BU Research Blog

Category / Industry collaboration

12 March 2026

New Accessibility/disability and Tourism Paper just published, focusing on humanising travel experiences Devis-Rozental C, Buhalis D, Bello BO, Darcy S (2026;), “Reframing accessible tourism through the humanising framework”. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-05-2025-0632

New Accessibility/disability and Tourism Paper just published, focusing on humanising travel experiences

Devis-Rozental C, Buhalis D, Bello BO, Darcy S (2026;), “Reframing accessible tourism through the humanising framework”. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-05-2025-0632

Abstract

Purpose – This paper aims to explores the dehumanised lived experiences of disabled travellers with mobility needs, identifying areas for improvement in tourism practice and suggesting ways for humanised and dignified experiences for accessible tourism. Semi-structured qualitative interviews and a thematic analysis identified four themes underpinned by the Humanising Framework.

Findings – Four key themes emerged: barriers for disabled travellers create traumatic, inhospitable experiences; uncertainty during travel causes anxiety; staff attitudes and accessibility awareness shape experiences; and “nothing about us without us” underscores the need to hear disabled travellers’ voices. Accessible facilities, infrastructure and accurate information are essential to avoid dehumanising encounters. Developing hospitable attitudes among tourism and hospitality staff encourages participation and dignity. Co-creating experiences with disabled travellers promotes inclusion and humanised practices. Applying the Humanising Framework helps identify complex needs and supports collaborative design, ensuring accessibility is relational, ethical and central to improving tourism and hospitality experiences.

Social implications – Disabled travellers still experience dehumanising experiences, making them feel negatively about themselves and discouraging them from participating in travel. This impacts their wellbeing, independence and agency and their desire to socialise in hospitality environments. Humanising tourism for disabled travellers through the REC model can have positive impacts on both individuals and the broader community, fostering social justice, offering mutual benefits for travellers, businesses and society, and increasing inclusivity.

Originality/value – Applying the Humanising Framework highlights the importance of recognising lived experiences as key sources of knowledge, making a meaningful contribution to inclusive tourism theory and practice. People investing and working in hospitality have an ethical and legal responsibility to design accessible and inclusive environments and to provide clarity about limitations and how to minimise them. Based on the findings, the paper introduces The REC Model for inclusivity in Hospitality as an alternative for improving customer experience, satisfaction and loyalty for all.

Keywords Social justice, Accessibility, Lived experiences, Disabled travellers, Humanising practice

Accessible tourism Disabiliity travel humanising

6 March 2026

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

Industry collaboration, Knowledge Exchange, Student Engagement Sukanya Ayatakshi

Entrepreneurship often begins with a deceptively simple act: reaching out to someone you do not know.

During the first week of our MBA Technology Entrepreneurship unit at Bournemouth University, a final year engineering student entrepreneur, Atanas Burmov, spoke to the class about building his venture from scratch. He arrived in Bournemouth at 18 to study software engineering. Within months he had established a mathematics and programming society to create peer support for students navigating the demands of their degree. Soon afterwards, he began contacting academics, technologists and organisations—sometimes completely cold—seeking advice and collaboration for a technology idea he was developing.

At that stage he had no venture capital, no established network, and no formal ecosystem behind him. What he had instead was something more fundamental: the belief that he could learn, build, and navigate uncertainty. He simply started reaching out to people. Those early emails and conversations eventually became the foundations of the collaborations that now support the growth of his venture. But at the beginning, it was not about partnerships or strategic alliances. It was about initiative.

His story is simply an illustration which shows a much larger phenomenon in entrepreneurship research: the role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy in enabling individuals to act under conditions of uncertainty and constraint ( McGee et al., 2009; Zhao et al., 2005).

The concept of self-efficacy originates in Albert Bandura’s social cognitive theory. Bandura defines self-efficacy as an individual’s belief in their capability to organise and execute the actions required to manage prospective situations (Bandura, 1977; Bandura, 1997). In other words, it is not simply about possessing knowledge or skills. It is about believing that those capabilities can be applied effectively in uncertain circumstances. Entrepreneurship is inherently uncertain. New ventures rarely begin with stable structures, predictable markets or guaranteed resources. In such environments, internal judgements of capability become critically important. A substantial body of research shows that entrepreneurial self-efficacy is strongly associated with entrepreneurial intention, persistence and opportunity pursuit (Chen et al., 1998; Zhao et al., 2005; McGee et al., 2009).

Individuals who believe they can navigate uncertainty are more likely to act despite incomplete information. They are more willing to experiment, to approach new contacts, to persist after rejection and to mobilise resources creatively when conventional pathways are unavailable. This becomes particularly relevant when entrepreneurs begin under conditions of constraint. Many founders start without financial capital, established networks or institutional legitimacy. Research on entrepreneurial bricolage shows how entrepreneurs often respond by recombining the resources already available to them in creative ways (Baker & Nelson, 2005). Similarly, the theory of effectuation highlights how entrepreneurs begin with the means they already possess—who they are, what they know and whom they know—and gradually build ventures through partnerships and experimentation (Sarasvathy, 2001).

Technical expertise can reinforce this process. Founders with deep domain knowledge, particularly in technology-based ventures, often possess greater confidence in their ability to solve problems. This confidence can strengthen entrepreneurial self-efficacy and increase the likelihood that individuals will attempt to translate ideas into ventures (Marvel et al., 2016). Yet confidence does not emerge in isolation. Bandura himself emphasised that self-efficacy develops through interaction with social environments. Mastery experiences, encouragement from others, observing peers succeed and working within supportive communities all contribute to the strengthening of self-efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1997).

This is one reason why institutional environments such as universities can play such an important role in the entrepreneurial journey. Universities increasingly operate as entrepreneurial institutions, supporting venture creation alongside their traditional roles in research and teaching (Etzkowitz, 2003; Guerrero et al., 2016). For students, universities offer more than academic instruction. They provide access to laboratories, intellectual property expertise, mentoring networks, entrepreneurship societies, careers services and communities of peers who are also experimenting with ideas. These infrastructures matter because they help transform tentative initiative into sustained entrepreneurial action. When students know that expertise, resources and encouragement exist around them, their willingness to act increases.

The role of place also deserves attention. Entrepreneurship discourse often focuses heavily on global innovation hubs such as London or Silicon Valley, where capital and talent are highly concentrated. These ecosystems undoubtedly provide significant advantages. Yet they also involve intense competition and high barriers to visibility for early-stage founders.

Research on entrepreneurial ecosystems suggests that smaller regions can offer different but equally important advantages. In regional contexts, social networks are often more visible and accessible, and relationships between ecosystem actors may form more quickly (Stam, 2015; Spigel, 2017). Studies of regional entrepreneurial networks show that such environments frequently display dense relational ties and higher levels of trust, which can lower barriers for new entrepreneurs seeking advice, introductions or collaboration (Granovetter, 1985; Feldman & Zoller, 2012). In these ecosystems, universities frequently function as anchor institutions. They concentrate knowledge, talent, infrastructure and legitimacy within a particular place, often acting as catalysts for regional innovation and venture creation (Goddard & Kempton, 2016).

For student entrepreneurs, this combination of place-based networks and institutional support can be powerful. Access to mentors, academics, laboratories and peer communities can enable ideas to move more quickly from concept to experimentation.

Returning to the story that opened this article, the venture did not begin with a fully formed ecosystem. It began with initiative: sending emails, asking questions and seeking conversations. Over time those conversations developed into collaborations that now support the growth of the business.

What began as individual initiative gradually evolved into a network. Entrepreneurship research often focuses on funding, scaling and investment. Yet the earliest stages of venture creation frequently occur long before these elements appear. They occur in moments that are almost invisible: an email written, a conversation initiated, a question asked despite uncertainty.

Self-efficacy plays a critical role in these moments. It allows individuals to act before legitimacy, capital or networks are fully in place. But sustaining entrepreneurial action requires more than individual belief. It requires environments that recognise initiative and respond to it. Universities, mentors, regional ecosystems and institutional infrastructures all contribute to creating contexts where entrepreneurial action becomes possible.

Sometimes the most important entrepreneurial resource is not capital or connections. It is the quiet confidence to begin.

References

Baker, T., & Nelson, R. (2005). Creating something from nothing: Resource construction through entrepreneurial bricolage. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(3), 329–366. https://doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2005.50.3.329

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioural change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.

Chen, C., Greene, P., & Crick, A. (1998). Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers? Journal of Business Venturing, 13(4), 295–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(97)00029-3

Etzkowitz, H. (2003). Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: The invention of the entrepreneurial university. Research Policy, 32(1), 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00009-4

Feldman, M., & Zoller, T. D. (2012). Dealmakers in Place: Social Capital Connections in Regional Entrepreneurial Economies. Regional Studies, 46(1), 23–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2011.607808

Goddard, J., & Kempton, L. (2016). The civic university: Universities in leadership and management of place. Available from https://www.ncl.ac.uk/mediav8/centre-for-urban-and-regional-development-studies/files/the-Civic-University.pdf

Granovetter, M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510. https://doi.org/10.1086/228311

Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., & Fayolle, A. (2016). Entrepreneurial activity and regional competitiveness: Evidence from European entrepreneurial universities. Journal of Technology Transfer, 41, 105–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-014-9377-4

Marvel, M., Davis, J., & Sproul, C. (2016). Human capital and entrepreneurship research: A critical review. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 40(3), 599–626. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12136

McGee, J., Peterson, M., Mueller, S., & Sequeira, J. (2009). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy: Refining the measure. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 33(4), 965–988. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00304.x

Sarasvathy, S. (2001). Causation and effectuation: Toward a theoretical shift from economic inevitability to entrepreneurial contingency. Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 243–263. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4378020

Spigel, B. (2017). The relational organization of entrepreneurial ecosystems. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 41(1), 49–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/etap.12167

Stam, E. (2015). Entrepreneurial ecosystems and regional policy: A sympathetic critique. European Planning Studies, 23(9), 1759–1769. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2015.1061484

Zhao, H., Seibert, S., & Hills, G. (2005). The mediating role of self-efficacy in the development of entrepreneurial intentions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1265–1272. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1265

16 December 2025

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

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

It feels like only yesterday that I was writing a research blog reflecting on social impact entrepreneurship amongst students at Bournemouth University Business School (BUBS) in the Faculty of Business and Law. A year on, this work continues to evolve, offering further evidence of how entrepreneurship education can act as a catalyst for social impact, inclusion and sustainable development.

This year’s final-year 20-credit module on the Entrepreneurship pathway, called Entrepreneurship and Business Ventures, ran yet another elevator pitch event, resulting in 22 new mentoring opportunities for students developing socially and environmentally minded business ideas. This builds on 24 mentoring opportunities created the previous year, highlighting not only the consistency of outcomes but also the growing strength of the entrepreneurial ecosystem surrounding BU.

The module has now been running for over seven years and has undergone deliberate pedagogical redesign during that time. It now operates as an in-class incubation and ideation space for social and impact entrepreneurship, rather than a traditional lecture-led module. Students are supported in developing, testing, and refining venture ideas within a structured environment that prioritises both business viability and social impact.

Central to the unit’s design is the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs). Rather than treating the SDGs as abstract global ambitions, students are encouraged to use them as a practical framework for opportunity recognition. The SDGs help students to identify real-world problems, consider systemic impacts, and design business models that create economic, social and environmental value simultaneously. In this sense, sustainability is positioned not as an ethical add-on, but as a source of legitimacy, resilience and competitive advantage.

Across two days of live elevator pitches, final-year students presented a diverse range of ideas addressing challenges at local, national and global levels. The quality and ambition of the pitches demonstrated a notable shift in entrepreneurial mindset. While financial feasibility remained central, many students framed entrepreneurship in terms of long-term value creation, legacy and responsibility, with profit understood as a means to enable impact rather than an end in itself.

As a module-level assessment, this activity could have been delivered entirely within the classroom. However, entrepreneurship is inherently experiential and relational. Each year, the assessment is therefore designed as a live engagement exercise, with students pitching to an external panel of judges drawn from industry, policy and practice. The panel provides immediate feedback and, crucially, offers mentoring and access to professional networks. These outcomes are particularly significant in relation to inclusive entrepreneurship practice at BU. By embedding incubation, mentoring, and ecosystem engagement within a credit-bearing module, access to entrepreneurial opportunities is expanded. Students do not need prior entrepreneurial experience, social capital or financial resources to participate. Instead, all students on the pathway are given structured access to support, feedback and visibility.

Inclusive entrepreneurship is also evident in the nature of the ideas themselves. Many ventures draw directly on students’ lived experiences, cultural backgrounds and community contexts, demonstrating how diversity can be a driver of innovation. The breadth of the judging panel—including expertise in sustainability, inclusive enterprise, ethnic minority entrepreneurship and venture coaching—further reinforces inclusive role modelling and challenges narrow stereotypes of who entrepreneurs are and what they do. None of this would be possible without the entrepreneurial ecosystem that supports this work. Over seven years, that ecosystem has grown significantly, reflecting shared commitment to impact-driven and inclusive entrepreneurship. The sustained willingness of external partners to mentor students demonstrates that meaningful inclusion is built through relationships and trust, not rhetoric alone.

Reflecting on these outcomes raises an important question for higher education more broadly. If such impact—mentoring, confidence building, inclusive participation and SDG-aligned venture development—can be achieved within a single 20-credit module, what more might be possible with structured, longitudinal support for student social entrepreneurs? At Bournemouth University, this module offers a practical example of how entrepreneurship education can contribute to inclusive growth and sustainable development, aligning teaching, research and external engagement with the Global Goals.

24 November 2025

New Cyber Security Advisory Highlights Integration of Safety, Security, and Human Factors in Defence Systems

Industry collaboration hdogan

Following collaborative research on Secure by Design (SbD) conducted by Bournemouth University (BU) and Mima, with the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl), a new Cyber Security Advisory has been released. This guidance addresses the complex challenge of balancing security, safety, and human factors in requirements practices.

The project, led by Dr Duncan Ki-Aries and Prof Huseyin Dogan centred on developing and evaluating a Minimum Viable Product (MVP) that demonstrates how these critical domains can be effectively integrated into SbD practices. The goal: to enhance the design of secure, resilient, and user-aware systems for defence applications.

Figure 1. The Secure by Design Process Framework

The advisory outlines key findings from the research, explores the challenges of merging safety and human factors into SbD processes, and offers insights into potential improvements. It also signals directions for future projects aimed at advancing this integration.

Ongoing research at BU will continue to build on this foundation, drawing on the combined expertise of BU and Mima in Human Factors, Security, Systems of Systems Engineering, Safety, and Risk Assessment. This work remains committed to strengthening future defence capabilities through a robust Secure by Design approach.

Figure 2. The project team

16 April 2025

Capturing the Power of Heat: NCEM’s Breakthrough in Clean Energy Storage Gains Global Recognition

Industry collaboration, innovation, international, Knowledge Transfer, Publishing, Research assessment Zulfiqar Khan

The NanoCorr, Energy & Modelling (NCEM) Research Group, led by Professor Zulfiqar Khan at Bournemouth University, has made pioneering developments in the field of thermal energy storage, an area critical to the future of renewable energy. Their groundbreaking work in enhancing the performance of latent heat storage systems using phase change materials (PCMs) has been featured on the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) website—marking a prestigious global endorsement of their innovations in clean energy technologies.

A Leap Toward Sustainable Energy

As the world shifts from fossil fuels to renewable sources, the ability to capture and store energy efficiently is a central challenge. PCMs—materials that absorb and release heat during phase transitions (like melting and solidifying)—offer an ingenious solution. NCEM’s research focuses on improving these materials’ thermal conductivity, stability, and compatibility with various containers, making energy storage more efficient, stable, and commercially viable.

Their study reviews and categorises organic paraffins and inorganic salt hydrates, the most promising groups of PCMs, highlighting enhancements like encapsulation, multi-PCM integration, and advanced container geometries. These techniques significantly boost energy capture rates and storage capacity, making clean energy more practical for widespread use.

Real-World Impact and Innovation

Backed by five industry-funded and match-funded projects, NCEM’s efforts have not only led to commercial patents in the UK and USA, but have also influenced engineering solutions for solar heating, industrial heat recovery, and smart building technologies. These contributions align strongly with several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UNSDGs):

Goal 7: Affordable and Clean Energy

Goal 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure

Goal 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

Goal 17: Partnerships for the Goals

Global Recognition: Why the IAEA Feature Matters

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), an influential global body under the United Nations, works to promote the peaceful use of nuclear and clean energy technologies. Being featured on their platform is a significant milestone—it underscores the global relevance, technical merit, and strategic value of Professor Khan’s research. It also places Bournemouth University and NCEM at the heart of international discussions on sustainable energy systems.

This acknowledgment by the IAEA is a testament to the NCEM team’s commitment to tackling real-world problems with innovative science. It further demonstrates the potential of UK-led clean energy solutions to contribute to a low-carbon, energy-secure future for all.

A Bright Future for Clean Energy

The research led by Professor Zulfiqar Khan exemplifies how innovative materials science and engineering can drive change on a global scale. With continued support and collaboration between academia and industry, NCEM is set to play a pivotal role in accelerating the transition to clean, resilient energy systems worldwide.

Acknowledgements: Dr Zakir Khan (NCEM ex PGR/ Post Doc) and Professor A Ghafoor.

3 April 2025

Successful 2025 Bid-generating Sandpit designed and facilitated by BU academics Catalin Brylla and Lyle Skains

Awarded & submitted bids, Industry collaboration, Knowledge Exchange, Knowledge Transfer cbrylla

For our fourth run, 30 early career academics from ten universities came together 26-27 March in Bournemouth for a two-day sandpit funded by The British Academy Early Career Researcher Network and organised by Dr. Catalin Brylla (Centre for the Study of Conflict, Emotion, and Social Justice) and Dr. Lyle Skains (Centre for Science, Health, and Data Communication Research).

The participants specialise in a variety of disciplines such as psychology, music, business management, environmental sciences, computing, law and social work. They brought their interests in a sustainable world and society (as represented by the UN Sustainable Development Goals) to the sandpit for networking, team-building, and funding and project development workshops, many of which were based on the successful and innovative NESTA-developed ‘Crucible’ programme (no longer online, but see the Welsh Crucible).

The success of the sandpit’s activities is highlighted by the culmination of six projects proposed to a panel of subject experts from Bournemouth University: Prof. H useyin Dogan (computing), Dr. Emily Arden-Close (Psychology), Dr. Lyle Skains (arts practice and interdisciplinarity), Dr. Catalin Brylla (media practice) and Eva Papadopoulou (research development). These experts provided mentorship and feedback on the projects as they develop toward funding proposals. Two sandpit follow-up sessions will also aid the participants in developing their funding proposals.

To receive news of further sandpits and development opportunities, join the BA ECRN.

21 February 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

20 February 2025

Dorset Community Foundation have launched the latest version of the Hidden Dorset report as a website

HEIF, Industry collaboration, Public engagement mhughes

See Hidden Dorset at hidden.dorsetcommunityfoundation.org and read the story about the launch on their website here.

BU PIER are proud to have supported this and previous versions of the Hidden Dorset report. Special mention to Research Assistant Stevie Corbin-Clarke for all her help to gather initial data. Like DCF, we feel the report will be incredibly useful to groups and charities making a case for funding and identifying priorities and also to our research community in identifying local need. If you make use of it, please let us know, we would love to see how it is being used.

18 February 2025

Bournemouth University partner with Mima to work on a Secure by Design Project funded by Dstl

Industry collaboration, Knowledge Exchange ematthews

Bournemouth University (BU) and Mima, a human-centred design consultancy, have secured funding from the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) to collaborate on a Secure by Design (SbD) project. Dstl, the science and technology arm of the UK Ministry of Defence (MOD), provides critical expertise and solutions for national security.

Professor Huseyin Dogan Dr. Eylem Thron and Dr. Duncan Ki-Aries outside Bournemouth University

L-R: Professor Huseyin Dogan Dr. Eylem Thron and Dr. Duncan Ki-Aries

The project will develop and evaluate a Minimum Viable Product (MVP) demonstrating how safety, security, and human factors analysis can be integrated into SbD requirements practices. This integration aims to improve the development of secure and effective systems for defence applications.

Professor Huseyin Dogan of BU’s Department of Computing and Informatics, a former BAE Systems scientist with eight years of industry experience, said: “Our department has a strong track record of collaborating with Dstl on match-funded PhDs focused on UK defence and security solutions.

“These projects span diverse areas, from automated risk-informed decision-making in electromagnetic interference to cyber resilience and safety analysis. This new project will integrate techniques from safety, security, and human factors to address complex defence challenges through innovative software tool support.”

Dr. Duncan Ki-Aries, Programme Leader for MSc Cyber Security and Human Factors at BU, added: “In today’s complex cyber landscape, understanding the human element and security challenges are crucial. However, in some scenarios, security concerns may also lead to safety concerns. This project allows us to explore how safety, security, and human factors concepts can be effectively integrated into secure design practices, leading to more robust systems and capabilities, and their safe and secure use of them.”

Dr. Eylem Thron, a Chartered Ergonomist and Principal Human Factors Consultant at Mima with experience in human factors and design across various industries, including rail and defence, said: “Mima is excited to bring our human-centred design expertise to this crucial project. By focusing on the needs and capabilities of users, we can help ensure that secure systems are also effective and usable in real-world scenarios.”

Dr. Shamal Faily, a Principal Scientist at Dstl added: “Within MOD, Secure by Design is a key enabler for delivering new capabilities at pace, given the cost and efficiency saving it could afford. To ensure we can properly ‘shift left’ and address security at the earliest stages of capability acquisition, this project will help us understand how coherence between security, safety, and human factors activities will help us identify security requirements early.”

The BU and Mima team bring expertise in Human Factors, Security, Systems of Systems Engineering, Safety and Risk Assessment, and is dedicated to supporting future defence capabilities through this Secure by Design collaboration.

Find out more about BU’s Computing and Informatics research

9 January 2025

Join our introduction to research webinars and workshops for voluntary and community sector organisations

HEIF, Industry collaboration, Public engagement mhughes

The BU PIER Partnership have joined forces with Community Action Network Dorset (CAN), The HealthBus Trust and the Lantern Trust to deliver a series of webinars and workshops to build capacity in the voluntary and community sector (VCS) to actively collaborate in shaping, designing and undertaking health, social care and community research. The series is funded by NHS England as part of the Dorset Research Engagement Network funding where PIER have been co-designing with community partners methods and approaches for collaborating with marginalised groups who are currently under-served by research, by drawing on the expertise of VCS partners who are embedded in these communities.

If you would like to attend or to share with your community partners, please see here

Webinars:

https://can100.org/event/introduction-to-research-and-the-role-of-the-voluntary-sector/

In person workshops:

Weymouth:

https://can100.org/event/building-research-capacity-workshop/

Bournemouth:

https://can100.org/event/building-research-capacity-workshop-2/

If you would like to hear more about earlier phases of this project where PIER have been co-designing how people who are homeless and vulnerably housed and VCS partners want to have a voice in research, see here.

20 November 2024

Academic Conferences Engagement: ISBE 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The blogpost refers to gender in the binary only.

18 October 2024

Gothic at the Russell Cotes Museum

Industry collaboration, Public engagement, staff profile pages, Women's Academic Network jround

The Russell Cotes Museum Late evenings are a chance to explore the museum after dark with short talks and pop-up exhibitions – a perfect opportunity to talk about Gothic at a sold-out event.

I’d been invited to set up a stall exploring Gothic Comics, showcasing my research into British girls’ comics of the 1970s. This let me share lots of comics alongside the free gifts that were given away with the first few issues of each new title. I also brought along a few very rare items such as the dummy folder of the launch issue of Misty #1, which shows how story titles were added in (letraset transfers) and colour pages were allocated.

It was a brilliant evening where I found myself set up alongside tarot readings, Gothic poetry writing, a handling table of memento mori objects from the museum, and lots of short talks and readings of classic Gothic literature, all set to candle-lit piano music.

I had a great time chatting with some fabulously dressed folk about the largely forgotten wave of Gothic girls’ comics that emerged in Britain in the 1970s and how they used many common motifs of the Gothic tradition (embedded stories, nature imagery) and Victorian Gothic themes and settings (Jack the Ripper, Dracula, dire workhouses, wicked governesses, seances, and more). I always love getting people to reminisce about the comics they remember (or have mostly forgotten) and this was no exception! We talked about the way these comics were produced (small teams, weekly outputs, a frantic pace), the reasons they’ve been lost to memories and history (greedy publishers, competition with other media, poor treatment of creators and readers), the gothic tropes and themes they contain (adaptations of everything from Edgar Allan Poe to Stephen King, modern cautionary tales, myths and legends, historical ghost stories), and the balancing line they tread between conservative morals and transgressive excitement.

To find out more about this lost gothic, please visit my website www.juliaround.com.

Julia Round is an Associate Professor and English and Comics Studies in the Department of Humanities and Law, and Head of the Narrative, Culture and Community Research Centre. She has over 50 publications on Gothic, horror and comics, including the award-winning book Gothic for Girls (2019).

13 June 2024

The Missing Persons Indicator Project: Research Collaboration for Knowledge Exchange

HEIF, Industry collaboration, international, Knowledge Exchange, Knowledge Transfer, Research Integritiy, student research efisher

The Missing Persons Indicator Project, initiated several years ago by Professor Melanie Klinkner and Andreas Kleiser from the ICMP, has recently been enhanced by a visit to the ICMP, aimed at optimising knowledge exchange. Its goal is to showcase each state’s relationship with missing persons through comprehensive data analysis. This initiative began as a collaborative effort, with data gathering undertaken by undergraduate students at Bournemouth University, engaging students in real-world research and ensuring the project’s sustainability by welcoming new students each September.

Since its inception, the project has been fortunate to work with many enthusiastic students who have completed the first round of Structural Indicator 1. This indicator demonstrates the commitment of states to international legal instruments. The table below outlines the current indicators involved in our data collection process:

Context Indicator	A qualitative assessment as to whether the state has experienced extraordinary events that may be correlated to a rise in missing persons cases.
Structural Indicator 1	The commitment shown by states to international legal instruments is an indicator of their duties and obligation in relation to missing persons.
Structural Indicator 2	Domestic legislation by states as an indicator of their duties and obligation in relation to missing persons.
Structural Indicator 3	Institutional framework(s) established by states as an indicator of their duties, obligation, and enactment of legislation in relation to missing persons.

Thanks to HEIF funding, the Missing Persons Indicator Project recently had the opportunity to employ four student volunteers over the past two weeks. Their task was to accelerate the data collation for these indicators. By working through each indicator on a state-by-state basis, they developed a comprehensive understanding of each state’s unique situation. This method also allowed them to recognise and utilise specific details that might recur across the different indicators.

Every day, a designated “data-checker” reviewed previously inputted data to identify and correct any anomalies. This rigorous review process ensures the data’s accuracy, ethical integrity, and suitability for international dissemination.

Throughout this process, the students have been deeply engaged, asking insightful questions that challenged our perspectives and prompted us to consider aspects we might have overlooked. The atmosphere has been a hub of activity and intellectual growth.

We are extremely grateful for the hard work and dedication of our student researchers. Their contributions have demonstrated that a student ‘data-lab’ is an excellent model for conducting research and achieving meaningful results.

As this term draws to a close, we are keen to alert teaching staff to the potential for their students to join the Missing Person Indicator project in September as we recruit a new cohort for the new academic year. To learn more about the project please visit our website!

5 May 2024

BU Professor has been invited to a series of plenary and invited lectures.

conferences, Industry collaboration, innovation, international, Knowledge Exchange, Knowledge Transfer, Public engagement, Publishing, REF Subjects, Research assessment, writing Zulfiqar Khan

BU Professor Zulfiqar A Khan has been invited to the 12^th International Conference KOD 2024, Machine and Industrial Design in Mechanical Engineering to deliver a plenary talk to disseminate and discuss, the latest work on numerical simulation and modelling in interacting machines and systems conducted in NanoCorr, Energy and Modelling (NCEM) Research Group led by Professor Khan. This talk is also aimed to provide an overview of Professor Khan’s work in terms of Nanoengineering & Energy Systems (NES®).

System and Design – © Z Khan 2024.

The overall relation of interacting systems, durability and reliability will be discussed by Professor Khan in the following invited lecture, entitled “an overview of research: numerical modelling and simulation for predictive condition monitoring,” invited by Professor Aleksandar Marinković, Head of Machine Design Department, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering University of Belgrade, and Prof. DR Vladimir Popović, Dean of Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University of Belgrade, the Republic of Serbia. Professor Popović has extended this invitation to include Professor Khan’s meetings with Faculty Management and Chairs of Laboratories for exploring to pursue mutual interests’ initiatives and common goals in Nanoengineering & Energy Systems (NES®).

Interacting System © Z A Khan 2024.

Contact mechanics and nanomaterials – IC © Z Khan 2024.

Professor Khan will then deliver an invited lecture in Mathematical Institute of the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, National Institute of the Republic of Serbia to discuss the latest developed mathematical models, Khan-Nazir I, Khan-Nazir II and Khan-Nazir III, these are BU’s ground breaking and globally leading contributions to knowledge in terms of developing impactful design solutions to aid safety, cost savings, energy efficiency and reliability applied in complex interacting and energy systems. These novel models are linked to recently awarded GB, US, PR China, Singapore, Hong Kong (notice of allowance) and EU/EPO (pending) patents in mechanistic, nanofluidics and energy systems developed at BU by NCEM team led by Professor Khan. This lecture is invited by DR Ivana Atanasovska, seminar leader and Stepa Paunović, secretary of the seminar. This lecture will be live streamed on Tuesday, 28 May 2024, you are invited to join.

Interacting System 2 © Z Khan 2024.

This will be followed by invited meetings with key researchers and academics in the Institute of General and Physical Chemistry, Studentski try 12/V, Belgrade to explore collaborative initiatives in Clean Energy Systems.

If you are interested in any of the above topics, events and would like to know more then please get in touch through this link.

6 March 2024

BU is a University Gateway Partner for AHRC-funded StoryArcs Programme

Industry collaboration, Knowledge Exchange lskains

Across the UK, 11 Story Associates are on a mission…

The StoryArcs Pilot Programme sees skilled individuals take on a presented challenge as they deepen their understanding of the value and potential of Story. Each of the 11 Story experts brings with them a range of skills in telling, analysing, and/or researching stories, and experience across multiple sectors, including creative writing, virtual reality, and community engagement.

We’re delighted to be a University Gateway Partner on the StoryArcs Programme, funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC). The programme is led by Bambo Soyinka, the world’s first (and only) Professor of Story, at The Story Society, Bath Spa University.

Locally, Dr Kayla Jones is working with Local Trust to collect and preserve the community experiences generated by their “Big Local” funding project. She is based at Bournemouth University, and mentored by Lyle Skains.

With the help of the Story Associates, the StoryArcs Programme is conducting a deep exploration into the nature of Story Skills. They’re seeking to find out what Story Skills are, to define and categorise them, and to examine how they work to enable diverse and innovative benefits.

Discover more about StoryArcs and the Story Associates at: https://storyarcs.com/blog/meet-the-story-associates/

26 February 2024

HE policy update 5: 26th February 2024

Industry collaboration, innovation, international, Knowledge Exchange, NHS, Student Engagement jforster

An interesting mixture of news: a look around through the eyes of the House of Lords library and a lengthy analysis of the differences between the 4 nations, a hopeful look forward through the UUK manifesto for the election, Research England are taking steps on spin-outs and there are serious concerns about abuse of franchised provision arrangements in some parts of the sector. I also look at the latest developments in two sad cases of student deaths and what the might mean for the sector going forwards. A look at Scottish and Welsh funding for HE just makes everyone scratch their heads more about how to make the numbers add up.

Politics and Parliament

Here’s something cheerful in the context of all the criticism of the sector: a House of Lords library briefing on the sector’s contribution to the economy and levelling up. This has come out because there is a motion in the House of Lords in early March: Lord Blunkett (Labour) to move that this House takes note of the contribution of higher education to national growth, productivity and levelling up.

As we were reminded by all this week’s chaos and anger about the Gaza motion and its various amendments, these “motions” have no actual force: they don’t directly lead to any action or decision, they are usually very party political in nature and it is not unusual for one party or another to decline to vote on them at all so that while they may be passed there is even less meaning to be taken from them.

That is not to say that they don’t have some impact: the debate itself can influence perceptions in the longer term and the briefings are always interesting. A reminder that briefings from the libraries of the House of Commons and the House of Lords are not party political: they are intended to be factual and to be used by all potential participants in the debate. As such they provide a useful summary of the current state of affairs.

So to this one:

Citing a London Economics report for UUK in August 2023: Its analysis estimated that the ‘economic footprint’ of HE providers across the UK resulted in:

768,000 full-time jobs
£71bn in terms of gross value added (GVA)
£116bn in terms of general economic output

And goes on to quote from the report: In addition to the large impact within the government, health, and education sector itself (£52.8bn of economic output), the activities of UK HE providers are estimated to generate particularly large impacts within the distribution, transport, hotels, and restaurants sector (£15.4bn), the production sector (£12.6bn), the real estate sector (£9.7bn), and the professional and support activities sector (£9.2bn).

Using a separate London Economics Report with HEPI and Kaplan International Pathways from May 2023 it also refers to findings about the contribution of international students: The average impact was highest for parliamentary constituencies in London (with an average net impact of £131mn per constituency, equivalent to £1,040 per resident). The average impact per parliamentary constituency in the North East and Scotland was estimated at £640 and £750 respectively per member of the resident population; between £500 and £510 per member of the resident population in the East and West Midlands, Northern Ireland, and Yorkshire and the Humber; and between £360 and £390 in the North West, South East, South West, the East of England, and Wales

There is a load of data about participation, and then this on outcomes, using the government’s graduate labour market statistics from June 2023

Looking at the labour market as a whole (therefore not just 2020/21 graduates), the government has identified better employment outcomes for graduates than non-graduates:[28]
In 2022, the employment rate for working-age graduates (those aged 16–64) was 87.3%, an increase of 0.6 percentage points on 2021 (86.6%). For working-age postgraduates, the employment rate was 89.3%, an increase of 1.1 percentage points on 2021 (88.2%). For working-age non-graduates, the employment rate was 69.6%, a decrease of 0.2 percentage points from 2021 (69.8%).
In 2022, 66.3% of working-age graduates were in high-skilled employment, compared to 78.3% of postgraduates and 23.6% of non-graduates.
In 2022, the median nominal salary for working-age graduates was £38,500. This was £11,500 more than working-age non-graduates (£27,000), but £6,500 less than working-age postgraduates (£45,000).

The paper goes on to talk about government policy, including its levelling up strategy, but also its policy statement from July 2023 which was the final response to the Augar review from 2019. You’ll remember this one, it talked about promoting level 4 and 5 courses, applying student numbers controls to provision with “poor outcomes”, and proposed fee caps and loan limits for foundation years. [You will also recall that this confirmed they would not go ahead with the minimum entry requirements that had been proposed].

In the context of international students, the paper notes the concerns about immigration and the recent changes to visa rules to prevent most students bringing their families to the UK. Following some exciting stories in the press about entry standards (which were covered in the last update), the paper notes the recent announcement by UUK that they will review admissions practices for international students.

UUK has recently announced a review of admissions practices for international students following concerns that institutions were lowering admission standards to bolster recruitment and fees. This will include reviews of:

foundation programmes for international and domestic students
the agent quality framework, which provides tools and best practice guidance for when universities use agents to help recruit international students
the admissions code of practice, which sets out expectations for university processes

There’s an analysis of responses to the levelling up approach including a reference to a report by Lord Willetts from October 2023 which set out four groups of benefits that higher education can offer individuals and society.

It should be an interesting debate, and a useful reminder of the value of higher education. Just don’t expect any policy changes as a result.

Universities UK manifesto

The UUK manifesto sets out a wish list for the sector. It all looks very expensive and so while ambitious, unlikely to be replicated in anyone’s actual manifesto. We can expect to see more of these over the next few months. Research Professional have the story here.

Future of apprenticeships:

An article in the FT by Alison Wolf calls for the percentage of the apprenticeship levy to be reduced, for it to be extended to smaller businesses and for limits what it can be used for.

Regional inequalities

In the meantime, the Education Policy Institute, along with a range of partners, have published a report Comparing policies, participation and inequalities across UK post-16 education and training landscapes. This is an interim report and compares contexts, choices and outcomes across the 4 nations. It’s a weighty piece and mostly about 16-18 education, but some highlights relevant to HE include:

The level of policy churn experienced within UK E&T is enormous and potentially damaging for all the individuals and institutions involved. Constant policy churn emphasises the view that the E&T system is at best flawed and at worst failing. This has the potential to harm the morale of staff and stakeholders involved in the system as well as negatively shaping the aspirations of young people and their families and their perceptions of different E&T pathways. ….[they may be talking about FE mostly here but this applies to HE too, and the impact of this washes through to post-18 education]
When we were able to look at socio-economic inequalities in access and outcomes, we observed gaping differences in educational outcomes from choices. Those from more disadvantaged backgrounds were less likely to achieve A level or equivalent qualifications, and less likely to achieve degree-level qualifications. As a result, they are then less likely to be in employment, will have lower earnings and less likely to be in professional occupations when they do enter the labour market. These inequalities are of similar size across all four nations, with just slightly higher university attendance amongst the most disadvantaged students in England.
Outcomes are particularly concerning in Wales, including “Welsh boys having the lowest levels of higher education participation”

Recommendations are mostly about schools and FE not HE, but we would agree with this:

A new stable settlement is needed. In the short run, a new vision and policy approach for post-16 E&T may be needed. This will require political consensus within each nation on goals and ambitions that can be realised, well-funded institutions and structures, and a stable set of qualifications

In the section about funding it notes the divide between FE and HE (from p24):

Historically, the four nations have maintained a divided system that rests on a categorical distinction between academic and vocational knowledge and skills. This is rooted in entrenched class division and a perception of HE as a gateway to privilege, contributing to an esteem deficit for FE and negatively influencing young people’s choices (and their families’ perceptions of the sector) when considering available pathways to a good future. Arguably this restricts access and progression and emphasises differentiation and social selection at the expense of social inclusion and the needs of individual learners. …
However, the relationship between FE and HE has become increasingly blurred over the last decade. Universities have been increasingly encroaching on FE spaces through a variety of sub-degree level provision, including, but not limited to, foundation degrees while degree level qualifications are offered by some FE colleges, with degree apprenticeships sitting in a hybrid vocational-academic space….
As each attempts to operate in the others’ space, competitive behaviours are increased and colonisation, rather than quality or diversity of provision, becomes the de facto driver. ….

Research and knowledge exchange: Spinouts

You will recall that the government published alongside the Autumn Statement its response to the Independent Review of University Spin-out Companies. The government said that it accepted all the recommendations of the review and would implement them all. These were:

Government will work with universities to improve deal terms, data and transparency in the sector. This includes reporting on which universities have implemented the policies recommended by the review, creating a database of spin-out companies and supporting the sector to develop a full set of deal terms guidance for different sectors, including template term sheets….
We are providing £20 million for a new cross-disciplinary proof-of-concept research programme. Research England will review the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF) to ensure commercialisation functions in universities are appropriately funded and incentivised. We will set up a pilot of shared technology transfer functions for universities….
Government will map and publish support services available to founders and develop proposals to fill gaps or improve support. UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) will ensure that all PhD students it funds have the option to attend high quality entrepreneurship training and increased opportunities to undertake internships in local spin-outs, venture capital firms or technology transfer offices. ….
Government will continue its work to support access to finance through the Long-term Investment for Technology and Science (LIFTS) scheme, establishing a new Growth Fund within the British Business Bank, delivering a new generation of British Business Bank Nations and Regions Investment Funds and extending British Patient Capital to 2033-34 with £3 billion of funding. The government will also continue to deliver the Mansion House reforms, including improvements to our capital markets. …
To support our ambition to make the UK’s Research, Development and Innovation landscape more open and navigable, the government will work with UKRI and the National Academies to develop opportunities to improve their fellowship offer for commercialisation, including the option of ‘academic returner’ fellows. ….

Research England have now set out how they are going to do all this. There is a blog here.

They want universities to let them know if they have adopted the best practice policies ahead of a stock take at the end of 2024. The set of best practice policies will be published later in the Spring. They don’t think this is relevant to very many providers.
HESA is going to consult in April 2023 on collecting additional data
Reviewing HEIF: not doing anything now as they have enough data for review, approach will be published in the Spring
Pilot of technology transfer arrangements: more to come in the Spring

And this: Our Connecting Capability Fund (CCF)-RED programme is our main approach to developing university commercialisation capability, through collaboration. We are shortly to publish our priority commercialisation themes for CCF-RED including a first opportunity to bid

Education: Subcontracted provision

In late January there was a National Audit Office report that triggered press interest into allegedly fraudulent outsourced providers of HE. It doesn’t name providers. As a result there is a hearing at the Public Accounts Committee on 26^th Feb. More here from Wonkhe.

We already knew that subcontracted provision is one of the OfS priorities for quality assurance reviews this year but those quality assurance reviews are not usually announced in advance and we don’t believe that they have been kicked off for this year yet.

This week the OfS have announced a formal investigation into one university in relation to its subcontracted provision, looking at whether:

the courses delivered by sub contractual partners are high quality
the lead provider has effective management and governance in place for sub contractual partners
the lead provider has complied with the requirements relating to provision of information to the OfS

A Wonkhe article on the formal investigation: 22^nd Feb 24 highlights the large proportion of subcontracted students at this provider.

Context from the NAO report:

Universities ….may create partnerships, also known as franchises, with other institutions to provide courses on their behalf. The … lead provider.. registers those students studying at their franchise partners, which allows them to apply for funding administered by the Student Loans Company (SLC).
Students may apply for loans covering tuition fees … and maintenance support …. Students normally repay these loans, including accrued interest, once they have finished studying and are earning above a certain amount. These loans represent a long-term liability to taxpayers if not repaid. …. during the 2022/23 academic year SLC made £1.2 billion of loans for tuition fees and maintenance for these [franchised] students.
Lead providers must be registered with the …OfS…, for their franchised provider’s students to be eligible for student funding. Franchised providers do not need to register. Lead providers retain responsibility for protecting all students’ interests, including teaching quality at franchised providers. They also confirm to SLC that students at their franchised providers are, and remain, eligible for student funding….

Summary findings:

…The number of students enrolled at franchised providers more than doubled from 50,440 in 2018/19 to 108,600 in 2021/22. Much of this expansion has been in a relatively small number of providers, with eight of the 114 lead providers responsible for 91% of the growth. Despite this increase, in 2021/22 those studying at franchised providers represented a small proportion, 4.7%, of the total student population…

….Government intended the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 (HERA) to encourage providers to join the sector and improve innovation, diversity and productivity. DfE considers that franchising helps widen access to higher education. In 2021/22, 57,470 out of 97,000 (59%) students from England studying at franchised providers were from neighbourhoods classed as high deprivation, compared with 40% of students at all providers…
…As a lead provider retains responsibility for a franchised provider’s compliance with these standards for their students, there is no statutory or regulatory obligation on franchised providers to register with OfS. In 2021/22, 229 (65%) of the 355 franchised providers were not registered…
…Lead providers share fees with their franchised providers, the amount varying according to their contractual arrangements. OfS does not have detailed knowledge of these arrangements but, where it has, told us that some lead providers retained between 12.5% and 30% of tuition fee payments…
…We have seen that some providers use agents or offer financial incentives to recruit students, activities which government does not prohibit or regulate. Government does not know how many providers use these practices, but those we have seen are used by franchised providers. One scheme offered students rewards for referring other people to the provider, with no limit on the number of referrals. There are no regulations to prohibit or regulate these practices, which may present risks to taxpayers’ and students’ interests. Students who sign up in response to incentives may be vulnerable to mis-sold loans, while also being potentially less likely to make repayments…

…Over the past five years trend data show that, at franchised providers, detected fraud cases have increased faster than the proportion of SLC-funded students. In 2022/23, 53% of the £4.1 million fraud detected by SLC by value was at franchised providers…

…Routine analysis by SLC detected suspicious patterns of activity involving franchised provider students across four lead providers. Further investigation by SLC raised concerns across a total of 10 lead providers. Following a request from SLC, DfE instructed SLC to suspend payment of tuition fees while cases under suspicion were investigated. This led to SLC identifying and challenging 3,563 suspicious applications associated with £59.8 million of student funding, with 25% of this money still withheld as at January 2023…
…In May 2022 a lead provider disclosed to OfS, as required by its registration conditions, that it suspected widespread academic misconduct at one of its franchised providers and was undertaking investigations. Following investigation the lead provider withdrew the majority of the then 1,389 students enrolled at the franchised provider. SLC has recovered £6.1 million in respect of the tuition funding provided to withdrawn students. OfS has clawed back £172,600 of its grant funding paid to the provider in respect of these students. To date, DfE and OfS have not imposed other sanctions on providers…
…There is insufficient evidence that students are attending and engaging with their courses. In determining a student’s eligibility for loan payments, and before making payments, SLC uses lead providers’ data to confirm students’ attendance. Lead providers self-assure their own data, also having responsibility for the accuracy of their franchised providers’ information. There is no effective standard against which to measure student engagement, which attendance helps demonstrate, and there is no legal or generally accepted definition of attendance…
…Given SLC’s concerns about potentially fraudulent student loan claims, OfS required several lead providers to commission independent audits of their franchised provider controls and data submissions. This identified controls weaknesses. In October 2023, OfS announced that, for the first time, it would consider whether registered providers had franchise arrangements when deciding where to focus its work assessing student outcomes…
… DfE is consulting stakeholders on potential changes to how providers are regulated. SLC has undertaken a ‘lessons learned’ exercise which proposed recommendations that need to be taken forward by other bodies, including OfS and DfE. …. DfE told us there had been discussions on potential policy options with representative bodies and universities with a large proportion of franchised provision…

There are some interesting articles from the last year here:

A Wonkhe article from June 2023 that chillingly refers to “legal threats aimed at silencing the discussion”
A Wonkhe article on what better regulation might look like: June 2023
Wonkhe on the OfS priorities for quality reviews: October 23
Wonkhe piece on the NAO report: Jan 2024
A comment piece on Wonkhe on law regulation: January 2024

A HEPI paper from this week suggested some ways forward, describing what one provider (Buckinghamshire New University) already does and concluding: “We believe the solution is a strong sector-wide and sector-owned code of practice that requires higher education institutions to work together in the wider interests of students and stakeholders, including government and regulators. This would see higher education institutions establish effective consortia for each franchisee, simplifying and coordinating the multiple demands they place on franchisees, and strengthening the requirements to enhance quality and promote stability”.

Duty of care

There has been a long running campaign by bereaved parents, politicians and others to impose a “duty of care” on universities in relation to students with mental health issues, sometimes described as similar to universities being “in loco parentis” for students. The stories are always terribly sad and this is a difficult area, especially as students are adults and sometimes do not want to engage with university services or staff on these issues, and sometimes don’t want to involve their parents either. A little bit of clarity is emerging as a result of two recent cases. There is no legal duty of care (whatever that means) yet, but there is discussion about a responsibility on staff to “notice” and also about a duty to ensure that process and procedures don’t get in the way of reasonable adjustments.

This debate will continue: the government is pushing all universities to sign up to the University Mental Health Charter (BU has) and the OfS is also undertaking work on this. The government have a taskforce led by Professor Edward Peck, and I reported on their first stage report in the last policy update: you can find that report here and the policy update from 5^th Feb here. It is a complex area but one where there will certainly be a lot more changes in approach to come: including potentially OfS licence conditions in the future.

I noted last time the recent coroner’s report into a student death at the University of Southampton. This Wonkhe article from January covers the story.

Like so many students [Matthew Wickes] was diagnosed after he began on his course, and did not disclose his condition to the university – and so formal codified reasonable adjustments were not able to be put in place.
… But despite the lack of disclosure, [the Coroner] does raise concerns about the “level of awareness, understanding and curiosity” of academic staff around the mental health of students – particularly in the post-pandemic climate – where “interruptions to their study and dysregulated student life have had a significant impact on their mental health”. The message seems to be – it was likely that there would be significant, long lasting mental health impacts from Covid and its lockdowns, which ought to have generated a strategic response in terms of staff capacity to recognise them.
… There is a thread in this and similar cases that is about capacity to “notice”. [The Coroner] noted the university’s processes for “raising a concern” by academic staff through student hubs, and the university talked in the inquest about a new “early warning system” involving triggers around academic absence or changes in study or support behaviours. But [the Coroner]’s worry was more basic: I am concerned that in not ensuring that academic staff are at least armed with the ability to spot or to know when to make initial enquiries of students or are clearly guided on how best to do so (particularly with regard to an understanding of the needs and skills required to liaise with students with neurodiversity), there is a risk that an over-focus on academic policies and procedures will endure and that those students who are struggling to adhere to them will be missed or overlooked.
For example, during the inquest the university had said that all staff were offered training on mental health management and provided with guidance on how to support students. But [the Coroner] said: I am concerned that aspects of this are not made compulsory for academic staff … It remains unclear as to who or how many staff have actually viewed or undertaken the online training around student mental health.
…But while the coroner isn’t saying that all staff or all personal tutors should be counsellors or mental health experts, he is effectively saying that all students ought to be able to expect that the staff that teach and support them have a basic level of awareness and competency over student mental health.
Even if an issue is identified, Wilkinson identified concerns with the interventions in place (particularly for neurodiverse students given an apparent focus on group based interventions) and also discussed concerns over the existence, frequency and accuracy of the recording and minuting of academic meetings with students: It was of concern to me that the university was unable to locate or provide clear minutes of supervisory catch ups, progress checks or agreed guidance or actions for Matthew. It was of further concern that the academic staff supporting and mentoring him in his third year had not provided written evidence of his progress or agreed minutes of actions etc to him.

The next case relates to the University of Bristol. Again, Wonkhe have the story.

Natasha’s father, Robert Abrahart, brought a legal action against the university alleging it had contributed to his daughter’s death by discriminating against her on the grounds of Disability contrary to the Equality Act 2010, and by breaching a duty of care owed her under the law of negligence.
In May 2022, a senior County Court Judge, Alex Ralton, ruled that the university discriminated against Natasha and that this contributed to her death. Ralton found that the university had breached its duty to make reasonable adjustments to the way it assessed Natasha, engaged in indirect Disability discrimination against Natasha, and treated Natasha unfavourably because of the consequences of her Disability.
But Ralton did not find that the university owed Natasha a common law duty of care. The High Court has now considered both an appeal from the university, and a cross-appeal on the duty of care issue.
The university’s appeal challenged the court’s finding that the university breached the duty to make reasonable adjustments, and challenged the court’s finding that the university breached section 15 of the Equality Act 2010 (discrimination arising from Disability). Both areas failed.
…the university … failed in its argument that…the assessment of a student’s ability to explain laboratory work orally, to defend it and to answer questions on it was “a core competency of a professional scientist” and so not subject to the duty to make reasonable adjustments.
…The appeal judge …overall found that the County Court’s judgement – that the university’s reliance on due process and medical evidence before making adjustments did not outweigh its duty under the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments – was sound, particularly given its awareness of Natasha’s challenges and the impact on her ability to participate in oral assessments.
Crucially, [the appeal judge] didn’t disagree with the County Court in rejecting the university’s arguments that it lacked sufficient knowledge or expertise as a defence for its inaction – and found that the university’s internal regulations and policies, while important, “must yield” to the legal requirements to accommodate students with disabilities. In fact, the procedures, in practice, became another barrier to making necessary adjustments.
….The university had argued that “legitimate aims” were rigorous assessment and fairness among all students and that that hadn’t been properly considered. That wasn’t washing with [the appeal judge]. Finding the original judgment’s findings to be permissible, he concluded that if complying with the duty to make reasonable adjustments would have resulted in Natasha attending and potentially performing better, then the marks and penalty points ascribed to her (which were, after all, based on her non-attendance or performance in the unmodified assessments) could not be deemed proportionate.

The response from the University of Bristol is here.

Harassment and sexual misconduct

A year since the OfS launched their consultation on their new approach to this, we are still waiting for the outcome: the consultation closed in May 2023. There’s an anniversary HEPI blog on the issues, which are complex and contested: perhaps why it is taking the OfS so long to reach a conclusion.

International

Recent updates have talked about the conflicting rhetoric on international students: Lord Jo Johnson has written in the FT with a plan to sort out the problem. Nice try; but the first two seem unlikely to catch on:

First, Westminster must fix the funding crisis. With domestic fees frozen for all but one of the last 10 years, universities lose money teaching home undergraduates. The government must inflation-proof fees, ideally by linking increased funding to outcomes and aligning interests of universities, taxpayers and students. Such a mechanism exists in the Higher Education and Research Act and was used in 2017 to lift fees to £9,250. Institutions that deliver great outcomes, as assessed by the Teaching Excellence Framework, should once again be allowed to raise fees in line with inflation.
Second, the government should ensure the Office for National Statistics only counts international students as net migration when they stay on post-study. In this framework, they would be included in migration figures when they transfer from the student visa to a graduate route or work visa. Otherwise, they would be treated as temporary residents or tourists.
Third, universities would commit to ensuring that entry requirements for international students are comparable to those for domestic ones. This can be measured using the actual grades held by those who have accepted offers. And it should, in theory, be a low-cost commitment, as universities claim to be doing it already.
Fourth, universities would commit to transparency on effective entry requirements. This means publishing the distribution of actual grades held by those accepted, broken down by course and domicile, as opposed to just the advertised entry requirements. There is often a wide difference between the two. This would, additionally, be a game-changer for widening access for disadvantaged domestic students, who will see that they have a chance of admission to many institutions with lower grades than advertised. [this is part of the UUK fair admissions code anyway]
Finally, the government should require every institution recruiting international students to provide an annual statement to the Office for Students. This should detail plans for the international student body, broken down by domicile and programme. Greater visibility into institutional recruitment is needed to reassure domestic stakeholders that international students are not crowding out domestic ones.

Student numbers and admissions

There has been concern about falling numbers taking up healthcare courses, recently. This story on Research Professional notes the fall in nursing applications.

Research Professional noted that some of the mission groups have written to the Secretaries of State for Education and Health calling for a cross government taskforce. You can read the letter via the University Alliance website here.

The mission groups argue the taskforce would:

bring together representatives from the Department for Education and the Department for Health and Social Care to meet alongside representatives from NHS England, health regulators, local government and higher education providers.
effectively co-ordinate activity to bolster student recruitment, work to find ways of increasing the capacity of clinical placements and medical school places, and develop strategies to ensure the recruitment and retention of staff.
help realise the Long-Term Plan’s ambitious targets for degree apprenticeships, and to tackle the low funding and high regulatory burden associated with delivering them.

Universities UK have issued a report on why students may not go ahead, based on a survey.

The future for student funding under a possible Labour government: the Welsh model?

As we have described before, we know very little about what a potential Labour government would do about HE funding: they want to make it both fairer and more affordable, they are not keen on capping ambition and reducing numbers, but there is no more money. The only thing we do know is that they are interested in what is happening in Wales on post-16 regulation. And it seems likely that they would improve maintenance funding, at least a bit.

So in that context this HEPI blog is interesting. HEPI are doing a tour and holding events this Spring to talk about how funding works across the UK and how it could be changed: I will report the outcomes.

And the Scottish model?

The IfS have published a report on the Scottish budget for higher Education Spending.

…. Unlike in the rest of the UK (where students are charged tuition fees), the Scottish Government meets the whole costs of teaching, and has controlled these costs in recent years by controlling the number of places for Scottish students and freezing per-student resources. Funding per student per year of study has fallen by 19% in real terms since 2013–14 and, as a result, Scottish universities are increasingly reliant on international student fees.
A cut to higher education resource funding … was announced at the Scottish Budget for 2024–25. This is a cash-terms cut of 6.0…. This implies that funding for home students will fall, with the Scottish Funding Council (which allocates funding to universities) trading off a further squeeze on per-student resources with potential cuts to the number of funded places.
Around £600 million is provided in the form of living cost support to students each year, the vast majority in the form of living cost loans (£500 million), alongside non-repayable bursaries of up to £2,000 per year for the poorest students. Living cost support has become less generous over time, with total support for the poorest students declining in real terms by 16% (£1,600 per year) between 2013–14 and 2022–23…..
A £900 cash increase in loan entitlements this academic year, in response to cost of living pressures, was the first real-terms increase in support since at least 2013–14. A much bigger increase of £2,400 per year is planned for next academic year. This delivers the Scottish Government’s commitment to provide a total package of student support ‘the equivalent of the Living Wage’ by 2024–25. The earnings threshold above which Scottish borrowers make student loan repayments is also set to increase in April 2024…. If there was full take-up of living cost support, these changes would increase average lifetime loan repayments in real terms by around £5,000, and increase average loan write-offs by around £3,400 per student.
Importantly, the costs of issuing loans to Scottish students, and of any eventual loan write-offs, are currently met by the UK government. Increases in generosity of support or in repayment terms for Scottish borrowers of the type planned for 2024–25 come at no cost to the Scottish Government’s main budget so long as this funding arrangement continues.
This system costs the Scottish Government around £850 million more per cohort (£28,700 more per student) than the English system would. From this spending, Scottish graduates on average gain £23,800 (largely through lower borrowing and loan repayments), and the UK taxpayer gains £4,900 per student in the form of lower loan write-offs.

Research Professional have the story here.

Freedom of speech

The implementation of the new legislation on freedom of speech continues. A new blog on the OfS website reminds us of where we are and of what is to come.

A reminder that we are currently consulting on our new free complaints scheme that we expect to launch on 1 August 2024. Students, staff and visiting speakers will be able to complain to us about restrictions on free speech at a university, college or relevant students’ union where they claim to have suffered adverse consequences. Under our proposals, if we find the complaint justified, we may make recommendations such as changes to policies or processes or payments to the complainant. Our consultation is open until 10 March 2024.
We have also been developing our proposed approach to the regulation of students’ unions in relation to their new free speech duties. This will be the first time the OfS directly regulates students’ unions and we expect our new role to take effect from 1 August 2024. We’re consulting on our proposals and this consultation is open until 17 March 2024.
In the coming weeks we expect to launch a further freedom of speech consultation. This will cover proposed guidance for universities, colleges and relevant students’ unions on securing free speech within the law and on publishing and maintaining a freedom of speech code of practice. At the same time, we will also consult on proposed revisions to the OfS’s regulatory framework to make reference to our new free speech functions. Finally, we will consult on our proposed approach to the recovery of costs in connection with our regulation in this area.

19 February 2024

Create Something New at Coffee and Konfer – Wednesday 20 March

Industry collaboration, Knowledge Exchange, Knowledge Transfer, Public engagement ballen

Join experts from Konfer for a Faculty-specific session, offering a guided tour of the platform and support to set up your profile or your Research Centre page for powerful research and knowledge exchange connections.

Konfer offers an efficient way to navigate around resources, technology and innovation capabilities that exist in the UK innovation eco-system. Through Konfer, you can discover and engage with experts beyond your typical reach and discuss new ideas and opportunities for projects.

This is an opportunity to meet with the Konfer team, have a guided tour of the platform and its full functionality, enabling you to create and connect to the UK research collaborations with other universities, businesses and other organisations. By the end of your session you will have set up your own profile, with guidance and support from Ranbir and Shivaun from Konfer, and be ready to post or respond to collaboration opportunities.

As well as a Faculty specific session, you can also attend the Konfer Drop-In Surgery in the afternoon.

The Coffee and Konfer event will take place on Wednesday 20 March 2024. The faculty specific sessions will take place from 9am. Rooms to be confirmed.

A networking lunch and light refreshments will be provided.

The Coffee & Konfer Surgery will take place from 2pm. Location to be confirmed.

Schedule

BUBS Workshop – 9:00 – 9:50am

FMC Workshop – 10:00 – 10:50am

HSS Workshop – 11:00 – 11:50am

FST Workshop – 12:00 – 12:50pm

Facilitators – Ranbir Jabanda and Shivaun Meehan – National Centre for Universities and Business/Konfer. Dr. Wendelin Morrison – BU Knowledge Exchange Manager

Networking Lunch – 1:00 – 2:00pm

For Deputy Deans, BEKES, Faculty and RDS Knowledge Exchange and/or Innovation Leads

Coffee & Konfer Surgery – 2:00 – 4:30pm

Aimed at academics from any faculty including those with no experience or some experience of using Konfer.

Drop in and join us for a coffee and support in:

Maximising your use of Konfer
Creating or developing your current Konfer profile
Creating a Research Centre Page as a ‘Window to the World’
Finding Funding or Collaborators on Konfer
Building Konfer into your research culture

Ranbir Jabanda and Shivaugn Meehan – National Centre for Universities and Business/Konfer

Dr. Wendelin Morrison – BU Knowledge Exchange Manager

Book your place here

If you have any questions, please contact: Wendelin Morrison wsmorrison@bournemouth.ac.uk

19 February 2024

Involving people who are homeless or vulnerably housed in research

HEIF, Industry collaboration, Public engagement mhughes

Dear colleagues, are you involved in research which affects people who are homeless?

In the BU PIER (Public Involvement in Education and Research) Partnership, we have been collaborating on a community led project to engage with people who are homeless and vulnerably housed across Dorset on the enablers and barriers to having a voice in research and service development. The project is funded by NHS England through the Research Engagement and Network Development (REND) fund which is awarded to ICS’s (Integrated Care Systems). In Dorset, this is led by Dr Helena Posnett, Consultant in Public Health – Trust lead for Health Inequalities at Dorset Healthcare and is a collaboration between Dorset ICS, BU PIER Partnership, Bournemouth HealthBus and Lantern Trust (based in Weymouth) with PIER leading on the community led research strand. We have been using a community researcher model (engaging people with lived experience) to capture the views and experiences of those in their community.

We are hosting a stakeholder event on Monday 11^th March at the Spire in Poole to share some of this work and to bring people together to co-design more inclusive ways that people can be heard and involved. We have two or three more places for BU colleagues to attend (we are seeking to carefully balance the attendees between people from the homeless and research communities). Having researchers involved would be really valued as we seek to co-design inclusive approaches to public involvement of marginalised and seldom heard groups.

If you are interested (and available on the 11^th March), please get in touch

Mel Hughes

mhughes@bournemouth.ac.uk

Category / Industry collaboration

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

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

New Cyber Security Advisory Highlights Integration of Safety, Security, and Human Factors in Defence Systems

Capturing the Power of Heat: NCEM’s Breakthrough in Clean Energy Storage Gains Global Recognition

Successful 2025 Bid-generating Sandpit designed and facilitated by BU academics Catalin Brylla and Lyle Skains

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

Dorset Community Foundation have launched the latest version of the Hidden Dorset report as a website

Bournemouth University partner with Mima to work on a Secure by Design Project funded by Dstl

Join our introduction to research webinars and workshops for voluntary and community sector organisations

Academic Conferences Engagement: ISBE 2024

Gothic at the Russell Cotes Museum

The Missing Persons Indicator Project: Research Collaboration for Knowledge Exchange

BU Professor has been invited to a series of plenary and invited lectures.

BU is a University Gateway Partner for AHRC-funded StoryArcs Programme

HE policy update 5: 26th February 2024