BU Research Blog

Category / Fusion

March 10, 2017

Blog by the Vice-Chancellor – what next for the Teaching Excellence Framework

Fusion, policy, Research assessment, Research news, Research Training, RKE development framework, Uncategorized jforster

The BBC 2 series “Meet the Lords” could not have been better timed. The House of Lords has flexed its muscles on the Article 50 Bill and this week’s episode coincided with them passing an amendment to the Higher Education and Research Bill (HE Bill) that breaks the link between the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) and fees. Since then another amendment has been passed that would change the nature of the TEF, and bring it under Parliamentary scrutiny.

It would be easy to dismiss these (as some have done) as acts of rebellion by a non-elected chamber that is in the case of the HE Bill, representing vested interests in the face of a genuine government attempt to reform a sector that is badly in need of it. The Department for Education could be forgiven if they had thought that the HE Bill was nearly home and dry. They had published a long list of amendments which had been largely welcomed by the sector. The TEF does not require Parliamentary approval. Universities UK and GuildHE, amongst others, had expressed support for the HE bill as amended and expressed support for the TEF – opposing the addition of more detail as it would reduce flexibility in future negotiations on the detail. But the House of Lords did not agree – they have not sought to add more detail in the TEF, but to change its nature completely. Reading the debates, it is clear that members of the House of Lords, like most of the sector, generally support the objectives of TEF in bringing focus on the quality of education and student outcomes. They support the provision of more and better information about universities for applicants and others. They, like many in the sector, also generally support an inflationary increase in fees.

In the latest amendment, the provisions for the TEF in clause 26 have been removed and the new clause instead requires the Secretary of State to bring forward a scheme to identify whether an institution meets or fails to meet expectations based on quality standards but it “must not be used to create a single composite ranking of English higher education providers”. The arguments are neatly summarised by Lord Lucas: “Bronze will be seen as failing because these universities will be marked out as the bottom 20%. This is just not necessary. We have succeeded, in our research rankings, in producing a measure of sufficient detail and sophistication for people to read it in detail. It produces quite marked differences between institutions, but nobody reads it as a mark of a failing institution. It is information, not ranking…”.

An earlier amendment removed the differentiation between fees based on different ratings. The speeches in the House of Lords demonstrate that they are opposed to this link for different reasons, for example:

Baroness Deech “If we detach fees from gold, silver and bronze, we stand a chance of increasing social mobility under the amendment. If we do not, social mobility will be frozen and ghettoisation will increase.”
Baroness Wolf of Dulwich: “I want to cite three groups of academics ….all of which feel, as do students, that in their current state the TEF metrics are not up to the job of determining fee levels and that, until we are sure that we have valid and reliable measures, we should not do this.”
Lord Lipsey : “… what seems knocking on bizarre is to plough on with bringing in this link between fees and the TEF before we have got the TEF right….The Government would give themselves the best chance of proving themselves right and the sceptics wrong if they gave time for the TEF to settle down before they brought in the fees link.”
Lord Kerslake: “My second reason for not making the link is that the TEF rating will relate to the university, not the subject or course. We will not see subject-level ratings until 2020 and yet we know that it is perfectly possible to have a mediocre course in an otherwise excellent university, and indeed vice versa. It can be argued that the TEF ranking gives an indication of the overall student experience at a particular institution, but the variation which so obviously exists within institutions makes that argument quite unconvincing.”

Except for the subject level fee point (which has not become a topic of debate yet), these are all arguments that were made by the sector in responding to the Green Paper and the TEF consultation. These are all things that we have continued to raise as we discuss the implications of subject-level TEF.

So as it stands, the TEF has lost both of its “incentives” – aka its carrot and its stick, which were both in the form of the impact on fees and reputation. It is not at all clear what will happen next – some ideas are given in this Wonkhe blog. In blogs on the Times Higher Education, Maddaleine Ansell of the University Alliance and Sorana Vieru gave very different perspectives.

So what compromise could there be to address all the concerns and yet still preserve the positive aspects of the TEF – i.e. the increasing focus on education and outcomes? I go back to BU’s response to the Green Paper, when we said that the TEF should model itself on the REF.. It should celebrate excellence wherever it is found, there should not be a link with tuition fees and there should be no forced ranking. To achieve that now, a remodelled TEF could include the following features:

no link to fees
have two rather than three levels of award – perhaps indicating good and outstanding. The last category is those who fail their quality assessment and don’t qualify for TEF.
take a different approach to benchmarking that does not force differentiation
include a place for commendations

I am not convinced by the argument that no-one would participate in the TEF without the direct financial incentive. That does not hold true for the REF. The REF has increased the focus on impact and had a beneficial impact on research. (We have some reservations about the changes proposed in the latest REF consultation, but that is a separate issue.) The concerns about the TEF would be mitigated substantially if the Olympic rating system and the link to fees were dropped. The sector would be able to engage in a much more constructive debate about subject-level TEF.

The TEF does not need to be thrown out completely – but this is an opportunity to go back to where this started from and ensure that the TEF brings focus on the quality of education and student outcomes.

March 2, 2017

Graduate Project – Supporting innovation at BU

Business Engagement, Fusion, HEIF, innovation, Knowledge Exchange, Knowledge Exchange and Impact Team jcodling

Oliver Cooke filming compressed My name is Oliver Cooke and I am currently in my third year of study on the BA Honours Media Production course. As part of my Graduate Project, I am developing a media package in order to showcase a number of projects that have been awarded Higher Education Innovation Funding (HEIF).

My experience with HEIF comes from the time on my work placement that I undertook last year. I worked within the Research and Knowledge Exchange Office (RKEO) as the Student Engagement Co-Ordinator. I learnt about many initiatives at BU including HEIF; so whilst reflecting on my time in RKEO and ideas for my Graduate Project, it was clear to me that there are many interesting projects at BU. It also struck me that here was an ideal opportunity to create some really engaging media content in order to showcase the innovation journeys and provide more information about innovation and knowledge exchange at BU.

The media content I will be producing will include a short video documentary, web content that can be integrated with the BU Research Website and a social media campaign. This will aim to highlight the people involved with HEIF at BU, as well as the research.

I have just started filming and the first footage has been shot involving Andrew Whittington (PI) and BU student Christopher Dwen who are working on the project: “Sherlock’s Window: improving accuracy of entomological forensics at post-mortem criminal investigation using combined cuticular hydrocarbon and internal metabolite analysis.”

(Sherlock’s Window was also featured in the latest edition of the Bournemouth Research Chronicle: Edition 6, January 2017, Page 22.)

March 2, 2017

PCCC success with industry-student collaborative research

Fusion, innovation, Research news, Student Engagement, student research jdknott

A project led by Dr. Georgiana Grigore, a member of FMC/CMC’s Promotional Cultures & Communication Centre, has received a prestigious industry award. The Millennial Rules project won an award for Excellence in Research Presentation at the Media Research Awards, hosted by Mediatel on the 23rd of February. This is an example of innovative fused activity where students work with experts from media organizations and their tutors to develop and co-create excellent research.

Neil Sharman, a freelance researcher, delivered a guest talk for Consumer Culture and Behaviour that led to a collaborative project with the Marketing Society, Metro, Mail Online and CrowdDNA. As part of this collaborative work, three students from the Marketing Society – Jack Goss, Iona Kelly and Emily Richardson – won £1,000 between them after impressing judges with their marketing insights. The students were selected with 10 others to take part in a special workshop day all about Millennials and the Media. The workshop was part of a research project for the Mail Online and Metro newspaper, which aimed to discover more about how Millennials use media. James Harrison, president of the BU Marketing Society at the time, added: “This was a really great opportunity for our members to take part in and the Marketing Society is pleased to have helped make it happen. We continually strive to organise events and opportunities that inspire our members and develop their knowledge in the world of marketing and advertising.”

Neil, who came up with the idea of the project was impressed with the student’s enthusiasm. He said: “We had some start students in the room and we learnt lots from the insights they produced. They represented BU and their generation brilliantly.” Throughout the day the students worked on a range of tasks to define their marketing and advertising insights with help from experts at the Mail Online, the Metro and CrowdDNA. Neil wishes to pass his thanks onto the Marketing Society for contributing to the success of this project.

More details about it can be found here: http://www.millennialrules.co.uk

February 8, 2017

New issue on Thought Leadership for PR published in FMC-CMC’s Journal of Promotional Communications

Fusion, Fusion Investment Fund, Student Engagement jdknott

FMC-CMC colleagues, Natasha Tobin and Janice Denegri-Knott, and BA Public Relations student, Anna Lapacz , are pleased to announce the latest issue of the Journal of Promotional Communications: Vol 5, No 1 (2017): Special Edition on Thought Leadership for PR:

http://www.promotionalcommunications.org/index.php/pc/index

The articles in this issue have been prepared by recent graduates of Bournemouth University’s BA (Hons) Public Relations degree who are now working in public relations and marketing. They were conceived as Thought Leadership articles for PR professionals during the L6 Professional PR Unit led by me, Heather Yaxley and Joyce Costello.

The 12 articles cover a lot of ground: from Virtual Reality in PR, to brand building and using Snapchat to reach younger voters during elections. Several of the articles also investigate aspects of practice, such as clients’ expectations of corporate social responsibility to the emerging PR industry in Bulgaria, which given the country’s political and social legacy, has taken a different track from the Western model.

The editorial team hope that you’ll enjoy the latest edition of the Journal of Promotional Communications.

February 5, 2017

CPD study findings presented in Kathmandu

BU research, Centre for Excellence in Learning, Featured academics, Fusion, international, Public engagement, Research news, Training, Uncategorized Edwin van Teijlingen

Today we offered preliminary feedback to key stakeholders in Kathmandu as part of our research into CPD (Continuous Professional Development) for nurses in Nepal. Today’s presentation is party funded by LJMU (Liverpool John Moores University) and partly funded by BU’s Centre for Excellence in Learning (CEL). Late 2016 CEL funded the qualitative part of our research project. In this CPD project we work with representatives of the Ministry of Health , the Ministry of Education, the Nepal Nursing Association and the Nursing Council, and providers of Nursing Education (both Government-run universities and private colleges).

Today key presenter was BU Visiting Faculty Dr. Bibha Simkhada (based at LJMU). The event was opened by Associate Professor Chandra Kala Sharma, who is also the president of the Nepal Nursing Association (lighting the traditional lamp in photo right).

Our BU contributors, Dr. Catherine Angell and Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen, are both based in the Centre for Midwifery and Maternal & Perinatal Health (CMMPH). We are grateful to our collaborators in Nepal, especially Dr. Sujan Marahatta at Manmohan Memorial Institute of Health Sciences, for organising this event in our absence. The CPD research project is truly a FUSION project in the field of nursing & midwifery since it links Research in the field of Education to help improve Practice in Nepal. Further information can be found on a previous blog post, click here!

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH

February 3, 2017

Call for project proposals – T/REFF funding

BU research, Centre for Excellence in Learning, Fusion, REF Subjects jmcdougall

We are happy to announce this first TREFF call for proposals

TREFF (German word) – meeting point / coming together (thanks to Stephen Jukes!)

Two projects will be funded (£750 maximum each). One TREFF project will be funded in FMC by CEMP and one from UoA25 for non-FMC staff.

With the forthcoming Teaching Excellence Framework and the new version of REF, after the STERN report, ahead of us, we are keen to explore ways of working that converge pedagogic innovation with educational research in BU’s subject areas. Our view is that separating TEF and REF is problematic and that the STERN report and TEF together provide rich opportunities for higher education practitioners to align teaching excellence with impactful research.

Towards this, we are offering 2 small grants of £750 to fund T/REF pilot projects (TREFF).
The funding must be spent by the end of July 2017 and be supported by line manager(s), with the following outcomes:

An action research intervention that aims to make a significant difference to learning and teaching, related directly to the criteria for TEF;

The submission of a journal article reporting on the findings of the project and their significance for educational research (or a related field) outside of BU;

A presentation to faculty staff / CEL on how the project converged TEF and REF criteria (for unit of assessment 25 – Education)

More info on TEF: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/teaching-excellence-framework-tef-everything-you-need-to-know

FMC proposals should be submitted to both Isabella Rega and Julian McDougall

Non-FMC proposals should be submitted to both Debbie Holley and Julian McDougall

Proposals should be submitted by email, consisting of 2 elements:
A succinct proposal for the action research project, including the proposed outcomes (no more than 2 sides of A4)
A detailed expenditure plan for the funding – maximum £750.
Line manager support must also be confirmed at the point of application.

Deadline for proposals – Feb 28th 2017

Projects to be completed / funding spent by 31.7.17

________________

February 3, 2017

HE policy update w/e 3rd February 2017

BU research, Centre for Excellence in Learning, EU, Fusion, Global engagement, international, policy, Research Training, RKE development framework, Student Engagement jforster

Higher Education and Research Bill – the House of Lords committee stage has finished with no further amendments (other than non-controversial and welcome government amendments). Unlike in the House of Commons, where time was more limited and there was a great deal of focus on the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF), student loans, the impact of Brexit and limits on international students rather than the detailed content of the Bill, in the House of Lords there has been much more detailed analysis of the Bill and very lively debate about issues such as institutional autonomy, the role and governance of the research councils and the role of the Office for Students. The other issues were also discussed, but none of the many amendments proposed by a long list of peers were approved. Assurances have been given by the government that the points made in the debates will be considered and so it is likely that further government amendments will be proposed at the report stage, which is likely to be in late February or early March. The Bill will then have to go back to the House of Commons, as it has been amended. Research Professional have a helpful summary of the position.

In related news, Mark Walport has been appointed as CEO of UKRI and has written for Times Higher Education. He notes: “We cannot sit on our laurels, or even our Nobel prizes. Research and innovation funding is still largely delivered by organisations siloed in traditional disciplines, allowing some imaginative proposals to fall between the cracks. Solving many of the most important fundamental research questions and tackling the challenges facing society requires an interdisciplinary approach.”

Brexit – the EU (Notification of Withdrawal) bill – the (very short) Bill was passed on its second reading this week. The committee stage is next – unlike the HERB (dealt with in the Public Bill Committee), this will be a committee of the whole House of Commons, which is scheduled for 6-8 February. The current 142-page list of proposed amendments is quite interesting and will probably grow. The Bill will then go to the Lords, where there may be further attempts to amend it.

After refusing to agree that the government would issue a white paper on Brexit, one was rushed out on 2^nd February after the Bill was passed. BBC Newsnight reported that it was issued at 4 am and has typos in it, but at 77 pages, it attempts to cover a lot of ground. There has been grumbling from the sector about the things that it doesn’t cover (e.g. Erasmus), and although there is no new news in it for us, there is some reassurance too. It refers to commitments already made on guaranteeing EU research funding. In the migration section it refers to students as its third point – so very high up the agenda – in fact it is the ONLY group referred to specifically. The paper says that “the Government recognises the important contribution made by students and academics from EU Member States to the UK’s world class universities. A global UK must also be a country that looks to the future”. No assurances about what that means, but it is helpful, especially as it doesn’t say anything like that about any other sector. In Science and Innovation, it says nice things about universities and refers to the Industrial Strategy. It includes lots of reassurances about continuing to apply for funding. It also says “we would welcome agreement [from the EU] to continue to collaborate with our European partners on major science, research and technology initaitives”. The White Paper will no doubt be discussed alongside the Bill in the Committee Stage, and we will see what comes next.

Bell Review – The UUK review of sector agencies, chaired by Sir David Bell, has published recommendations. In order to reduce costs to the sector and ensure focus and a strategic approach, the report recommends streamlining the current list of sector agencies from 9 to 7 by merging the Equality Challenge Unit, the Higher Education Academy and the Leadership foundation for Higher Education. In addition, the Higher Education Careers Services Unit (HECSU) will become self-financing through its commercial activity and will no longer take subscriptions from providers. To ensure efficiency and a more strategic focus on data, the report recommends that HECSU, the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA), Jisc and UCAS should form a strategic delivery partnership with a focus on improving the efficiency and effectiveness of data-related functions and services –writing on Wonkhe Sir David confirms that this group has already been formed. Link to the main report here.

UCAS applications data – this has been released today and is widely covered in the academic press.Wonkhe have a nice summary and they pull out some key charts

30,000 fewer applications across the sector than a year ago (5% down)
First decline in overall applications since 2012 and nearly wipes out increases since 2013
Not spread evenly across the sector
Drop in EU applications – a shame as some had predicted a surge of applications this year while home fees and student loans are still in place, and may be a sign of a permanent decline, (see the last HEPI report on this question)

Factors that are cited include:

Brexit uncertainty for EU applications –-around 6000 applications down
Nursing – driven by financing changes – 5000 down. Also influenced by drop in mature applicants
Mature student applications are down across the board – believed to be a result of more jobs and higher wages (so people not retraining), as well as nursing funding – 12000 applicants down
Demographic dip in 18 year olds and a decline in students taking BTECs is apparently behind a 7000 drop in 18 year old applications.

The numbers are a bit of a guess as these categories overlap.

On Wonkhe, Fleur Nielsen from the Council of Deans of Health says it’s not time to panic (yet). She comments on the difference between applications and admissions, and also notes that there is still a challenge of increasing numbers (as required by the government) when there are limits on placements (which is appoint that BU has consistently made in consultations on this topic). “The scale of the fall in application numbers is not the critical factor for universities or the health and social care sector. Courses that were previously heavily oversubscribed can survive a significant dip in application numbers as long as the quality of applicants is good, and our members report that this remains so.”

HESA has published its Open Data Strategy 2017-2021 – following the consultation last year. Importantly, the strategy says that HESA will migrate its current range of data publications to open data, free of charge to users, over the next 5 years, publish more data openly and establish a user group.

Inclusive teaching and learning in HE – the Department for Education have published a report by the Disabled Student Sector Leadership Group. This is an independent group made up of representatives of a number of relevant sector bodies and 6 UK universities. The report encourages higher education providers (HEPs) to look at how they can support and offer the best environment for disabled students.

It considers the requirement to provide ‘reasonable adjustments’ under the Equality Act 2010, and suggests actions to mitigate risks associated with that, including how providers can adopt a strategic approach to reasonable adjustments.
It sets out the benefits of inclusive practice to higher education providers
It provides examples of simple actions to affect change

Widening Participation: HESA has released statistics on widening participation from the 2015/16 academic year. It shows that progress is slowing although there are range of different angles on the data (thanks to Wonkhe for these links):

Oxford University bucks national trend and accepts fewer state school students, figures show – The Telegraph
Cambridge intake no longer most privately educated – BBC
One in ten new undergraduates from poor background as inequality gap gets wider – The Times

Technology-Enhanced Learning: The Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) have published a report on the impact of technology on universities (Rebooting learning for the digital age: What next for technology-enhanced higher education?). The report reviews best practice around the world to show how technology is benefiting universities and students through better teaching and learning, improved retention rates and lower costs:

in the US, curriculum redesign using technology-enhanced learning produced better student outcomes in 72 per cent of projects and average savings of 31 per cent;
the University of New England in Australia reduced student drop-out rates from 18 per cent to 12 per cent via learning analytics; and
at Nottingham Trent University, 81 per cent of first-year students increased their study time after seeing their own engagement data.

You can read about BU’s Technology Enhanced Learning Toolkit on the CEL website.

January 27, 2017

Migrant & Refugee Leisure Spaces and Community Well-being project

Awarded & submitted bids, BRIAN, BU research, Fusion, Knowledge Transfer, Public engagement, Research communication jchoe

‘We Love EU: Migrant & Refugee Leisure Spaces and Community Well-being’ project

16179422_217000012040197_2571879194070632645_o

Bournemouth University academics and community organization partners had a first meeting for an internally funded project (QR Fund), ‘We Love EU: Migrant and Refugee Leisure Spaces and Community Well-being’ on January 25. The ‘We love EU’ project is focused on building research capacity to respond to policy changes with regard to migrant wellbeing and Brexit. The project is based in the Department of Events and Leisure (Faculty of Management) and hence the project has a leisure focus. Previous research indicates that leisure spaces and practices are productive to marginalised and excluded communities and individuals in terms of generating resilience and well-being.

The BU academics are: Janet Dickinson, Jayne Caudwell, Kat King and Jaeyeon Choe (Department of Events and Leisure), Adele Ladkin (Department of Tourism and Hospitality), Darren Lilleker (Media School), Nicola De Martini Ugolotti (Department of Sport and Physical Activity), Rosie Read and Holly Crossen-White (Faculty of Health and Social Sciences). We have come together as a very interdisciplinary group with different backgrounds and knowledge. The external partners are: Sally Watkins and Sandy Kirkby from Bside, Nathalie Sherring from Dorset Race Equality Rep, Trudie Cole from Poole Museum, Samineh Richardson, researcher with Citizen’s Advice Bureau, Steph Farr from Corporate Policy and Performance Officer (Syrian Resettlement Programme), Mark Forsyth, Cenan Chappell and Gwen Scolding from the British Red Cross / City of Sanctuary. The partners are working with refugees/migrants or involved with community leisure related activities to explore how we can make research work as a tool to help and address current challenges.

In our three hour meeting, we primarily discussed the community input for the project and planning for collaborative activities to make a broad and meaningful impact. The community partners shared their challenges and issues working with migrant and refugee communities in Dorset. For example, they reported that one of the challenges migrants are facing is ‘Uncertainty’ and we should seek ‘two-way integration’ and think about how to encourage the two way integration. It was a good opportunity to think of what integration or inclusion really means, and how we should approach these concepts. Discussion centred around addressing community partner challenges, including organizing awareness, conducting research projects and publicizing or communicating some significant issues through various media.

The productive meeting revealed many collaboration opportunities with the community along with potential short-medium to long term positive impacts. For example, the community partners value the development of a network and we will organize a community art event with b-Side during Refugee Week (19-25, June 2017). As the organizations have lots of hands-on research opportunities, we are also thinking of liaising with our students to get them involved in research projects alongside community organizations. I personally thought that there is great hope if 20 community partners and academics are passionately discussing what we can we do about these issues on a cold foggy Wednesday for three long hours.

We just have to keep asking, what makes migrants feel belonging, and try to understand what they need, and how leisure spaces (public or private) can help them feel more welcome and healthy.

We look forward to co-producing positive impacts in our community and beyond through this project.

Please follow us on twitter @migrantspaces or join us on Facebook, ‘Migrant Leisure Spaces’ if you are interested in our work or want to share your stories or comments.

#migrantleisurespaces

Janet Dickinson, Jayne Caudwell, Kat King & Jaeyeon Choe

January 24, 2017

Submissions for the Research Photography Competition are closing soon!

BU research, Centre for Excellence in Learning, Events, Fusion, Impact, PG research, Student Engagement, student research hjones

There’s not long left to submit your entry to the Research Photography Competition. Submissions will be closing on Friday 27 January at 5pm.

We have already seen a number of fantastic images submitted from both our staff and student researchers, but there’s still time to submit your image. This a great opportunity to present your research that you’re either currently working on or have already completed. The competition allows your research to be showcased across BU and is a great addition to your portfolio.

You can find out more information here.

If you have any questions then email us.

Please read through the terms and conditions here.

January 23, 2017

Post-Doc Researcher on VeggiEAT Project

BU research, EU, Fusion, Impact, Research news, staff profile pages cmartins

We are happy to welcome our new post-doc on the VeggiEAT project Dr Vanessa Mello-Rodrigues.

Vanessa is a Registered Nutritionist and holds both a Ph.D. and Master degree in Nutrition from Federal University of Santa Catarina, Brazil. Vanessa’s research interests are mainly related to policy aspects of health promotion and nutrition, with attention to the prevention of childhood overweight and obesity through the promotion of healthy eating. She has been involved in projects related to different aspects of food and menu labelling, which were supported by the Brazilian Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MCTI) and by the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq).

January 18, 2017

How we’re flying the KEIT for the new year!

BU research, Events, Fusion, HEIF, Impact, Knowledge Exchange and Impact Team, Public engagement, Research communication, Student Engagement hjones

Now the festivities are over and the new year is upon us, KEIT are looking forward to what 2017 brings and we already have a busy year ahead.

Research Communications

Our sixth edition of the Bournemouth Research Chronicle (BRC) will be published in early February. The chronicle features examples of the fantastic research coming from both our academics and students across BU.

Knowledge Exchange (KE)

Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF)

The latest round of HEIF funding is HEIF 5+1+1, and runs from 1 August 2016 until 31 July 2017. There are twelve projects currently live and more information on each project can be found using this link to the BU Research Blog. Subject areas are broad, ranging from forensics to environmental sciences to health apps, musical technologies and virtual sculpting tools. January 2017 marks the half-way stage of this current HEIF funding round. The results of HEIF 6 are due to be announced early in 2017.

Innovation, university and business collaboration

On 20 December, the government published its response to The Dowling Review of Business-University Research Collaborations. HEFCE welcomes the government response and sees this as reaffirming its long-term commitment to knowledge exchange, recognising the role HEIF has in supporting university-business collaboration. It also provided additional detail about the £100 million of funding to incentivise universities’ collaboration in technology transfer and in engaging with business that was first announced in October .

Public Engagement

After a short break, Cafe Scientifique is returning to the new year with Dr Sharon Docherty on Tuesday 7 February. ‘How well can you hang a picture frame?’ will be exploring how different age groups may perceive the concept of being ‘vertical’. Dr Docherty will also outline how this can be affected by clinical conditions, such as neck pain and diabetes. Cafe Scientifique will take place in Cafe Bosconova at 7:30pm.

Student Engagement

Now in its third year the Research Photography Competition is still open for submissions. The competition will be closing on Friday 27 January, at 5pm, so it’s not too late to submit.

14:Live is taking a break through January and will be returning with two session in February. The first is with ORI on 16 February and gives staff and students the chance to hear from ORI’s research project manager Shay Bahadori. Come along to Floor 5, Student Centre, at 14:00 to hear from ORI and get a chance to test out the Laser Speckle Contrast Imager (LSCI).

The 28 February will see Dr Heather Hartwell introduce the project FoodSMART, which will uses QR coding on your smartphone to provide nutritional information and personalised advice when eating out. Come along to Floor 5, Student Centre, at 14:00, to hear all about FoodSMART and get a chance to test out the prototype.

Research Impact

As part of the RKE Development Framework we’re starting off the new year with two impact workshops, which is open to both academics and postgraduate researchers. The workshops aim to help you explore the potential of your research impact and how you can develop your creative ideas to ensure your research is informed by society, for the benefit of society.

24 January- Introducing research impact: the basics

21 February- Research Impact and the REF

Feeling inspired? You can get in touch with KEIT below.

Becca Edwards– Knowledge Exchange and Impact Manager

Charlene Parrish– Student Project Bank Project Coordinator

Genna West– Engagement and Impact Facilitator

Hannah Jones– Student Engagement and Communications Coordinator

Jayne Codling– Knowledge Exchange Adviser

Joanna Pawlik– Public Engagement Events Organiser

Naomi Kay– Public Engagement Officer

Rachel Bowen– Research Communications Manager

Rachel Clarke– Knowledge Exchange Adviser (KTP)

January 11, 2017

Two-day Questionnaire Design Masterclass – Spaces still available

BU research, EU, Fusion, Guidance, PG research, Public engagement, Research news, Uncategorized rfreeman

Faculty of Health and Social Sciences

Need help designing a questionnaire?

This two-day Masterclass will help you get started through a series of expert lectures, group discussion, and hands-on sessions, covering both tool development and administration.

Who should attend: Postgraduate researchers/professionals interested in developing a questionnaire
Schedule: 10am – 4pm, 23—24 January 2017
Venue: Executive Business Centre (EB702, EB705), Bournemouth University

Facilitators:

Professor Vanora Hundley – Professor of Midwifery

Professor Edwin van Teijlingen – Professor of Reproductive Health

Dr Zoe Sheppard – Senior Lecturer in Quantitative Methods

Booking information:

The fee of £200.00 includes two days with the course facilitators, refreshments and class materials. Please note that resources will be provided electronically and that accommodation and travel costs are not included.

BU staff/PGRs – To book on please contact rfreeman@bournemouth.ac.uk

External delegates – please register online at:

https://questionnairemasterclass.eventbrite.co.uk (places limited)

January 6, 2017

Higher Education and Research Bill in the House of Lords – round up before the committee stage

EU, Fusion, innovation, international, policy, Public engagement, Research news, Research Training, RKE development framework, Training, Uncategorized jforster

The committee stage in the House of Lords starts on Monday. The list of proposed amendments stands at 85 pages. We will be keeping an eye and reporting on the progress of the bill and progress can be tracked on the new House of Lords pages here. The bill itself (if you need it for reference) is here. So here is a round up ahead of the debates next week

My blog for the BU research blog on the Commons third reading
The Guardian 31^st December
UUK blog and briefing 6^th December raises the same 7 issues that they raised in the commons (which we support) -the briefing is attached. UUK also flagged three of these issues in a joint letter to the Guardian with GuildHE, calling for the Lords to amend the Bill to address probationary degree awarding powers, to stop the OfS validating degrees and to stop the government interfering in academic standards and course funding. Their 7 original issues were:

Ensuring the powers of the Office for Students and the Secretary of State are compatible with the principle of university autonomy
Separating ‘quality’ and ‘standards’ in the bill, and ensuring that academic standards continue to be owned by the sector
Protecting students, employers and the reputation of the sector by ensuring a suitably high bar to for new entrants
Strengthening checks and balances for giving and removing Degree Awarding Powers and University Title
Removing the ability for the OfS to validate degrees and clarifying its role as regulator
Ensuring the duties of the OfS reflects the diverse range of activities carried out by universities
Ensuring that the autonomy of the research councils is protected within the new UKRI structure.

The written evidence and transcripts of the Committee’s sittings are available on the Higher Education and Research Bill 2016-17 page of the Parliament website. This includes BU’s submission – we were one of only 11 HE institutions to submit individual responses (out of 63 sets of evidence). We did not attempt a comprehensive review as this was evidence submitted to the Public Bill Committee and not a consultation, so we addressed a selection of the relevant issues, but one of them was the way that the TEF approach muddles standards and quality – and these issues are noted in the Wonkhe blog on the difference between quality and standards. We were also concerned about the link between fees and the TEF, as noted, with other concerns, in our green paper response (see the VC’s blog for HEPI on this).

Amendments

This includes a number of government amendments, some of which are fairly technical (as happened in the House of Commons) and as in the commons there are a number of amendments that relate to things that are not covered in the Bill (and that the government will resist) – e.g. issues relating to immigration, student loans (Wes Streeting MP: Labour Lords will fight student loan repayment ‘scandal’), Syrian refugees, registering students on electoral registers, Sharia finance. Some of these amendments are very similar to those raised in the House of Commons – e.g. the OfS reporting on international student numbers. Several issues were previously raised, and dismissed, in the green paper process such as changing the name of the “Office for Students” to “Office for Higher Education” and suggesting that all registered providers should be subject to the same freedom of information requirements as universities are now. Changes relating to Brexit and immigration include “a condition that requires the governing body of the provider to collaborate with other registered higher education providers and with the OfS in the promotion of English higher education abroad through the GREAT Britain campaign, the British Council, or otherwise”.

New and interesting proposals include amendments to transfer all the powers of the Competition and Markets Authority relating to universities to the OfS, and to disapply the Prevent strategy.

Research Professional have an article about the government amendments to the bill strengthening the role of the OfS director – which have been welcomed across the sector.

In terms of changes to the detail of the Bill itself

There are some high level changes proposed– which reflect a great deal of sector concern, e.g. including provisions up front which state that universities are autonomous institutions which must uphold the principles of academic freedom and freedom of speech. One amendment states that universities should not be “for profit” organisations.

There are long insertions in the bill relating to a new Quality Assurance Office to replace the Quality Assessment Committee in clause 23. See the Wonkhe blog on the difference between quality and standards

There is a proposal to replace the TEF with ratings on a scale of 1-10 which “may only be awarded for each aspect of each course separately” and “may not be published as an average or otherwise summarised for a course or a provider”. Other TEF related proposals include suggestions about verifying the metrics that will be used (ensuring that they will be linked to teaching quality, statistically valid etc.) and that the TEF arrangements must be approved by Parliament. On this topic:

a blog was published by the VCs of the University of Essex and East Anglia yesterday which argues that the NSS is an important part of the TEF because it ensures that the student voice is part of the process.
Times Higher 3^rd January – challenging why we need a TEF at all
the Chair of the TEF panel, Chris Husbands (VC of Sheffield Hallam) has written on Wonkhe – busting 5 myths about TEF.
Wonkhe have published an interesting analysis of the TEF metrics and benchmarking and how they work complete with data about the current likely outcomes of the TEF.
Wonkhe report that Professor John Raftery, vice chancellor for London Metropolitan University, has written for the Telegraph on the TEF, calling for the metrics to include a measure for number of qualified teachers in universities – something BU also called for in our TEF consultation response.
An expert in dyslexia has written a blog for Wonkhe on potential benefits for disabled students as a result of the implementation of the Teaching Excellence Framework with its focus on “split” metrics.

There is a proposal for a joint committee to be established by UKRI and OfS which will look at various aspects of how the Bill is operating and the sector, such as the health of the higher education sector, work relating to equality of opportunity, the health of different academic disciplines, knowledge exchange, skills development (amongst other things).

There are some helpful proposals about the confidentiality of concerns about institutions that may be at risk of sanction by the OfS.

There are extensive proposals for amendments to the information collection and publication requirements for the OfS – including contact hours, mental health of students, academic freedom and freedom of speech,

There are also extensive proposals for amendments to the process and requirements for new alternative providers. See also:

On research structures the amendments are towards the back of the Bill.

I have noted above the reference to the OfS and UKRI working together, and there are other proposed changes that link the OfS and UKRI such as requiring the OfS to consult with UKRI before awarding research degree awarding powers.
There are proposals to require particular experience for people on the UKRI board (see the proposed amendments to Schedule 9).
One amendment requires UKRI to encourage and facilitate co-operation between UK and overseas education and research establishments, and there are amendments requiring UKRI to recognise institutional autonomy.
One amendment requires UKRI to recognise Research Council autonomy and subsidiarity in decision making. There is a proposal (in clause 95) to ensure that funding is allocated separately to each council, Innovate UK and Research England and cannot be varied without parliamentary approval.
Similar Brexit/immigration related amendments as for the OfS are proposed relating to reporting on overseas staff and students.

January 5, 2017

From Draft to REF with CEMP’s new Publishing Partnership Initiative

BU research, Centre for Excellence in Learning, Fusion, PG research, REF Subjects, Research Training afeigenbaum

Do you have an incomplete paper that you’ve been sitting and can’t seem to finish? Have you recently presented at a conference, but haven’t written-up a paper out of your presentation yet? Did you get a rejection and are struggling to get motivated again? Or maybe you’ve written a couple chapters of your PhD and are hoping to turn one into a publication?

Whatever the scenario, CEMP’s new Publishing Partnership Initiative (PPI) can help you to collaborate with another researcher to turn your ideas into a viable REF-ready journal article. And did we mention, you can win a free dinner for two?

Publishing Partnership Workshop
Thursday January 26^th
Talbot Campus, BU
11:00-14:00
WG 05 (Weymouth House)

To launch the initiative, this workshop will introduce the Publishing Partnership Initiative and help you find a good match to develop your REF output. We will also discuss strategies and tips for working toward REF submissions:

11:00-11:15 Introductions and coffee

11:15-11:30 Welcome to the PPI scheme (Anna and Richard)

11:30-12:00 Hear No Evil, See No Evil: What you need to know about REF and the Sterne review (Julian & Dan J)

12:00-12:45 Interactive session: Strategies for fitting writing into our busy schedules (Brad & Karen)

12:45-13:15 Academic Match.com: Finding the right journal and writing partner for your research output (Anna and Isa)

13:15-14:00 Catered planning lunch with our publishing partners

To participate: Send a 500+ word rough draft or outline of a potential research paper to afeigenbaum@bournemouth.ac.uk AND Richard rberger@bournemouth.ac.uk by Monday 23^rd January 2017. This might be an abandoned draft, a conference version of a paper presentation or an outline for a possible research paper. At this stage, any draft you have might be gold, so don’t be shy!

To be a mentor or writing partner: Send an email with a list of your research and methodological areas of expertise to afeigenbaum@bournemouth.ac.uk AND Richard rberger@bournemouth.ac.uk by Monday 23^rd January 2017.

Eat your Success! Partners who successfully submit a paper to a peer review journal within the 5 month time frame will receive a ‘dinner for two’ voucher to celebrate their success.*

*Voucher is worth up to £45.00. Does not cover alcoholic beverages.

We will aim to pair colleagues around expertise either in the same research area or in relation to the methodological approach. At least one partner will be accustomed to journal publishing and the REF process, as well as to the challenges facing us to find the time to research and write. In the first instance, this workshop is geared toward UoA 25, 34 and 36 entries (covering Education, Media Practice and Media Studies). For full details see: http://www.civicmedia.io/events-2/publishing-partnership-initiative/

*This project was initiated by Anna Feigenbaum and Richard Berger. It is supported by the UoA 25 development fund, CEMP, the Civic Media Hub & the Journalism Research Group.

January 1, 2017

New editorial co-authored by CMMPH Dr. Catherine Angell

BU research, Centre for Excellence in Learning, Featured academics, Fusion, Global engagement, international, Knowledge Exchange, open access, Publishing, Research news, Training, writing Edwin van Teijlingen

In the final week of 2016 the journal Health Prospect published our editorial on the importance of introducing nursing CPD in Nepal [1]. This editorial is based on a collaborative study between BU, Liverpool John Moores University (LJUM), Manmohan Memorial Institute of Health Sciences (MMIHS) in Nepal, Nepal Nursing Council (NNC), and the Nursing Association of Nepal (NAN). The BU part of the study is led by Dr. Catherine Angell based in the Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health (CMMPH) and funded by a small grant from BU’s Centre for the Excellence in Learning. Two of our co-authors from LJMU Dr. Bibha Simkhada and Prof. Padam Simkhada are also Visiting Faculty at BU. The project is a true FUSION project as the Research, will inform Education (in the form of CPD) which will in turn improve Practice (of the many thousands of nurses in Nepal).

Health Prospect is an Open Access journal and therefore freely available for any one to read online.

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH

Reference:

Simkhada, B., Mackay, S., Khatri, R., Sharma, C.K., Pokhrel, T., Marahatta, S., Angell, C., van Teijlingen, E., Simkhada, P. (2016) Continual Professional Development (CPD): Improving Quality of Nursing Care in Nepal, Health Prospect 15 (3):1-3 http://www.nepjol.info/index.php/HPROSPECT/article/view/16326/13255

December 9, 2016

HE policy update

BU research, EU, Fusion, Global engagement, Impact, international, policy, Public engagement, REF Subjects, Research assessment, Research news jforster

Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) and Research Excellence Framework (REF)

The Vice-Chancellor, Professor John Vinney, has a new blog on the HEPI (the Higher Education policy Institute) website on research and teaching and how REF and the TEF work together, with some proposals for change in how the REF is implemented in 2021, and views on subject level TEF, which is proposed for year 3 (informal consultation has already started).

And on Thursday afternoon the HEFCE REF consultation on the implementation of the REF 2021 was published – with a response date of 17 March 2017. The proposals incorporate the principles from the Stern Review. You can read the background on our BU Policy & Public Affairs page on the Stern Review. Wonkhe have a useful summary of the proposals and David Sweeney from HEFCE has written for Wonkhe on why the sector needs to engage in the consultation – contact policy@bournemouth.ac.uk if you would like to be involved in preparing our response, we will be working on this with RKEO.

Wonkhe have published an interesting analysis of the TEF metrics and benchmarking and how they work complete with data about the current likely outcomes of the TEF. Wonkhe report that Professor John Raftery, vice chancellor for London Metropolitan University, has written for the Telegraph on the TEF, calling for the metrics to include a measure for number of qualified teachers in universities – something BU also called for in our TEF consultation response.

An expert in dyslexia has written a blog for Wonkhe on potential benefits for disabled students as a result of the implementation of the Teaching Excellence Framework with its focus on “split” metrics.

Widening Participation and Social Mobility

A Social Mobility Commission report has been issued looking at social and ethnic inequalities in post-16 choices. It examines social gender and ethnic inequalities.

The report found significant differences between poorer children and wealthier children living in the same neighbourhood with the same GCSE results. This Government press release states that “bright children from poorer backgrounds are far less likely to go to university or study A levels that could get them into top universities than their wealthier counterparts – even if they live in the same neighbourhood and achieve similar results at GCSE.”

Some other key findings include:

24% of children eligible for free school meals attend higher education compared to 42% of children from more privileged backgrounds.
Poorer children are also twice as likely to drop out of education at 16 and are more than half as likely to study A levels that could get them into a top university.
around a quarter of the progression gap – the different choices made by children after leaving school – is purely down to social background.
White British students are far less likely to go to university than ethnic minority students – Indian (72%), Pakistani/Bangladeshi (53%), Black (57%) and White British (36%). Participation differences between White British and other ethnic groups who live in the same neighbourhood and with the same GCSE attainment are even more pronounced.
White British students are more likely to drop out of post-16 education than ethnic minority students – Indian (3%), Pakistani/Bangladeshi (8%), Black (7%) and White British (10%).
Female pupils are 8% more likely to attend university than males (44% versus 36%). However, although female participation rates at top selective universities are slightly higher (10% versus 9% for boys); they are less likely to attend these universities than a boy from the same neighbourhood with the same GCSEs.

Education Select Committee Inquiry into the effect of Brexit on staff and students in HE

Our evidence has been published as part of 190 submissions to the committee. You can read the submissions through links here (click on “view all”).

Neil Carmichael MP, Chair of the Education Committee, said: “This written evidence from university leaders, academics, businesses and others highlights the degree of concern about the fate of UK universities post-Brexit. The evidence raises a variety of issues relating to freedom of movement, including the prospects for recruiting EU students post-Brexit and the future rights of EU staff to live and work in the UK. Concerns are also raised about how to maintain the UK as an attractive destination for EU and international students, about the financial viability of universities, and the need to ensure Britain can continue to compete on the international stage as a provider of world-class university education.

In our inquiry, we are determined to examine the opportunities for higher education post-Brexit and consider what the Government’s priorities should be for the sector going into the negotiations with the EU. It’s crucial that we don’t allow Brexit to become a catastrophe for our university sector. We look forward to testing the evidence and questioning university leaders, academics, students, unions, and Ministers in our public evidence sessions in the New Year.”

Higher Education and Research Bill reaches the Lords

The HE and Research Bill had its second reading in the House of Lords on 7th December and has now moved to the Lords Committee stage. Research Professional have a summary. You can read the full debate in Hansard here and a summary by DODs here.

At the committee stage amendments will be tabled and discussed in great detail. The Bill has only had government amendments approved so far, and there has been a lot of criticism (of and by everyone) of the level of scrutiny so far – with time being severely limited in committee and third reading stage in the Commons, with all opposition amendments rejected. But as you saw from my update on the third reading in the Commons, the debate there centred largely on Brexit, student visas, TEF, and loans (none of which are actually covered by the Bill), with very little actual focus on the bill itself.

It is expected that the Lords, while they will discuss those issues as well, will also focus on the bill itself, particularly on the changes to the research landscape, but also on degree awarding powers and other aspects of autonomy – and that was reflected in the debate, as well as discussions about the TEF.

UUK have update their briefing note to focus on what they want from the Lords – read it here – it lists the same 7 issues as for the House of Commons third reading, so it is interesting to see that they have flagged three in particular in a joint letter to the Guardian with GuildHE, calling for the Lords to amend the Bill to address probationary degree awarding powers, to stop the OfS validating degrees and to stop the government interfering in academic standards and course funding.

It has long been expected that fees, loans and linking TEF to fees, will be a feature of the Lords debate – Wes Streeting wrote about student loan repayment yesterday: Wes Streeting MP: Labour Lords will fight student loan repayment ‘scandal’.

UCU Survey: Inaccuracies in predicted grades

The UCU undergraduate application and admission survey tackles the disparity between predicted and actual A level grades achieved. It reports only 16% of predictions (2013-15) were correct with the majority of students predicted higher than they achieve, identifies differences in under/over prediction depending on the type of institution, and notes differences surrounding disadvantaged students. The Guardian quotes Sally Hunt (UCU) “this report is a damning indictment of a broken system” and references the underpinning study by Dr Gill Wyness (University College London Institute of Education) “it seems highly inefficient to continue with a system in which life-changing decisions are made, and scarce university places are allocated, on the basis of inaccurate information”. THE pick up on the socio-economic angle of high achieving disadvantaged students who are under predicted and state it may be skewing their access to highly selective universities. UCU are calling for an overhaul and recommend a post-qualification admissions system. .

Something a bit different

The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee has decided to create an open opportunity for the science community and the wider public to suggest science and technology areas for scrutiny. Inquiry: My Science Inquiry

Inquiry proposals will be considered on the basis of merit, and the Committee would be interested to receive proposals for work in areas that might otherwise escape its attention. Proposals should outline in less than 200 words the nature of the issue that the Committee should explore, why it deserves attention, and how Government policy in this area could be developed or improved. A selection of the proposals will be shortlisted for an opportunity to give a 10-minute pitch to the Committee in person at a public ‘Dragons’ Den’-style session to be held in the New Year. Please contact policy@bournemouth.ac.uk if you are interested in contributing – the deadline is 4^th January 2017.

December 7, 2016

History and Biography in the Sociology of Welfare: The importance of student fieldwork

BU research, Fusion, student research Jonathan Parker

Sociology, as an emerging discipline, developed within the crucible of historical studies of changing lives, transforming events and a search for alternative ways to understand history. We see this in the works of such illustrious progenitors of sociology as Tocqueville, Marx, Durkheim and Weber but it has itself been marginalised, even hidden, as social, political and historical events have unfurled and a turn to biography has displaced the historical. Furthermore, historical sociology has taken something of a battering since John H Goldthorpe decried its relevance towards the end of the last century. However, it is perhaps this railing against the historical which has lent itself to a resurgence through such key figures as Barrington Moore, Charles Tilly, Theda Skocpol and Shmuel Eisenstadt amongst others. But what of its place within contemporary undergraduate sociological education?

In an attempt to introduce today’s BU undergraduates to the important interdisciplinary fusion of the social, the biographical and the historical we have developed an innovative exploration of the histories of social welfare that students take in their second year of full time study. This involves the broad study of social and political welfare initiatives through to the Poor Law, its reform and the implementation of the Welfare State, retrenchment and contemporary attacks on welfare and those who claim benefits. So what? You may say. This is similar to most programmes of study charting welfare policy. However, two specific aspects mark out this module. The first is the assessment, reported elsewhere, which requires groups to explore the experiences of characters in specific historical periods through the construction of a narrative. This allows students to enter into the social and political worlds of individuals in need of social welfare and support.

The second innovative aspect relates to the continuing strands running through our explorations – we take Richard Lachmann’s approach to historical sociology to understand how the present, and future, is contingent on the past. Throughout the course, we examine seemingly inconsequential events leading to change, and why ‘transformative’ events, such as the introduction of the British Welfare State in 1948, occur when they do. Moreover, we embed this learning in a hands-on fieldtrip to the historic market town of Sherborne. Though a visit to the historic St Johns’ (two of them) almshouses, the architecturally stunning abbey, students are exposed to the religious beginnings of charity and alms, the turn to the Parish and the body politic in dispensing poor relief and an appreciation of the overt discrimination between deserving and undeserving. Indeed, they experience that the ‘poor are always with us’ and also they are stratified in society by those with power. As one student stated:

The trip … showed us how throughout history policies have changed, yet some have remained the same as 600 years ago. It made us appreciate and value history more. We learned how the welfare state changed with time to adjust to the environment and the social conditions (war, economic state, health condition of people etc).

The students undertaking this trip have experienced the importance of an historical sociological approach to social welfare policy and application marrying this with the contemporary focus on biography and merging analytic thought, and an appreciation of the affective. This was particularly evident in discussion of the contemporary foodbank provision which religious and lay people undertake to offset some of the hardships experienced by those requiring benefits today:

I also found it interesting how the food bank is run. I think it is so lovely that the people of Sherborne deliver the food bags to the people who cannot come to collect them. I have never heard of anywhere else that does this before and think it shows just how close a community can be and that we should all work together to help each other.

This takes historical sociology into a contemporary arena in which the biographical is included, and offers the students a chance to bring in the personal and to reflect on experiences whilst acknowledging the historical and the structural:

I was really surprised to find out that there are people still living in the alms houses today! I was not expecting that. I found it really interesting how there are still so many similarities to how it was ran when it began to how it is ran now. Before the trip my understanding was that to live in the alms houses wouldn’t have been a nice experience but from the trip I was able to understand that it was actually built with the intention to help people and that is exactly what it did and still does today. I made connections with the histories of social policy and welfare when I understood that the people who came to live in the alms houses were the ‘deserving poor’.

Jonathan Parker (Department of Social Sciences and Social Work), Nezhat Habib and Bonnie Brown (students on BA Sociology and Social Policy programme)

Sherborne Abbey

December 5, 2016

HE policy update

EU, Fusion, Global engagement, international, policy, Research Training, Uncategorized jforster

The Vice-Chancellor, Professor John Vinney, has a new blog on the HEPI (the Higher Education policy Institute) website on research and teaching and how Stern and the TEF work together.

Brexit:

Research Professional note that: In oral answers to questions on 1 December “Robin Walker, the minister in charge of higher education in the Department for Exiting the European Union, told MPs that he has taken evidence from a number of organisations including Universities UK, the royal academies and the Russell Group on the implications of EU withdrawal for universities”. “The sector strongly supports our ambition to create an environment in which the UK as a whole can continue to be a world leader in research, science and the tertiary education sector,” he said. Research Professional also note that David Jones, another junior minister in the same department, added in a written answer that ministers “will aim to visit every sector and every region of the UK” to hear their views on EU withdrawal, as part of a wider approach to build “national consensus around our negotiating position”.

In another piece of welcome transitional news, the government has confirmed that EU students starting courses in 2017/18 can apply for Research Council Studentships, and funding will last for the whole of their courses.

Graduate outcomes:

The Department for Education have released data on graduate destinations from the Longitudinal Educations Outcome (LEO) dataset. This is made up of information from the National Pupil Database (NPD), the Individualised Learner Record (ILR), the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA), Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs data (HMRC), The National Benefit Database, the Labour Market System and Juvos, the unemployment research database. This is different from the DLHE (Destination of Leavers in Higher Education) because it takes a much longer term view (DLHE is currently at 6 months after graduation).

The data released today is “experimental” and looks at the employment and earnings outcomes of those graduating with an undergraduate degree in 2008/09 from an English higher education institution (HEI). It looks at outcomes one, three and five years after graduation. Data are split by subject studied and graduate characteristic (sex, ethnicity, age, home region and prior attainment at A level). Employment outcomes are also provided for each HEI. (A further release is scheduled for spring 2017 covering outcomes by each subject for each institution.

There will be plenty of analysis and commentary to follow – UUK were very quick off the mark with a blog “Graduate earnings data is welcome but doesn’t tell full story” – noting that it doesn’t cover self-employed students (with a disproportionate effect on arts graduates) or those who are working abroad and do not separate part-time work or address regional variations. However, despite these limitations, the data will no doubt provides interesting context for the TEF amongst other things.

Schools:

The Ofsted 15/16 Annual Report outlines improved school judgements with ‘considerable’ benefits for children under age 11, however the North/South divide has widened. Concerns are expressed regarding the quality of technical and vocational education and training alongside ‘serious knowledge and skills gaps’ which threaten the competitiveness of the UK economy, further exacerbated by Brexit. This is interesting in the context of the schools consultation, which closes on 16^th December – a Guardian article concludes that this is a complicated and risky area for universities.

Nursing degree apprenticeships:

A new nursing degree apprenticeship was announced on 30 November as part of the government commitment to create 100,000 apprenticeships within the NHS by 2020, and make up to 40,000 more nurses available to prevent rota gaps. The new nursing associate role will be hands on and expected to free up existing nurses to lead patient care decisions. Successful completion of the nursing associate apprenticeship can count towards a nursing degree and lead to registered nurse status.

The apprenticeship aims to open up a nursing career to people from all backgrounds, improving diversity within the workforce, through the earn whilst you learn model. The government envisages up to 1,000 nursing apprentices per year, starting from September 2017, with a flexible and progressive training model which accounts for previous qualifications and experience. The nursing apprenticeship standards are detailed here.

The Royal College of Nursing response is wary of creating a two-tier system, refers to the past where students were seen as ‘nursing on the cheap’ and stresses the importance of would-be nurses having a graduate level education to gain the knowledge and skills required for 21^st century health care.

Government grant standards

The much criticised anti-lobbying clause was put on hold earlier this year (read more here) – and the government have today issued their new standards guidance for government grants. The new guidance confirms that researchers can communicating research and inform policy, including responding to consultations and select committee enquiries, and contributing expert scientific advice to inform government policy.

Teaching Excellence Framework

And finally – the Chair of the TEF panel, Chris Husbands (VC of Sheffield Hallam) has written on Wonkhe – busting 5 myths about TEF. The myths he is busting are:

The TEF will push universities for widening participation
The TEF is only about metrics
The provider statement is all about explaining away the metrics (he’s like them to be celebratory)
The TEF is biased and pre-ordained
Student views do not count

For those of you interested in catching up on the TEF, Jane is running a workshop with Professor Debbie Holley from the Centre for Excellence in Learning on Friday 9^th December

The latest list of committee inquiries is here. There is a new one on closing the STEM skills gap, and one on the role of education in mental health for young people – please contact policy@bournemouth.ac.uk if you want to respond to any of these.

Category / Fusion

Blog by the Vice-Chancellor – what next for the Teaching Excellence Framework

Graduate Project – Supporting innovation at BU

PCCC success with industry-student collaborative research

New issue on Thought Leadership for PR published in FMC-CMC’s Journal of Promotional Communications

Call for project proposals – T/REFF funding

HE policy update w/e 3rd February 2017

Migrant & Refugee Leisure Spaces and Community Well-being project

Submissions for the Research Photography Competition are closing soon!

Post-Doc Researcher on VeggiEAT Project

How we’re flying the KEIT for the new year!

Two-day Questionnaire Design Masterclass – Spaces still available

Higher Education and Research Bill in the House of Lords – round up before the committee stage

From Draft to REF with CEMP’s new Publishing Partnership Initiative

Publishing Partnership Workshop
Thursday January 26^th
Talbot Campus, BU
11:00-14:00
WG 05 (Weymouth House)

Eat your Success! Partners who successfully submit a paper to a peer review journal within the 5 month time frame will receive a ‘dinner for two’ voucher to celebrate their success.*

New editorial co-authored by CMMPH Dr. Catherine Angell

HE policy update

HE policy update

Other services

Don’t miss a post!

Recent posts

Search by Category

Research Information Network

UKRI

Category / Fusion

Publishing Partnership Workshop Thursday January 26th Talbot Campus, BU 11:00-14:00 WG 05 (Weymouth House)

Eat your Success! Partners who successfully submit a paper to a peer review journal within the 5 month time frame will receive a ‘dinner for two’ voucher to celebrate their success.*

Other services

Don’t miss a post!

Recent posts

Search by Category

Search by popular post topics

Publishing Partnership Workshop
Thursday January 26^th
Talbot Campus, BU
11:00-14:00
WG 05 (Weymouth House)