • “It was disappointing that the Government doesn’t see the need to secure an early science pact, and assumes that scientists are happy to just wait and see what’s in the Immigration Bill next year. We’re going to roll up our sleeves now and set out our proposals for an immigration system that works for the science and innovation sector.”
  • “Today’s revelation that more than 1,600 IT specialists and engineers offered jobs in the UK were denied visas between December and March sends the message that the UK is not interested in welcoming science talent at the moment. The Government needs to work quickly to correct that impression.

The Committee will draw on the submissions to its previous Brexit inquiry and the sector’s submissions to the MAC to construct its proposals for the immigration system, but further input to this process is welcome on the following points:

  • If an early deal for science and innovation could be negotiated, what specifically should it to contain in relation to immigration rules and movement of people involved with science and innovation?
  • What are the specific career needs of scientists in relation to movement of people, both in terms of attracting and retaining the people the UK needs and supporting the research that they do?
  • What aspects of the ‘people’ element need to be negotiated with the EU-27, as opposed to being simply decided on by the Government?
  • On what timescale is clarity needed in relation to future immigration rules in order to support science and innovation in the UK?

The deadline for submissions is Wednesday 6 June 2018 – please contact policy@bournemouth.ac.uk if you would like to submit evidence to this inquiry.

Post-18 review

The Secretary of State for Education has written to the Chair of the Education Committee about the HE review:

  • “You asked for clarification on how the Review of Post-18 Education and Funding will inform my department’s preparations for the next spending review, particularly with regard to further education. The Spending Review 2019 will provide an opportunity to set budgets and fund government priorities across the whole DfE remit from 2020-21 onwards. The Department’s preparation for the Spending Review will include consideration of any recommendations from the Review of Post-18 Education and Funding.”

Policy impact

I presented this week on engaging with policy makers, part of a regular series of workshops that we run at BU for academic and professional support staff.  Read my blog here.

And while we’re talking about the “what”…did you know that government departments publish their areas of research interest?  This is a guide to where research funds might go, and is useful if you are thinking about policy impact. The collection is here, and four new ones were added on Thursday:

The DCMS one says “It is designed to encourage researchers and academics to explore those topics that could be of benefit to DCMS and our sectors and act as a starting point for future collaboration.”

Digital Health, Life Sciences

The government have published the annual report from the Bioscience and health technology sector database for 2017 – there are some interesting graphics and context for the strategic investment areas:

There is scope for an argument about focus on place for the industrial strategy here – the detailed maps in the main report  highlight the weakness in the South West but opportunity for Bournemouth given our location almost in the South East and close to London.

And out on Monday, this report from the National Centre for Universities and Business:

  • “To compete, the UK must ensure that its universities are as embedded into the digital health knowledge exchange process as those in California and Massachusetts. Furthermore, as the UK cannot outspend the US, our systems for procurement and deployment into the NHS, and the high quality of research in UK universities, must be connected more effectively in the ecosystem. We noted earlier that patients and consumers are willing to share their data for research – although there is a sensible debate about opt-in versus opt-out, and patient control over what might be shared – but there remain significant standardisation challenges across primary and secondary care systems that must be overcome to drive research excellence.”

Postgraduate loans and numbers

New data from the Office for Students shows an increase in postgraduate masters’ student numbers since the introduction of the postgraduate masters’ loan.  ·        Read the news item in full on the Office for Students website.

The effect of postgraduate loans data – key findings (the survey uses HESA data)

  • In 2016-17 postgraduate masters’ loans of up to £10,000 were introduced to assist students with tuition fees and living costs.
  • In 2016-17 there was an overall increase in entrant numbers but only for students to eligible courses. The number for non-eligible courses decreased. Single-year transition rates straight from undergraduate degree to postgraduate study saw a similar increase in students to eligible courses.
  • Age: The largest increase in entrant numbers on eligible courses and increase in transition rates have been for students aged 25 and under. Overall, the age profile of entrants to postgraduate study has changed slightly, with a larger proportion of younger students than in previous years.
  • Gender: Male and female entrant numbers on eligible courses both show an increase. Similarly, there has been no difference between the genders in transition rates or loan take-up.
  • Ethnicity: There has been a larger increase in entrant numbers on eligible courses for black students than for white students, which has resulted in a change in the ethnic composition of the postgraduate entrant population. The proportion of postgraduate entrants on eligible courses who are black has increased from 8 per cent in 2015-16 to 11 per cent in 2016-17.
  • Disability: Disabled students comprised 12 per cent of the entrant population on eligible courses in 2015-16. However this has increased to 15 per cent in 2016-17.
  • Educational disadvantage: The proportional increase in entrant numbers on eligible courses, and increases in one-year transition rates, has been greatest for students from the lowest-participation areas. This means that those from the lowest undergraduate participation areas are now more likely to enter postgraduate study immediately after undergraduate study than those from the highest participation areas.
  • The proportion of students who were eligible for a loan and took one out was greatest among:
    • students aged 25 and under on entry
    • black students
    • students who declared a disability
    • students from lowest-participation areas.
  • For all student groups, the proportion of graduates able to realise their intention to continue postgraduate studies has increased. However, the increase was greatest among:
    • students aged 26 and over
    • black students
    • students who declared a disability
    • students from lowest-participation areas.

The Intentions After Graduation Survey data., key points:

Between January and April 2017 final year undergraduates on first degree courses were invited to answer the survey about their intentions after graduation. Overall, nearly 83,000 final year students from 268 UK higher education providers that take part in the National Student Survey (NSS) responded to the Intentions After Graduation Survey. This analysis focuses on almost 70,000 students at 238 English providers.

While the students’ most frequent intention within six months from graduation is to ‘look for a job’ (around 50 per cent of respondents each year), there is a clear upward trend in the percentage of students who intend to undertake postgraduate (PG) study. Among 2016-17 respondents, more than one student out of five selected ‘further study’ as their intention after graduation.

For all students, the intention to continue studying becomes greater further in the future (i.e. more than six months after graduation). Of students who are certain or likely to study at PG level in the future, 55 per cent intend to look for a job or have already been offered a job when surveyed.

In terms of motivation, almost 70 per cent of the students who intend or are likely to continue studying selected ‘interest in the subject’ as a reason for their intention. Only 35 per cent of the students would continue to study, among other reasons, to get a better job or to open up more career choices.

Female students are more likely to intend to continue to study than male students, as are black students relative to other ethnic groups. Also, young students from the lowest-participation areas are more likely to state an intention to continue study relative to those from higher-participation areas

Other news

The Office for Students is recruiting for its committees – provider risk, quality assessment and risk and audit.

Care leavers will be boosted by a new £1,000 bursary payment if they choose to do an apprenticeship from August 2018, the Government announced on 17 May

Subscribe!

To subscribe to the weekly policy update simply email policy@bournemouth.ac.uk

JANE FORSTER                                            |                       SARAH CARTER

Policy Advisor                                                                     Policy & Public Affairs Officer

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

New Sociology book by BU’s Dr. Hyun-Joo Lim

Congratulations to Dr. Hyun-Joo Lim, Senior Lecturer in Sociology, on the publication of her book East Asian Mothers in Britain: An Intersectional Exploration of Motherhood and Employment.   This book focus on how Chinese, Japanese and Korean mothers in the UK make sense of their motherhood and employment. It addresses questions such as: “What are the intersecting factors that shape these women’s identities, experiences and stories?”

Contributing further to the continuing discourse and development of intersectionality, this book examines East Asian migrant women’s stories of motherhood, employment and gender relations by deploying interlocking categories that go beyond the meta axes of race, gender and class, including factors such as husbands’ ethnicities and the locality of their settlement. Through this, Dr. Lim argues for more detailed and context specific analytical categories of intersectionality, enabling a more nuanced understanding of migrant women’s stories and identities.

The book is published by Palgrave Macmillan (hardcover ISBN978-3-319-75634-9), see website: https://www.palgrave.com/gb/book/9783319756349

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen