Category / international

Reminder: International Care Network to present at Community Voices webinar March 8th 12-1pm

BU research, international

March’s webinar welcomes Rachael Sawers from International Care Network. ICN is a local charity providing support and advice services to refugees, asylum-seekers and vulnerable migrants in the BCP and Dorset LA areas. Rachael manages the Resettlement Support services (working with Syrian, Afghan and Ukrainian families) as well as coordinating community activities for vulnerable women and their families, such as conversation groups, English lessons, homework clubs and key working.

Community voices is a collaboration between BU PIER partnership and Centre for Seldom Heard Voices to provide a platform and a voice to local community activists.

Please do join us for this webinar….

Microsoft Teams meeting

Join on your computer, mobile app or room device

Click here to join the meeting

Meeting ID: 386 758 891 002
Passcode: kzfdY9

Download Teams | Join on the web

Learn more | Meeting options

HE Policy update for the w/e 27th February 2023

EU, Impact, Industry collaboration, innovation, international, parliament, policy, Research news, Student Engagement

Parliamentary News

DESNZ, DSIT and DBT

No it’s not an attack of the sneezes, it’s the PM’s reorganisation of the Government departments. Gone is the recognisable department of Business, Energy and the Industrial Strategy. Instead it has morphed into three:

  • Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ)
  • Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT)
  • Department for Business and Trade (DBT),

And the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) has been refocused (more on this below)

DSIT: The reformed ex-BEIS departments clearly reflect the Government’s priorities and direction of travel over successive Prime Ministers. The agenda for an innovation economy and translating research into business gains is clear. Of course, underlying it all is the need to improve the UK’s economic success trajectory.

The key change to HE policy relevance is the DSIT which once again brings a more coherent approach to research and innovation. The positioning means R&I is siloed away from Education, however, ex-HE Minister Michelle Donelan will head up this department as Secretary of State bringing her expertise and adherence to cross-departmental party lines with her.

Formally the DSIT’s responsibilities include:

  • Optimise R&D investment to support areas of UK strength,
  • Increase the amount of private R&D funding for innovation purposes
  • Promote a diverse research and innovation system that connects discovery to new companies, growth and jobs – including by delivering world-class physical and digital infrastructure (such as gigabit broadband ), making the UK the best place to start and grow a technology business and developing and attracting top talent
  • Focus on innovation in public services (NHS, Schools) and develop STEM capability
  • Strengthen international collaboration and ensure our researchers are able to continue to work with leading scientists in Europe and around the world.
  • Deliver key legislative and regulatory reforms to drive competition and promote innovation, including the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumer Bill and our pro-innovation approach to regulating AI. Also to push the Online Safety Bill through the legislative process.

ARIA, UKRI, the Met Office, the UK Space Agency; the Intellectual Property office, and Building Digital UK will all sit under the new Department (which will devolve their funding settlements). As will GO Science and the Council for Science and Technology.

DSIT will progress the Online Safety Bill and Data Protection and Digital Information Bill that were previously led by DCMS and under Donelan’s stewardship.

George Freeman (previously science minister) will retain a role in the department and Paul Scully (previously Under-Secretary of State for tech and the digital economy) also joins the brief. This smooth transition of recently experienced ministerial staff and priorities suggests some stability for the new department and that Rishi will expect his team to hit the ground running, particularly with the legislation already passing through the Houses. Emphasising this are the top level civil servants previous Digital and Media Director-General, Susannah Storey, and the previous Director of Media and the Creative Industries, Robert Specterman-Green.

The DSIT’s website is already up and running – you can view it here (and spot the stories they’ve moved across from BEIS).

DCMS: The slimmed down DCMS moves focus to support the UK’s strengths in culture, media and sport but is no longer responsible for digital policy. This includes:

  • updating the UK’s broadcasting and media system,
  • increasing investment in grassroots sports and delivering reforms to football governance—a Football White Paper is expected soon
  • and completing the long-awaited review of the Gambling Act.

Former DLUHC minister Lucy Frazer leads the lean and mean DMCS. Supporting here are Julia Lopez (previous Minister of State for Media, Data and Digital Infrastructure), Stuart Andrew (previous Under-Secretary of State for Sport, Tourism and Civil Society and the Minister for Equalities), and Lord Parkinson (previously a DCMS Under-Secretary of State) looks to be tipped for the Government’s Lords Spokesperson for both DCMS and DSIT.

Dods says: Removing management of digital policy, including the complicated online safety legislation, could give DCMS more bandwidth to concentrate on other areas where it has been slower than expected to deliver. But time will tell if that proves to be an effective division of labour given the importance of digital to broadcasting and media. Questions remain about the outlook for the Media Bill since the Government ditched plans to sell Channel 4.

Contact the policy team if you’d like more information on the Dept for Energy Security and Net Zero or the Department for Business and Trade. Alternatively you can read each Department’s priorities here.

Overall: Overall the reorganisation seeks to provide focussed teams in key policy areas rather than the larger broad departmental remits of recent years. With the election looming Rishi may be hoping these teams fly in and make quick wins that bode well for the Conservatives in the polls. A danger for Rishi is the departments overlap unhelpfully or further constrain policy progress and policy direction due to their new siloed structure. As always there will be competition for the Treasury’s resources and much may come down to budget. The continuation of several key ministers into the new departments may also signal that Rishi believes these personalities will toe the party line and put career enhancement in.

Party plans

Politically the next general election is continually on the mind of all the parliamentary parties. Labour have been upfront about their campaign recently in their attempt to woo Scottish voters away from the SNP since Nicola Sturgeon announced she would step down.

Labour has also shown more willing to be drawn on their potential manifesto content through media appearances and comment. This week they published their new ‘national missions’ for the UK upon which their manifesto priorities will hang. They are:

  1. Economy: To deliver the highest sustained growth in the G7.
  2. Health: Build an NHS fit for the future – through science and innovation, and reforming the social care system.
  3. Crime: Make Britain’s streets safe – reforming police and criminal justice system, tackling VAWG, stopping criminals getting away with it.
  4. Education: Break down barriers to opportunity – reforming childcare and education, raising standards, preparing young people for work and for life.
  5. Climate: Making Britain a clean energy superpower.

And a selection of snippets from the accompanying statements:

  • Everything will not be fixed by simply spending more money.
  • Growth must be powered by good jobs and productivity in every part of the country.
  • Pledged to reform apprenticeships, and a new childcare system.
  • Will embrace technology, innovation and science, will reform the planning system to help businesses.
  • Will use levers like procurement to build up supply chains to protect from security threats.
  • For the coming months, the whole Shadow Cabinet will be looking at how they can bring these missions alive, as well as how to make them “vehicles of hope”.

STEM returner campaign

On the International Day of Women and Girls in Science, the government launched a pilot initiative to bring people back into STEM careers. STEM ReCharge provides support and training to technology and engineering returners (and their employers) in the Midlands and the North of England. The scheme will be run by Women Returners and STEM Returners and target those who have taken lengthy career breaks e.g. for caring responsibilities. The pilot will hit several key policy areas by bringing people back into the workforce, boosting numbers of STEM workers and plugging industry skills gaps, and increasing diversity in this key UK industry.

Research

  • The ARIA framework has been published setting out how ARIA will operate and its relationship with the new Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT).
  • Professor Dame Angela McLean has been appointed as the new Government Chief Scientific Adviser (GCSA). She’s the first woman to hold the role and will take over from Sir Patrick Valance when his term ends on 1 April. Angela was previous the CSA for the Minister of Defence. Here’s an explainer if you’re unfamiliar with the role:
    • The GCSA provides independent scientific advice to the Prime Minister and members of cabinet, advises the government on aspects of policy on science and technology and aims to ensure the quality and use of scientific evidence and advice in government policy making.
    • The GCSA is also Head of the Government Science and Engineering Profession and is part of the executive team of the newly formed Department for Science, Innovation and Technology.
    • Chief Scientific Advisers (CSA) and the Government’s Chief Scientific Advisers work three days per week for their Government department, with the remaining two days to continue their substantive role in academia or industry. Angela is a Professor of Mathematical Biology at Oxford University. Her research interests are the use of mathematical models to aid understanding of the evolution and spread of infectious agents. She is also interested in the use of natural science evidence in formulating public policy.
  • The National Centre for Universities and Business (NCUB) announced the establishment of a Taskforceto tackle barriers to mobility of research staff between universities and businesses. The Taskforce will explore how much researchers move across sectors, demonstrate the benefits of mobility, identify obstacles limiting movement, and make best practice recommendations. The Taskforce is expected to report in the summer.
    Research England Executive Chair Professor Dame Jessica Corner said: Without movement both ways between industry and academia, we risk stifling creativity and innovation in both sectors. We also limit the potential to increase R&D in the UK and the related growth and productivity gains from this, as well as broader societal prosperity.
    If we are to promote economic and social growth, then we need to make the most of the talented individuals we have. Improving mobility of people will improve the flow of knowledge and innovation to where it is most needed. I look forward to hearing how businesses and universities can address their barriers and enablers.

R&D Fraud – legislation underway

  • The Economic Affairs Finance Bill Sub-Committee published Research and development tax relief and expenditure credit. The Sub-Committee’s inquiries (apart of legislative scrutiny) focused on technical issues of tax administration, clarification, and simplification rather than on rates or incidence of tax. It covered the escalation in the abuse of R&D tax relief which has led to a loss of revenue (£469 million). The Bill proposes legislative changes to combat this abuse. You can read all 56 recommendations from page 64 of the report.
  • Lord Leigh of Hurley, Chair of the Economic Affairs Finance Bill Sub-Committee, said: The Government should use its review of R&D tax relief as an opportunity to look beyond the initial measures within the draft Bill and hold an open-ended consultation on how the scheme can be improved. This will be integral to future proofing the UK’s competitiveness as a hub of R&D activity.

Horizon – delayed; Plan B – delayed

  • Research Professional are frank about the possibility of either Horizon affiliation or Plan B happening anytime soon:
  • Science minister George Freeman…took to social mediato call for the need “to get on and deploy the £4.5bn we would have received from Horizon this Comprehensive Spending Review”. He suggested that the much-vaunted plan B be put in action while the UK continues to push for association to the EU’s R&D programme.
  • Freeman warned that if the money was not used, the business department would have to bid again to the Treasury for the £4.5bn. The minister described plan B as a carefully designed “one-off boost to our global R&D” while the UK prepares for association with Horizon.
  • “Waiting for the EU to unblock us,” Freeman said, would result in “continued uncertainty” and a “damaging narrative of decline”, as well as a “growing brain drain” and “loss of vital time in the increasingly competitive global race for science and technology leadership”. Freeman’s avowed frustration is not quite the boosterism of science superpowers and the innovation nation we have heard so often from ministers.
  • Are we any closer to association or plan B? Even if prime minister Rishi Sunak were to secure a deal with the EU over the Northern Ireland protocol, he still has to sell it to Ulster unionists and the European Research Group of Eurosceptic Tory MPs.
  • Freeman’s comments on Sunday do not suggest that there is agreement in government on when to press the button on plan B. It is almost as if Sunak and chancellor Jeremy Hunt would prefer not to spend the money—funny that.

Other news

  • Open data: Wonkhe blog: Daniel Keirs makes the case that the future of research data will be open and available, but it will require sustained commitment and collaboration from the research community.
  • Research hub: The Department for Transport has launched an application process to become a new research hub to help tackle decarbonisation and improve transport resilience. Decarbonisation Minister, Jesse Norman, pledged £10 million in funding for the centre, which will establish a UK centre of excellence for transport innovation. Currently, transport accounts for 27% of the UK’s emissions and the government aim for the Net Zero Transport for a Resilient Future Hub to drive decarbonisation solutions, such as greater use of recycled materials and reducing the carbon footprint of repairs and maintenance. The hub will also develop and implement innovative ideas to ensure future transport is resilient and meets the challenges of climate adaption, such as changes to weather and water levels. It will focus on the UK’s transport sector’s needs over the next 25 years as the government works to meet its 2050 net zero goals, helping to ensure the sector can build UK skills, jobs and innovation. The hub is funded at 80% from Government and 20% from the winning institution.
  • Research impact: If you missed January’s HEPI webinar discussing open access and spreading the impact of research you can watch the recording here.
  • REF impact case study data: The British Academy and the Academy of Social Sciences have launchedresearch into what REF impact study case data can tell us about the contribution of the arts, humanities and social sciences to the wellbeing of society, culture and the economy. The research is intended to provide a robust evidence base on which the higher education sector and policymakers can build to articulate the value of research and its impact on society (Wonkhe).
  • HEPI and UPP Foundation’s recent public opinion polling, Public Attitudes to Higher Education 2022, finds:
    • 77% of respondents agree that universities are important to research and innovation
    • 57% agree universities are important to the UK economy as a whole.
    • Support for public investment is also high – half of people (50%) agree that university research should receive funding from the taxpayer.

Parliamentary Questions

Regulatory

The OfS launched a consultation to tackle harassment and sexual conduct in HE. They propose a new condition of registration which would:

  • introduce mandatory training for students and staff, including bystander training for potential witnesses to raise awareness of and prevent sexual misconduct
  • require a provider to publish a ‘single document setting out how the will make a significant and credible difference in tackling harassment and sexual misconduct, also how to report cases of harassment and sexual misconduct, and explain how students will be supported through the process
  • ban the use of non-disclosure agreements in cases of harassment and sexual misconduct, and any enforcement of existing non-disclosure agreements.

Universities will also be required to comply with the requirements in a way that is consistent with principles for freedom of speech within the law. Press release here.

Instead of a new register the OfS is also considering an outright ban on relationships in some circumstances.

The topic has sparked much debate on social media: the 1752 Group are a campaign group in this area. They suggest that while the steps taken by the OfS will make people, especially survivors of abusive relationships feel better, and may discourage some behaviour that is inappropriate, and prohibiting (if they go for that option) sends a clear message on boundaries, these changes won’t “fix” anything because the worst abusers will carry on anyway and (in the case of a register) prevent reporting.  They also note that some universities already have these policies.  Overall they support a ban despite the problems with it.

Contact us if you wish to respond to the consultation or provide further comment.

Wonkhe blogs:

International

The discussion on international students has barely been out of the news for the last six months. Here’s a roundup of the key issues:

  • International students are the joint responsibility of the DfE and the Home Office – and their priorities don’t always align.
  • It’s hard to think of a more confusing approach to policy than the one relating to international students taken by successive Conservative-led governments of the past 13 years (Research Professional).
  • The period since David Cameron replaced Gordon Brown as prime minister has seen the abolition of the post-study work visa in 2012, and its reintroduction seven years later…EU students, meanwhile, have seen their entitlement to domestic tuition fee rates thrown out following Brexit, while the number of students coming to the UK from India and China has steadily risen
  • The international education strategy set out to educate 600,000 international students a year within a decade, and was achieved within four years…However, the achievement of this target appears only to have caused concern in some Westminster corridors…we are back to square one, with widespread reports of a battle between the Department for Education and the Home Office over the latter’s mooted plan to slash the graduate visa entitlement once again.
  • There is also concern that international students are bringing some family members with them when they come to study. Surely we can accept that some people might have husbands, wives and children that they wish to remain close to while studying for three years?
  • On the flip side PM Rishi Sunak is planning to permit international students to work longer hours than their current visa (limited to 20 hours) entitles – in aim of addressing systemic vacancies which are damaging the economy. The Times notes: The idea risks running up against Suella Braverman’s determination to reduce the number of foreign students. Although the measure would not directly increase the number, the home secretary is likely to be wary of measures that will make such visas more attractive to those wanting to come to Britain to work. The change would be helpful for students struggling with their finances, however, universities discourage excessive paid work as it impacts to students’ engagement with their studies. And The Times highlights: Academic administrators are also wary of British students working more, fearing it will create an “uneven playing field” where the affluent have more time for studies.
  • The PM’s intention dovetails with other rumblings about students working more hours. A Guardian article, written by the Resolution Foundation, suggests: Generally, I lean towards it being good for the youth to do some paid work early (obviously not to an extreme where it will affect their education). They get to meet the real world in all its glamour – in my case a pub’s dishwasher and sink. And it leads to better wages and employability later in life. While they’re talking about all students, not just international, the article also notes that student part time working has declined – the employment rate of 18-to-19-year-olds studying for degrees fell by 25% between 2001 and 2018.

However, cuts are on the Horizon (if the Home Office wins):

  • The Times also reports that Braverman has drawn up proposals to reduce the number [of students] to meet Sunak’s pledge to cut overall immigration after net migration hit a record-high of 504,000 last year. International students made up 476,000 of the 1.1 million migrants who arrived in the year to last June. The proposal has not been sent to the Home Office yet.
  • Also that she has drawn up a plan that would reduce the time foreign students can stay in the UK after finishing their course from two years to six months. This may only be applied if they haven’t found a job within six months though. However, it has also been written that the Braverman intends to ban international students from changing to a work visa until they have finished their course. And that these changes would ensure that only the most highly trained and skilled foreign students were able to stay in the UK. (More here, and iNews cover it here.)
  • (UUK International respond to the visa-cuts speculation calling for a “stable and well managed policy” regarding international student visas.)
  • The Times also states: There are concerns that Britain has been too successful at attracting foreign students. Following statistics published this week showing that the number of foreign students had reached 680,000, Rishi Sunak ordered the Home Office and the Department for Education to submit proposals for how the government could reduce their numbers without harming the sector or the economy. Presumably the concerned haven’t seen the statistics from the last few years which sees the UK as slipping down the table in the number of international students attracted in comparison to other countries.
  • Slightly reassuring is that the DfE sees overseas student fees as a vital way of financing universities, while the business department believes they contribute to Britain’s strength in key industries. (THE opinion piece from Russell Group: The Home Office must stop reheating ruinous ideas on student immigration – Cutting off a £26 billion UK success story at the knees would be self-inflicted economic vandalism, says Tim Bradshaw. However, Wonkhe say the DfE are pushing back against some Home Office policies but not others.

The last word goes to Research Professional: So it seems that we want students to come here and spend their money on tuition fees, accommodation, NHS surcharges and food and drink. We also want them to take jobs in hospitality and other industries that have for some reason (what could it be?) become short-staffed in the past seven years or so. But we don’t want them to stay on after they graduate, even though we have educated them to a high level, and God forbid they should bring their spouse along. Talk about having your cake and eating it.

Any government with any sense of context would learn the lessons of its own record over the past decade and a bit. They know what happens if they remove the post-study work visa, for crying out loud, because they already did it and had to do a U-turn a few years later.

International Student Experience

  • The OfS published – Working in partnership to improve international student integration and experience: Evaluation report. Wonkhe summarise: The report notes that full integration of international students depends on a number of factors, including practical challenges around living in a foreign country, differences in academic norms, and language barriers – all of which can contribute to “an overall feeling of disorientation”. Findings were based on 23 “substantial” responses to a call for evidence (out of a total of 63), a survey of 1,425 international students, and a literature review.
  • OfS also published an advice briefing on: Supporting international students.
  • THE piece: Flair for care– An international student’s experience can be very positive with mindful handling every step of the way, says Preeti Aghalayam.

Quick News:

  • International Commission: Chris Skidmore MP and Lord Jo Johnson (both former Universities ministers) continue to lead the way in international students. You can watch the recording of the latest International HE Commission session on the true value of international students here.
  • Also referencing Jo Johnson is this THE article: Not like it used to be. British politics is suffering from a “weakening consensus” on the benefits international students bring to the country, former universities minister Lord Johnson of Marylebone has warned.

Resources

Did you miss the HEPI webinar with Kaplan on international students and the Graduate Route visa? If so you can watch here. You can also read a briefing: Not heard of this – Employers’ perceptions of the UK’s Graduate Route visa

Students

Student Loans

Baroness Barran, Minister for the School System and Student Finance, announced an additional temporary cap to the Post-2012 undergraduate and postgraduate student loan interest rates. From 1-31 March 2023 the maximum interest rate will be 6.9% for all post-2012 (Plan 2) and postgraduate (Plan 3) loans. From 1 June 2023 to 31 August 2023, the maximum interest rate will be 7.3%. However, depending on the Prevailing Market Rate the government may announce further caps to apply during this period.

DfE Equity Analysis of maintenance loans

The DfE published their equality impact assessment for HE student finance 2023/24 concluding students are losing out:

  • Our overall assessment is that these proposed changes will overall have a negative impact for students with and without protected characteristics. This is because a 13.7% increase would be required to maintain the value of loans and grants for living and other costs in real terms using the 2020/21 academic year as a baseline, as measured by CPI1, due to the recent spike in inflation. Therefore a 2.8%2 increase in maximum support for 2023/24 will not restore the erosion in purchasing power since 2020/21 and is unlikely to prevent a further erosion in purchasing power by the start of the 2023/24 academic year.
  • … increases in maximum loans and grants for 2021/22 and 2022/23 have not maintained their value in real terms.

Table 1 on page 13 highlights that the two highest inflationary changes are housing (26.6%) and food (16.4%).

  • As a result, many students, including from groups who share protected characteristics and from disadvantaged groups, will not be able to make the same spending decisions as they did previously with regards accommodation, travel, food, entertainment and course related items such as books and equipment, the costs of which will have been rising over time.
  • Specific groups of students are adversely affected by the changes due to them being overrepresented in the loan borrowing population:
  • Females
  • Mature students
  • Low-income groups of students [particularly because in 2022 there were record numbers of students including those from deprived background].
  • Students from minority ethnic backgrounds

(See pages 18-19 for the detail on each of these groups.)

The analysis also noted that debt-adverse students may chose not to participate in HE due to financial considerations.

On the publication of the analysis Dr Tim Bradshaw, Chief Executive of the Russell Group, commented: The fact that the DfE’s own equality assessment says uplifting maintenance loans by just 2.8% next year will have a negative impact on students underlines how flawed the system is. But what’s worse is that the Department responsible and the regulator which is supposed to be on the side of students just seem to be shrugging their shoulders. Let’s be clear: the Government has a choice, it is actively choosing to ignore its own analysis…and this choice will leave students out of pocket by over £1,500.

Wonkhe have a blog: the government’s own equality analysis of changes to student finance.

Maintenance Grants / Student Costs

HEPI and UPP Foundation reported on their recent public opinion polling, Public Attitudes to Higher Education 2022, regarding maintenance grants:

  • Two-thirds (64%) of public support the reintroduction of maintenance grants for the poorest students
  • 57% agreed the Government should provide additional support to students to help them with the cost of living, however:
  • only 10% of respondents put students among the top three groups they would prioritise for support with the cost of living (top 3 were those on minimum wage, pensions, families with young children)
  • 71% believe the cost-of-living crisis will deter people from going to university over the next two years – but only 26% think that fewer people should be going to university
  • 63% believe that ‘students should expect to work part time to cover their living costs while at university.’
  • 57% of respondents believed freedom of speech is currently under at least some threat (16% no threat)

However:

  • 22% agreed with the statement ‘a university degree is a waste of time’ (rose to 32% among 18-to-24 year olds)
  • 58% agreed ‘a university degree does not prepare students for the real world’.
  • Note: Only 18% of respondents had visited a university in the existing academic year, and over half of those from the lowest social grades (DE) had never visited a university at all.

Disproportionate Impacts

John Blake (OfS Director for Fair Access and Participation) John Blake blogs for Wonkhe on the initial findings of the cost of living crisis on students: Opportunity costs: The differential impact of cost-of-living pressures on students. Excerpts:

  • There is particular concern that those student groupsalready facing the greatest risks to equality of opportunity are experiencing greater levels of hardship.
  • 91 per cent of higher education students were ‘somewhat’ or ‘very’ concerned about the rising cost of living.
  • More than three-quarters (77 per cent) of survey participants were concerned that the rising cost of living may affect how well they do in their studies.
  • Nearly one in five said they had considered pausing their course and resuming it next year.
  • Thirty-four per cent of respondents reported that they are less likely to consider further study.

OfS intend to publish an Insight brief on the topic before Easter.

Parliament: Student cost of living arose in the recent Education topical questions – the Minister neatly side stepped the issue focussing on the support the Government already provide.

Estranged Students

Student Loan Company (SLC) data notes applications from estranged students have increased. Wonkhe analyse the increase (blog) finding that increases are likely due to:

  • That UCAS added a tickbox for estranged students to the application last year – meaning that the quality of data has improved as applicants are now directed to declare their status.
  • Awareness raising within the sector coupled with highlighting the benefits of declaring their status
  • Flexibility – SLC has changed the processes slightly to be more flexible (evidence burden to prove estrangement; encouraging applications even if they don’t 100% meet the criteria; ability to declare estrangement at any point in the year).

So, the rise in numbers of estranged students, while sad that many students find themselves in this situation, is more indicative of the success of UCAS and StandAlone raising awareness of the help and support available, and initiatives such as the StandAlone Pledge, which features in Estranged Student Solidarity Week on campuses around the nations, in getting the correct information to the right applicants.

However, Wonkhe notes: To end on a slightly depressing note – the figure is not necessarily a cause for celebration as those within the figures have not necessarily actually been awarded full means-tested funding on the basis that they are irreconcilably estranged from their parents. The figures are figures to show who has ticked the estranged box as a part of the application process to SLC.

It would be good to see data showing how many received full financial support because simply having more students at university isn’t really the aim here. It’s understanding their needs and ratifying the support they need, ensuring they fulfil their potential – that’s the aim.

Cost of Living

The ONS (Office for National Statistics) published updated experiment statistics on the behaviours, plans, opinions and well-being of students related to the cost of living, with findings drawn from the Student Cost of Living Insights Study (SCoLIS).  The findings are consistent with the earlier study in November 2022 (except in the one case noted below where matters have worsened).

  • 92% of HE students reported that their cost of living has increased compared with last year
  • 91% were somewhat or very worried about the rising cost of living
  • 49% of students felt they had financial difficulties (33% minor difficulties, 16% major financial difficulties)
  • 68% of respondents received student loan; of those, 58% said it did not cover their living costs, while one in four (25%) said it just covered their living costs.
  • In response to the rising cost of living, 30% of students had taken on new debt (this is a significant increase from the November study). Of those taking on new debt 71% reported they did so because their student loan was not enough to support their living costs.
  • 78% were concerned that the rising cost of living may affect how well they do in their studies; one-third (35%) reported they are now less likely to do further study after their course has completed.
  • The average level of life satisfaction among higher education students (5.8) was significantly lower than the adult population in Great Britain (6.9).
  • Around 46% of students reported their mental health and well-being had worsened since the start of the autumn term 2022; this is similar to students in early November 2022 (45%).

Disabled Students

TASO (the what-works centre, Transforming Access and Student Outcomes in HE) published  a summary report: What works to reduce equality gaps for disabled students which evaluates the effectiveness of university interventions which aimed to address inequalities. The report covers a wide range of subject material from leadership buy-in and support, to entering HE, to assistive technologies. It’s a useful source of information on a number of matters in addition to the assessment of intervention evidence. For example, it provides the below categorisation of student disability.

Overall the report finds gaps in the evidence in demonstrating what works to improve outcomes for disabled students and page 12 onwards sets out six recommendations to address the evaluation gaps.

Key points:

  • Limited causal evidence of what works to address inequalities for disabled students
  • A lack of consistency in data collection methods making comparisons between HE institutions difficult
  • Disability inclusion requires a comprehensive institutional approach, but there is a lack of evidence on the impact of each part – including leadership, training and support, communication, and staff and student voice.
  • Despite the legal requirements and funding there is little research on the effectiveness of reasonable adjustments.
  • The review found evidence that transition support to help disabled students into HE can be effective for enabling disability inclusion.

Recommendations:

  • More and better evaluation of interventions to address inequalities for disabled students in HE are needed.
  • Effective and consistent data collection is required to understand and address inequalities in HE and therefore must be improved.
  • Better evidence is needed on reasonable adjustments: on how they are delivered and their impact on disability inclusion.
  • Scrutiny is needed of ‘whole institution’ approaches to tackling disability inclusion and whether they are having an impact.
  • Access and Participation Plans (APPs) should be monitored in terms of how far they commit to addressing disability inequalities, and whether and how they will evaluate such commitments.

To take matters forward TASO will partner with two independent evaluators and four HEIs to continue to understand and build the evidence base for what works to support disabled students.

Dr Eliza Kozman, Deputy Director, TASO stated:

  • Despite best intentions to improve disability inclusion in universities and colleges across the country, we’re still very much in the dark about what works. This is particularly concerning given the rapid rise in young people reporting a disability and the persistent equality gaps in degree outcomes and employment rates for disabled students.
  • I encourage all higher education providers to take heed of the recommendations outlined in today’s report. We need to work in partnership with disabled students to better understand their needs, further develop the evidence base on what works and ensure efforts across the sector are not made in vain.

International

The latest International HE Commission evidence session covered the International Student Voice and how institutional policy should change to better support international students in the UK. If you missed it you can watch the 1 hour session here.

The Commission summarise the session:

  • The student panel explored rhetoric versus reality for international students in the UK. There was recognition of the benefits of the independent study style and how this supported personal and academic development.  The opportunity to learn from other people and cultures was also welcomed, but a concern that students felt ‘othered’ by the host community – that more focus on creating a sense of a coherent student community would benefit all students.  The importance of actively fostering positive identities and focussing on the contribution of international students rather than their economic value was repeatedly emphasised.  Any focus on economic returns needed to include the student view of return on investment.
  • In discussion of what universities could do to encourage a sense of “belonging” – it was noted that clearer structures for achieving academic success and for building social connections and cross-cultural communities were essential. It was also recognised that integration doesn’t “just happen” on campus, it needs to be facilitated and curated by universities. It was also noted that work opportunities can also a significant contribution to socialisation. More broadly, the need for greater pastoral support was reiterated, and within that systematic measures to address issues of financial hardship.

The Commission also announced eight new commissioners, including its first two student commissioners:

  • Professor Shitij Kapur – President and Principal, Kings College London
  • Professor Andrea Nolan – Convener of the International Committee of Universities Scotland and Principal & Vice Chancellor, Edinburgh Napier University
  • Lucy Stonehill – CEO, BridgeU
  • Sanam Arora – Founder and Chair, National Indian Students and Alumni Union
  • Wendy Alexander – VP International, University of Dundee, Professor of International Education, Higher Education Trade & Investment Envoy, British Council Trustee
  • Katie Normington – Midlands Enterprise Universities Board Member and VC, De Montfort University
  • Sára Kozáková (Student Commissioner) – Co-Chair of UKCISA’s Student Advisory Group and currently perusing a master’s degree at Newcastle University after completing her UG study at Portsmouth University.
  • Siqi Jia (Student Commissioner) – A recent University of Glasgow graduate, currently working for Deloitte with a strong focus in the employability area

The future for the Commission is unclear because it was established and is chaired by (former universities minister) Chris Skidmore. However, Chris has confirmed he will stand down as an MP at the next election.

Other news

Creative sector: The House of Lords Communication and Digital Committee reported on the challenges facing the UK’s creative sector and spoke out against the DfE’s sweeping rhetoric about low value courses arguing that the Government’s policy is hinder the creative industries. Wonkhe have a blog.

Admissions: Parliamentary Question – Ensuring AI admissions software does not undermine the fairness of the HE application cycle.

Inquiries and Consultations

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

Subscribe!

To subscribe to the weekly policy update simply email policy@bournemouth.ac.uk. A BU email address is required to subscribe.

External readers: Thank you to our external readers who enjoy our policy updates. Not all our content is accessible to external readers, but you can continue to read our updates which omit the restricted content on the policy pages of the BU Research Blog – here’s the link.

Did you know? You can catch up on previous versions of the policy update on BU’s intranet pages here. Some links require access to a BU account- BU staff not able to click through to an external link should contact eresourceshelp@bournemouth.ac.uk for further assistance.

JANE FORSTER                                            |                       SARAH CARTER

VC’s Policy Advisor                                                              Policy & Public Affairs Officer

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

 

Peer review picking up weaknesses in a scientific paper

international, Publishing, writing

Peer review is the the key pillar of academic publishing.  Peer reviewers will read the submitted paper and assess its knowledge contribution, the appropriateness of the research question, the ethical considerations, the quality of the research methods used and the appropriateness of the discussion, conclusion, and recommendations in the manuscript. [1]  It is worth bearing in mind that most peer reviewers are unpaid volunteers, academics like us who review for journals over and above the day job.[2]  For the authors peer reviewers can give excellent feedback.  Harvey and colleagues remind their readers that peer reviewers reading your manuscript with a fresh pair of eyes, can lead to them raising great questions and offering useful comments.  In short, reviewers’ reservations and misunderstandings can help you to rephrase and better focus your paper. [3]

However, what the review process does not do is picking up every possible minor mistake and typo in a paper.  I was reminded of this last week when I read a peer-reviewed paper in which the basic demographics table (the characteristics of the study participants) did not add up to 100%.  Luckily, the same authors (who shall remain nameless) published a different paper from the same study in another quality journal, which allowed me to check the numbers.  Interestingly, the second paper in another peer-reviewed journal had the same mistake.   In the end I ended up writing to two different editors pointing out this anomaly.   The editors contacted the authors who have since promised to rectify the mistake.

Something similar has also happened to us.  Occasionally I reread one of our articles in a good journal and wonder about some of the unclear sentences or poorly expressed grammar or style.  Neither the editor nor the peer-reviewers spotted it nor did my co-authors and I noticed these mistakes in the paper proofs.

 

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH (Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health)

 

 

References:

  1. van Teijlingen, E., Simkhada, P., Shanker, S. (2022) Selecting an Appropriate Journal and Submitting your Paper, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 20-31.
  2. van Teijlingen, E., Thapa, D., Marahatta, S.B., Sapkota, J.L., Regmi, P. Sathian, B. (2022) Editors and Reviewers: Roles and Responsibilities, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 32-37.
  3. Harvey, O., Taylor, A., Regmi, P.R., van Teijlingen, E. (2022) Struggling to reply to reviewers: Some advice for novice researchers. Health Prospect, 21(2):19-22.

 

The importance of communication for optimal patient care

international, Research Centres

As part of the Erasmus+ exchange, Professors Vanora Hundley and Carol Clark were recently invited to discuss the importance of communication with nurses at Manmohan Memorial Hospital in Kathmandu, Nepal.

Good communication is a vital part of quality of care, but something that can be neglected when wards are busy and nurses are handling numerous tasks.

Participants in the session came from a range of areas within the hospital from medical-surgical wards, emergency room, through to outpatients’ department. However, all reported that finding time to stop and listen to patients could be a challenge when the hospital was busy. The group participated in a number of exercises,  which included role-playing to understand how it feels to be a patient entering the hospital.

Later Vanora and Carol were able to visit the research facilities to understand how recruitment and randomisation to vaccine trials is being handled in Manmohan Memorial Hospital. Dr Sujan Marahatta explained the process and discussed how the hospital was contributing to this important research.

Finally, a visit to the physiotherapy department provided the opportunity to discuss collaborative research in women’s health.

 

 

British Academy Writing Workshop in Nepal in 2022

conferences, international, Publishing, writing

Two days ago one of the participants of our British Academy funded Academic Writing Workshops announced on Facebook that the paper, we had helped her put together, had been published in a peer-reviewed journal.  It is satisfying to see the fruits of our labours in print following two sets of three-day workshops in Kathmandu and Pokhara.  The team running the 2022 workshop comprised three Faculty of Health & Social Sciences’ (FHSS) staff: Dr. Shovita Dhakal Adhikari, Dr. Pramod Regmi, and Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen, and our colleague Dr. Rashmee Rajkarnikar at Nepal’s oldest and largest university (Tribhuvan University) and BU’s Visiting Faculty Dr. Emma Pitchforth, who is Senior Lecturer and Senior Research Fellow in Primary Care at the University of Exeter.  Dr. Shovita Adhikari has since left Bournemouth University to become Senior Lecturer in Criminology & Sociology at London Metropolitan University.

Over the years our team has published a wide range of papers on many aspects of academic writing [1-38].  The authors include: Prof. Vanora Hundley [3-5,8-9,14,16-19,21,23,28-33,36], Dr. Orlanda Harvey [2,22, ], Dr. Pramod Regmi [2,7,13-14,17,22,24-25 ], Dr. Rachel Arnold [20], Dr. Alison Taylor, Dr. Nirmal Aryal [14,24], Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen, PhD student Mrs. Sulochana Dhakal-Rai [8] all in FHSS, Prof. Ann Luce in the Media School [5] and Dr. Shanti Shanker in the Department of Psychology [6] as well as several BU Visiting Faculty: Dr. Brijesh Sathian [1,7-8,21,31,34], Dr. Shovita Dhakal Adhiikari [24-25 ], Dr. Preeti Mahato [11,20, ], Prof. Padam Simkhada [3-4,6,8-9,13,16-19,21,23,25-31,34 ], Dr. Emma Pitchforth [11-12,37], Prof. Bhimsen Devkota [12,16 ], Prof. Sujan Marahatta [7], Dr. Bibha Simkhada [9,14,25,27,29] and Ms. Jillian Ireland [8,20,22,27,31].
has build up capacity in academic writing and publishing in Nepal on many occasions and at many different institutions.  This grant allow us to offer a more systematic approach to capacity building in academic writing, and it build a growing number of paper published by FHSS staff on various aspects of academic writing and publishing.
Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen
Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health

References:

  1. Sathian B, van Teijlingen E, Banerjee I, Kabir R. (2022) Guidance to applying for health research grants in the UK. Nepal J Epidemiol 12(4):1231-1234.
  2. Harvey, O., Taylor, A., Regmi, P.R., van Teijlingen, E. (2022) Struggling to reply to reviewers: Some advice for novice researchers. Health Prospect, 21(2):19-22.
  3. van Teijlingen, E., Hundley, V., Simkhada, P.P., Wasti, S.P. (2022) Introduction, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 1-4.
  4. Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E., Hundley, V., Swoveet, P. (2022) Writing an Academic Paper, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 6-14.
  5. Hundley, V., Luce, A., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E. (2022) Collaborative Writing for Publication, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 15-19.
  6. van Teijlingen, E., Simkhada, P., Shanker, S. (2022) Selecting an Appropriate Journal and Submitting your Paper, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 20-31.
  7. van Teijlingen, E., Thapa, D., Marahatta, S.B., Sapkota, J.L., Regmi, P. Sathian, B. (2022) Editors and Reviewers: Roles and Responsibilities, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 32-37.
  8. van Teijlingen, E., Ireland, J., Hundley, V, Dhakal Rai, S., Simkhada, P., Sathian, B. (2022) Identifying an appropriate Title, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 39-47.
  9. Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E., Hundley, V., Simkhada, B, Acharya D.R. (2022) Writing an Abstract for a Scientific Conference, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 48-56.
  10. Subedi, M., van Teijlingen, E., Baniya J., Sijapati, B. (2022) Writing the Introduction and Background, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 57-67.
  11. van Teijlingen, E., Pitchforth, E., Keenan Forrest, K., Mahato, P. (2022) Writing a Qualitative Paper, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 88-97.
  12. Wasti, S.P, Devkota, B., Bhatta, D.N., Pitchforth, E., van Teijlingen, E. (2022) Writing the Introduction and Background, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 112-120.
  13. Regmi, P., van Teijlingen, E., Simkhada, P. (2022) Writing up the Discussion, Conclusion and Recommendations, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 121-129
  14. Aryal, N., Regmi, P.R., Simkhada, B., Subedi, M., van Teijlingen, E., Wasti, S.P., Hundley, V, Khatri, R. (2022) Being Ethical in Writing and Publishing, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 153-161.
  15. van Teijlingen, E., Venter, K. (2022) Writing a Book Review, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 162-167.
  16. Devkota, B., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E., Hundley, V, Wasti, S.P. (2022) Writing a Research Proposal, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 168-175.
  17. Wasti, S.P. Regmi, P.R., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E., Hundley, V. (2022) Writing a PhD Proposal, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 176-183.
  18. Hundley, V., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E. (2022) Converting your Master’s or Doctoral Thesis into an Academic Paper for Publication, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 184-189.
  19. van Teijlingen, E., Hundley, V., Simkhada, P., Acharya, J., Silwal, R.C., Wasti, S.P. (2022) Academic Writing: Final Thoughts, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 201-20
  20. Arnold, R., Ireland, J., Mahato, P., van Teijlingen, E. (2022) Writing and publishing a reflective paper: Three case studies, Welhams Acad J 1(1): 4-11.
  21. van Teijlingen, E., Hundley, V, Sathian, B., Simkhada, P., Robinson, J., Banerjee, I. (2022) The Art of the Editorial Nepal J Epidemiol, 12(1): 1135–38.
  22. Harvey, O., van Teijlingen, A., Regmi, P.R., Ireland, J., Rijal, A., van Teijlingen, E.R. (2022) Co-authors, colleagues, and contributors: Complexities in collaboration and sharing lessons on academic writing Health Prospect 21(1):1-3.
  23. Wasti, S.P., van Teijlingen, E., Simkhada, P., Hundley, V. with Shreesh, K. (2022) Writing and Publishing Academic Work, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books
  24. van Teijlingen, E.R., Dhakal Adhikari, S., Regmi, P.R., van Teijlingen, A., Aryal, N., Panday, S. (2021). Publishing, identifiers & metrics: Playing the numbers game. Health Prospect, 20(1). https://doi.org/10.3126/hprospect.v20i1.37391
  25. Adhikari, S. D., van Teijlingen, E. R., Regmi, P. R., Mahato, P., Simkhada, B., & Simkhada, P. P. (2020). The Presentation of Academic Self in The Digital Age: The Role of Electronic Databases. Int J Soc Sci Management, 7(1), 38-41. https://doi.org/10.3126/ijssm.v7i1.27405
  26. 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.
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen E., Hundley, V., Simkhada, BD. (2013) Writing an Abstract for a Scientific Conference, Kathmandu Univ Med J 11(3): 262-65. http://www.kumj.com.np/issue/43/262-265.pdf
  30. 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
  31. 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.
  32. van Teijlingen E., Hundley, V., Bick, D. (2014) Who should be an author on your academic paper? Midwifery 30: 385-386.
  33. Hall, J., Hundley, V., van Teijlingen, E. (2015) The journal editor: friend or foe? Women & Birth 28(2): e26-e29.
  34. Sathian, B., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E., Roy, B, Banerjee, I. (2016) Grant writing for innovative medical research: Time to rethink. Med Sci 4(3):332-33.
  35. Pradhan, AK, van Teijlingen, ER. (2017) Predatory publishing: a great concern for authors, Med Sci 5(4): 43.
  36. van Teijlingen, E, Hundley, V. (2002) Getting your paper to the right journal: a case study of an academic paper, J Advanced Nurs 37(6): 506-11.
  37. Pitchforth, E, Porter M, Teijlingen van E, Keenan Forrest, K. (2005) Writing up & presenting qualitative research in family planning & reproductive health care, J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 31(2): 132-135.
  38. van Teijlingen, E (2004), Why I can’t get any academic writing done, Medical Sociol News 30(3): 62-63. britsoc.co.uk/media/26334/MSN_Nov_2004.pdf

Erasmus+ teaching in Nepal

international, Knowledge Exchange

BU professors Vanora Hundley and Carol Clark are currently in Nepal as part of an exchange between Bournemouth University (BU) and Manmohan Memorial Institute of Health Sciences (MMIHS) in Kathmandu, Nepal.

They have enjoyed discussing research with the Masters in Public Health students at MMIHS, whose research proposals include topics as diverse as stress and burnout, musculoskeletal injuries in hand-loom workers, and occupational health of high altitude porters.

Yesterday they were teaching the students as part of their Sexual and Reproductive Health Unit. Vanora outlined the history of Safe Motherhood and the group had a detailed discussion about the causes of maternity mortality and strategies to improve care for mothers and babies. Carol gave a lecture on urinary incontinence (including teaching the class how to do pelvic floor exercises) and explored how we handle taboo subjects such as this.

Carol and Vanora had an opportunity to meet with students from MMIHS who had recently returned from their exchange with Bournemouth University. The students spoke about how their time in Dorset had enabled them to learn about health in the UK and to share their expertise in delivering public health in a low income country.

The Erasmus+ exchange promotes cross-border education and knowledge exchange. It facilitates networking, enables capacity building and provides opportunities for future collaboration.

BU professors lead research workshop at Kathmandu University, Nepal

international, Research Centres, Training

Prof Carol Clark and Prof Vanora Hundley travelled to Dhulikhel in the Kavrepalanchok District of Nepal to deliver a workshop on research methodology.

The attendees included nurses, lecturers and senior academics from Kathmandu University. Together the group discussed the research gaps in women’s health in Nepal and the types of studies needed to help build evidence for practice.

Like many countries, research into women’s health is a neglected area but one that is beginning to gather strength. The discussion identified research gaps in specific areas of health, such as postnatal care and nutrition, and also cross-cutting themes, such as empowerment and education. Next steps for research collaboration were also discussed.

The workshop was supported by Erasmus+ and Green Tara Nepal (GTN).  Erasmus+ is the European Commission’s flagship for financial support of mobility for Higher Education students, teachers and institutions. Bournemouth University has been working with GTN for the last two decades and has collaborations with BU academics including Prof Edwin van Teijlingen, D. Pramod Regmi, Prof Carol Clark, Dr Nirmal Aryal, Dr Shanti Shanker, and Prof Vanora Hundley.

 

HE Policy update for the w/e 3rd February 2023

Business Engagement, Industry collaboration, innovation, international, Knowledge Transfer, parliament, policy, Research news, Student Engagement

office fNews galore. We cover all the major news and provide short commentary and links on the specialist interest topics.

Party politics: tertiary reform?

The next general election is constantly on the minds of policy makers. Last week Kier Starmer rowed back from Labour’s traditional position of abolishing HE tuition fees. This week attention has turned to what could be learnt from Wales’ review and reform of education which has resulted in a joined up tertiary education system. Andy Westwood writes for Wonkhe suggesting that Wales could be a blueprint for policy and suggesting Labour should prioritise tertiary reform over tuition fees.

Some snippets to whet your interest:

  • While the higher education funding system looks unsustainable in its current form and surely can’t survive the next Parliament without reform, it does not follow that it is sensible to try and fix it in isolation from other parts. 
  • …there is likely to be a series of policy priorities that will affect both colleges and universities as Labour draw up its manifesto, alongside any potential plan to reform tuition fees and higher education funding. But designing centralised policy solutions separately – e.g. by focusing solely on full-time university tuition fees but not on lifelong learning, apprenticeships or day-to-day funding for FE will only bake in the silos and systemic incoherence that cause so many problems for people, places and businesses.
  • The Welsh model, if not perfect, is certainly better than that currently in England…, we have three competing and very different systems – a centralised funding and management body (ESFA) running (and underfunding) FE, as well as schools, a market regulator (OfS) and an entirely separate and different system for apprenticeships (IFATE). Adult learning remains a poor relation and a low priority for each. The three funding systems are also different – direct funding and loans but managed places, uncapped markets with tuition fee loans, employer levies and grants (and limited access across routes to means-tested maintenance)…it is complex and counterproductive. And both in part and overall, it is failing.

Chris Millward (former Director for Fair Access at OfS) agrees with Westwood and is keen to bring technical and academic together in a cohesive tertiary system. He also suggests Government could reduce regulation in the areas that are a priority such as higher and degree apprenticeships, modular (shorter) learning, and advanced technical or research courses. Especially if they’re in geographical areas where the Government wants to drive growth and attract investment by aligning skills and innovation around a university presence. Finally, he suggests increasing fees (only by inflation) where institutions can demonstrate excellence beyond a threshold (I.e. we’re back to TEF related increases – which the House of Lords originally threw out). You can read Millward’s blog for Research Professional in full here.

Lifelong Learning

Earlier this week THE reported the Government were considering uncontroversial legislation surrounding the Lifelong Learning loan entitlements. These loans allow students to borrow up to the equivalent of four years’ worth of student loan funding across their whole life to spend as they will including on shorter or modular courses (more here). The loans are expected to be particularly attractive to mature students who wish to retrain or change careers (assuming they don’t already have a degree). Previous PM Boris Johnson pledged to introduce the LLE by 2025.

The background:

  • In May 2022, the government said in the Queen’s Speech that it would introduce a higher education bill to implement the LLE in England and, “subject to consultation”, a minimum entry requirement (MER) for individuals to be eligible for student loans, as well as student number controls (SNCs).
  • After that consultation [results promised soon], the Department for Education was said to favour capping numbers on courses using outcomes measures including the proportion of graduates going into “managerial or professional employment”, and an MER set at two E grades at A level. However, ministers changed and current HE Minister Halfon is said to be far less supportive of MER plans. Other sector commentators are also opposed: Any move to reopen the door to minimum entry requirements or student recruitment limits would be extremely concerning and against modern universities’ core principles of inclusion, aspiration and the power of education to transform lives (Rachel Hewitt, Chief Executive of MillionPlus).
  • Lord Johnson of Marylebone, the Conservative former universities minister, said Ministers must rethink their approach and allow “much greater flexibility in terms of what courses will be eligible for LLE funding…Learners wanting to access specific skills do not necessarily want or need courses that are simply credit-bearing modules of existing qualifications…The DfE needs to ensure that learners have a much broader choice of courses and credentials – credit-bearing and non-credit-bearing – if the LLE is to fulfil its potential. Lord Johnson was also an opponent to student number controls while he was HE Minister.

The rumours were correct! The Government introduced the Lifelong Learning (HE Fee Limits) Bill on Wednesday. The Bill aims to build upon previous legislation and provides the legal framework to underpin credit-based learning, set fee limits and update legislation in relation to the Access and Participation Plans. It:

  • Introduces a new fee limit method which limits the amount a provider can charge for a course or module based on credits. This means the amount a provider can charge a student is proportionate, whether the student takes up a short course, a module or a traditional full course.
  • Enables the Secretary of State to set maximum chargeable credits per course year, so that students are not being charged disproportionately for whatever course they wish to undertake.
  • Introduces the concept of ‘course year’ as opposed to an ‘academic year’, to allow fee limits to apply with greater precision according to when the course actually starts. This aims to support more flexible patterns of study.

The Bill’s financial commitments remain as expected – students may receive a loan entitlement, equivalent to four years of post-18 study (£37,000 in today’s fees) which can be used over their working lives. This will be available for both modules of courses and full courses, whether in college or at university. If will fund provision between level 4 and 6 so first degrees, higher technical qualifications, HNCs and HNDs.

Wonkhe add: It is recognised that not all courses fit a credit-based modular model – nursing is cited as one example of a “non-credit-bearing” course that will be funded at a “default” level equivalent to a standard number of credits. Prices for all credits will vary depending on institutional registration, TEF award, access and participation plan status, and specific fee limit designation as of now – there will also be separate credit values for placements, study abroad, and credit transfer. Of course, Wonkhe also has a new blog on the topic.

Commenting on the Bill’s introduction Dr Arti Saraswat, AoC HE Senior Policy Manager, makes some good points:

  • Implementing this by 2025 will be challenging and will depend on publishing a detailed rule book, putting the correct systems in place and, most importantly, ensuring programmes are ready so that students can enrol on courses on a more modular basis. Ensuring the scheme has been tested through a thorough pilot process will be vital to building trust in the new system.
  • There is still work needed to explain who will be eligible for the Lifelong Learning Entitlement, where they will be able to use it and how those institutions will be regulated. Colleges already have a track record of teaching HE on a more part-time, flexible and individualized basis to adult learners but this activity has diminished in recent years creating a genuine challenge in rebuilding capacity, at a time when the UK needs higher skills to boost productivity and grow the economy.
  • There are wider challenges involved in reinvigorating adult higher education. The LLE and credit-based student loans are important technical fixes but are not enough on their own. Access to maintenance support is essential to ensure students can afford to study on a flexible basis.

Research

There is lots of research related news. Here are a series of links and blogs which cover the main announcements.

Innovation vision: Last Friday Chancellor Jeremy Hunt set out his goals for the UK. On research and innovation he included:

  • UK world leader in digital and tech, green and clean energy sector, and creative industries
    • Created more tech unicorns than France and Germany combined
    • Fintech in the UK attracted more funding than anywhere in the world outside of the US
    • UK Covid vaccine has saved more than 6m lives around the globe
    • Largest offshore windfarm in the world
  • Golden thread running through industries in the UK – innovation
    • UK ranks 4thglobally in innovation index, responsible for all the productivity growth
  • Hunt asked innovators to the help the UK achieve something both ambitious and strategic
    • He wants the UK to be the next Silicon Valley and for the world’s tech entrepreneurs and life science innovators to come to the UK
    • UK universities, financial sector, and government will back them
    • Government determined to make the UK a tech superpower
  • Confidence in the future starts with honesty in the present
    • UK weakness: poor productivity, skills gaps, over concentration of wealth in the SE
    • Brexit opportunity – make Brexit a catalyst for bold choices
  • Plan for growth – not a series of announcements, but a framework for policies in the future

And lots more:

  • Research Professional: the growing tensions around spinouts at British universities.
  • Impact data contribution to society: The British Academy and the Academy of Social Sciences have launchedresearch into what REF impact study case data can tell us about the contribution of the arts, humanities and social sciences to the wellbeing of society, culture and the economy. The research is intended to provide a robust evidence base on which the higher education sector and policymakers can build to articulate the value of research and its impact on society. (Wonkhe 26/01).
  • The House of Lords Economic Affairs Committeehas published a report on research and development tax relief and expenditure credit
  • 45 UK researchers were successful in winning grants from the European Research Council recent round. UKRI’s Horizon Europe guarantee covers the funds while association is still up in the air
  • Policy influencing: HEPI published a report on how policymakers currently interact with research and how researchers lobby policymakers.
  • Lost money:Top UK economists have criticised £6 million a year in “perverse” quality-related cuts to their field, part of more than £100 million lost in the social sciences more broadly, despite a sharp improvement in Research Excellence Framework ratings. (THE)
  • Women’s Health Strategy for England – implementation.
  • Research security: article in The Times; Wonkhe blog
  • Intellectual Property: The N8 Research Partnership – an alliance of eight universities in the north of England – has delivereda statement on rights retention, strongly recommending that researchers “do not by default transfer intellectual property rights to publishers and instead use a rights retention statement as standard practice.” (Wonkhe)
  • ARIA: We’ve been writing about ARIA for so long that it feels like old news. However, it’s only right to mention the Government has now formally launched ARIA and it was legally established on 25 January. The link contains basic information about the purpose of ARIA and Wonkhe inform that Five new members have been appointed to the board, including former chair of the UK Vaccine Taskforce Kate Bingham and new Chief Financial and Operations Officer Antonia Jenkinson and that ARIA also announcedthat it would begin recruiting programme directors in the week of 6 February.
  • NHS Clinical Research at risk: The Lords Science and Technology Committee wroteto the Steve Barclay (Minister for Health and Social Care) warning that the current state of clinical research, pressures on the NHS, and a declining workforce is putting the future of clinical research in the NHS in jeopardy. The committee also emphasised that without urgent action patients will miss out on innovative treatments and the UK will miss out on economic growth. This webpage gives the best summary of the situation and the Committee’s recommendations which include mention of universities. Postdoctoral career insecurity is also mentioned and the Committee recommend offering longer contracts with the expectation of permanent positions to follow.
  • International collaboration: New Wonkhe blog – Becoming a science superpower relies not only on national research capacity but finding reliable international partners.
  • Research catapults: A new blog on Wonkhe – Catapults in context – Catapults are getting more funding and more political attention. But what do they do and what are they for?
  • Innovation: UKRI announced their cross-research council responsive mode pilot scheme which offers funding for interdisciplinary ideas that transcend, combine or significantly span disciplines. The full fund is worth £32.5 million and UKRI intend to make 26 awards.
  • R&D tax credits for small and medium sized enterprises are still contentious and Shadow BEIS Minister Chi Onwurah voiced concerns during oral questions: AMLo Biosciences is a Newcastle University spin-out whose groundbreaking research will save lives by making cancer diagnosis easier and more accurate. AMLo spends millions on research and reinvests all its research and development tax credits into R&D. The Government’s tax credit changes will halve what AMLo can claim, meaning less research and fewer new jobs. Its investors may ask for it to move abroad, where R&D is cheaper. Many Members have similar examples in their constituencies. Will the Minister explain why the Government issued no guidance, gave no support and had no consultation on the changes to SME R&D tax credits? Does he accept that whether in respect of hospitality heating bills or spin-out science spend, the Government are abandoning small businesses? Kevin Hollinrake (Small Business Minister) responded on behalf of the Government suggesting that the Government are trying to fix the problem: Clearly, we have to balance the interests of the taxpayer with the interests of small business. We have to make sure that the money that is being utilised for R&D is properly spent, and there were concerns about abuse of the small business R&D scheme. It is good that the Treasury is now looking into the matter and looking to move towards a simplified universal scheme, which I would welcome and on which there is a consultation. I absolutely agree that we need to make sure we have the right support for research and development in this country, not least for SMEs.

Parliamentary Questions:

  • ARIA funding flexibility.
  • Monitoring the UK’s innovation clusters
  • Confirmation of the total Government spend on R&I in 2018 as £12,765 million, 2019 as £13,542 and 2020 as £15,266
  • Horizon Europe: If the UK does not associate to Horizon Europe, the Government will be ready with a comprehensive alternative, including a suite of transitional measures and longer-term programmes, funded from the budget set aside for association to European programmes. As stated in my speech at Onward UK on 11 Jan 2023, these programmes will enable the UK to meet its global Science Superpower and Innovation Nation ambitions. Details of the transitional measures have already been published, and the Department will publish more detailed proposals on the longer-term programmes in due course.

Regulatory: OfS under fire

Matt Western has been demonstrating his worth as Shadow HE Minister recently by asking a series of useful parliamentary questions. This includes Matt questioning Minister Halfon on whether the OfS will increase the registration fee for universities (because the fee is set by DfE). Halfon’s response:

  • No final decision has been made on any fee increase. The department is currently considering the level those fees should be set at for the 2023/24 academic year, to ensure that the OfS can perform its important functions effectively, ensuring students receive high quality education and value for money.
  • This includes continuing investigations to address pockets of low quality HE provision and deliver new duties under the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill.

It’s this last element that’s the kicker because fee increases are expected to be tied to the newer closer regulatory interventions on course quality and free speech.

You’ll recall a couple of weeks ago that the mission groups wrote to a select committee urging them to look how OfS regulate the sector. The Russell Group have spoken out again, on the same issue because the proposed increase in registration fees is of 13-15% whilst student maintenance loans were only uplifted by 2.8%. Dr Tim Bradshaw, Chief Executive of the Russell Group stated:

  • We’ve been clear with Department for Education that, before any increase in the Office for Students’ fees is considered, the regulator should demonstrate clearly how this extra funding will bring genuine benefit to students and how it plans to show that it is itself operating in the most efficient and effective way… It’s a frankly bizarre move given the perspective of the maintenance loan uplift, and also because it is not clear if the Office for Students has actually asked for this level of increase. Instead, the 13% figure seems to be coming more from political angles and linked primarily to responsibilities the Office for Students may get if and when the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill becomes law.
  • Instead of bumping up its fees…the Office for Students should be cutting them, and substantially…
  • while Parliament wrestles with the closing stages of the Free Speech Bill, maybe it should instead put a little more effort into scrutinising existing legislation and the priorities of the Government, its departments and the regulator with respect to students as they try to stay focused on their studies while their maintenance loans run out.

Dr Tim Bradshaw wrote further on the topic in a HEPI blog and you can also read the Russell Group’s analysis on student losses as maintenance loans fail to keep up with inflation here.

Another corker from Matt Western that the Government slightly sidestepped is whether the OfS Director for Free Speech will commit to the IHRA definition of antisemitism. All HE institutions have been pushed hard in recent years to sign up to the definition. Minister Coutinho stated: … We remain committed to the IHRA definition and our belief that providers should adopt it… The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill will require reasonably practicable steps to be taken to secure freedom of speech within the law. The Director will oversee the free speech functions in that context.

The OfS, who haven’t been sitting idly by whilst the Russell Group launched their offensive. On Friday Wonkhe reported that: The Office for Students (OfS) is seen by providers as “seeking conflict”, lacking independence from government, and poor at communicating, according to findings of independent research into its relationship with the sector. As a result it has set out plans to “refresh” its engagement with providers – a blog from chief executive Susan Lapworth sets out actions including better communication channels, careful consideration of consultation lengths, and visits to institutions to “improve mutual understanding”.

The research that Wonkhe mentioned was actually published in July and this entertaining Wonkhe blog picks out the highlights from the research feedback. Seven months passed in which OfS had plenty of time to ruminate on their response/action and on Thursday Susan Lapworth published her own blog setting out what OfS would do. Here’s a comment from ‘Andy’ about Susan’s blog (published on Wonkhe):

  • The blog follows Susan Lapworth’s now traditional approach of apologising for the fact that the sector doesn’t understand the OfS, and promising to try and explain more clearly why everything they do is excellent, while not engaging with any substantive criticisms or issues. Coming across, as always, as someone very much untroubled by doubt.
  • The blog also comes with the function to comment but, as always, even mildly critical comments are not published (which is perhaps why the blogs never have any comments on them).
  • There are, as the article gently implies, no obvious signs that anything is going to get any better.

TEF: Finally the last thing anyone who was involved in the recent TEF exercise will want to read about now is…well…TEF. There is an easy read blog (yes it’s Wonkhe again) which contemplates TEF 4.0 and considers whether to embrace it or firmly place one’s head in the sand. Enjoy!

Students

Student Affordability

  • Reassurance from Paul Blomfield MP who chairs the APPG for Students writing about why students should be a priority in cost of living discussions within Parliament.
  • A useful Commons Library briefing the value of student maintenance support details how student maintenance support levels have changed over time and explores whether it’s enough, parental contributions and eligibility. A key point is that the real terms value of loans reduce by 7% in the current academic year and 4% for 2023/24 with the impact that the reduction is larger than any real cuts seen in student support going back to the early 1960s.
  • Parliamentary question confirming there are no plans to offer a repayment holiday on student loans when a graduate falls on hard times.
  • Scotland have suspended their student rent cap stating it had limited impact on annual rents set on the basis of an academic year.
  • Jersey have confirmed that the previous temporary (2022) increase in student maintenance will become permanent. However, the administration are coming under fire because the funding arrangements for next academic year haven’t yet been released.
  • Wonkhe report that Rising costs are “ruining” the university experience by 54 per cent of students, according to new pollingon the cost of living. Seven in ten have considered dropping out, with 37 per cent of these citing living costs as the main reason. The survey, conducted by Opinium on behalf of higher education software provider TechnologyOne, covered a representative sample of more than 1,000 university students across the UK in December and January.

Additional Hardship Funding: In our recent policy update we covered the announcement of additional student hardship funding for 2022-23. Overall there is £11.1m through full-time student premium, £1.6m through the part-time student premium, and £2.3m through the disabled students’ premium.The OfS has now shared allocations with providers and tasked them to consider how to distribute the additional funds. What is interesting policy wise is that Wonkhe highlight that the money is a redistribution of funds which were originally designed to support preparation for the Lifelong Loan Entitlement and “emergent priorities” funding. So, another Government initiative that under Rishi’s administration the brakes have been applied to (just lightly). This slowdown could mean that the PM is taking a more considered approach to previous policy initiatives rather than steamrollering them out…or if could just mean a general election is looming on the who-knows-how distant horizon.

Student Accommodation: Wonkhe cover resistance to the Government’s plan to abolish fixed term tenancies: A group of universities, student accommodation providers, and landlord bodies have written to the government warning against the abolition of fixed-term tenancies for students renting privately. The letter, co-signed by Universities UK chief executive Vivienne Stern, argues that the introduction of open-ended tenancies to the student housing market, as proposed by the government, will “undermine the stability and proper functioning of the sector” which is “dependent on property being available at the start of the academic year”. The Telegraph reports on the letter.

Quick news and blogs

Admissions: BTEC still under threat

  • Opposition to the removal of funding for some vocational qualifications continues. The Lords have been vocal in their opposition and a cross-party group urged Education Secretary Gillian Keegan to withdraw plansto cut funding for recently reformed applied general qualifications, such as BTECs.
  • Recent analysis from the Protect Student Choice campaignrevealed more than half of the 134 qualifications currently available (undertaken by 200,000 pupils) and included in the DfE’s performance league tables would be ineligible for funding from 2025.
  • The letter to Minister Keegan included high profile figures such as previous Education Secretaries of State David Blunkett and Ken Baker, former Education (and HE) ministers David Willetts and Jo Johnson, the Deputy Speaker of the Lords Sue Garden, and Labour peer Mike Watson. The letter highlights that previously they had been assured that only a small proportion of the applied generals would be removed, which is why they had supported the Skills Bill. It also states that qualifications to be defunded, which include health and social care, science, IT and business, are popular with students, respected by employers and valued by universities and states that removing them will have a disastrous impact on social mobility, economic growth and our public services. The Peers call on Keegan to remove the qualifications from the scope of the level 3 review and reforms, which are being cut to streamline the current offering and make way for new T Levels.
  • In other House of Lords news a rather eminent group of Peers has come together to launch a select committee on 11-16 year olds’ Education with reference to the skills necessary for the digital and green economy. Former HE Minister Lord Jo Johnson will chair the Committee and you can view the other Members here. The calibre of Peers participating makes this committee one to watch. They include a former education secretary, a Teachers Union general secretary, the Lords deputy Speaker, president of the Independent Schools Association, co-chair of the engineering APPG, and several party education spokespersons.

HESA statistics | Grade inflation (deflation)

It’s always an interesting half hour to peruse the HESA data releases. This time it’s the first look at the overall 2021/22 student statistics. For ease of reading we’ve popped the overall key points here. They cover student numbers and characteristics including disability, ethnicity, deprivation, religion, and age; by subject (spoiler – languages are down again); and qualifications awarded. HESA also published an insight brief – some interesting points:

  • A decrease in EU enrolment coupled with an increase in non-EU international numbers – unsurprisingly there may be a link with the end of home fee eligibility for EU students and the introduction of the Graduate route visa scheme.
  • A decrease – although not to pre-pandemic numbers – in the number of students being awarded first class honours, following a surge in high grades during the 2019/20 and 2020/21 academic years. The government will be pleased although they want it to go back to pre-pandemic as a start and maybe further.
  • An increase in students studying abroad as pandemic-era travel restrictions were lifted.
  • A decrease – although not to pre-pandemic levels – in students living in their parents’ or guardians’ home, following an increase during the height of the pandemic. (Remember this data is before current cost of living concerns.) This is interesting because we wondered if there would be a permanent shift, it seems not but cost of living may mean this changes again.

Wonkhe have a blog on the data release.

On the topic of grade inflation OfS Chief Executive, Susan Lapworth, stated: Today’s figures show a welcome decrease back towards pre-pandemic levels in the proportion of first class degrees awarded to students graduating in the 2021-22 academic year…Left unchecked, grade inflation can erode public trust and it is important that the OfS can and does intervene where it has concerns about the credibility of degrees. Universities and colleges understand that they must ensure that the degrees they award are credible and properly represent students’ achievement. This is the way to maintain the confidence of students, employers and the wider public in higher education qualifications.

Susan also mentioned the UUK and GuildHE initiative which aimed to increase transparency in degree awards: Last year, members of Universities UK and GuildHE committed to address the rising proportion of first class and upper second degrees and pledged to return to pre-pandemic levels of grading. We welcomed that commitment and will continue to monitor trends in classifications to understand factors that may contribute to the sector’s performance.

UUK has a good explainer about the initiative on their website (stick with it through all the drop down clicks): How universities are turning the corner on grade inflation.

If you’re interested in the latest statistics on HE staff from HESA you can read the analysis here.

ChatGPT

ChatGPT was THE topic of conversation over the last few weeks. Here’s a selection of links which vary in their focus and take on the topic.

Inquiries and Consultations

  • Here is the updated inquiries and consultation tracker. Email us on policy@bournemouth.ac.uk if you’d like to contribute to any of the current calls.
  • Other news
  • Targets and measures: Wonkhe blog –  the unique strengths of higher education are at risk from the excessive standardisation of targets and performance measures.
  • Emerging Tech: Previous universities minister Chris Skidmore has been appointed to support Sir Patrick Vallance’s work to accelerate the development of emerging tech. Chris will work on green industries. Skidmore will be stepping down as an MP at the next election
  • Degree apprenticeships: Wonkhe tell us Universities UK has released a ten point plan on how to grow degree apprenticeship provision, calling on government to review the costs and burden of regulation – the scale and complexity of which currently “creates a potential barrier to entry” – and reopen the register of apprenticeship training providers, so that universities new to delivering degree apprenticeships “can take the first step to be able to deliver them”. Also: Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education Robert Halfon praised universities’ role in promoting degree apprenticeships – including excellent Ofsted inspection reports, which he noted as confirming his belief that universities “are brilliantly placed to deliver these unique programmes”. And we have a Parliamentary Question: Promoting degree apprenticeships to disadvantaged young people.
  • Health workforce: The Welsh government has announced an expansion in training places for the health professional workforce in Wales, with £281.98 million to be invested in 2023-24, an eight per cent increase from the current year. The funding includes £7.14 million for medical training places. (Wonkhe.)
  • Refugee/asylum access to HE: Wonkhe report that a new online portal has launched to promote opportunities for refugees and people seeking asylum in the UK to access university. The Displaced Student Opportunities UK website – created by Refugee Education UK, Student Action for Refugees, and Universities of Sanctuary – is intended to showcase academic scholarships, grants, short courses and mentoring for displaced students.
  • Minimum entry requirements (or limiting student numbers): there is an interesting THE article Second chances. It covers the Netherlands universities who may revert to using lotteries to decide which students are admitted to fixed-capacity programmes. Supporters say we do believe it would promote equity between students. Interesting, but this approach isn’t (currently) being considered for UK HE policy.
  • THE has an article on the MPs who also work in Universities. It’s mainly concerned with the impact of second earnings but does mention how having an MP on staff, even temporarily, could be a lobbying route. This Evening Standard article quantifies the detail a little more on second earnings noting former PMs within the top earners but unfortunately doesn’t dish on how much universities are paying their parliamentarians.
  • Carbon footprint: The Government wants HE (and FE) to publish carbon footprint data by 2025 but there isn’t a reliable data collection system in place. Wonkhe: Enter the Environmental Association for Universities and Colleges (EAUC) and a Standardised Carbon Emissions Reporting Framework agreed in consultation with every relevant sector group you can imagine. It’s a voluntary, consensual requirement that will align with an updated and streamlined HESA estates management record and aims to meet providers where they are in terms of collection and reporting. Here’s the blog.
  • New Uni: Blackpool to receive £40 million to build a new carbon neutral university.
  • Turing troubles: Opinion piece in THE on the problems with the Turing Scheme. The authors recommend offering funding more promptly and flexibly.
  • Contract cheating: Wonkhe blog – Daniel Sokol describes a case of blackmail by an essay mill and proposes a new approach to how universities should handle such cases.
  • Student dropout: Wonkhe blog – What sort of support should be offered when students drop out of university? Stephen Eccles shoots and scores.

Subscribe!

To subscribe to the weekly policy update simply email policy@bournemouth.ac.uk. A BU email address is required to subscribe.

External readers: Thank you to our external readers who enjoy our policy updates. Not all our content is accessible to external readers, but you can continue to read our updates which omit the restricted content on the policy pages of the BU Research Blog – here’s the link.

Did you know? You can catch up on previous versions of the policy update on BU’s intranet pages here. Some links require access to a BU account- BU staff not able to click through to an external link should contact eresourceshelp@bournemouth.ac.uk for further assistance.

JANE FORSTER                                            |                       SARAH CARTER

VC’s Policy Advisor                                                              Policy & Public Affairs Officer

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

 

 

50th PhD viva as external

international, PG research, Publishing, student research, writing

Late last week I had the pleasure of conducting my 50th Ph.D. viva as an external examiner.  The first Ph.D. viva as external examiner was in 2004 at the University of Durham.  Over the years most have been at universities in the UK, but I have also had the pleasure of conducting viva in Ireland, the Netherlands, Nepal, Australia, Belgium, Finland, Denmark and New Zealand.  Technically three of these were not a traditional Ph.D. viva, as it included one Doctorate in Professional Practice (at The Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen), a D. Phil. at the University of Oxford and acting as pre-examiner for a Ph.D. at a university on Finland.  In addition I have also acted six times as an internal examiner at the University of Aberdeen (n=3) and Bournemouth University (n=3).  Over the years some of the experiences related to examining and supervision Ph.D. theses have resulted in papers and book chapters [1-5].

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinatal Health

 

References:

  1. van Teijlingen E (2007) PhD theses: the pros and cons (letter), Times Higher Education Suppl. Issue 1808 (August 24th): 15.
  2. Regmi, P., Poobalan, A., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E. (2021) PhD supervision in Public Health, Health Prospect: Journal of Public Health 20(1):1-4.
  3. Wasti, S.P. Regmi, P.R., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E., Hundley, V. (2022) Writing a PhD Proposal, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 176-183.
  4. Hundley, V., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E. (2022) Converting your Master’s or Doctoral Thesis into an Academic Paper for Publication, In: Wasti, S.P., et al. (Eds.) Academic Writing and Publishing in Health & Social Sciences, Kathmandu, Nepal: Himal Books: 184-189.
  5. van Teijlingen, E., Simkhada, B., Regmi, P., Simkhada, P., Hundley, V., Poudel, K.C. (2022) Reflections on variations in PhD viva regulations: “And the options are….”, Journal of Education & Research 12(2): 61-74.

SciVal training for Research Team Leaders – 23 Feb 2023

international, Knowledge Exchange, Publishing, Training

Are you looking for a collaborator to fill a gap in your team’s expertise, or looking for a non-academic collaborator for a funding bid? Interested in exploring which research contributes to the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals? Or do you need to present your publishing track record for a funding application?

Staff and research students at Bournemouth University have access to the research intelligence platform SciVal, a tool that provides research analytics data. Used in the right context SciVal can help you discover current research trends, track who is citing your work and from where, and identify potential collaborators including in non-academic sectors.

Join us in this online session delivered by our dedicated SciVal Customer Consultant on 23 February 2023, 10am to 11am or 2pm to 3pm.

To find out more about how to join the session, please visit this link on the staff intranet –

https://staffintranet.bournemouth.ac.uk/workingatbu/staffdevelopmentandengagement/fusiondevelopment/fusionprogrammesandevents/rkedevelopmentframework/careers/scivalforresearchteamleaders/

If you do not have access to the Staff Intranet,  you can access the booking form via the link below –

https://forms.office.com/Pages/ResponsePage.aspx?id=VZbi7ZfQ5EK7tfONQn-_uHL-6XoUudlNkJOS948yf5NUNEUyMUJSWUVUR1ZRWUNEVjhVT0lIS01QVyQlQCN0PWcu

HE policy update for the w/e20th January 2023

Industry collaboration, innovation, international, Student Engagement

The view from the DfE

For the first time since he was appointed, the Minster for Skills, further and Higher Education has written to the sector.  The tone is more positive than we have become used to, it didn’t arrive on a Friday at 5pm, and it was fairly focussed.  It is clear where the focus is, and no surprise either, given Halfon’s known views aired as chair of the Education Committee.  Skills, technical education and social justice, including of course accepting T-levels in admissions, and please can we do more apprenticeships.  Wonkhe have a view here.

Tuition Fees

Kier Starmer has stated “he wants to see change” on tuition fees that “he doesn’t think it works”. He qualified the statement making clear while he supports the original Labour policy of abolishing tuition fees in principle it would be too detrimental to the economy to carry it out: “ there are good Labour things that we would want to do but because of the damage the Tories have done we won’t be able to do”. He said instead his focus, if elected, would be on “stabilising the economy and growing it” and on restoring and reforming public services. He did not categorically say Labour would not maintain their free tuition fees pledge at the next election but it sounds like he is laying the ground.

There’s a Guardian article here. It’s estimated that abolishing tuition fees would cost around £6 billion per year.

Research

  • The PM spoke about plans to build an innovative economy and emphasised the increase in R&D funding to £20 billion to enhance our world leading strengths in AI, life sciences, quantum computing, financial services, and green technology.
  • Science minister George Freeman gave a keynote address – Science Superpower: The UK’s Global Science Strategy beyond Horizon Europe. He has also spoken out on Horizon Europe stating that both prime minister Rishi Sunak and chancellor Jeremy Hunt agreed that two years’ exclusion from the EU’s Horizon Europe R&D programme was “long enough” (source: Politics podcast). He also stated that if Britain was permanently excluded from the EU science schemes it would need to focus on specific research challenges where it can lead multinational consortia – There is a “huge opportunity” for the U.K. in these areas because Brexit allows the country to become “a global testbed” and regulate in an “agile” and “responsive” way, the science minister said (Politico). Also the Minister stated: As part of its “Plan B” if excluded from EU science, the U.K. would also channel more funding toward fellowships for foreign researchers, “moonshots” on cutting-edge technology areas, and global collaborations. He continued: “There’s a possibility if we move with bold vision … the European Union will see that we are committed to doing this and I think it’s more likely that they will pick up the phone and say, ‘look, come back in and let’s do the ERC [European Research Council] together’ and learn from some of the things that we are doing.”
  • Parliamentary question on medical innovation.
  • The Treasury has opened a consultationseeking views on the design of a single, simplified research and development (R&D) tax relief scheme, merging the existing research and development expenditure credit (RDEC) and the small and medium enterprise (SME) R&D relief.

Regulatory

The Russell Group, MillionPlus, GuildHE, and University Alliance banded together and wrote a coordinated letter to the Education Select Committee asking them to consider a new inquiry reviewing the into the operation and performance of the Office for Students (OfS). They ask the Committee to assess whether the OfS has succeeded in the role parliament envisaged for it in HERA, whether it has the confidence of the sector in the way it carries out its regulatory duties, how it has supported students and how it performs relative to standards set out in the Regulators’ Code.

It acknowledges the DfE review of HERA but states the depth of scrutiny failed to reflect the significance of the legislation and highlights the Government’s research based reviews emphasising there has been no equivalent review of the OfS. The letter also emphasises the student voice. Of course, the OfS itself has often justified choices and aligned itself with its perceived view of students. So this seems a reasonable request to the Committee. The inquiry would also allow universities and other HE providers regulated by OfS to share their opinion of OfS effectiveness and operational decisions.

Concerns raised in the letter:

  • The letter touches on technical issues and concerns that OfS may become the permanent Designated Quality Body. The need for an independent body to assess quality and standards was stressed by the Lords during the passage of HERA and ultimately resulted in the Government amendment to introduce the DQB function. The letter states: If the OfS were to take on DQB responsibilities permanently it would lead to a loss of independent oversight of quality assurance in England and go against international standards.
  • The letter also raises concerns that the OfS is not implementing a fully risk-based approach, that it is not genuinely independent and that it is failing to meet standards we would expect from the Regulators’ Code. The letter states the regulatory burden continues to be unnecessary limiting the full funding that could be spent on a quality experience for students.
  • Critique is levied because the OfS’ operation does not align with the [Regulators’] Code…the absence of mechanisms for the Regulator to gain structured feedback from providers on its own performance (as highlighted in a recent report by the National Audit Office).
  • Finally the letter concludes that a review is timely as the OfS is about to take on additional responsibilities due to the HE (Freedom of Speech) Bill.

It’s a powerful letter but what will it achieve? Select committees are not obliged to respond to requests they investigate a matter through an inquiry, they may also have a full programme (6 open inquiries, 2 about to conclude), or think this is not a priority. Or they may dismiss it as the sector moaning about regulation, which is a sign that regulation is working.  Also, while Parliament and Government are separate entities so the Committee can do thing the Government might not like, the Chair is a Tory and the Government are unlikely to be happy about a free for all picking holes in their regulator of choice, particularly during a pre-election period when Rishi is trying to maintain stability whilst building his party’s standing alongside governing the country.

However, to receive a joint letter from 4 mission groups is a significant occurrence and parliament is careful to understand the opinions of the populace. So, at the least, they will consider it.

What might happen?

If they choose to run an inquiry they may elect to hold oral evidence only. If they were to open for written evidence they might anticipate an unmanageable deluge of written as everyone piles in with their grumbles. Inviting limited speakers – perhaps one from each mission group and some from alternative HE providers under the regulation of the OfS and potentially student representatives – might help manage volume.

If the Committee did open for written evidence what form would the terms of reference take? Presumably the Committee wouldn’t draw them directly from the mission group letter but they need a narrow focus to avoid opening up a wider can of worms. The alternative is to keep an inquiry focussed on only one or two aspects. Or to not run an inquiry at all – they might to state that the DfE analysis is sufficient or find it isn’t their place due to a technicality in law or parliamentary procedure.

Even if an inquiry is run it might not achieve all the outcomes the mission group colleagues are hoping for. Particularly because even if the Committee find OfS is not performing well and make recommendations to Government the Government is free to ignore them and pursue their own course of action.

No matter what the outcome it is exciting to see the sector united and lobbying on their own behalf rather than passively accepting (and moaning) about the state of affairs. It has long been a criticism of the HE sector that we were not united in action nor coordinated in pushing back against HE decisions and regulation. Certainly the response to this call for an inquiry will be closely watched by the sector, Parliament and Government.

Parliamentary Question: DfE will not publish the impact assessment relating to OfS regulatory framework fees charged to providers.

Students

Mental Health:

Research Professional: a study has found that students’ risk of mental health problems differs depending on which subject they study. The study was undertaken in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and has a relatively limited sample.

Loans/Cost of Living

The Russell Group spoke out to warn that students in England could lose as much as £1,500 a year if maintenance loans do not keep up with inflation – highlighting students will drop out as they are unable to afford to stay in HE. The Russell Group laid the blame with the DfE stating they use out-of-date projections to calculate annual increases to maintenance loans – resulting in a significant real-term cut.

Russell Group chief executive, Dr Tim Bradshaw, said: Students are struggling with the rising cost of living and while our members are doing what they can to help, including investing millions of pounds in hardship support, we are concerned about the impact on students’ wellbeing and their studies. It’s particularly frustrating to see those challenges exacerbated by the use of a model that means students are set to be £1,500 worse off next year, especially when it can be so easily fixed and it relates to a loan that is paid back by the student.

Meanwhile the Government announced a change to the pre-2012 student loan interest rate. This plan 1 loan allows for interest rate changes as the bank Base Rate changes. The interest rate for these loans has increased to 4.5% (because the bank Base Rate changed to 3.5% in December 2022). Plan 2 and postgraduate loans remain at 6.5% until 28 Feb 2023.

However, on 11 January the Government announced the Cost of living boost for students: Financial package to help students with living costs and a further freeze on tuition fees. This includes freezing tuition fees for 2 years to reduce student debt levels (on top of the existing 6 year freeze on tuition fees)[1] and providing additional financial support for students in need. The additional monies are £15 million distributed through hardship funding, on top of the £261 million that is distributed for hardship annually to providers. HE providers will decide how to distribute their share of the additional funds to best meet their students’ needs. The Government also confirmed that the maximum loans and grants supporting both undergraduate and postgraduate with living and other costs will be increased by 2.8% for 2023/24. Minister Halfon also confirmed that students starting Higher Technical Qualifications in 2023/24 would also qualify for fee and maintenance loans for the first time.

Millionplus responded to the 2.8% living cost increase: The Government’s 2.8% uplift in maintenance loans equates to a significant real-terms cut in student support. Universities will continue to support their students through the cost of living crisis, but with their budgets also stretched they can only do so much. While the £15m additional hardship funding will help to support this work, more action is needed to support students.

Last October our Learning With the Lights Off report highlighted that 300,000 students, disproportionately from disadvantaged backgrounds, are at risk of severe financial hardship because of the cost of living crisis. The choice between completing your studies or eating is no real choice at all, but that could be the situation many find themselves in. The funding arrangements announced today will do little to alleviate that stark choice.

The Russell Group were similarly unimpressed – Dr Tim Bradshaw, Chief Executive of the Russell Group, said: It is disappointing that the DfE has failed to deliver a meaningful increase to maintenance loans or take the opportunity to address some of the flaws in the forecasting process to ensure they keep up with rising costs, despite warnings that students would be left £1500 worse off next year. Reversing the real terms cut in the value of the loan since 2020/21 would be a simple fix that would provide much needed immediate support for living costs and would be paid back by the student. 

NUS: The NUS welcomes any additional money and the Government’s recognition that students are in a precarious position due to spiralling inflation and costs…But while any increase in loans and hardship funds is welcome, we believe it is too little, too late. The Government needs to put in place a proper funding package to secure student finances and ensure all students can meet their potential…The government must go further to protect students in the long term, by increasing the value of the maintenance package, implementing a rent freeze and further controls on spiralling student rent, reducing transport costs and increasing the minimum wage for apprentices and young people…The 2.8% increase in the maintenance loan for 2023/24 is woefully inadequate and will leave students over £1,500 worse off than they would have been if student support was tied to inflation. More than a quarter of students are living on less than £50 a month after rent and bills. If maintenance support continues to lag behind inflation, the number of students in poverty is only going to increase.

The regulatory context: the OfS have weighed in with some research and John Blake has pointed out the potential impact on equality of opportunity.  Although they clearly have an interest, given the access and participation agenda it is not clear what they can do about it – but there are some hints at the end of the blog:

  • We will be publishing an Insight briefin the next couple of months summarising our cost-of-living polling and roundtable discussions. By highlighting practical approaches taken within the sector, we hope it will be a useful contribution to the growing body of evidence on this subject.
  • This evidence will also feed into our work on risks to equality of opportunity. Later this year, the OfS will be publishing an equality of opportunity risk register. The register, which is an important part of our access and participation reforms, will identify key sector-level risks to equality of opportunity in higher education and highlight student groups most affected by each risk. There’s a good chance cost of living will be on the register.
  • We will also be publishing updated guidance for providers on preparing their access and participation plans. In the meantime, in line with the existing guidanceI would encourage providers to continue to engage with their students to ensure their voice on this, as on other issues, is heard. Listening to, partnering with and understanding the views of underrepresented students can lead to improved strategies and activities that support these students to succeed.

Not a level playing field: For 2023-24 the Welsh Government has announced it will uplift the value of maintenance support (9.4%) with an average award of £11,720. It will apply to students who are already on a degree course. The higher support will be awarded to all Welsh students wherever they study in the UK for both part and full time study. English students will only benefit from the 2.8% increase detailed above. Wonkhe have an informative blog with comparisons. The uplift for Welsh postgraduate students and disabled students is more modest at 1.4%. Wonkhe say: The discrepancy is grounded in the use of an Office for Budget Responsibility projection of inflation in 2024 – although Wales is using a lower figure to that used in England’s maintenance uplift announced last week. The full detail on these changes to Welsh student finance is here.

Graduate Outcomes: An Institute for Fiscal Studies report suggests that young people who graduated into the pandemic suffered no lasting effects on careers, but the next two waves of graduates face a double whammy. The research found that:

  • The cohort that graduated in 2020, particularly those with university degrees, initially experienced worse outcomes. They struggled to find work immediately after graduation and were less likely to receive on-the-job training, and those with degrees started in lower-paid occupations than previous cohorts.
  • However, the rapid economic recovery and boom in jobs vacancies allowed them to quickly recover lost ground. One to two years into their careers, they do not appear to have lower employment rates or worse job quality than previous cohorts.
  • The cohorts that entered the labour market in 2019 and 2021 fared no worse than previous cohorts across a number of job quality measures. Up to one year after graduation (and up to two years for the 2019 cohort), they were no less likely to be in full-time, permanent jobs, to work in high-paid or professional occupations, to receive on-the-job training, or to work for a large firm.
  • There were no significant differences by parental background on these measures of job quality – perhaps surprising given the lack of formal internships over the pandemic.

The report does note, however, that this doesn’t mean the pandemic cohorts earnings won’t stagnate and that some of the pandemic’s negative effects may not have materialised yet.

There are increased concerns for the vulnerability of the students about to graduate as the labour market cools and because the final years of education were disrupted by the pandemic and the predicted forthcoming prolonged recession makes for a difficult graduate job market.

NUS – antisemitism

The National Union of Students (NUS) published Independent investigation into allegations of antisemitism within NUS by Rebecca Tuck KC which was commissions after a series of allegations and parliamentary pressure during the latter half of 2022. It highlights poor relations and that Jewish students may not feel comfortable attending NUS events and that across the last 17 years Jewish students have perceived this culture as hostile. She also states that antisemitism was not limited to Israeli-related examples such as holding Jewish students responsible for the acts of the Israeli state or comparing Israeli policy to Nazism, but has also seen the employing of ancient antisemitic tropes, from blood libels to Rothschild conspiracies.

Tuck also did not concur with concerns over the IHRA definition of antisemitism (see page 109 for the detail). She concludes I do not consider that revisiting the definition of antisemitism is going to move the NUS towards more meaningful, and less harmful engagement between students on the topic of Israel/Palestine.

Recommendations (see page 112 onwards for the detail):

  • Advisory panel
  • Record keeping
  • Due diligence for election candidates
  • Review complaints process
  • Antisemitism training
  • Create materials to lead the way – exploring “example models of dialogue around Israel/Palestine and disseminate good practice”.
  • Experienced facilitator to support discussion about Israel/Palestine for next 2 years
  • Revive ARAF committee (Anti Racist Anti-Fascist)
  • Surveying Jewish students
  • Consider an external speaker policy
  • Governance review

NUS responded that the report: is a detailed and shocking account of antisemitism within the student movement. It is a truly difficult read for all of us but we welcome the clarity it brings to enable us to act with confidence to tackle antisemitism head on.  There is no place for antisemitism within NUS and we are committed to ensuring that Jewish students feel safe and welcome in every corner of our movement.   

Our priority now is to take forward the recommendations from Rebecca Tuck KC’s independent report to tackle antisemitism in all its forms across the breadth and depth of NUS.  

We have developed an action plan which will help us achieve this, but it is vital that we listen and learn from others, which is why we are setting up an Advisory Panel to scrutinise this plan and oversee its implementation.  

Matt Western, Shadow HE Minister responded: Many of the findings in Rebecca Tuck KC’s independent Report are deeply worrying and should concern us all. Antisemitism has no place in society and must be stamped out wherever it is found. I am pleased to see the NUS accept the findings of the Report and recognise the need for change. Students deserve to feel safe, supported, and welcome on campus. I look forward to seeing the NUS implement their action plan over the coming weeks, working with the Jewish student community.

Parliamentary Questions

 Degree/Higher apprenticeships

The DfE published apprenticeships statistics (England only). Degree and higher apprenticeships continue to make up substantial proportion of apprenticeships starts but figures are relatively stable between years.

  • Advanced apprenticeships accounted for nearly a half of starts (43.3% or 151,300 starts).
  • Higher apprenticeships accounted for nearly a third of starts (30.5% or 106,400 starts).
  • Under 19s accounted for 22.2% of starts (77,500).
  • Starts supported by Apprenticeship Service Account (ASA) levy funds accounted for 64.6% (225,600).
  • Starts at Level 6 and 7 increased by 10.3% to 43,200 in 2021/22. This represents 12.4% of all starts reported for 2021/22.  There were 39,200 Level 6 and 7 starts in the same period last year (12.2% of starts in the same period).

Value for money

The Education Select Committee quizzed Minister Robert Halfon. Halfon emphasised the importance of career training, and championing apprenticeships and skills and promoting lifelong learning. He stated the need to increase investment in skills and to explore data that looked for skills deficits as well as looking at deficits in specific regional areas. He also referenced investing in T-levels and specifically focussed on employer engagement.

Specifically on HE Committee member Miriam Cates MP compared the funding of FE and HE querying whether HE provided value for money. The minister stated he welcomed the impact and successes of both sectors and suggested that he wanted the sector to focus on social justice and bringing the most disadvantaged the opportunities to get enter higher or further education. However, Cates pressed on stating the need for a full review of joined up education post-16, not just 16 to 18, asserting that the investment in higher education did not result in the relative job prosperity after.

Admissions

Minister Halfon provided an update statement on the rationalisation of pre-HE qualifications. He highlighted how qualifications which overlapped with T levels have been removed (excluding A levels which remain). However the alternative academic and technical qualification within scope of the Government’s review will need to demonstrate that they serve a clear and distinct purpose and meet new quality and funding criteria to continue to be publicly funded from 2025. This has an impact on HE because courses that include progression to HE will be under the microscope. The ministerial statement confirmed such courses must demonstrate evidence of demand and a clear statement of why the qualification is needed as well as meet regulatory requirements.

Finally the Minister states: Our reforms do not constitute a binary choice between T Levels and A levels. We have listened to feedback and recognise the need for additional qualifications, including alternative qualifications such as some BTECs designed to be taken as part of a mixed study programme including A levels. These alternative qualifications are an important part of how we will support diverse student needs and deliver skills that employers need for a productive future economy, in areas that A levels and T Levels do not cover. In addition, the T Level Transition Programme provides a high-quality route onto T Levels, for students who would benefit from the additional study time and preparation that it will give them before they start their T Level.

In a parliamentary question this week Minister Halfon highlighted that UCAS expect the number of UK and overseas HE applicants will reach one million by 2026/27 (see page 3).

Access and Participation

There was a good ding dong in the Lords as peers pushed the Minister over Social Mobility Commission issues on 12 January – read this short text for more details.  Previously Katharine Birbalsingh then Chair of the Social Mobility Commission announced she was stepping down as Chair because her controversial opinions were doing more harm than good, and placed the commission in jeopardy. Catherine was informally called ‘Britain’s strictest headteacher’ and a right-wing culture warrior. She spoke about her decision to stand down is Schools Week stating she brought with her too much baggage. Deputy Commissioner Alun Francis again steps up as interim Chair. Research Professional covered the story in a short article. Katherine’s letters can be read here.

Social Mobility Commission (SMC) catch up:
In 2022 the SMC set out a fresh approach to social mobility, moving away from the notion that social mobility should just be about the “long” upward mobility from the bottom into the top.

In June the SMC published their State of the Nation annual report. The report showcased their new Social Mobility Index, a rigorous new framework for measuring social mobility over time. Each year, they will report on mobility outcomes, intermediate outcomes, and the drivers of social mobility (the background conditions that enable social mobility to happen).

2023 will see the publication of the next State of the Nation report, in which the SMC will also overlay these metrics by UK regions, and give additional breakdowns by other characteristics including sex, ethnicity and disability. These breakdowns will connect personal characteristics to a place, and can help to inform early thinking about policy solutions.

Appointment: Professor John McKendrick has been appointed as the new Commissioner for Fair Access to Higher Education in Scotland.

Parliamentary Question: Supporting foster care young people in university

International

Wonkhe: further signs that a crackdown on international students is coming,

HEPI published a new policy note which they state reveals a lack of understanding among employers of the post-study work rights of international students in the UK, despite the fact the Graduate Route visa could offer the answer to many current skills shortages.

Other news

Block teaching: THE article on block teaching – Brick by brick: Advocates of “block teaching” are teaming up in a new association in an attempt to hasten its adoption by universities worldwide.

Diversity: THE article: The term “BAME” hides the nuanced identities of academics of colour. EDI efforts must be intersectional if they’re to nurture all marginalised groups, write four female academics in the UK.

Funding boost for 16-19 providers: On 9 January the government announced  increased funding rates  worth an additional £125 million for providers delivering 16-19 education from 2023/24. Minister Halfon has long been a supporter of increased funding for FE and this funding decision may demonstrate his effective campaigning in this area, alongside a PM who states education is why he got into politics.

PMQs – Social Mobility: David Johnson MP raised about universities and employers playing their part in ensuring social mobility during week’s parliamentary questions. PM Sunak responded that the Social Mobility Commission was promoting social mobility in the UK and provided toolkits to employers.

Training investment: The CBI Education & Skills survey revealed that fewer employers are prepared to increase the investment in the training of their employee during the next year. Intention to support increased training has fallen from 53% in 2021 to 38% currently. The data also revealed that few employers are aware of the Government’s schemes for training such as the Lifelong Loan Entitlement, Local Skills Improvement Plans, or T levels. However, 75% of firms supported extending the Apprenticeship Levy to other forms of accredited/regulated training.

Free Speech keen to appoint: Research Professional state the Telegraph reports that a shortlist has been drawn up for the position of free speech tsar at the Office for Students—this is despite the government’s bill not yet having achieved royal assent. The paper reports that the shortlist for the £99,164-a-year job at the OfS includes Higher Education Policy Institute director Nick Hillman. However, The Telegraph describes University of Cambridge philosophy professor and Spiked Online columnist Arif Ahmed as the “frontrunner” to land the role.

And we have another OfS blog on free speech

Subscribe!

To subscribe to the weekly policy update simply email policy@bournemouth.ac.uk. A BU email address is required to subscribe.

External readers: Thank you to our external readers who enjoy our policy updates. Not all our content is accessible to external readers, but you can continue to read our updates which omit the restricted content on the policy pages of the BU Research Blog – here’s the link.

Did you know? You can catch up on previous versions of the policy update on BU’s intranet pages here. Some links require access to a BU account- BU staff not able to click through to an external link should contact eresourceshelp@bournemouth.ac.uk for further assistance.

JANE FORSTER                                            |                       SARAH CARTER

VC’s Policy Advisor                                                              Policy & Public Affairs Officer

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

[1] The last change was in 2017 when the cap that applies to most courses was increased from £9000 to £9250

The PhD viva and then….

BU research, Centre for Excellence in Learning, Featured academics, international, PG research, Postgraduate Research, Publishing, student research, Women's Academic Network, writing

Today the Journal of Education and Research published online our paper ‘Reflections on Variations in PhD Viva Regulations: “And the Options Are …”’. [1]   The paper outlines that examining PhD research in the form of a doctoral thesis is specialist work, which is why few people know the potential variations. This paper highlights the different options that are available for PhD examiners. There are four general options: (1) pass, (2) rewrite and resubmit; (3) lower degree, with or without resubmission; and (4) fail the PhD. However, from our experience, of both being examined for our own PhDs and examining others at a range of different universities, we have noted a considerable variety in detail within these common options. This paper outlines a variety of outcomes of a PhD examination, followed by four short case studies, each reflecting on a particular aspect /differences we experienced as examinees or as examiners. This paper further aims to alert PhD candidates and examiners to study the examination rules set by the awarding university, as the details of the PhD examination outcome, and hence the options available to both examiners and the students may differ more than one might expect.

This publication adds to our earlier work on the roles of PhD supervisors providing in-depth discipline-specific Public Health knowledge and technical (e.g., methodological) support to the students, encouraging them towards publications or conference presentations, offering pastoral support for student wellbeing, and finally preparing them to defend their thesis by conducting a mock viva. Our earlier paper focused on the responsibilities, opportunities, and sometimes the challenging nature of being a PhD supervisor in the field of Public Health in Nepal. [2]

Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen

CMMPH

 

References:

  1. van Teijlingen, E., Simkhada, B., Regmi, P. ., Simkhada , P. ., Hundley, V. ., Poudel, K. C. (2022). Reflections on Variations in PhD Viva Regulations: “And the Options Are …”. Journal of Education and Research, 12(2), 61-74. https://doi.org/10.51474/jer.v12i2.624
  2. Regmi, P., Poobalan, A., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E. (2021). PhD supervision in public health. Health Prospect, 20(1), 1-4.