BU Research Blog

Category / international

27 January 2017

HE policy update w/e 27th January 2017

conferences, innovation, international, Student Engagement, Training jforster

Industrial Strategy Green Paper

The Government launched the Industrial Strategy Green Paper and consultation this week. The paper focuses on improving Britain’s innovation and productivity in key areas alongside upskilling the workforce to become world leading. The government suggest a number of areas of industry specialism that should be supported:

clean energy
robotics
healthcare
space technology
quantum technology
advanced computing and communications

The document frequently references the role of Universities as innovation leaders pushing for commercialisation and greater productive cooperation with business. It states that the ‘neglect of technical education’ should be redressed and insinuates that higher-level technical education will be pushed towards the new Institutes of Technology (£170 government investment announced – see below). There is an emphasis on rebalancing the difference in Britain’s economic geography through infrastructure investment. In addition, it criticises how UK research funding is currently heavily invested in the ‘golden triangle’ (Oxford, Cambridge, London) and calls to build on research strengths in businesses as well as other universities. The strategy has a strong focus on STEM and Wonkhe have reported that The British Academy are urging the government not to forget investment in social sciences and humanities teaching and research, which they argue are vital to the continued development of the UK’s services sectors.

The consultation ends in April, we’ll be in touch shortly about how you can contribute to a BU response.

While the strategy has only just been launched it was preceded by the announcement of the new Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund (Nov 2016) and consultative workshops. The workshops aimed to ensure that the challenges identified match UK business capability and are based on the best available evidence for scientific and commercial success on the global stage. The challenges mirror the industry specialisms proposed in the green paper but also mention the creative industries and integrated cities. The workshops conclude this week, implementation plans are expected to follow from the government and the first challenge is expected to be announced in March.

In an interesting article in The Conversation Graham Galbraith, VC at Portsmouth, urges Universities to shun new institutions for innovation and instead form a network of hubs building on relationships with employers, skills organisations and FE colleges. Furthermore he resists the government’s distinction between academic and technical education, seeing the productivity answer through flexible routes to university study and developing skills courses that employers need in accessible ways. He believes the university sector would deliver this far more quickly than new Institutes of Technology. Galbraith also criticises REF 2021: “The government wants the UK to be better at commercialising its world-class, basic research. But the… require[ment]…to include all academic staff…will have the effect of making universities re-balance their staff’s priorities so that there is more focus only on peer-reviewed research and less on outward-facing activities like business collaborations.”

Brexit –The Supreme Court has ruled that Parliament must vote to trigger Article 50 which begins the Brexit process. The government timescale is to trigger Article 50 by end of March and to this end they have introduced a European Withdrawal Bill (EWB). The European Withdrawal Bill gives the PM the power to notify the European Council of the UK’s intention to withdrawn from the EU through the required Act of Parliament. It is being fast tracked through Parliament. Parliamentary time is scheduled for 31 Jan, 1 Feb, 6-8 Feb. The House of Commons Education Select Committee continues visits to Universities (Oxford, UCL) to examine impact of Brexit on HE. At the UCL visit (Wednesday) Michael Arthur (Provost) broke the UCAS data embargo revealing a 7% drop in EU applicants in the current cycle. The Guardian leads with ‘first decrease after almost a decade of unbroken growth blamed on… Brexit’. Committee Chair, Neil Carmichael is reported on Twitter as asking whether HE needs a sector-specific Brexit deal – panel response ‘yes absolutely!’

Higher Education and Research Bill (HERB) – The Lords continue to scrutinise the HERB carefully with the long list of amendments. The list has stopped growing quite so quickly but new amendments proposed this week include one to set up a new UKRI visa department that will sponsor academics (507ZA). So far apart form the first one, no amendments other than government amendments have been passed, but the level of debate and the length of the list suggests that there may have to be some concessions by the government. James Younger, the government lead on the Bill in the Lords, wrote to Peers on 25^th January about the bill.

Given the timing of the Brexit discussions, Wonkhe speculate that to achieve the timescales for the Bill and to clear sufficient parliamentary time for the European Withdrawal Bill to be passed the government may make concessions on HERB. Key discussions this week:

NSS statistically unfit for TEF – Lord Lipsey discussed the statistical inadequacies of NSS and the implication for this as a TEF metric. “The NSS in the TEF is using—or rather, abusing—statistics for a purpose for which the NSS was never designed.” Lipsey acknowledged that the Government have gently retreated from the emphasis on NSS scores – in their latest instructions to assessors they stated: “assessors should be careful not to overweight information coming from the NSS“. This was reinforced by Chris Husbands, Chair of TEF, who informed a meeting at the House of Commons this week that his team would “not be overweighting the NSS” when awarding ratings this year. The proposed amendment was withdrawn after Viscount Younger: stressed the NSS was not the primary source of information for the TEF and that the framework was about much more than metrics. “Providers submit additional evidence alongside their metrics, and this evidence will be given significant weight by the panel”. HE continued: “we cannot ignore the only credible, widely used metrics that captures students’ views”.
There were also debates about the gold/silver/bronze ratings and the government provided reassurance that Bronze was “above a high quality baseline”. This contradicts statements made by some in DfE before the final specification was agreed about Bronze institutions “needing improvement”. The panel have praised positive communication on this subject.
Validation – The government have issued a factsheet for the Lords on Validation which provides explanation from the perspective of an alternative provider seeking to enter a validation arrangement. It describes Clause 46 of HERB, which gives the Office for Students (OfS) power to commission authorised HE providers to provide validation if other providers decline. It states such authorised providers are free to choose whether they wish offer this service, however once an arrangement is in place the OfS could require them to validate award) delivered by other registered HE providers. The commissioned arrangement would be made public. The controversial Clause 47 which appoints OfS as the validator of last resort was also discussed. The controversy arises as OfS isn’t an academic institution and doesn’t hold Degree Awarding Powers. The OfS will advise the Secretary of State (SoS) if intervention is required (likely through an evidence based report and stakeholder consultation) and the SoS would then authorise the intervention through regulation which is subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
Contract Cheating – The amendment proposed by Lord Storey on contract cheating was withdrawn following Government reassurance. Lord Storey provided a passionate discourse including detailed sector information and cheating statistics. Baroness Goldie confirmed that the Government were addressing cheating referencing the (Aug 2016 published) QAA investigation and Jo Johnson’s commitment to close working to progress the recommendations. She revealed that the Minster would shortly announce a new initiative to tackle cheating in conjunction with QAA, Universities UK, NUS and HEFCE.

TEF

The 15 page written submissions for year 2 of the TEF were finalised and submitted this week, and this was the final opportunity for institutions to opt out of the TEF. Although there may have been others who have not published their positions, most Scottish Universities have opted out, as well as the Open University. Given the difference in the Scottish funding system they have less to gain from the TEF – but the 4 who have opted in have noted international reputation as a crucial factor. The OU explain their non-participation is due to the poor fit of the metrics with their social mobility demographic.

And the future of the TEF? According to Research Professional, a German academic has criticised the way that teaching excellence funding is being used in Germany.

“Whereas lower-ranked universities have tended to spread their funding from the programme thinly across faculties and courses, higher-ranked institutions have had the luxury of being able to focus on priority areas, the analysis found.

“You are starting to see emerging differences between disciplines taught at different universities,” Bloch told Times Higher Education on 17 January. For the first time, elite universities are starting to build up strong institutional identities when it comes to teaching, in an effort to get further ahead.

“It will be a long time before we reach the stratification that you see in the American system [around teaching], but we are seeing a difference for the first time in how resources in teaching are distributed,” he said.

UCAS 2016 entrants report – this data includes applications, offers and placed rates by sex, area background (LPN-polar 3), and ethnicity. BU’s report can be selected from the drop down menu towards the end of the webpage. The Guardian reports on the lower offer rates to black applicants. Wonkhe covers the HEIs that have a significant upward or downward trend in acceptances

Research Impact training: Parliament are running a Research, Impact and the UK Parliament event in Bristol on Wednesday 1 March. It covers the basics of the Parliamentary process and how academics can engage with parliament through their knowledge and research to inform scrutiny and legislation, including the impact of influencing policy to support REF submissions.

20 January 2017

HE policy update w/e 20th January 2017

international, Research Ethics, Research Integritiy, Student Engagement jforster

Higher Education and Research Bill – the Bill continues its committee stage in the Lords, with long and lively debates. Only government amendments have been approved so far, apart from last week’s amendment to clause 1. The list of amendments has continued to grow in the meantime, there is a genuine risk that they may not get through it all and run out of time. The next sessions are 23^rd, 25^th and 30^th January. Some interesting new proposed amendments over the last week:

ensuring name and gender blind assessment on application and on marking for all student assessments at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels – Lord Desai
power for the Office for Students (OfS) to initiate investigations (including a student perspective) into changes to the admissions system and the system of degree classification – Lord Lucas
preventing changes to the repayment of loans – Lord Watson
banning cheating services (see Contract Cheating below) – Lord Storey
amending the ‘balanced funding principle’ to ‘long-term, stable block grant’ to facilitate strategic research development investment – Lord Stevenson
reserving funding for Research England whenever new grants are awarded to UKRI – Lord Liddle

Research Professional cover the Minister’s uncompromising stance towards amendments. They suggest the Government is listening and may yet propose amendments to address some of the issues raised by the Lords, but points out that there is a risk of further symbolic resistance as more Lords ‘dig their heels in’.

Immigration

in response to comments in the HERB debates in the Lords, when concerns were raised about using the TEF to limit student visas, Lord Younger informed the House of Lords during the HE bill committee stage that the government has “no plans to cap the number of genuine students who can come to the UK to study, nor to limit an institution’s ability to recruit genuine international students based on its teaching excellence framework rating or any other basis. This applies to all institutions, not just to members of the Russell group.”
The Home Affairs Committee invited written submissions for an immigration inquiry in December with a deadline of 20 January, however, it has been confirmed submission will be accepted after the deadline. BU is not proposing to respond to this as we already provided evidence on staff and student mobility after Brexit to the Education Committee, which is continuing its hearings. The next one is on 25^th January at UCL.

Research integrity select committee – A Commons Science and Technology Committee has launched an inquiry into research integrity. The inquiry is accompanied by the recently published POSTnote: Integrity in Research which discusses the questionable practices and considers whether a regulatory body for UK research would be beneficial. The original committee investigation into peer review from 2010/11 is here which led UUK to set up concordat to support research integrity. A call for written evidence to the Committee has been published. We will be working with RKEO to consider whether BU should submit evidence, please contact policy@bournemouth.ac.uk if you would like to be involved. Issues raised in include:

The extent of the research integrity problem;
Causes and drivers of recent trends;
The effectiveness of controls/regulation (formal and informal), and what further measures if any are needed;
What matters should be for the research/academic community to deal with, and which for Government.

Contract cheating – WonkHE reported on the difficulties in preventing cheating with the rise in companies offering one-off essays and dissertations. The BBC (May 2016) ran an article about a commercial essay writer motivated by revenge for believed racial discrimination and noted five methods universities can undertake to tackle plagiarism. Lord Storey is leading the campaign for a proposed amendment within the HE and Research Bill which aims to make providing or advertising cheating services an offence, focussing on ‘unfair disadvantage’. The Australian Government currently have a national project reporting in 2018 that aims to stamp out ‘contract cheating’. Finally a THE article explains ta new law may only have a deterrent effect; countries with contract cheating laws do not in practice have many successful prosecutions.

Digital skills crisis – The Government have published their response to the Science and Technology Select Committee’s special report on the digital skills crisis within industry and teaching capacity within schools – it lists a number of areas that need focus: cyber-security, big data, the Internet of Things, mobile technology and e-commerce. There is a focus on degree apprenticeships, immigration and the Shadbolt and Wakeham Reviews of relevant degree provision.

Fees: the Government published a Statutory Instrument that allows institutions to increase tuition fees by inflation, this came into effect on 6 January 2017. This enables the first year of the TEF related fee increases – all institutions which have been designated as meeting expectations in year 1 of the TEF can now increase fees by inflation in September 2017. Some institutions have announced their intention to apply this to all students – including existing students – but BU will only change fees for new students. You can read more about the process and background to this on the intranet. The change went through as a formality – there is already legislation in place – but there are still amendments to be debated in the Higher Education and Research Bill seeking to break this link.

PM’s Brexit speech: If you missed this, the main points of the PM’s speech this week are below. Universities and research received a high number of positive mentions, which is encouraging:

Leaving the single market and the customs union
Not using any other existing model
But would like a deal on customs tariffs and access to the single market
MPs and peers will get a vote on final deal
Not making huge contributions to the EU but may pay something to have access to the single market
EU citizens welcome here but no guarantee – needs to be reciprocal
Warm words about universities – hope for deal on participation in science and research

Industrial strategy – A Green Paper is expected around 23 January on the Government’s industrial strategy. Meanwhile Labour’s Industrial Strategy Consultation closes on 16 February.

New DLHE – Dan Cook writes for WonkHE on the new DLHE describing a centralised model aiming to achieve high response rates, allow for continuation of post-graduation support to alumni from HEIs, and exploring a dashboard so institutions have near-real time interaction with their data.

Widening Participation and Outreach–

HEFCE have published a resource pool covering a wide range of outreach initiatives all of which were funded by the National Networks for Collaborative Outreach.
Maddalaine Ansell has written about the schools policy for Wonkhe. We are waiting for the government response to the recent schools consultation -read more here.

HESA 2015/16 staff data was released on 19^th January.

49% (98,620) of academic staff are teaching and research
26% (52,590) teaching only
24% (48,645) research only

And:

66% of academic staff were on permanent contract.
4% of academic staff were known to have a disability
15% of academic staff were BME (not knowns excluded)

Nationality of academic staff:

70% UK (139,910)
17% (33,735) EU (non-UK)
12% (24,535) non-EU (presumably international)

(Atypical contracts and not knowns account for the percentages not totalling 100%)

17 January 2017

It’s a girl, and then there is silence…..

international, Knowledge Transfer, Public engagement, Training Edwin van Teijlingen

The second day of THET training showed again that gender is a critical issue in Nawalparasi, southern Nepal. We asked the ANMs about things they had changed in their own practice. Several ANMs said that they had changed the way they worked. Now they see that having a baby girl can be a significant mental health issue as it causes the women a lot of stress. Interestingly, it also caused them as health workers considerable stress The ANMs said that they had started to counsel families of girl children. They say they emphasise that it is okay to have girls.

This ties in with feedback comments from yesterday in a different group of trainees. In Sunday’s training, one ANM answered when asked about stress at work, that she finds it stressful that a room falls silent when a baby girl is born. She commented that this happens when the family is obviously hoping for a boy. She added that at the very moment a baby girl is born, the family immediately falls silent. She said that this is a great source of stress to her as a health worker.

Coincidently next door to the training venue in Nawalparasi a Hindu wedding has been taking place today. This colourful spectacle represents different roles and expectations of men and women, the bride and the groom, but also the other guests here in Nepal. Weddings everywhere are ceremonies that reflect society. Seeing the wedding from close by and listening to the ANMs over these last two days, we reflected at the end of today that these ANMs are acting bravely in raising such a culturally sensitive issue in their practice, in this largely patriarchal rural society.

Flora Douglas & Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH

15 January 2017

BU Visiting Fellow Dr. Flora Douglas speaking as THET volunteer in Nepal

international, Knowledge Exchange, Training Edwin van Teijlingen

Today we had our first training session of the final THET mental health in maternity care project. UK volunteer Dr. Flora Douglas spoke about key aspects of health promotion and focused particularly on notions of community-based approaches. Flora is based at the University of Aberdeen and she is also a Visiting Fellow in the Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health (CMMPH). This was her first visit to Nepal. She was inspired to volunteer as she had been a MSc supervisor some years ago on a project that related to the Green Tara Nepal health promotion intervention. Bournemouth University has been working with Green Tara Trust, a Buddhist charity based in London for many years.

Yesterday Flora had visited one of the 20 birthing centres in Nawalparasi, the district where the THET training takes place. Flora was very humbled by the experiences of the community-based maternity care workers in the light of many constrains. She said: “I have seen pictures of such birthing centres and read about them in the literature, but it is not until you see them first hand that you realise how staff have to work with such limited resources.

The attendees, who are nearly ANMs (auxiliary nurse midwives) were highly enthusiastic and very keen to discuss and learn. They shared some very personal and touching stories about their practice. Flora added: “I am very struck by their understanding of the importance of the social and cultural determinants of both psychical and mental health.” Many found they had learnt something in previous THET sessions in 2016 about communication with women and counselling family members about mental health, and perhaps most importantly, listening more to women. Last, but not least, Flora commented on the dedication of the participants: “At least two of the participants told me they travelled ten hours to get here for our one-day workshop. This really shocked me, particularly having seen the quality of the roads and public transport!”

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH

15 January 2017

Training preparation in rural Nepal

international Edwin van Teijlingen

Yesterday we come down from Kathmandu, the capital of Nepal, to our THET training area in Nawalparasi. Today we are starting our sixth and last training session on the Mental health training for community-based maternity care providers. Interesting we are starting training on a Sunday as Nepal is largely a Hindu country and most workers have only a one-day weekend (which is the Saturday). This BU-led project is a collaboration between the Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health (CMMPH), Tribhuvan University (Nepal’s oldest university) and Liverpool John Moores University (LJMU). The project receives funding from DFID, and is managed through THET and supported locally in Nepal by a charity Green Tara Nepal.

The landscape in the photo gives an idea of how rural this part of Nepal is. Nawalparasi is situated in the south of Nepal the India border. It is also largely very flat, not like the Nepal most people envisage namely that of the Himalayans and of Mount Everest. The flatness makes a Dutchman feel at home though.

The project depends on volunteers who work in the health sector in the UK to come out and spend their time and energy preparing and delivering the training. Our project also could not work without the logistical support from Green Tara Nepal and our academic colleagues at Tribhuvan University. The last photo shows one of the UK volunteers Dr. Flora Douglas with the translator Shiwani Manandhar on the way to the training venue.

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen (from Nepal)

CMMPH

12 January 2017

HE policy update for the w/e 13th January 2017

Business Engagement, international, Student Engagement jforster

HE and Research Bill – the Bill was debated in the House of Lords on Monday and Wednesday with a lively debate on both days. Monday’s was marginally more exciting because the House voted on one amendment (248 to 221) and the government was defeated, but this is likely to turn out to have been more symbolic than substantive. Read the Wonkhe perspective here and some other coverage from the Times Higher here.

The amendment that was passed was the first amendment on the list and related to the function of universities and included the statement that “universities are autonomous institutions and must uphold the principles of academic freedom and freedom of speech” and another of other statements about the purpose of universities – in practice this will not be adopted as drafted as it is hard to see how it would work as part of legislation – but it set the tone of the debates and showed that – if pushed – the Lords can and will muster a majority to defeat the government – and may do so again.

So far, apart from the first amendment, only government amendments have been agreed, with the rest withdrawn or not moved – including amendments on part time and flexible study, the role of the Director for Fair Access, and the relationship between the OfS and UKRI – and the name of the OfS. The Government have said that they will reflect on the debate and the comments made, so there may be more Government amendments forthcoming. Many members of the House of Lords have reserved their position on the points made which will arise again on later amendments. The latest “marshalled list” of amendments is here with a supplementary list here.

Blog from Jo Johnson on Conservative Home on 9^th January 2016 on autonomy and the purpose of the bill
Wonkhe article on academic freedom ahead of the Lords debates
Andrea Coscelli (Acting Chief Executive) of the Competition and Markets Authority has blogged on why competition is good for universities and their perspective on the Bill
Lord Stevenson, author of many of the proposed amendments for Labour, in the Times Higher on the problems in the Bill
Lord Knight has also blogged for the Times Higher on the Bill – his interesting last comments is “Finally, the chatter in the voting lobbies was one that questioned the need for the bill. Many are trying to understand exactly what problem this legislation is trying to fix, or whether it is just an ideological move to advantage the private sector.”
Jo Johnson has written in the Telegraph and blogged on the amendment that was passed: “We have seen this week how passionately expert members of the House of Lords feel about institutional autonomy and academic freedom – and, on this point, we wholly agree. ….The Government is listening carefully to powerful arguments made during Committee Stage and understands the passions that these important questions arouse. We must avoid, however, hasty attempts to incorporate into primary legislation unprecedented declaratory statements about the nature and purpose of universities. While it had the best of intentions, the new clause promoted on Monday would inadvertently hem them in and stifle innovation.”
He suggests that the sector is just being resistant to change: “As history tells us, every period of university expansion in this country has met with opposition. And the arguments against new entrants put forward today echo those aired more than a century ago when UCL – now a pillar of academic excellence – was dismissed as ‘a Cockney university’. Similar opposition befell the civic colleges, Manchester and Birmingham among them, when they elected to transform themselves into red brick universities before the Great War, and could be heard again during the ‘plate-glass’ expansion of the 1960s. The same arguments were also made in opposition to the 1992 reforms that allowed the Polytechnics to convert into a wave of new universities, enabling them to play their part in ensuring higher education was never again rationed for the benefit of the socially privileged.
We must be careful to distinguish between legitimate and shared concerns that the Bill should protect cherished institutional autonomy from self-serving arguments cloaked in the garb of principle. As the Bill re-enters Lords Committee stage today, bear this in mind: those who would dig their heels in now ignore a central truth about our higher education system – our universities did not get where they are by accepting the status quo.”
There is a response from Andrew McGettigan here.

Meanwhile, the Cabinet Office has advertised for board members for UKRI.

Brexit, immigration and the impact on staff and students There is an interesting read from HEPI (with Kaplan) this morning, balanced by the stories about the Education Select committee hearing yesterday – (thanks to Wonkhe):

Hard Brexit a ‘disaster’ for universities warn vice-chancellors – The Independent
University leaders and academics warn hard Brexit could be disaster – The Guardian
Hard Brexit Would Be The ‘Biggest Disaster In Years’ For Universities, Say Leading Academics – Huffington Post
Hard Brexit ‘may spark disaster’ for universities, MPs told – Sky News
Oxford academics warning of Brexit ‘disaster’ – BBC

Nick Hillman has written about the HEPI report in the Guardian. Although the conclusion is that the impact may not be the disaster that has been predicted (or at least not for all institutions) it comes with a big warning about the cumulative impact of changes to international student visas, which are still to be announced. “Of course the number of EU citizens who come to UK universities will probably fall as a result of Brexit. In part, this is because they are likely to lose access to tuition fee loans and to face full international fees, which are much higher than the UK fees they have been paying. Any fall is regrettable and, sadly, the latest UCAS figures suggest it has already begun. But working out how big the drop-off will be is hard partly because it depends on the type, location and mix of students at each university. Our assessment of Brexit’s impact takes such factors into account and finds the effect on student numbers and university incomes could be less dramatic than expected.
There are almost three times as many foreign students in the UK from outside the EU as from within it. This is because, until recently, EU undergraduate students came within the student number controls imposed on universities. So there was limited incentive to recruit them. Our analysis shows that, overall, their numbers could fall by more than half – that is by over 31,000 new students each year. But that is still only about 3% of all first-year undergraduate and postgraduate enrolments. Moreover, because of the higher fees, our modelling suggests that, despite receiving 31,000 fewer new EU students, universities will only lose £40m a year in the first year. That is just 0.1% of the total income of publicly-funded higher education institutions across the UK. Some institutions, such as Oxford and Cambridge, will actually see their fee income rise even as their EU students fall. This is because their full international fees are so high.”

In a separate story about staff immigration (Sky News but also widely reported – see Reuters) a Home Office Minster suggested that the £1000 per year per employee levy that applies to overseas workers might apply to EU workers post-Brexit and the PM has said this is not under consideration. Business reacted strongly to this (International Business Times). The levy will apply to employers of skilled international staff from April.

The House of Lords discussed the EU worker’s right to remain yesterday but with no new news – the rather strange dance continues on who will concede first that they do not intend to throw out each other’s citizens post-Brexit: “My Lords, the Government have been absolutely clear that we will seek to reach an agreement on this issue at an early stage of negotiations with the EU. I totally dispute the notion of a trade-off, because the EU’s refusal to guarantee the status of UK nationals elsewhere in the EU prior to negotiations shows that the Government have been absolutely right not to give away the guarantee of status for EU citizens in the UK. As the Prime Minister has said, that would have left UK citizens high and dry.”

The amendments to the HE Bill on international students were not accepted in the House of Lords yesterday.

Student enrolments data – The HESA UK HE 2015/16 enrolments and qualifications statistical first release (published 12 Jan) highlighted that 2015/16 UG enrolments were at their highest since the 2011/12 peak. In contrast, there was a notable decline in foundation degree enrolments (15%) and part time provision (overall 5%) within the sector. Most interesting are the changes in volume and geography of EU domiciled students between 2011/12 and 2015/16. Overall there is a 4% decline with regional variability between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. There was a 1% decrease in international students from 2011/12 to 2015/16, contrasting the disproportionate growth from China (+12,500 students). Furthermore, 3% (207,522) fewer study visas were granted.

Changes to HE fee policies abroad – while international student numbers in the UK are dropping, there are changes afoot in competitor countries according to the BBC:

Germany and the Philippines are scrapping tuition fees in state universities
Finland intends to charge overseas and non-EU students from this autumn
Scotland retains free tuition
meanwhile Governor Cuomo is trying to push through free tuition for middle-class families in the state of New York. However, as it only applies to state universities this is perhaps a double edged sword, potentially pushing WP students away from accessing the most prestigious institutions.

There are also more resources available for home students to consider the cost of studying abroad – a Telegraph article notes the UK is the sixth most expensive place in the world to study and links to the FairFX Study Abroad Cost Calculator for students willing to relocate to obtain a cheaper degree.

Adult Students – part-time and flexible study was debated at length in the House of Lords but the amendments so far have not been passed, and John Wrathmell and Simon Hughes of the Open University have blogged for HEPI on this issue, arguing that Personal Learning Accounts are an important way to support learning and meet our national skills needs.

Predatory conferences – not really a policy issue but an important one – an article by James McCrosbie for the Times Higher which is worth a read.

New DLHE – we noted last week that a response and second stage consultation on the DLHE consultation is due soon – at a conference last week HESA indicated, amongst other things that a move to a centralised system – so away from universities administering DLHE themselves – was likely. “The responses received to this were mixed, with marginally more respondents in favour of moving to a central system, and many respondents making detailed points in support of their position.” BU raised concerns about this because it could reduce response rates and also remove a valuable contact between universities and graduates. We look forward to the consultation, which HESA has confirmed is due in early February.

Managing intellectual property transfer – during the 11 January hearing of the Science and Technology committee on managing intellectual property transfer Jo Johnson stated that: “…work on the government’s Industrial Strategy would emerge from extensive consultation which had already taken place. In the coming weeks the government would be launching a discussion period that would begin a further period of consultation before publication of a white paper.”
He also spoke of the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, a ‘sizable financial commitment’ that aims to encourage greater interaction between universities and business communities. The fund will focus on priority technologies that are “significant in scale” and on areas “where the UK had a comparative advantage”; commercialisation of research was stated as a big part of the fund. Johnson stated the Treasury would be reviewing the research and development tax environment to ensure it was competitive (in response to a committee discussion about the lack of business investment in research and development).

12 January 2017

Wanted! External Bid Writers

Funding opportunities, Grants Academy, international, Knowledge Exchange, REF Subjects, Training Emily Cieciura

As part of the Research and Knowledge Exchange Development Framework, Bournemouth University is expanding its pool of external bid writing expertise, through a tendering process.

If you have worked with a good bid writer or, as an external subscriber to this blog, you have written successful research funding applications, please contactus in the Research & Knowledge Exchange Office

We are particularly interested in those who can provide short courses, one-to-one support, bid writing retreats, application review or a range of these and related activities.

Examples of key funders include:

British Academy
European Commission funds including Horizon 2020
Innovate UK
Leverhulme Trust
National Institutes of Health and other US Federal funders
Research Councils
Royal Society
Wellcome Trust
etc.

We look forward to hearing from you.

11 January 2017

FHSS Dr. Pramod Regmi speaking in India

conferences, international, PG research, student research Edwin van Teijlingen

Two BU papers and a poster at the International Conference on Transforming Lives & Healthcare through Technology

On 9^th January 2017, I presented a paper entitled ‘Qualitative research in health technology assessment’ in a scientific session at the International Conference on Transforming Lives and Health Care through Technology (TLHTicon 2017), Wardha, India. This paper was prepared jointly with by Prof Edwin van Teijlingen and BU’s Visiting Prof Padam Simkhada (Liverpool John Moores University). At the same conference Mrs. Preeti Mahato’s poster on ‘Factors affecting health facility delivery in rural Nawalparasi, Nepal’ was also displayed. Preeti is a PhD student in FHSS. In another scientific session, BU visiting faculty Prof Padam Simkhada presented a paper around global public health and health technology assessment. Prof Edwin van Teijlingen and Dr Pramod Regmi co-authored this presentation.

The conference, which attracted more than 180 oral scientific papers and 97 posters, was organized jointly by Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences, DU, Datta Meghe Institute of Engineering, Technology & Research and Yeshwantrao Chavan College of Engineering in association with the Global Consortium for Public Health Research. The Global Consortium for Public Health Research was recently formed [1]. Prof Edwin van Teijlingen, Dr Pramod Regmi, both from HSS, BU are part of it among the 14 academics/researchers from UK, India, Bangladesh, Nepal and few other Low and Middle-Income Countries. Some of them are BU visiting faculty too. Unfortunately, Prof Edwin van Teijlingen could not get a visa in time for India, so he recorded a good-luck message. This pre-recorded message was played to the conference goers.

I found the scientific sessions were a nice blend of scientific talks, plenary sessions, symposia and scientific track sessions. Overall, this conference provided a much-needed platform for academicians, researchers, practitioners and professionals from medical, engineering and industry to disseminate their innovations in interdisciplinary field of health sciences through technology. The conference show-cased innovations in health-care through technology, which shall be useful in transforming lives of people in Low and Middle Income Countries. In these two days; I have been able to all refreshed with thought-provoking & informative talks rendered by experienced researchers around technology in health care.

Dr Pramod Regmi, Post Doc Research Fellow, HSS

Reference:

Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E., Regmi, P.R. et al., 2016. Need and scope of global partnership on public health research. Journal of Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences University, 11 (2), 202-204.

10 January 2017

Writing academic papers: Workshop in Nepal

international, Knowledge Exchange, open access, Public engagement, Publishing, Training, writing Edwin van Teijlingen

Bournemouth University has been working on a small research project with Pourakhi, a voluntary organisation which helps female migrant workers returning to Nepal, for over a year. Pourakhi advocates for the rights of women migrant workers. Last week they invited me to present a workshop session on Academic Writing & Publishing, this morning I run such workshop. The content of the workshop is based on years of experience of running similar workshops at Bournemouth University, many Higher Education colleges across Nepal and a COST-funded workshop in Malta a few years ago. The eight people (staff and volunteers) who attended the workshop were generally inquisitive and keen to get their work into print. Most of the paper we have written about aspects of academic writing and the publishing process have been published in Open Access journals. [1-8] Therefore, we can easily give workshop attendees copies and/or give them the links to the online version on the web.

Prof Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH

References:

Hundley V, van Teijlingen E, Simkhada P (2013) Academic authorship: who, why and in what order? Health Renaissance 11 (2):98-101 www.healthrenaissance.org.np/uploads/Download/vol-11-2/Page_99_101_Editorial.pdf
Pitchforth E, Porter M, Teijlingen van E, et al. (2005) Writing up & presenting qualitative research in family planning & reproductive health care, J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 31(2): 132-135.
Simkhada P, van Teijlingen E, Hundley V. (2013) Writing an academic paper for publication, Health Renaissance 11 (1):1-5. www.healthrenaissance.org.np/uploads/Pp_1_5_Guest_Editorial.pdf
van Teijlingen, E., Ireland, J., Hundley, V., Simkhada, P., Sathian, B. (2014) Finding the right title for your article: Advice for academic authors, Nepal J Epidemiol 4(1): 344-347.
van Teijlingen, E., Hundley, V., Bick, D. (2014) Who should be an author on your academic paper? Midwifery 30: 385-386.
van Teijlingen, E, Simkhada PP, Rizyal A (2012) Submitting a paper to an academic peer-reviewed journal, where to start? (Guest Editorial) Health Renaissance 10 (1): 1-4.
van Teijlingen, E, Simkhada. PP, Simkhada, B, Ireland J. (2012) The long & winding road to publication, Nepal J Epidemiol 2(4): 213-215 http://nepjol.info/index.php/NJE/article/view/7093/6388
Hall, J., Hundley, V., van Teijlingen, E. (2015) The journal editor: friend or foe? Women & Birth 28(2): e26-e29.

9 January 2017

More media coverage in Nepal

conferences, international, Public engagement Edwin van Teijlingen

Following our health promotion dissemination meeting in Kathmandu last week, we had considerable national media coverage in Nepal. Since I wrote about of this media coverage on the BU Research Blog we have been informed about some further press coverage.

Apparently we appeared on Mountain Television, but I haven’t see the programme myself yet. On January 4th we had a very short piece in The Himalayan Times , a piece which incidentally also failed to mentioned Bournemouth University. Over the weekend we had a little write up in a magazine called New Spotlight (see photo).I have also included the original colour photo as the magazine’s copy looks unclear.

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH

7 January 2017

Research collaboration meeting with Pourakhi in Kathmandu

international, Publishing Edwin van Teijlingen

Yesterday we meet in Kathmandu with colleagues working for Pourakhi. Pourakhi is a charity, a non-governmental organisation (NGO), that helps to advocate for the rights of women who returned to Nepal after migrating for employment. The name Pourakhi, which means self-reliant in Nepali, represents the idea that the organisation is largely run and supported by Nepali women who had migrated abroad for employment.

Globalization and trade liberation have opened up opportunities in the international labour market for women in Nepal. Lack of job opportunity in Nepal and poverty have put a growing demand on women to economically support their family. This means many Nepali women are leaving the country to work abroad. In doing so they contribute to the economic prosperity of their families and also in the poverty alleviation of their country through remittances. However, working abroad comes at a cost, as it is not always easy, especially for women.

The Faculty of Health & Social Sciences at Bournemouth University (Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen) and Liverpool John Moores University (Prof. Padam Simkhada, who is also Visiting Faculty at FHSS) have been working with Pourakhi over the past years and half. The main aim of this collaboration is to set up a proper database of women who return to Nepal, based on paper records collected by Pourakhi and use this data to publish academic papers and reports on the issue. The first academic paper based on data collected up to 2014 has already been submitted.

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH

6 January 2017

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

Fusion, innovation, international, Public engagement, Training jforster

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

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

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

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

Amendments

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

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

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

In terms of changes to the detail of the Bill itself

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 January 2017

Media coverage in Nepal

international, Knowledge Transfer, PG research, Public engagement, student research Edwin van Teijlingen

Yesterday’s health promotion dissemination meeting in Kathmandu has been widely reported in the national media in Nepal. Some of the national media focused largely (but not solely) on the words of the Minister of Health Mr Thapa, whilst the television news reports included the organisers and presenters at the event. The Green Tara Nepal Health Promotion Dissemination conference in Kathmandu was supported by the Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health at BU and Liverpool John Moores University (LJMU) and Green Tara Trust UK (a Buddhist charity based in London). BU has been working with Green Tara Nepal for the past eight years on a number of maternal health promotion projects in rural Nepal. Overall the media in Nepal had difficulty understanding the notion of ‘health promotion’, therefore many journalists focused on health services as this was mentioned by the Minister of Health.

The event was also attended by BU Visiting Faculty Prof. Padam Simkhada (based at LJMU), CMMPH PhD student Preeti Mahato and FHSS Post-Doc. Dr. Pramod Regmi.

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH

3 January 2017

Health Promotion feedback meeting in Kathmandu

conferences, international, Public engagement Edwin van Teijlingen

Today the charity Green Tara Nepal (GTN) in collaboration with two UK universities, BU and Liverpool John Moores University (LJMU) presented the findings of its long-term maternal project plus a review of health promotion in (a) government policies and strategies and (b) the curricula of university-based health courses in Nepal. The event in Hotel Yellow Pagoda was attended by the Nepal’s Minister of Health Mr. Gagan Kumar Thapa. We presented some of the key research findings of the GTN maternity project which have shown that interventions based on health promotion principles using women’s groups can be effective in the community.

Bournemouth University was represented by Dr. Pramod Regmi (FHSS), Mrs. Preeti Mahato, PhD student in the Centre for Midwifery, Maternal and Perinatal Health (CMMPH) and Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen. One of the strengths of Green Tara’s approach is its collaboration with UK universities for its research. Several excellent MSc and PhD students have been, and some, such as CMMPH’s PhD students Sheetal Sharma and Preeti Mataho, still are, contributing to the health promotion evidence base.

The workshop was attended by a range of directors of NGOs (Non-Governmental Organisations), INGOs (International Non-Governmental Organisations), academics, the Government of Nepal, and many other stakeholders including the media. The GTN Chair Krishna Lamsal commented: “This dissemination workshop follows on from the First National Health Promotion Conference in Nepal in which Bournemouth University was also a joint organiser. The 2003 conference brought together nearly 300 people for the first time to discuss key issues in health promotion.”

1 January 2017

New editorial co-authored by CMMPH Dr. Catherine Angell

Centre for Excellence in Learning, Fusion, international, Knowledge Exchange, open access, Publishing, Training, writing Edwin van Teijlingen

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

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

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH

Reference:

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

31 December 2016

Two FHSS conference presentations in Nepal

international, Public engagement, Publishing Edwin van Teijlingen

Yesterday Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen from BU’s Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health (CMMPH) spoke at the 9th Conference and Seminar on Adolescent’s Health Promotion in Kathmandu. This event was organised by the Health Education Association of Nepal (HEAN). The first keynote speech ‘Adolescent’s Health Promotion: Global Perspectives‘ was presented by BU Visiting Faculty Prof. Padam Simkhada (based at Liverpool John Moores University) on behalf of his BU co-authors Dr. Pramod Regmi and Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen. The second keynote speech ‘Global Health Promotion Approach‘ was presented jointly by Prof. van Teijlingen and Green Tara Nepal country director Mr. Ram Chandra Silwal on behalf of their collaborators Prof. Simkhada and Green Tara Trust, UK (Dr. Jane Stephens and Ms. Colette Fanning).

Both presentations were well received and generated considerable discussion amongst an audience of health educationalists, public health teachers and health promotion experts. Several of the active members of HEAN and conference organisers are collaborators with BU on our THET project on training community-based maternity care providers in rural Nawalparasi, southern Nepal.

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH

30 December 2016

Congratulations to Dr. Sarah Collard on new publication

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

Today saw the publication of a new methods paper by Dr. Sarah Collard, post-doctoral researcher in the Faculty of Health & Social Sciences (FHSS) and Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen in the academic journal Health Prospect. This new paper addressed some of the key methodological issues associated with Internet-based Focus Groups (FGs) or the so-called Online Focus Group Discussions [1]. Traditional face-to-face FG discussions are a popular qualitative research method used a wide-range of areas, such as political sciences, marketing, health service research and sociology to name but a few disciplines. More recently, internet-based FGs have grown in popularity due to the growth of: (a) the internet, both in terms of technical capacity and number of users; and (b) the improved quality of communication software (e.g. Skype). This paper highlights some of the strengths and weaknesses of conducting FGs online. Building on our experience of conducting traditional and internet-based FGs.

Dr. Sarah Collard is affiliated with BU’s Centre for Qualitative Research (CQR). Health Prospect is an Open Access journal therefore this article is freely available to any reader across the globe.

Reference:

Collard, S., van Teijlingen, E. (2016) Online focus group: New approaches to an ‘old’ research method, Health Prospect 15(3):4-7.

29 December 2016

New paper CMMPH

international, open access, PG research, Publishing, writing Edwin van Teijlingen

At the very end of December, one more academic paper on maternity care in Nepal from the Centre for Midwifery, Maternal and Neonatal Health (CMMPH). Our latest paper ‘The uptake of skilled birth attendants’ services in rural Nepal: A qualitative study’ was published today in the Journal of Asian Midwives [1]. The paper is co-authored with colleagues from London Metropolitan University, and is the third in a series based on the PhD project of the first author Dr. Yuba Raj Baral [1-3]. The Journal of Asian Midwives is an Open Access journal hence the paper is freely available across the globe.

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH

Baral, YR., Lyons, K., van Teijlingen, ER., Skinner, J., (2016) The uptake of skilled birth attendants’ services in rural Nepal: A qualitative study, Journal of Asian Midwives 3(2): 7-25.
Baral, YR, Lyons, K., Skinner, J, van Teijlingen, ER (2012) Maternal health services utilisation in Nepal: Progress in the new millennium? Health Science Journal 6(4): 618-633. www.hsj.gr/volume6/issue4/644.pdf
Baral, Y.R, Lyons, K., Skinner, J, van Teijlingen, E. (2010) Determinants of skilled birth attendants for delivery in Nepal Kathmandu University Medical Journal 8(3): 325-332. http://www.kumj.com.np/issue/31/325-332.pdf

Category / international

HE policy update w/e 27th January 2017

HE policy update w/e 20th January 2017

HE policy update for the w/e 13th January 2017

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

New editorial co-authored by CMMPH Dr. Catherine Angell

Other services

Don’t miss a post!

Recent posts

Search by Category

Research Information Network

UKRI

Category / international

Other services

Don’t miss a post!

Recent posts

Search by Category

Search by popular post topics