BU Research Blog

Category / Knowledge Exchange

3 June 2026

LEGO® Serious Play and the Work of Embedding UN SDGs in practice.

Knowledge Exchange, staff profile pages, Training, Women's Academic Network Sukanya Ayatakshi

There is a particular silence that falls over a room of academics and practitioners when you put a box of LEGO bricks in front of them and ask them to build what sustainability means in their work. That silence lasts about four seconds. Then someone reaches in.

This afternoon, colleagues from across the University’s Sustainability Academic Network (SAN) sat around a table and did exactly that. The question we had was one that we rarely give ourselves room to think about properly: how do we embed the UN Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) into what and how we teach or work, in a way that means something beyond a line in a validation document or the curriculum? The method was LEGO® Serious Play® (LSP). Facilitated by Stefan Kleipoedzsus and me, it was, by any measure, a generative afternoon.

LSP was developed in the late 1990s by two professors, Johan Roos and Bart Victor, as a way to help senior executives think and talk differently about their organisations (Roos & Victor, 1999; Roos et al., 2004). Its native habitat is adults wrestling with challenging, ambiguous, organisationally-loaded questions, which is a fair description of curriculum design under a sustainability mandate. Released openly in 2010 and now used across start-ups, multinationals and universities alike (Kristiansen & Rasmussen, 2014), the method’s pedigree is corporate strategy, not childhood play with the bricks. Using it with academics is not a gimmick; it returns it to its roots.

But why does it earn its place in staff development?

The cognitive case is well established. Building externalises thinking: when we construct a physical model, we recruit the body’s interaction with the world into our reasoning, surfacing tacit knowledge that talk alone leaves buried (Barsalou, 2008; Wilson, 2002). This is the constructionist premise, that we think most powerfully when we are making something shareable (Papert & Harel, 1991).

But for educators and sustainability practitioners, there is a second, sharper reason. We largely teach as we were taught. If we want colleagues to consider experiential, active pedagogies for their own students, what we can do is have them experience one and then reflect on it. LSP turns staff development into exactly the reflective practice we ask of ourselves as professionals (Schön, 1991); not a lecture about active learning, but the thing itself, felt from the inside. What you do with a method after you have built it with your own hands is a different decision from what you do with one you have only heard described.

Sustainability is a difficult thing to discuss in a room. It is abstract, contested, unevenly understood across disciplines, and easy to deflect with the familiar moves, that’s not relevant to my subject, we already do that, whose definition anyway? A conventional meeting tends to reward whoever is most fluent or most senior.

Building changes the dynamics. When a colleague presents assumptions like height, weight, and form in bricks, it turns into an object on the table, something the group can analyse together rather than a claim to be swiftly rebutted. The convention that a model’s meaning belongs to its creator protects an idea long enough for it to be listened to. Across various faculties and departments with different languages for sustainability, models provided a shared, neutral platform. Statler et al. (2009 and 2011) describe LSP as a way to hold paradox and complexity openly rather than prematurely collapsing them, which is exactly the right approach for the SDGs, where the tensions between goals are not flaws but the core of the work.

But one excellent afternoon is a beginning, not evidence. The trouble with any workshop of this kind is that it generates energy and insight that have evaporated by the following Monday, a memorable session that embeds nothing. It is also true that the people in the room were a self-selecting sustainability network; the method’s more robust test will be the others who are indifferent or unconvinced, and we should not mistake a willing audience for a settled case.

So the test of this work is whether anything in our modules, our assessments and our everyday conversations actually shifts as a result, and whether the alignment with the BU2035 strategy becomes substantive rather than a matter of compliance. What the session did show was where colleagues are, made tacit assumptions visible and shared, and built the cross-faculty relationships that durable curriculum change depends on. We see this as the first move in something larger, and we are already thinking about what a sustained, evidence-based strand of practice looks like beyond a single afternoon. If the method’s history tells us anything, it is that adults do some of their most serious thinking when we let them build.

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

Kristiansen, P., & Rasmussen, R. (2014). Building a better business using the LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY® method. Wiley.

Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Constructionism. Norwood, NJ. Ablex Publishing.

Roos, J., & Victor, B. (1999). Towards a new model of strategy-making as serious play. European Management Journal, 17(4), 348–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-2373(99)00015-8

Roos, J., Victor, B., & Statler, M. (2004). Playing seriously with strategy. Long Range Planning, 37(6), 549–568.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2004.09.005

Schön, D. A. (1992). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315237473

Statler, M., Heracleous, L., & Jacobs, C. D. (2011). Serious play as a practice of paradox. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(2), 236–256. DOI:10.1177/0021886311398453

Statler, M., Roos, J., & Victor, B. (2009). Ain’t Misbehavin’: Taking Play Seriously in Organizations. Journal of Change Management, 9, 107 – 87. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697010902727252

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

3 June 2026

Strengthening BU’s Research Culture: A Look Inside the Mixed Methods Workshop

Knowledge Exchange ballen

Bridging the Methodological Divide: ECR Led Workshop Explores the Power of Mixed Methods Research

On Wednesday 6 May 2026, Early Career Researchers and academics from across BU came together for an insightful and collaborative workshop: “The Growing Importance of Mixed Methods Research”

Organised by Jiahong Han from the Faculty of Business and Law and supported by the ECR Research Culture and Community Grant, this event was designed to strengthen researchers’ methodological skills by delving into the principles, applications, and challenges of Mixed Methods Research (MMR) within the social sciences.

An Interdisciplinary Gathering

For a specialised, interactive methodological workshop, the event achieved an impressive turnout of 20 researchers. Rather than drawing from a single department, the workshop successfully built a cross-faculty collaboration, attracting Doctoral Researchers, Lecturers, and Senior Lecturers from a diverse range of disciplines:

English Literature
Clinical Imaging
Accounting
Business Management

This mix of backgrounds sparked rich discussions, allowing attendees to learn from varied methodological perspectives and experiences. While the workshop was a standalone event, it successfully established new professional connections across BU. Attendees also gained a valuable external contact, with the guest speaker from Sheffield Hallam University sharing her details to facilitate ongoing external collaboration.

Guest speaker from Sheffield Hallam University introduces the principles of Mixed Methods Research to BU researchers

Inside the Workshop: Theory Meets Practice

The day was split into distinct phases to maximise engagement:

Foundational Theory: The invited guest speaker from Sheffield Hallam University introduced the core principles of MMR, focusing on how qualitative and quantitative data can be meaningfully integrated within research design.

Deconstructing the Designs: A dedicated segment aimed at demystifying the different types of mixed methods frameworks and addressing common pitfalls in social science research.

Hands-On Application: Moving from theory to practice, attendees workshopped their own active research projects, troubleshooting real-world methodological hurdles with peers from different faculties.

Catered Networking Lunch: A working lunch that allowed researchers to connect casually, exchange contact details, and lay the groundwork for future cross-faculty BU collaborations.

Doctoral researchers and senior staff workshopped active research projects together during the practical afternoon session

What Attendees Said

The feedback from the event was overwhelmingly positive. Participants particularly valued the blend of lecture and practical workshop activities, noting that it made complex concepts highly applicable to their own active projects.

Key takeaways from the attendees highlighted that the event was:

“Informative, engaging, and highly relevant to our research development needs.”

Many noted that the sessions helped them clarify different mixed methods designs and provided a supportive space to discuss real-world methodological challenges with both peers and the guest speaker.

Behind the Scenes

For organiser Jiahong Han, the grant provided an invaluable opportunity for personal and professional growth. Reflecting on the experience of organising an academic event for the first time, from coordinating with external speakers to promotion and logistics, Jiahong described the journey as “collaborative, valuable, and confidence-building.”

“Through organising the event and participating in the discussions, I deepened my own understanding of Mixed Methods Research and its practical applications. It has expanded my professional network both within BU and externally, creating fantastic opportunities for future knowledge exchange.”

About the ECR Research Culture and Community Grant

This event highlights how the ECR Research Culture and Community Grant directly empowers early career researchers to lead impactful initiatives. By supporting these researcher-led projects, the grant continues to build a vibrant BU community cantered on interdisciplinary dialogue, knowledge exchange, and professional development.

If you are inspired by this event and want to explore future ECR funding or get involved in our upcoming research culture initiatives, keep an eye on the Researcher Development Hub.

We will be sharing details on exciting new open calls this September.

If you have any questions, please contact the Researcher Development and Culture Team at researcherdevelopment@bournemouth.ac.uk

23 April 2026

From Sherborne to the Pitch Room: Why MBA Learning Needs More Reality—and Less Control

BU Challenges, Business Engagement, Fusion Investment Fund, HEIF, Knowledge Exchange, Knowledge Transfer, PG research, Public engagement, REF Subjects Sukanya Ayatakshi

There are milestone moments in teaching that expose, quite starkly, what higher education can be when it stops playing safe. Watching our MBA students present their venture proposals to members of the Turing Centre Steering Group today was one of those moments—not just because the work was strong, but because it was earned under very different conditions from the norm.

This was not the endpoint of a lecture-led module or a polished case discussion. It began with disruption. In late February, students travelled to Sherborne, Dorset, to work directly with the emerging Turing Centre: a civic initiative built around digital skills, regional regeneration, and long-term social value. What they encountered was not a finished project, but one still taking shape—messy, incomplete, and marked by competing priorities. That difference matters. Much of management education still relies on a quiet fiction: that complex organisational problems can be stabilised, analysed, and resolved within the controlled environment of a classroom. Ghoshal (2005) warned that such abstractions risk distorting managerial reality, while Mintzberg (2004) argued that MBA programmes often produce graduates more comfortable analysing than acting. Two decades on, that critique has not gone away. If anything, it has sharpened, with business schools still accused of privileging abstracted managerialism over embedded, socially situated practice (Parker, 2021).

Entrepreneurship education has attempted to respond. The shift towards “entrepreneurship as method” (Neck and Corbett, 2018) and the rise of experiential pedagogies (Hägg and Gabrielsson, 2020) reflect a recognition that uncertainty cannot be taught through tidy models alone. But this shift has its own problem. Experience, on its own, is not a pedagogy. As Nabi et al. (2017) show, the impact of entrepreneurship education is uneven, and often superficial, when activity is not matched by intellectual depth.

The question, then, is not whether students should engage with the real world, but how. The Sherborne project was designed around a simple but demanding premise: immersion should generate inquiry, not replace it. Students entered a live civic initiative and were asked to make sense of it—not retrospectively, but in real time. This required a different kind of thinking: one that is situated, provisional, and responsive to unfolding conditions (Sandberg and Tsoukas, 2011).

Sarasvathy’s (2001) concept of effectuation captures this well. Entrepreneurs do not begin with fixed goals and optimal strategies; they begin with what they have, act under uncertainty, and construct opportunity through iteration. That is exactly the position our students found themselves in. There was no stable problem definition, no guaranteed feasibility—only the expectation that they would build defensible arguments from ambiguity.

This is where the implications for MBA education become harder to ignore. If the degree is to remain credible, it cannot continue to prioritise analysis detached from consequence. Civic immersion offers a direct challenge by relocating learning into place-based contexts where decisions carry visible implications—not just for a grade, but for people, projects, and communities (Goddard et al., 2016; Parker, 2020).

But this only works if the academic design holds its nerve. The unit—Entrepreneurship: Technology-Driven Ventures and User-Centred Business Solutions—was structured so that experience functioned as the beginning of rigorous work, not its substitute. Students were required to identify user-centred problems, engage with wider civic and economic considerations, and develop proposals capable of withstanding external scrutiny. This aligns with principles of authentic assessment (Villarroel et al., 2018), but more importantly with the growing emphasis on evaluative judgement—the capacity to make and justify quality decisions in uncertain contexts ( Ajjawi et al., 2018).

The assessment environment itself mattered. Members of the Turing Centre Steering Group were present throughout—questioning assumptions, testing logic, and engaging seriously with the students’ ideas. This was not performative real-world exposure. It was accountability. The students’ work had an audience beyond the university, and that changed the level of intellectual seriousness in the room.

Students moved more confidently between theory and context, using frameworks not as templates, but as tools. This is much closer to Schön’s (1983) reflective practitioner: someone who thinks within action, not just about it. It is also where many experiential approaches fall short. Kolb’s (1984) model is often reduced to a cycle of activity, with reflection treated as an afterthought. As Kayes (2017) and Morris (2020) argue, this risks producing busyness rather than insight. Well-designed civic immersion does the opposite. It makes thinking harder, not easier.

Pittaway and Cope (2007) describe entrepreneurship education as requiring “disorienting dilemmas.” The Sherborne project delivered exactly that. The Turing Centre resisted neat categorisation—part innovation hub, part educational initiative, part regional strategy. Students could not rely on familiar models without adapting them. They had to engage in sensemaking that was negotiated, incomplete, and contingent (Sandberg and Tsoukas, 2011).

Unsurprisingly, a few of them described the experience as the most valuable part of their student journey. That response is telling. Students are rarely fooled by surface-level “real-world” tasks. What they recognised here was something more demanding: work that required judgement, carried risk, and had consequences beyond assessment. Learning deepens when students create value outside the classroom, not just simulate it within ( Lackéus, 2020).

This raises a question for management education. If the most meaningful learning happens under these conditions, why are they still the exception rather than the norm? Civic immersion is not easy. It requires partnerships, careful design, and a willingness to relinquish some control over the learning process. But it also exposes a deeper issue: that many MBA programmes remain structured around environments that minimise uncertainty precisely when they should be engaging with it.

When students are trusted with complexity—and held to high intellectual standards within it, learning becomes less about mastering frameworks and more about using them under pressure. Less about arriving at answers, and more about making defensible decisions when answers are not obvious. That is not a softer form of education. It is a more demanding one.

Ajjawi, R., Tai, J., Dawson, P., & Boud, D. (2018). Conceptualising evaluative judgement for sustainable assessment in higher education. In D. Boud, R. Ajjawi, P. Dawson, & J. Tai (Eds.), Developing evaluative judgement in higher education: Assessment for knowing and producing quality work (1st ed., pp. 7-17). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324_9781315109251-2.

Ghoshal, S. (2017). Bad management theories are destroying good management practices. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(1), 75–91. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2005.16132558

Goddard, J., Hazelkorn, E., Kempton, L., & Vallance, P. (2016). The civic university: The policy and leadership challenges. Edward Elgar Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784717728

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

Kayes, D. C. (2017). 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.

Lackéus M (2020). Comparing the impact of three different experiential approaches to entrepreneurship in education. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, 26(5), pp. 937–971. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEBR-04-2018-0236

Mintzberg, H. (2004). Managers not MBAs: A hard look at the soft practice of managing and management development. Berrett-Koehler.

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

Nabi, G., Liñán, F., Fayolle, A., Krueger, N., & Walmsley, A. (2017). The impact of entrepreneurship education in higher education: A systematic review and research agenda. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 16(2), 277–299. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2015.0026

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

Parker, M. (2020). The Critical Business School and the University: A Case Study of Resistance and Co-optation. Critical Sociology. 47. 089692052095038. 10.1177/0896920520950387.

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

Sandberg, J., & Tsoukas, H. (2011). Grasping the logic of practice: Theorizing through practical rationality. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 338–360. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2009.0183

Sarasvathy, S. D. (2001). Causation and Effectuation: Toward a Theoretical Shift from Economic Inevitability to Entrepreneurial Contingency. The Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 243–263. https://doi.org/10.2307/259121

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.

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

22 April 2026

Help us capture Bournemouth University’s knowledge exchange activity – HE-BCI survey 2025–26

Knowledge Exchange, Knowledge Transfer yokselferraris

Have you taken part in a local festival, run a community workshop, volunteered at a cultural event, or used your BU expertise to support a community group?

Bournemouth University is required to report a wide range of knowledge exchange and external engagement activities as part of the annual Higher Education Business and Community Interaction (HE-BCI) survey, collected by the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA). The data submitted through this survey helps inform the allocation of the Higher Education Innovation Fund (HEIF) and demonstrates the value of our work with external partners and communities.

We are currently collecting information on details of all social, community and cultural engagement activities that took place between 1 August 2025 and 31 July 2026.

If you have been involved in knowledge exchange, public engagement, community collaboration, consultancy, professional training, or partnership work during this period, please take a few minutes to complete the short form below.

Thank you to everyone who has contributed so far. If you haven’t recorded your involvement yet, it only takes a few minutes. Your input ensures that Bournemouth University’s contribution is accurately represented and supports future funding and strategic planning.

Please complete the HE-BCI activity form by 31 July 2026: Higher Education Business & Community Interaction (HE-BCI) survey 1 Aug ’25- 31 July ’26 – Fill in form

If you are unsure whether your activity should be included, please contact researchengagementandimpact@bournemouth.ac.uk for advice.

7 April 2026

Boost Your Research Profile: Training Sessions with The Conversation

Knowledge Exchange, Training ballen

The Conversation is a premier news and opinion platform featuring content written exclusively by academics, researchers, and PhD candidates

Backed by professional journalists, it offers a high-impact way to share research with the public, build a media profile, and develop confidence in external communication.

BU’s impact on the platform is already significant: over the last year, BU academics have published 32 articles, reaching nearly 1 million page views. To help more staff get involved, two dedicated training sessions led by editors from The Conversation are being offered. These sessions are a perfect opportunity to learn the ropes and discuss specific article ideas. Writing for The Conversation: Interactive Workshop

In this session, attendees will learn how to translate complex research for a general audience and how to structure articles for maximum engagement. Participants will also have the chance to pitch story ideas directly to a Conversation editor.

Wednesday 22 April, 2-4pm

Online

Please note: Spaces are limited to 20 attendees

Find out more and register here

One-to-One Meetings with the Editor

For those with specific projects in mind, the team is offering eight individual appointments (15–20 minutes each). This is a rare chance to get personalised feedback and expert advice on how to take your article ideas forward. 8 individual appointments available.

Wednesday 20 May, 2-4pm

Online

Book your One-to-One slot here

31 March 2026

ESRC Festival of Social Science 2026: An Opportunity to Engage New Audiences

Knowledge Exchange, Public engagement Claire Fenton

Public engagement is an increasingly important part of demonstrating research impact, and national initiatives such as the ESRC Festival of Social Science provide valuable opportunities for researchers to connect their work with wider communities.

The 24th annual ESRC Festival of Social Science (FoSS) will take place from Saturday 17 October to Saturday 7 November 2026, with the theme ‘Money, Finance and the Cost of Living’. This year marks our 15th year of participation in the festival and our fourth year partnering with the University of Southampton to deliver an extended programme of events across Dorset and Hampshire.

The festival offers researchers the opportunity to take part in the UK’s largest celebration of social science research and to engage with a wide range of non-academic audiences, including young people, members of the public, the third sector, businesses, and government. For many researchers, the festival also provides a practical way to explore new approaches to engagement and to build confidence in communicating research beyond academia.

To support colleagues who are considering taking part, we are hosting an information session for academics interested in achieving real-world impact through public engagement. The session will be co-hosted by the Research Engagement and Impact Team at Bournemouth University and the Impact Funding Team at the University of Southampton. We will also hear from some of last year’s event leads, who will share their experiences and lessons learned.

Date: Friday 24 April 2026
Time: 13:00 – 14:00
Location: Online (Microsoft Teams)

To register, please complete the form below. We will then be in touch with further information.

ESRC Festival of Social Science 2026 – Information Session – Fill in form

If you have any enquiries, please contact: researchengagementandimpact@bournemouth.ac.uk

20 March 2026

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

BU Challenges, Business Engagement, Knowledge Exchange, Student Engagement Sukanya Ayatakshi

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

18 March 2026

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 ebballester

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.

15 March 2026

BU M.Res. student’s evidence to UK Parliamentary Women & Equalities Committee

Knowledge Exchange, PG research, Public engagement, student research, Women's Academic Network Edwin van Teijlingen

Last week, to coincide with International Women’s Day, the Parliamentary Women and Equalities Committee of published its report on improving menstrual health [1]. This report ‘Menstrual health of girls and young women‘ includes a submission by BU M.Res. student Susara Blunden [2]. Susara is currently conducting her M.Res. research on endometriosis, a condition which affects more women than many people realise. Susara Blunden balances her job as a women’s health research midwife at University Hospitals Dorset (UHD) NHS Foundation Trust with a place on the National Institute for Heath and Care Research (NIHR)’s INSIGHT programme.

Endometriosis is not a problem unique to the UK, as last week a national newspaper in the Netherlands also under the heading ‘So much pain that you can’t to anything anymore’ [3]. This same newspaper article added that on average women suffer seven years of pain before they are diagnosed with endometriosis. A similar delay can be found in the UK and the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee and Labour MP Sarah Owen noted more generally that: “The Committee is not convinced that the menstrual and gynaecological needs of young women and girls has been sufficiently prioritised in wider reforms to the healthcare system.”

References:

Women and Equalities Committee (2026) ‘Menstrual health of girls and young women‘ Twelfth Report of Session 2024–26 [HC 1265], See online: https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/51887/documents/287889/default/
Written evidence from Susara Blunden RM, Women’s Health Research Midwife and Dr. Edwin van Teijlingen, Professor of Reproductive Health, Bournemouth University, Fiona Yelnoorkar RN, RM, Senior Research Leader, National Institute for Health and Care Research, and Priscilla Fernandez, RN RM, Specialist Research Nurse/Midwife, Edinburgh University [RGW0073] See online: https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/149205/html/
Melse, N. (2026) Zoveel pijn dat je niets meer kunt, AD [dinsdag 3 maart/Tuesday 3rd March].

6 March 2026

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

Industry collaboration, Knowledge Exchange, Student Engagement Sukanya Ayatakshi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5 March 2026

Universities as Innovation Anchors: Teaching Technology Entrepreneurship Beyond the Technology

BU Challenges, Business Engagement, Centre for Excellence in Learning, Fusion, HEIF, innovation, Knowledge Exchange, Knowledge Transfer, Public engagement, R & KE Operations, REF 2029 impact case studies Sukanya Ayatakshi

Universities are increasingly recognised as anchor institutions within entrepreneurial ecosystems, shaping how innovation emerges and how new ventures develop. Beyond research and teaching, universities now act as hubs where ideas, talent and industry intersect to support venture creation and technological innovation (Guerrero et al., 2014). In the context of technology entrepreneurship, this role becomes particularly significant.

A guest session within the MBA Technology Entrepreneurship unit at Bournemouth University Business School highlighted this intersection between academic learning and real-world venture building. Andrew Olowude, Chief Technical Officer of Xenet AI, joined MBA students to discuss the realities of building AI-driven ventures. Yet the central lesson from the session was not about algorithms or computing architectures. It was about entrepreneurial mindset.

Technology entrepreneurship is often misunderstood as being driven primarily by technological breakthroughs. In practice, many ventures fail because founders focus on what technology can do rather than what markets actually need. Entrepreneurship research consistently shows that venture creation requires iterative learning and market discovery, where founders test assumptions and respond to user feedback in uncertain environments (Fisher, 2012; Shepherd & Gruber, 2021). During the discussion with students, one idea captured this principle particularly well: listening to the market with intention. Rather than attaching technology to an idea simply because it exists, entrepreneurs must identify whether there is genuine market pull for the solution. In this sense, technology becomes an enabler of value creation, not the starting point of the venture.

Understanding how innovations spread is therefore essential to technology entrepreneurship education. One of the most influential frameworks explaining this process is Everett Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovation theory, which describes how innovations move from early adopters to mainstream users, the early majority. Building on Rogers’ work, Geoffrey Moore (1991; 2014) introduced the concept of “Crossing the Chasm,” describing the difficulty many technology ventures face when attempting to move from early adopters to the broader market. The transition requires a shift from technological enthusiasm to clear problem- solution fit and demonstrable value. For technology entrepreneurs, the lesson is simple but powerful: innovation does not succeed because technology works; it succeeds because people adopt it.

The rapid rise of artificial intelligence has also brought renewed attention to the ethical dimensions of technology entrepreneurship. Increasingly, scholars argue that founders must consider the societal implications of the technologies they create, including issues of bias, transparency and social impact (George et al., 2021; Markman et al., 2016). Technology entrepreneurship therefore sits at the intersection of technical capability, market understanding and responsible innovation. Entrepreneurs must not only build technologies that function, but technologies that contribute meaningfully to society.

This is precisely where universities play a vital role. Entrepreneurial universities help shape innovation ecosystems by mobilising knowledge, talent, partnerships and infrastructure to support venture creation (Löfsten, 2025; Wang, 2026). Through incubators, industry collaborations and entrepreneurship programmes, universities increasingly act as innovation hubs that connect research with market application.

Equally important is how entrepreneurship is taught. Traditional lecture-based approaches are increasingly being complemented by experiential learning environments where students engage directly with real-world problems, industry partners and venture creation processes (Motta et al., 2023; Monllor et al., 2024). Such approaches mirror how entrepreneurs actually learn — through experimentation, reflection and iteration. Guest engagements with founders and technology leaders therefore become an important part of entrepreneurship education. They help students see beyond theoretical frameworks and understand the lived realities of venture creation: uncertainty, pivoting and the constant need to align technological possibility with market demand.

As artificial intelligence and digital technologies continue to reshape industries, the responsibility of universities within entrepreneurial ecosystems will only deepen. Preparing students for this environment requires more than teaching technological tools. It requires cultivating entrepreneurial judgement ;the ability to interpret market signals, recognise ethical implications and translate technological potential into meaningful innovation. Technology entrepreneurship, ultimately, is not about technology alone. It is about people, problems and the thoughtful application of technology to solve them.

References:

Audretsch, D.B., Belitski, M. & Caiazza, R. (2021). Start-ups, Innovation and Knowledge Spillovers. Journal of Technology Transfer, 46, 1995–2016 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-021-09846-5

Fisher, G. (2012). Effectuation, causation, and bricolage: A behavioral comparison of emerging theories in entrepreneurship research. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 36(5), 1019–1051.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2012.00537.x

George, G., Merrill, R. K., & Schillebeeckx, S. J. D. (2021). Digital sustainability and entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 45(5), 999–1027.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1042258719899425

Guerrero, M., Urbano, D., Cunningham, J. A., & Organ, D. (2014). Entrepreneurial universities in two European regions: A case study comparison. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39(3), 415–434.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-012-9287-2

Löfsten, H. How Entrepreneurial are Universities? (2025). A Typological Analysis of Swedish Higher Education Institutions. Higher Education Policy, https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-025-00428-w

Markman, G. D., Russo, M., Lumpkin, G. T., Jennings, P. D., & Mair, J. (2016). Entrepreneurship as a platform for pursuing multiple goals. Journal of Management Studies, 53, 673-694. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12214

Monllor, J., Michels, N., & Adderley, S. (2024). Pivoting an Entrepreneurship Experiential Learning Module Online: Applying a Concrete Experience Framework. Entrepreneurship Education and Pedagogy, 7(4), 416-438.

Motta, V. F., & Galina, S. V. R. (2023). Experiential Learning in Entrepreneurship Education: A Systematic Literature Review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 121, Article 103919.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103919

Moore, G. A. (2014). Crossing the chasm (3rd ed.). Harper Business.

Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of innovations. 3rd ed Free Press.

Shepherd, D. A., & Gruber, M. (2021). The Lean Startup Framework: Closing the Academic–Practitioner Divide. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 45(5), 967-998.

Wang, Q., Kim, N., Thrush, B. C., & Ochoa, R. (2026). Minority-Serving Institutions as Entrepreneurial Universities: Evidence from an Underserved Region. The Professional Geographer, 78(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2025.2581610

26 February 2026

Starting with Uncertainty: Teaching Technology Entrepreneurship Through Civic Immersion

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

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., & 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

26 February 2026

Evidence Synthesis Centre open at Kathmandu University

Awarded & submitted bids, international, Knowledge Exchange, Publishing, Training, writing Edwin van Teijlingen

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:

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.
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

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

25 February 2026

From Evidence to Action: Addressing LGBTQIA+ Gambling Harm at the House of Commons

Knowledge Exchange, Public engagement, REF 2029 impact case studies rbush

Researchers from Bournemouth University were honoured to attend the House of Commons on 23rd February for the parliamentary launch of Recover with Pride, the UK’s first dedicated LGBTQ+ gambling harm support programme.

Speaking on behalf of Bournemouth University’s Gambling Research Group, Dr Reece Bush-Evans shared research examining the barriers LGBTQIA+ people can face when seeking support for gambling-related harm. The presentation highlighted how minority stress, stigma, discrimination, and a lack of culturally competent provision can shape both experiences of harm and pathways to recovery. The key message was clear: this is not a niche issue — it is a public health and equality issue. Reece was joined by Professor John McAlaney, Head of the Gambling Research Group.

The Parliamentary event brought together over 40 representatives from across the sector and featured contributions from more than 10 organisations, including Brighton & Hove LGBT Switchboard, Ara Recovery For All, Gamstop, Gamban, Coalition to End Gambling Ads, Betknowmore UK, Cyrenians, Reframe Coaching, University of Brighton and EPIC Restart Foundation. The day also featured powerful lived experience testimonies and a keynote address from John Slinger MP. Representatives from organisations such as Stonewall Housing, LGBT Health and Wellbeing, The Primary Care Gambling Service, Galop, Adferiad, Chapter One and Beacon Counselling Trust were also in attendance, reflecting strong cross-sector commitment.

During the presentation, Reece discussed recently published peer-reviewed research exploring gambling harm within LGBTQIA+ communities, alongside the outputs of an International Conference and National Think Tank hosted by the Gambling Research Group in Bournemouth last November. Opened by Deputy Vice Chancellor and Provost Professor Niamh Downing, the conference brought together over 20 organisations spanning lived experience leaders, frontline services, researchers and policy stakeholders, with one clear purpose: to translate evidence into action.

Across a full day of international talks and collaborative discussion, several priorities were identified. Short-term actions included strengthening inclusive signalling across services, embedding consistent cultural competency training, and improving cross-sector collaboration and referral pathways. Longer-term goals focused on explicitly including LGBTQIA+ communities within national gambling strategies, establishing a national working group focused on marginalised communities, and developing sustainable LGBTQIA+-specific support networks.

The energy in the room was captured by a live artist, visually recording discussions and commitments to change. Feedback from the November event was overwhelmingly positive: 94% of attendees reported that it significantly increased their understanding of gambling harms experienced by LGBTQIA+ communities, 89% said they were highly likely to implement change in their work, 83% reported a shift in their views or assumptions, and 100% developed new professional connections to support future action.

Taking place during LGBT History Month, the parliamentary launch of Recover with Pride represents more than a policy milestone. It reflects progress in recognising and addressing the specific challenges faced by LGBTQIA+ communities — ensuring that conversations about equality extend into emerging areas such as gambling harm. It is a proud moment for Bournemouth University and an important step forward in advancing inclusive, evidence-informed public health policy.

18 December 2025

British Academy funded capacity-building training in Nepal

Awarded & submitted bids, international, Knowledge Exchange Edwin van Teijlingen

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.

16 December 2025

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7 November 2025

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

Knowledge Exchange, PG research ballen

17th Annual Postgraduate Research Conference: Register now

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.

4 November 2025

Exciting Opportunities for Early Career Researchers

Knowledge Exchange, Training ballen

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

Category / Knowledge Exchange

Strengthening BU’s Research Culture: A Look Inside the Mixed Methods Workshop

From Sherborne to the Pitch Room: Why MBA Learning Needs More Reality—and Less Control

Help us capture Bournemouth University’s knowledge exchange activity – HE-BCI survey 2025–26

Boost Your Research Profile: Training Sessions with The Conversation

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

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

BU M.Res. student’s evidence to UK Parliamentary Women & Equalities Committee

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

Universities as Innovation Anchors: Teaching Technology Entrepreneurship Beyond the Technology

Starting with Uncertainty: Teaching Technology Entrepreneurship Through Civic Immersion

From Evidence to Action: Addressing LGBTQIA+ Gambling Harm at the House of Commons

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

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

Exciting Opportunities for Early Career Researchers

Other services

Don’t miss a post!

Recent posts

Search by Category

Research Information Network

UKRI

Category / Knowledge Exchange

Other services

Don’t miss a post!

Recent posts

Search by Category

Search by popular post topics