Category / Knowledge Exchange

Building Ventures from Bricks: Why LEGO® Serious Play® Belongs at the Heart of Entrepreneurship Education

BU Challenges, Business Engagement, Knowledge Exchange, Student Engagement

There is something quietly radical about placing a box of LEGO bricks in front of an entrepreneurship student and asking them to build what it feels like to start a business as a woman. It looks playful. It feels unfamiliar. And that is precisely the point.

Gendered barriers to enterprise, unequal access to networks and capital, and the legitimacy penalties faced by women founders are not peripheral concerns — they are central to how entrepreneurship actually works. Yet they are among the hardest things to surface in a conventional classroom. Lectures can name them; discussions can debate them. But neither easily reaches the experiential, affective layer where structural disadvantage is felt and processed. LEGO® Serious Play® (LSP) –  a structured, facilitated methodology in which participants construct physical models as a vehicle for thinking and sense-making – offers a compelling answer.

The theoretical roots of LSP lie in constructionism (Papert & Harel, 1991 cited in Imholz and Petrosino, 2012), extending Piaget’s Constructivism, the premise that humans learn most powerfully when actively making something shareable. In entrepreneurship, this matters enormously. The field is inherently uncertain, relational and situated (Neck & Greene, 2011), demanding that practitioners navigate ambiguity and construct meaning from incomplete information — precisely what traditional pedagogies rarely train students to do.

LSP addresses this through embodied cognition — the well-established view that cognitive processes are rooted in the body’s interactions with the world (Barsalou, 2008; Wilson, 2002). When students physically manipulate bricks, they activate neural pathways associated with memory, association and imagination, surfacing tacit knowledge that verbal reasoning cannot access. The cognitive and reflective processes generated map directly onto the experiential learning cycle entrepreneurship education has long sought to replicate (Kolb, 1984).

Nowhere is LSP’s capacity to make the invisible visible more valuable than when the subject is gender and structural disadvantage. When a student is asked to build what barriers look like — giving them height, weight and spatial relationship — something categorically different becomes possible. The model externalises and legitimises the experience: it makes the barrier an object in the room for collective examination, rather than a contested assertion subject to instant pushback.

The LSP rule that the meaning of a model belongs only to its creator — and that no one may impose their own interpretation (Gkogkidis & Dacre, 2021) — creates protective distance between the student and their experience, allowing difficult realities to be surfaced through metaphor before being verbalised. Reduced perceived risk is precisely what enables more diverse voices to emerge (Gauntlett, 2011). Benesova’s (2023) study at the University of Leeds evidences this: students from high power-distance cultures reported that building gave them expression, bypassing the social hierarchies of the seminar, with one noting it was “much easier to build it than say it.”

The Entrepreneurial Learning Case

Fox et al. (2018) identify active, reflective, situated, and crisis-based learning as the key dimensions that effective entrepreneurship pedagogy must address, finding that digital simulations perform poorly on the affective and reflective dimensions and almost entirely fail to simulate failure and uncertainty. LSP does not share these limitations. Ball et al.’s (2021) case study from Northumbria University saw students complete a LEGO task with pieces deliberately missing — simulating resource constraints and ambiguity — and subsequently identify 68 distinct entrepreneurial skills and competencies including risk-taking, creativity and leadership. Creativity here means recombining knowledge, recognising patterns and imagining alternatives (Fillis & Rentschler, 2010) — and material, exploratory engagement of the kind LSP provides is precisely what develops creative confidence and problem-solving capability (Rauth et al., 2010). Zenk et al. (2018) went further still, designing an entire innovation course around LSP — guiding students through ideation, prototyping, pivot questioning and pre-mortem analysis in ways conventional course design cannot match.

Where LSP makes its most distinctive contribution is in the quality of reflection it generates. Gkogkidis and Dacre (2023) frame the four-step core process — pose question, construct, share meaning, reflect — as a pedagogical architecture that operationalises constructivist learning values. For universities seeking to embed entrepreneurial thinking across their culture, active, reflexive pedagogies of this kind are central to the entrepreneurial university mission (Guerrero & Urbano, 2012). When students have physically constructed the systems that disadvantage them, the subsequent reflection is grounded in something concrete and shared, allowing a group to move from “do these barriers exist?” to “here they are — now what do we do?” That shift, from debate to design thinking, is precisely the mode entrepreneurship demands.

In conclusion, gender, network access and legitimacy inequality do not sit comfortably in a traditional seminar. They are too personal, too politically charged, too easily deflected. LSP creates conditions in which these conversations happen differently: externalising structural barriers, equalising participation and protecting less powerful voices. For entrepreneurship educators serious about structural inequality, the bricks are doing serious work.

References

Ball, S., Quan, R., & Clegg, S. (2025). A case study of experiential entrepreneurial learning through LEGO® play. 20(1), Proceedings of the 20th European Conference on Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Northumbria University.         https://doi.org/10.34190/ecie.20.1.3942        

Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59(1), 617–645. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093639

Benesova, N. (2023). LEGO® Serious Play® in management education. Cogent Education, 10(2), 2262284. https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2023.2262284

Fillis, I., & Rentschler, R. (2010). The role of creativity in entrepreneurship. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 18(1), 49–81. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218495810000501

Fox, J., Pittaway, L., & Uzuegbunam, I. (2018). Simulations in entrepreneurship education: Serious games and learning through play. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 1(1), 61–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515127417737285

Gkogkidis V., and Dacre N. (2023). The educator’s LSP journey: creating exploratory learning environments for responsible management education using Lego Serious Play. Emerald Open Research, 1(12) No Pagination Specified, doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/EOR-12-2023-0004

Guerrero, M., & Urbano, D. (2012). The development of an entrepreneurial university. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 37(1), 43–74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-010-9171-x

Imholz, S. and Petrosino, A. (2012) Teacher Observations on the Implementation of the Tools of the Mind Curriculum in the Classroom: Analysis of Interviews Conducted over a One-Year Period. Creative Education, 3, 185-192. doi: 10.4236/ce.2012.32029.

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice-Hall.

Neck, H. M., & Greene, P. G. (2011). Entrepreneurship education: Known worlds and new frontiers. Journal of Small Business Management, 49(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2010.00314.x

Rauth, I., Köppen, E., Jobst, B., & Meinel, C. (2010). Design thinking: An educational model towards creative confidence. In T. Taura & Y. Nagai (Eds.), DS 66-2: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Design Creativity (ICDC 2010). The Design Society.

Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 625–636. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196322

Zenk, L., Hynek, N., Schreder, G., Zenk, A., Pausits, A., & Steiner, G. (2018). Designing innovation courses in higher education using LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY®. International Journal of Management and Applied Research, 5(4), 244–263. https://doi.org/10.18646/2056.54.18-019

 

INRC book roundtable/presentation by Drs Jonathan Cole and Catherine Talbot, Wednesday 22/04/2026, 13:00h, P426

Knowledge Exchange, REF Subjects, Research assessment, Research themes

Dear colleagues,

We warmly invite you to the event organised by the Interdisciplinary Neuroscience Research Centre on Wednesday, the 22 of April 2026, from 13:00 h to 15:00 h at P426 (Poole House).

The exciting event will focus on the interface between clinical and social neuroscience from the standpoint of new neuroscientific and technological leaps. The schedule is:

13.00 – 13.45 Dr Jonathan Cole (Visiting Professor, Bournemouth University) book presentation and roundtable: Hard Talk – When speech is difficult.

13.35 – 14.00 Coffee break.

14.00 – 14.45 Dr Catherine Talbot (Senior Lecturer, Bournemouth University) talk: Dementia in the digital age: the promise and pitfalls of social technologies.

If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact Ellen Seiss, eseiss@bournemouth.ac.uk or Emili Balaguer-Ballester, eb-ballester@bournemouth.ac.uk.

Thank you very much; we are looking forward to debating with you there.

The 4th INRC symposium: “From Clinical Applications to Neuro-Inspired Computation”, took place last Wednesday, 16th of January 2026. Thank you very much for your interest and especially to the fantastic speakers. It was great to see you there, and we hope you enjoyed it.

Kind regards,

Ellen and Emili, on behalf of all of us.

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

Industry collaboration, Knowledge Exchange, Student Engagement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Starting with Uncertainty: Teaching Technology Entrepreneurship Through Civic Immersion

Business Engagement, Centre for Excellence in Learning, Knowledge Exchange, Student Engagement, student research

MBA students on Bournemouth University’s Level 7 unit Entrepreneurship: Technology-Driven Ventures & User-Centred Business Solutions began their learning journey not in a lecture theatre, but in Sherborne, Dorset at the stunning Sherborne Boys School.

Hosted by the steering committee behind the emerging Turing Centre initiative,  our students were immersed in a live civic project inspired by the legacy of Alan Turing. The Turing Centre vision is explicitly future-facing: to inspire young people in digital technology, create an innovation hub and enterprise zone, support pathways into employment and skills, and function as a social, cultural, and economic asset for Sherborne and beyond . Rather than analysing this as a completed case , students encountered an evolving initiative shaped by institutional constraints, funding realities, stakeholder ambitions, and technological uncertainty. After exploring Sherborne’s historical and civic context, they worked in teams on four strategic challenges: translating vision into a viable business model, developing fundraising logic, shaping promotion and positioning, and evaluating financial, economic, and social sustainability. Their proposals were presented directly to members of the steering group.

This was not accidental. It reflects a deliberate pedagogical choice.

Entrepreneurship education has, for some time now, been trying to move beyond the “inspiration” model,  the idea that if students feel energised enough, something entrepreneurial will magically happen. Contemporary scholarship instead emphasises competence, judgement and disciplined practice (Neck & Corbett, 2018). Hägg and Gabrielsson’s (2020) systematic review traces this shift clearly: from knowledge transmission to experiential and practice-based designs. But they also sound a note of caution. Experience alone is not enough. Without theoretical integration, it risks becoming energetic but shallow.

Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning cycle — experience, reflection, conceptualisation, experimentation — is frequently invoked in business education. Yet critics have long warned that “learning by doing” can quietly become “doing without thinking” (Kayes, 2002). Morris (2020) similarly argues that Kolb’s framework is often applied in a simplified manner, neglecting the epistemic depth required for higher-order learning. In other words, activity is not the same as analysis.

The Sherborne engagement was therefore designed not as a field trip in the traditional sense, nor as consultancy theatre, but as structured immersion before interrogation. Students encountered ambiguity first; stakeholder tensions, funding constraints, institutional realities, technological ambition, and only afterwards will they begin systematically analysing what they have seen. Over the two weeks beginning 2 March, that initial immersion will be subjected to scrutiny. Entrepreneurship theory, user-centred design frameworks, and sustainability debates will not sit alongside the experience; they will probe it. Assumptions made in Sherborne will be tested. Enthusiasm will be examined. Gaps in evidence will be exposed.

Assessment design is crucial in holding this intellectual line. Research on authentic assessment demonstrates that tasks resembling professional practice enhance capability only when academic standards remain explicit and evaluative judgement is foregrounded (Villarroel et al., 2018). In this unit, students are required not merely to propose a technology-enabled, user-centred venture, but to justify its feasibility, scalability, ethical implications, and community impact through scholarly argument.

This matters particularly in technology entrepreneurship, where uncertainty, adoption dynamics and unintended consequences are structural features rather than unfortunate accidents. Pittaway and Cope (2007) argue that effective entrepreneurship education must expose learners to uncertainty while supporting reflective sensemaking. The Sherborne visit functions precisely as such a productive disorientation.

For this MBA cohort, Sherborne now becomes an anchor point. They are not beginning with abstract frameworks detached from context. They are beginning with lived complexity. The task ahead is not to apply tools mechanically, but to develop disciplined judgement by integrating technology, commercial logic and community value with intellectual rigour rather than optimism alone.

Experiential learning, when critically structured and theoretically grounded, does not dilute academic depth. It sharpens it.

 

References:

Hägg, G., & Gabrielsson, J. (2020). A systematic literature review of the evolution of pedagogy in entrepreneurial education research. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 26(5), 829–861. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-04-2018-0272

Hägg, G., & Kurczewska, A. (2016). Connecting the dots: A discussion on key concepts in contemporary entrepreneurship education. Education + Training, 58(7/8), 700–714. https://doi.org/10.1108/ET-12-2015-0115

Kayes, D. C. (2002). Experiential learning and its critics: Preserving the role of experience in management learning and education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 1(2), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2002.8509336

Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Prentice Hall.

Morris, T. H. (2020). Experiential learning – A systematic review and revision of Kolb’s model. Interactive Learning Environments, 28(8), 1064–1077. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1570279

Neck, H. M., & Corbett, A. C. (2018). The scholarship of teaching and learning entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 1(1), 8–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/2515127417737286

Pittaway, L., & Cope, J. (2007). Entrepreneurship education: A systematic review of the evidence. International Small Business Journal, 25(5), 479–510. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266242607080656

Villarroel, V., Bloxham, S., Bruna, D., Bruna, C., & Herrera-Seda, C. (2018). Authentic assessment: Creating a blueprint for course design. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 43(5), 840–854. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2017.1412396

Evidence Synthesis Centre open at Kathmandu University

Awarded & submitted bids, international, Knowledge Exchange, Publishing, Training, writing

Last week we opened the Evidence Synthesis Centre in the School of Medical Sciences at Kathmandu University in Nepal.  The centre is part of a wider initiative is funded by The British Academy and supported in the field by Green Tara Nepal. Earlier parts of this initiative included online workshop on systematic reviewing and evidence synthesis as well as face-to-face training in Nepal late last year.  The project involved Bournemouth University’s Dr. Pramod Regmi and Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen both in the Faculty of Health, Environment & Medical Sciences. 

This capacity-building project is led by Prof. Padam Simkhada from the University of Huddersfield and takes place at Kathmandu University School of Medical Sciences (KUSMS). This new Fellowship scheme is an international collaboration led by the University of Huddersfield in the UK, in close collaboration with Kathmandu University School of Medical Sciences (in Nepal), the Nepal Health Research Council, and several UK universities: Bournemouth University, the University of Sheffield, Canterbury Christ Church University, Keele University and the University of Chester. The Evidence Synthesis Centre and The British Academy grant grew out of an editorial written four years ago and published in the Journal of the Nepal Health Research Council [1]. The wider British Academy funded project on strengthening evidence  synthesis for health policy-making in Nepal has been described in two recent publications [2-3].

 

 

References:

  1. Simkhada, P., Dhimal, M., van Teijlingen, E., Gyanwali, P. (2022) Nepal Urgently Needs a National Evidence Synthesis Centre,  Journal of Nepal Health Research Council, 20 (3): i-ii.
  2. Simkhada, P., Vaidya, A., Regmi, P. P., Paudyal, P., van Teijlingen, E., Dhimal, M., Kiorala, B., Shrestha, A., Simkhada, B. (2025). Strengthening Evidence Synthesis for Health Policymaking in Nepal: A New Fellowship Initiative. Nepal Journal of Epidemiology, 15(2), 1379–1380. https://doi.org/10.3126/nje.v15i2.88516
  1. Vaidya, A., Simkhada, P., Silwal, R. C., Paudyal, P., Dhimal, M., Simkhada, B., van Teijlingen, E. (2025). Progress of the Unique Fellowship in Health Research Evidence Synthesis in Nepal. Nepal Journal of Epidemiology, 15(4), 1397–1398. https://doi.org/10.3126/nje.v15i4.88535

British Academy funded capacity-building training in Nepal

Awarded & submitted bids, international, Knowledge Exchange

Yesterday we reached third day of the three-day Fellowship training workshop in Dhulikhel, Nepal on evidence synthesis. This capacity-building project is led by the University of Huddersfield and takes place at Kathmandu University School of Medical Sciences (KUSMS). This new Fellowship scheme is an international collaboration led by the University of Huddersfield in the UK, in close collaboration with Kathmandu University School of Medical Sciences (in Nepal), the Nepal Health Research Council, and several UK universities: Bournemouth University, the University of Sheffield, Canterbury Christ Church University, Keele University and the University of Chester. This unique Fellowship started online in the autumn of 2025 and is part of a larger project on strengthening institutional knowledge and capacity of federal, provincial and local governments for evidence-informed health policymaking in Nepal. This important initiative is funded by The British Academy and supported in the field by Green Tara Nepal [1]. The project involved Bournemouth University’s Dr. Pramod Regmi and Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen both in the Faculty of Health, Environment & Medical Sciences.

Some 28 Fellows have been selected from nearly one hundred applicants to help build capacity in the field of evidence synthesis with overall aim to promote evidence-informed policymaking in Nepal. This is longstanding aim of the researcher as highlighted in previous call for an evidence-based policy centre in Nepal [2].

References:

1. Simkhada P, Vaidyal A, Regmi P, Paudyal P, van Teijlingen E, Dhimal M, Koirala B, Shresthe A, Simkhada B (2025) Strengthening Evidence Synthesis for Health Policymaking in Nepal: A New Fellowship Initiative, Nepal Journal of Epidemiology, 15(2), 1379–1380. https://doi.org/10.3126/nje.v15i2.88516

2. Simkhada P, Dhimal M, van Teijlingen E, Gyanwali P (2022). Nepal Urgently Needs a National Evidence Synthesis Centre, Nepal Journal of Epidemiology, 20 (3): i-ii.

Join the 17th Annual Postgraduate Research Conference – Wednesday 3 December 2025

Knowledge Exchange, PG research

17th Annual Postgraduate Research Conference: Register now

Register now to attend the 17th Annual Postgraduate Research Conference, hosted by the Doctoral College.

Join us for a day of showcasing some of the excellent research taking place across BU by our postgraduate research community. This event provides a platform for our postgraduate researchers to present their research, share insights, and engage in meaningful discussions with peers, university colleagues, and external partners.

Date & Time: Wednesday 3 December, 9am-4:30pm

Location: Fusion Building, Talbot Campus

This year, the Poster Exhibition will take place in FG04 & FG06, Fusion Building, with viewings taking place in the morning and during the lunch break. Oral presentations hosted in Share Lecture Theatre in the Fusion Building.

Whether you’re a researcher, academic, colleague, or just interested in the cutting-edge work happening at BU find out more and book your place here 

The detailed programme will be available soon.

Exciting Opportunities for Early Career Researchers

Knowledge Exchange, Training

We are delighted to share upcoming events from the British Academy Early Career Researcher Network (BA ECRN) Southwest & South Wales cluster. These are fantastic opportunities for networking, skill development, and engaging with key topics relevant to ECRs in the humanities, arts, and social sciences.

SWSW Connect Online Community Meeting: Research Culture and Excellence Frameworks

Date & Time: Tuesday 11 November, 12-1pm

This is a monthly online meeting for ECRs in the humanities and social sciences. It is a space to network, share knowledge, and support each other across the region. November’s session will focus on how ECR research can contribute to the research culture environment and to key UK frameworks: Research Excellence (REF), Knowledge Exchange (KEF), and Teaching Excellence (TEF).

Register on the BA ECRN Portal to find out more and book

Reaching Out: Forming Interdisciplinary Connections

Date: Tuesday 18 November, 10am-4pm

Location: University of Exeter

This in-person workshop is for ECRs who want to work together on research projects that cross different disciplines. The goal is to teach ECRs how to find partners, start these interdisciplinary projects, and gain better insights and funding advice from experienced researchers.

Register on the BA ECRN Portal to find out more and book

Development Fund Workshop: The Impact of the ‘Impact Agenda’

Date & Time: Thursday 27 November, 10:30am-5:30pm

Location: The British Academy, London

This workshop will examine the effect of the ‘impact agenda’ on the professional development and career paths of ECRs in the Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences. It will bring together ECRs, senior academics, and policy actors to develop practical recommendations for improving impact training and career progression.

Register on the BA ECRN Portal to find out more and book

SWSW Webinar Series

The SWSW Webinar Series brings monthly knowledge and skill-based content from engaging expert speakers.

Knowledge Exchange and Commercialisation

Date & Time: Thursday 4 December, 11am-12pm

Directors of the University of Exeter’s SHArD 3D Lab will present an overview of successful Knowledge Exchange initiatives. They provide specialised training, workshops, and research solutions for the heritage and emergency services sectors. The presentation highlights insights from their experience in departmental business engagement and impact leadership.

Register on the BA ECRN Portal to find out more and book

Research Impact Culture: AHRC and ESRC Impact Accelerator Accounts

Date & Time: Friday 5 December, 10am-12pm

This workshop introduces Impact Accelerator Accounts (IAA): research council funds provided to universities to develop a research impact culture. The session will cover the concept of research impact, examples of IAA-supported projects, and the aims of the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) and Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) IAA programmes. Participants will learn about available internal IAA support and funding to help researchers translate their work into real-world impact.

Find out more and book here

Stay Connected

We encourage all Early Career Researchers to join the BA ECRN Portal and ECRN platform for continuous updates on events, funding opportunities, and other resources relevant to your career development.

Our Researcher Development Hub is now available as your dedicated space to easily find resources and development opportunities for your research career stage.

UK Turing Scheme: My student mobility programme in Nepal

international, Knowledge Exchange, PG research, student research, Women's Academic Network

My name is Anjana Regmi Paudyal, and I am a PhD student in the Faculty of Health, Environment and Medical Sciences (HEMS), Bournemouth University (BU). My doctoral research focuses on modern slavery, particularly the opportunities and barriers to survivors reintegrating into their families and communities. I was honoured to take part in the Turing Scheme traineeship and other international academic activities in Nepal, which became a truly transformative experience both personally and professionally. The Turing Scheme lasted four weeks and was hosted by the Manmohan Memorial Institute of Health Sciences (MMIHS) in Kathmandu.

My traineeship was arranged through Bournemouth University in partnership with MMIHS in Kathmanduand it was supported by my BU supervisors Dr. Orlanda Harvey and Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen. I chose this placement because MMIHS has a strong research culture and offers opportunities to collaborate with students, faculty, and NGOs working in migration and modern slavery.

From the very beginning, I felt warmly welcomed by academics and students, which helped me settle in quickly. The first week was spent getting to know the university, its values, and its research culture. I particularly enjoyed informal discussions with first- and second-year MSc students, where we shared ideas and experiences across different academic settings.

By the second week, the focus shifted towards intensive academic engagement. I participated in a research workshop on grant applications, systematic reviews, and qualitative research methods led by expert guest speakers. These sessions sharpened my skills in data analysis and literature reviews, giving me fresh insights into areas highly relevant to my own PhD. Alongside this, I began engaging with NGOs (Non-Governmental Organisations) working in the field of migration and modern slavery. I met with Ms. Manju Gurung, Director of POURAKHI Nepal, an organisation that supports female returnee migrants and survivors of trafficking. I also gathered policy documents and insights from Green Tara Nepal (GTN) and the Nepal Development Society (NeDS), both of which have significant experience in migration health. These connections will help to shape my upcoming PhD fieldwork.

During the third week, it was my turn to share. I presented my PhD project, and my approach, using photo elicitation, is relatively new in Nepalese research, therefore, it sparked great curiosity among students and faculty. The discussions that followed were highly rewarding, especially around ethical considerations and practical challenges. I was struck by the students’ engagement, particularly the second-year MSc cohort, who found the sessions useful for their own research journeys.

As my time in Nepal came to an end, I reflected on the differences between teaching and learning styles in the UK and Nepal. I spoke with students about the UK system, where independent study and varied assessment methods are emphasised, which was particularly valuable for those considering postgraduate studies abroad. Beyond academia, I was fortunate to experience cultural festivals within and beyond Kathmandu Valley, which deepened my appreciation of Nepal’s vibrant traditions and community spirit.

I was fortunate to witness the “Gaijatra Festival” in Bhaktapur, Nepal. Gai Jatra is a Newari Hindu festival that honours deceased loved ones by parading decorated cows or children dressed as cows through the streets. The belief is that cows guide souls to the afterlife. Celebrated around the August full moon, the festival features music, dance, humor, and satire to provide comfort to grieving families and encourage them to embrace life despite their loss.

Looking back, this traineeship not only enhanced my academic and research skills but also strengthened my confidence in working across cultures and linking theory with practice. It confirmed my motivation to pursue a global research career and taught me the importance of being open, flexible, and curious. My greatest achievement was being able to present and discuss my methodology with such an engaged audience, while also building long-term connections with NGOs and academic partners.

I would wholeheartedly recommend the Turing Scheme to other students. It is challenging but deeply rewarding, offering the chance to grow personally, academically, and professionally while contributing meaningfully to international collaborations.  The environment at MMIHS was welcoming, though more structured compared to the UK. Students showed huge interest in UK teaching and assessment styles. Most academic sessions were in English, but some conversations were in Nepali, which helped me practice my language skills and build rapport.

If you get the opportunity: Say yes to goin abroad on the Turing Scheme.  It challenges you, but the growth and insights are worth it. I am much more confident working with diverse groups, whether in academic or NGO settings. Presenting my PhD methodology in Nepal and receiving recognition and engagement from students and academics. Academic presentation, intercultural dialogue, trauma-informed sensitivity, networking with NGOs, and collaborative learning. Absolutely. The Turing Scheme was transformative for both my personal and professional development.