Category / Research assessment

A “step change” in parliamentray foresight capabilities

Knowledge Exchange and Impact Team, Knowledge Transfer, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, policy

Sir Lindsay Hoyle, Speaker of the House of Commons recently commented that the introduction of a new Thematic Policy Network will “create a step change in delivering the evidence needed to help parliamentarians”.

The new network resulted from the work of the Horizon Scanning Committee in the Parliamentary Office of Science & Technology. Prof. John Oliver sits on the committee and his expertise and research was used to help develop a methodological process for the identification of emerging trends and critical uncertainties that will provide forward-thinking analysis to develop future Areas of Research Interest and inform scrutiny, legislation and debate that addresses key economic and societal challenges.

Prof. Oliver commented that the new network will adopt a methodology that takes “a strategic, forward-looking, evidence-informed approach to engaging with policy areas whilst also developing new foresight competencies in Scenario Planning”.

Communication, Cultural and Media Studies, Library and Information Management academics – would you like to get more involved in preparing our next REF submission?

BU research, REF Subjects, REF2029, Research assessment

We are currently recruiting for a Practice-Based Research Output Champion to help support preparation for our next REF Submission to Communication, Cultural and Media Studies, Library and Information Management (UoA34).

The deadline for expressions of interest is 21st June 2024. 

This role is recruited through an open and transparent process, which gives all academic staff the opportunity to put themselves forward. Applications from underrepresented groups (e.g. minority ethnic, declared disability) are particularly welcome.

We are currently preparing submissions to thirteen units (otherwise known as UOAs). Each unit has a leadership team with at least one leader, an output and impact champion. The leadership team are supported by a panel of reviewers who assess the research from the unit. This includes research outputs (journal articles, book chapters, digital artefacts and conference proceedings) and impact case studies. We currently have vacancies in the following roles:

Practice-Based Research Output Champion – UOA34: Communication, Cultural and Media Studies, Library and Information Management

All roles require a level of commitment which is recognised accordingly with time to review, attend meetings, and take responsibility for tasks.

Undertaking a UOA role can be enjoyable and rewarding as two of our current champions testify:

“As UOA Outputs Champion you develop a detailed knowledge of all the great work that colleagues are doing related to the subject, and the different outlets used for disseminating their work.  As an outputs committee member, you also get to know what research is going on across BU, and it’s interesting to see the differences between disciplines.  It’s a good way develop your knowledge of the bigger picture of BU’s research, and also to understand the importance of REF and how it works in practice.  You do spend quite a bit of time chasing colleagues to put their outputs on BRIAN for REF compliance but hopefully they forgive you!”

Professor Adele Ladkin – UOA 24 Output Champion

“As a UoA 17 impact champion, I work closely with the UoA 17 impact team to encourage the development of a culture of impact across BUBS. I try to pop into Department / research group meetings when I can to discuss impact, and I’ve enjoyed meeting people with a whole range of research interests. Sometimes it can be tough to engage people with impact – understandably; everyone is busy – so it’s important to be enthusiastic about the need for our BU research to reach the public. Overall, the role is about planting the seeds to get researchers thinking about the impact their work might have in the future (as well as the impact they have already had, sometimes without realising!)”

Dr Rafaelle Nicholson – UOA 17 Impact Champion

How to apply

All those interested should put forward a short case (suggested length of one page) as to why they are interested in the role and what they think they could bring to it. These should be clearly marked with the relevant role and unit and emailed to ref@bournemouth.ac.uk by 5pm on 21st June 2024.

Further detail on the role and the process of recruitment and selection criteria can be found here:

Role descriptor

Process and criteria for selection

For further information please contact ref@bournemouth.ac.uk, a member of the current UOA Team or your Deputy Dean Research and Professional Practice with queries.

Impact champion needed for engineering: one week to apply

BU research, Impact, REF2029, Research assessment

We are looking to recruit an impact champion to help support our REF submission in UOA 12 (the Unit of Assessment for Engineering). The deadline for expressions of interest is Friday 24th May 2024.

This is an exciting opportunity to play a key role in supporting colleagues to develop impact case studies for submission to REF 2029 in late 2028. The successful applicant will be allocated an agreed proportion of time to devote to the role as part of their workload planning.

Impact champions work closely with the UOA lead and their impact advisor in RDS to develop and support potential impact case studies. They also become a member of the REF Impact Subcommittee, where they are able to discuss impact strategies, planning and best practice with colleagues across all faculties and disciplines.

“The role is about planting the seeds to get researchers thinking about the impact their work might have in the future (as well as the impact they have already had, sometimes without realising!)” Dr Rafaelle Nicholson – UOA 24 Impact Champion

This role is recruited through an open and transparent process, which gives all academic staff the opportunity to put themselves forward. Applications from underrepresented groups (e.g. minority ethnic, declared disability) are particularly welcome.

How to apply

All those interested should put forward a short case (suggested length of one paragraph), explaining why they are interested in the role and what they believe they could bring to it. This should be emailed to ref@bournemouth.ac.uk by Friday 24th May 2024.

Further details on the impact champion role, the process of recruitment and selection criteria can be found here:

Role Descriptor

Process and criteria for selection

For more information, please contact ref@bournemouth.ac.uk, or UoA 12 Leader Professor Zulfiqar Khan.

 

 

REF role: opportunity to champion the impact of BU’s engineering research

BU research, Impact, REF Subjects, REF2029

We are looking to recruit an impact champion to help support our REF submission in UOA 12 (the Unit of Assessment for Engineering). The deadline for expressions of interest is Friday 24th May 2024.

This role is recruited through an open and transparent process, which gives all academic staff the opportunity to put themselves forward. Applications from underrepresented groups (e.g. minority ethnic, declared disability) are particularly welcome.

We are currently preparing submissions to thirteen UOAs. Each UOA has a leadership team with at least one leader, one output champion and one impact champion. They are supported by a panel of reviewers who assess the unit’s research, including both outputs and impact case studies.

All roles require a level of commitment, which is recognised accordingly, with time to review, attend meetings, and take responsibility for tasks.

Undertaking a UOA role can be enjoyable and rewarding, as one of our current impact champions can testify:

“I work closely with the UoA 17 impact team to encourage the development of a culture of impact across BUBS… Sometimes it can be tough to engage people with impact – understandably; everyone is busy – so it’s important to be enthusiastic about the need for our BU research to reach the public. Overall, the role is about planting the seeds to get researchers thinking about the impact their work might have in the future (as well as the impact they have already had, sometimes without realising!)”

Dr Rafaelle Nicholson – UOA 17 Impact Champion

How to apply

All those interested should put forward a short case (suggested length of one paragraph), explaining why they are interested in the role and what they believe they could bring to it. This should be emailed to ref@bournemouth.ac.uk by Friday 24th May 2024.

Further details on the impact champion role, the process of recruitment and selection criteria can be found here:

Role Descriptor

Process and criteria for selection

For more information, please contact ref@bournemouth.ac.uk, or UoA 12 Leader Professor Zulfiqar Khan.

REF2029 Open Access Policy Consultation is now open

BU research, open accecss, Publishing, REF Subjects, Research assessment, research staff

Last week, the four UK higher education funding bodies launched a consultation on the proposed Open Access Policy for REF2029.

Proposed changes from the REF2021 policy include an open access requirement for longform publications, the shortening of permittable embargo periods for journal articles and changes to article deposit and licensing requirements. More details on the proposed policy can be found here: https://www.ref.ac.uk/guidance/ref-2029-open-access-policy-consultation/

BU will be submitting an institutional response to the consultation, however anyone with an interest in open access publishing and what this might mean in relation to the REF is also invited to respond as an individual. You can respond to the consultation on the UKRI engagement hub.

The consultation closes on Monday 17 June 2024 and the REF team intends to publish the final REF2029 Open Access Policy in summer/autumn 2024.

HE policy update no 8 25th March 2024

HE-BCI, innovation, international, Knowledge Exchange, NHS, parliament, policy, Research assessment, Research news

Some more optimistic takes on what might be in the party manifestos for HE: the sort of commitments being asked for seem somewhat optimistic: later in this update I look at some detailed proposals on maintenance finance, a call to scrap the REF (which might have more take-up in the manifestos), the KEF via a HE- BCI survey (might someone suggest scrapping the KEP?), apprenticeship results are out and numbers on international education.  Amongst all that I also look at a speech from Susan Lapworth.

Manifesto for HE

You’ve seen the UUK one, here is the one from MillionPlus. (Policy update from February: The UUK manifesto sets out a wish list for the sector.  It all looks very expensive and so while ambitious, unlikely to be replicated in anyone’s actual manifesto.  We can expect to see more of these over the next few months. Research Professional have the story here.)

Scrap REF and save money

Iain Mansfield says that Labour should ‘scrap REF and save half a billion’, Research Professional reports.  Not because there is any problem with a metric for research: just a strong feeling that it shouldn’t include a metric for environment and culture. RP add: Speaking at Research Professional News live last week, Labour’s shadow science minister, Chi Onwurah, said she was “concerned about some of the bureaucracy associated with the REF” and stopped short of committing to retaining it in its current form. I don’t think that means stopping the culture and environment part, but it is hard to know.  These debates will run for a while.

HE-BCI review

The HE-BCI survey is used in the Knowledge Exchange Framework.  Just how much difference the KEF makes to anything and how interested anyone except the sector really is in it, is still, for me, an open question that I have asked since KEF was just a glint in Jo Johnson’s eye (the third leg of the HE stool etc…).  Of course if they started using KEF to allocate HEIF it would matter a lot more, but the KEF data doesn’t really lend itself to that.  As a reminder, it uses a different comparison group (clusters) to everything else, three of its “perspectives” are self-assessed and all it tells you is whether engagement with the perspective is deemed to be low, medium or high.  In a highly technical presentation format.

But as the (only real) metrics behind the (incomprehensible) KEF wheels (just take a look here and see what you learn), HE-BCI data does have some influence.  And HESA did a survey on some bits of it which closed in January.  There will be another consultation at some point.

The regulator speaks

It is always interesting to hear or read a speech by the head of the OfS, so here is one.

After a friendly introduction telling the Association of Colleges what good work their members do, it is straight in on quality:

  • Although, of course, not every college higher education student is in that position, the college sector should collectively be very proud that so many who are get the guidance and support they need in further education settings.
  • But, sadly, we know that in too many parts of the system, students’ interests are not always being well-served
  • …[Students] have serious questions about:
    • the amount of teaching they receive,
    • the frequency and usefulness of feedback provided to them, and
    • the level of support, both academic and pastoral, they can access.

Talking about the ongoing quality assessments, there are some changes coming:

  • Updating some of the language we use. So we might talk more about assessments or compliance assessments, rather than investigations.
  • We think there’s scope for additional training for assessment teams, for example, focusing on welfare to ensure staff are appropriately supported during visits and the wider process.
  • And we know the sector would like us to publish more information about how institutions are selected for assessment and how the process unfolds from there

A defensive approach to the big effort on freedom of speech?  You decide

  • Defining more clearly and coherently the student interest will also support another area where our regulation is developing: freedom of speech and academic freedom.
  • As that work has progressed, we have sometimes been told, including by some students, that students do not consider this a priority. But we know that the National Student Survey found that one in seven students in England felt unable to freely express their views.
  • … the collective act of debate and dissection of ideas, old and new, is what allows us to be confident that what and how students are learning represents the best knowledge we currently have. If students don’t recognise this, we need to understand why. Is it an artefact of who speaks loudest in our current systems? Or that cost-of-living worries and the associated challenges have reduced the scope for considering these broader issues? Or that students today have a fundamentally different conception of what freedom of speech and academic freedom ought to entail?

And some new areas of focus:

  • For example, although access to accommodation appears in our Equality of Opportunity Risk Register, we’ve been cautious about stepping into that arena in regulatory terms. But it is clear that students are increasingly concerned about the cost, quality and uneven availability of accommodation for their studies. It’s the most frequently mentioned issue in discussions with students in my visits to institutions.
  • Likewise, while we’ve taken steps to encourage stronger working links between those we regulate and the organisations that provide health services to students, particularly to support their mental health, we’re not the regulator of those services, and much of the most critical care can’t be provided by universities and colleges directly…. we are open to the view that, as a regulator framed and formed in relation to the interests of students, it may fall to us to take action, or to seek to better co-ordinate the activity of others, or to just talk about them because they matter to students.

And there is a new strategy consultation coming for the OfS.

Apprenticeships

Achievements rate update: a update published by the DfE. The Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education, Robert Halfon has written an open letter to the apprenticeship sector celebrating the latest achievement rates and setting out some developments.

While the government are very keen to encourage more apprenticeships, there is a stern approach to providers here: not dissimilar to the rhetoric on HE, there will be student number controls linked to quality as defined by outcomes.  While “training not being as good as hoped” is a factor in the list above, as is “poor organisation” of the programme, that is in the context of all the other reasons linked to employers and jobs.  However, the government can’t do much about those, and is not in the business of discouraging employers from participating.  But this will put more pressure on providers who are already finding apprenticeships bureaucratic and hard and expensive to deliver.

It’s not putting them off just yet, though.  This update from the OfS on the second wave of funding for apprenticeships highlights how many providers are really going for it.  Degree apprenticeships funding competition: Funding allocated to wave 2 projects (officeforstudents.org.uk)

Anyway, the ideas for future development in the Minister’s letter are:

  • Apprenticeship Standards. IfATE will be looking closely at apprenticeship standards that are not producing good outcomes for employers or the economy – especially where they are underused or too many learners are dropping out without completing – and speed up action to either improve them or remove them where it is clear the apprenticeship standard is not working.
  • Quality of Training. We know that the quality of training is a major factor in whether apprentices complete. Through the apprenticeship accountability framework, we have assessed provider performance against a range of measures to give an overall picture of their quality of delivery. ….. In future performance assessments, we will not hesitate to robustly challenge providers showing insufficient improvement. We will deploy appropriate support, where providers demonstrate a capacity to improve in a timely manner, and we will continue to consider factors outside of providers’ control, where these can be evidenced. However, we will also use contractual measures including potential limitations on growth, stopping delivery of standards with low apprenticeship achievement rates and removal from the market where this is necessary to protect apprentices and employers and ensure they have access to high quality training. Concurrently we will also seek to enrich the market by making it easier to enter for providers that can deliver to our priorities – for example to increase participation from SMEs and young people.
  • Employer improvement. We now want to give employers better access to information and data to help manage their own apprenticeship programme and benchmark against others to help drive up improvements across the programme. We will test options for the information we could use to support this and work with Top 100 employers to identify how to make the information available. This will be in addition to the support offered to employers through resources, best practice sharing, and events to support self-improvement.
  • End-Point Assessment. We continually review the assessment process for apprenticeships to make sure it is proportionate, supports achievement and is fit for the future. Working with IfATE, the providers engaged with the Expert Provider pilot and the FE Funding Simplification pilot, we will identify further options to improve the assessment model, making it more efficient for the whole sector…
  • Expert Provider Pilot and SME engagement. … As a result of the pilot we are developing a new, simple one step approval for SMEs engaging with apprenticeships for the first time. This new flexibility is being developed with colleges and training providers and will be available later this year. …

Student finance

Oh dear, another negative story about student debt that will discourage potential applicants (and as always, their parents).  This time it is the BBC who revealed that the UK’s highest student debt was £231k.  Quite how they managed to rack up that much is unclear: by doing lots of courses, it seems (although surely there are limits on that – apparently there are exceptions to those rules).  The highest level of interest accumulated was around £54,050.  The student interviewed is a doctor: the length of medical programmes means that, along with vets and dentists, doctors tend to accumulate the highest student loans.

The Sutton Trust have published a report on reforming student maintenance ahead of the general election.

There are suggestions about how to address the challenges.

  • The analysis covers three potential systems, all of which would increase the amount of maintenance students would have available to them day to day, rising from the current level of £9,978 to £11,400. This is the level that recent Sutton Trust research has found is the median spending on essentials for students living away from home outside of London for 9 months of the year,… This would also set maintenance support at a similar level to what they would receive if paid the National Living Wage while studying, a method the Diamond Review in Wales used to set maintenance levels.

Scenarios include

  • Scenario 1 – Increasing overall maintenance levels, with equal loans for all students and maintenance grants making up the difference.
  • Scenario 2 – Increasing overall maintenance levels, with variable loans and with maintenance grants focused on the poorest students.
  • Scenario 3 – Increasing overall maintenance levels by means-tested loans only.

The value of international education

The government has issued 2021 data on UK revenue from education related exports and transnational education activity.

David Kernohan from Wonkhe has some analysis, always worth checking out for the nuances, including:

  • 2021 was a long time ago
  • It’s also notable that all these figures are based on exports only – there is no adjustment at all for costs incurred in delivering a service overseas.
  • pathway provider income (programmes that help to prepare overseas students for study at a UK university) is estimated based on a survey of six large providers (CEG, INTO, Kaplan, Navitas, Oxford International, Study Group) conducted by one of the participants (Kaplan)

Research Professional also has an article.

 

Opportunity to get more involved in preparing our REF2029 submission

BU research, REF Subjects, Research assessment

We are currently recruiting for Review Panel members to help support preparation for our next REF. The deadline for expressions of interest is 15 March 2024. 

This is for new members who wish to join Review Panels – existing Review Panel members do not need to re-apply.

The roles are recruited through an open and transparent process, which gives all academic staff the opportunity to put themselves forward. Applications from underrepresented groups (e.g. minority ethnic, declared disability) are particularly welcome.

 

We are currently preparing submissions to thirteen units (otherwise known as UOAs). Each unit has a leadership team with at least one leader, an output and impact champion. The leadership team are supported by a panel of reviewers who assess the research from the unit. This includes research outputs (journal articles, book chapters, digital artefacts and conference proceedings) and impact case studies.

We currently have Review Panel member vacancies in the following units:

3 – Allied Health Professions, Dentistry, Nursing and Pharmacy

11 – Computer Science and Informatics

12 – Engineering

14 – Geography and Environmental Studies

15 – Archaeology

17 – Business and Management Studies

20 – Social Work and Social Policy

24 – Sport and Exercise Sciences, Leisure and Tourism

32 – Art and Design: History, Practice and Theory

All roles require a level of commitment which is recognised accordingly with time to review, attend meetings, and take responsibility for tasks.

Undertaking a UOA role can be enjoyable and rewarding as two of our current champions testify:

“As UOA Outputs Champion you develop a detailed knowledge of all the great work that colleagues are doing related to the subject, and the different outlets used for disseminating their work.  As an outputs committee member, you also get to know what research is going on across BU, and it’s interesting to see the differences between disciplines.  It’s a good way develop your knowledge of the bigger picture of BU’s research, and also to understand the importance of REF and how it works in practice.  You do spend quite a bit of time chasing colleagues to put their outputs on BRIAN for REF compliance but hopefully they forgive you!”

Professor Adele Ladkin – UOA 24 Output Champion

“As a UoA 17 impact champion, I work closely with the UoA 17 impact team to encourage the development of a culture of impact across BUBS. I try to pop into Department / research group meetings when I can to discuss impact, and I’ve enjoyed meeting people with a whole range of research interests. Sometimes it can be tough to engage people with impact – understandably; everyone is busy – so it’s important to be enthusiastic about the need for our BU research to reach the public. Overall, the role is about planting the seeds to get researchers thinking about the impact their work might have in the future (as well as the impact they have already had, sometimes without realising!)”

Dr Rafaelle Nicholson – UOA 17 Impact Champion

How to apply

All those interested should put forward a short case (suggested length of one paragraph) as to why they are interested in the role and what they think they could bring to it. These should be clearly marked with the relevant role and unit and emailed to ref@bournemouth.ac.uk by 5pm on 15 March 2024

Further detail on the role and the process of recruitment and selection criteria can be found here:

UOA Panel Reviewer

UOA IRP Process and criteria for selection

For further information please contact ref@bournemouth.ac.uk, a member of the current UOA Team or your Deputy Dean Research and Professional Practice with queries.

Art and Design: History, Practice and Theory academics – Would you like to get more involved in preparing our next REF submission?

BU research, REF Subjects, Research assessment

We are currently recruiting for an Output Champion to help support preparation for our next REF Submission to Art and Design: History, Practice and Theory. The deadline for expressions of interest is 1 March 2024. 

This role is recruited through an open and transparent process, which gives all academic staff the opportunity to put themselves forward. Applications from underrepresented groups (e.g. minority ethnic, declared disability) are particularly welcome.

We are currently preparing submissions to thirteen units (otherwise known as UOAs). Each unit has a leadership team with at least one leader, an output and impact champion. The leadership team are supported by a panel of reviewers who assess the research from the unit. This includes research outputs (journal articles, book chapters, digital artefacts and conference proceedings) and impact case studies.

We currently have vacancies in the following roles:

Output Champion – 32 – Art and Design: History, Practice and Theory

All roles require a level of commitment which is recognised accordingly with time to review, attend meetings, and take responsibility for tasks.

Undertaking a UOA role can be enjoyable and rewarding as two of our current champions testify:

“As UOA Outputs Champion you develop a detailed knowledge of all the great work that colleagues are doing related to the subject, and the different outlets used for disseminating their work.  As an outputs committee member, you also get to know what research is going on across BU, and it’s interesting to see the differences between disciplines.  It’s a good way develop your knowledge of the bigger picture of BU’s research, and also to understand the importance of REF and how it works in practice.  You do spend quite a bit of time chasing colleagues to put their outputs on BRIAN for REF compliance but hopefully they forgive you!”

Professor Adele Ladkin – UOA 24 Output Champion

“As a UoA 17 impact champion, I work closely with the UoA 17 impact team to encourage the development of a culture of impact across BUBS. I try to pop into Department / research group meetings when I can to discuss impact, and I’ve enjoyed meeting people with a whole range of research interests. Sometimes it can be tough to engage people with impact – understandably; everyone is busy – so it’s important to be enthusiastic about the need for our BU research to reach the public. Overall, the role is about planting the seeds to get researchers thinking about the impact their work might have in the future (as well as the impact they have already had, sometimes without realising!)”

Dr Rafaelle Nicholson – UOA 17 Impact Champion

How to apply

All those interested should put forward a short case (suggested length of one paragraph) as to why they are interested in the role and what they think they could bring to it. These should be clearly marked with the relevant role and unit and emailed to ref@bournemouth.ac.uk by 5pm on 1 March 2024

Further detail on the role and the process of recruitment and selection criteria can be found here:

Role descriptor

Process and criteria for selection

For further information please contact ref@bournemouth.ac.uk, a member of the current UOA Team or your Deputy Dean Research and Professional Practice with queries.

HE policy update: no 4, 5th February 2024

Impact, international, policy, Research assessment, Research news, UKRI

The update is a bit shorter this week, focussing on the bigger news on research and education.  The next update will be in a couple of weeks.

Research and knowledge exchange

Ref changes: the wheels on the bus go round and round

There’s nothing new in policy and politics.  As the debate rages about research culture and environment, how to measure it and whether we even should, there is a blog on Wonkhe reminiscing about the similar debate in 2009 around impact.

There’s an update from Research England here: Overall, the community has expressed clear support for the principle of an increased emphasis on PCE in the next REF, while outlining concern around the need for careful consideration of the reporting burden on the sector and the potential dangers of metricising culture or prescribing what good looks like.

Plans for taking this forward were confirmed in an update on people, culture and environment from UKRI which said that the extra time used by the postponement of the next REF from 2028 to 2029 would enable them to run a pilot exercise alongside  a project to develop a set of indicators.

  • The PCE indicators project will provide multiple opportunities for the sector to engage with the development of the PCE indicators. Desk-based research will draw on a variety of sources including Environment statements from REF 2021, feedback received through prior engagement and consultations with the sector, and other published reports. The initial consultation during spring 2024 will comprise in-person workshops in each of the four UK nations and a series of online thematic workshops. ….. Once the draft indicators have been developed, and in parallel with the PCE pilot exercise, a second round of consultation with the sector will be conducted gathering feedback through workshops and an open consultation (survey). ..
  • The pilot exercise will focus on a sample of UoAs (we anticipate in the region of 8 UoAs) selected to provide a general insight into the assessment of PCE for similar subject areas and to highlight particular issues or special considerations that may exist for the assessment of PCE. ….
  • Institutions will be invited in March 2024 to apply to participate in the pilot exercise, …. We anticipate selecting around 30 institutions to make submissions to the pilot exercise. …
  • Institutions that take part in the pilot will be expected to produce unit-level submissions for between 1 and 8 UoAs and also an institution-level submission. These submissions will be based on the indicators identified and developed templates emerging from the commissioned work on PCE indicators.
  • Pilot panels will be comprised of academics, research professionals and others with appropriate expertise. Recruitment of pilot panels is anticipated to be in April 2024 and will be through an open process, to a set of tightly defined criteria. …..

Doctoral funding and training

There’s a UKRI update out with a new statement of expectations for Doctoral Training.

Education research areas of interest

You can read about the DfE’s areas of research interest here.  What is this for?

  • In practical terms we hope this ARI document will steer and support researchers in developing relevant evidence and enable them to make stronger funding bids by linking their work to these priorities.

The areas of interest include:

  • Skills: Drive economic growth through improving the skills pipeline, levelling up productivity and supporting people to work. 1a. What are the country’s future skills needs to support growth and prosperity, particularly in STEM and green skills? 1b. What are the organisational challenges and opportunities facing higher education (HE) and further education (FE) institutions? 1c. What are the funding, system and market challenges and opportunities for increasing participation in technical education, apprenticeships and adult training? 1d. What are the drivers of UK and foreign students’ decisions about pathways into and out of FE and HE, including impact of funding, finance and experience
  • Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Technology: Harness the use of AI, technology and data across our sectors to support safe and effective use within education 5a. What are the potential impacts of AI, and how can new technologies be used safely and effectively within education? 5b. How can the impact of digital technology be robustly measured, and implemented in a way that supports teachers and students? 5c. What approaches or innovation are needed to support the efficient handling of data within education settings?

Education

Complaints

The Office of the Independent Adjudicator published its annual report.

  • In 2023 we received 3,137 complaints, our highest ever number. This is 10% more than in 2022, and followed increases in each of the previous six years

They are also consulting on new scheme rules: this consultation closes on 8th March 2024.

The OIA handles individual complaints and deals with complainants and universities quietly, but also publishes anonymised case studies which make interesting reading and a useful reference point.

The latest from January is on complaints relating to accommodation:

  • The case summaries show that students are not always clear about what they have signed up to, or about how to formally raise issues when they have concerns. It is important that providers’ information for students is as clear and easily accessible as possible, keeping in mind that for some students it is the first time they have lived independently away from home, or lived in a different country.
  • Sometimes the issues raised in complaints are about the accommodation itself, and sometimes they involve the student’s behaviour or that of other students in the accommodation. It’s important that the provider investigates the issues, considers the impact on those involved and takes steps to minimise it, and keeps the student informed. ..
  • We encourage early resolution of complaints where possible. In some of the cases we have seen, the provider recognised issues either during its internal processes or in the early stages of the student’s complaint to us and made an offer to the student to put things right. Sometimes complaints to us are settled in this way. Where the student doesn’t accept what we consider to be a reasonable offer, the complaint to us will usually be Not Justified on the basis that a reasonable offer has been made, and the case summaries include some cases with this outcome.

The previous update relates to disciplinary matters.

You can search them all by theme here

Staff/student ratio and student experience

An interesting blog for Wonkhe in Feb 24 demonstrates that there is no correlation between lower SSRs and student experience however you cut the data:

  • “Plotting student:staff ratio against NSS fails to show even a non-significant relationship between satisfaction and staff numbers. Looking primarily at NSS question 15 (which relates to the ease of contacting teaching staff and seems most likely to see an impact from staff student ratios) there are no clear relationships between our two variables in any subject area”.

A common narrative when this is discussed is that SSR data is distorted by research only staff, but the Wonkhe data excludes them.

Generative AI and assessments

There’s a new HEPI/Kortext policy note out: Provide or punish? Students’ views on generative AI in higher education.  There are some interesting findings including:

  • More than half of students (53%) have used generative AI to help them with assessments. The most common use is as an ‘AI private tutor’ (36%), helping to explain concepts.
  • More than one-in-eight students (13%) use generative AI to generate text for assessments, but they typically edit the content before submitting it. Only 5% of students put AI-generated text into assessments without editing it personally.
  • More than a third of students who have used generative AI (35%) do not know how often it produces made-up facts, statistics or citations (‘hallucinations’).
  • A ‘digital divide’ in AI use may be emerging. Nearly three-fifths of students from the most privileged backgrounds (58%) use generative AI for assessments, compared with just half (51%) from the least privileged backgrounds. Those with Asian ethnic backgrounds are also much more likely to have used generative AI than White or Black students and male students use it more than female students

Based on these findings, the authors recommend:

  • Institutions should develop clear policies on what AI use is acceptable and what is unacceptable.
  • Where AI has benefits, institutions should teach students how to use it effectively and how to check whether the content it produces is of high quality.
  • To prevent the ‘digital divide’ from growing, institutions should provide AI tools for those who cannot afford them when they have been identified as benefitting learning.
  • The Department for Education (DfE) and devolved administrations should urgently commission reviews to explore how academic assessment will be affected by AI

There’s a Wonkhe article by Jim Dickinson here.

Quality assessments

The Office for Students have published two more quality assessment reports: concerns were found in both of these, to add to the two previous ones where concerns were found.  Most of the reports published so far relate to business and management, the one published so far for computing  confirmed that there were no concerns.  There are a few more expected.

It is helpful to look at some of the themes picked out in the four reports so far that identified regulatory concerns:

Theme Finding
Teaching quality, delivery and learning resources ·       The teaching and learning resources used to teach disciplinary knowledge were not consistently up-to-date.

·       The manner of teaching delivery meant that courses were not consistently effectively delivered.

·       Delivered content was not consistently informed by up-to-date, discipline specific academic theory and research. This meant that courses did not consistently require students to develop relevant skills.

·       The cohort of students recruited by the university required high quality resources to support their independent learning. However, the quality of the virtual learning environment (VLE) was not consistent, with some modules having inadequate learning materials to facilitate the cohort of students’ learning
Course delivery: format and timetable Not enough flexibility in course delivery to support the cohort of students recruited, namely not providing sufficient flexibility when students had to work to finance their studies or have caring responsibilities, having recognised that this was a specific feature of their intake.
Academic support Student academic support needs were not consistently identified, limiting the opportunity for senior and academic staff to enhance the quality of poor-performing modules and improve the academic experience of students.
Monitoring and management of attendance and engagement Inadequate central monitoring and pro-active management of engagement and attendance and over-reliance on individual academic staff to follow up.  Recommendations included:

·       Clear lines of responsibility at faculty and university level regarding who the lead for continuation is, and further channelling of university-level resource, expertise and effort towards the continuation problem in the Business School.

·       Systematic analysis of student failures on modules and historical withdrawals, to provide a more detailed picture and understanding of why students do not continue their studies at the university.

·       Better real-time monitoring of engagement and a university-level set of criteria that can be used to identify a student who may be at risk of dropping out, combined with systematic analysis of student behaviour and non-attendance so that proactive additional support can be offered
Assessment and feedback ·       The format for providing formative feedback on assessments may not have been sufficient for some students across a number of modules reviewed. … the assessment team considered that ensuring consistent access to formative feedback is a step that could have been taken to ensure students have sufficient academic support to succeed

·       A review of examination board processes and module performance criteria to ensure that under-performing modules are being picked up and addressed through the quality assurance and enhancement system.
Allowing up to six attempts to pass an assessment (for those students that resit a module) without a clear underpinning pedagogic rationale, brought into question the rigour of the assessment and diluted the challenge provided that was relevant to the level of the course. The team considered that because those students were permitted to attempt an assessment that was lacking in rigour and challenge, it meant that those students were not assessed effectively
Academic misconduct Support for avoiding potential academic misconduct was not consistently provided in assessment feedback via the online assessment platform at Level 4
Foundation year students Insufficient academic support for foundation year students once they progressed onto the main programme – support should have continued at higher levels
Staffing Insufficient staff to provide adequate support, impacting personal tutoring, assessment and feedback and academic support
There was considerable variability between the pedagogical and teaching skills of different academic staff across business and management courses including an overreliance on PTHP which had an impact on learning and outcomes
Leadership and governance A lack of adequate educational leadership and academic governance was affecting the overall academic experience of students: this included gaps in key leadership roles and no plans or arrangements to cover, and inadequate noting and oversight of key data and action plans

There’s a Wonkhe blog on the latest two reports here.

Why do these matter?  Here is a reminder of the relevant licence conditions invoked by the OfS in relation to these issues

Apprenticeships

It’s National Apprenticeship Week and so a new standard has been announced: this time for teachers.  You can read the Secretary of State’s announcement here.

  • With a TDA, you’ll work in a school while you gain qualified teacher status (QTS), which you need in order to teach in most schools in England. At the same time, you’ll be studying for a degree.
  • It means trainees won’t take on student debt and will earn while they learn, supporting those who may not have the financial means to do a traditional university-based teacher training programme.
  • It will be available for people to train as both primary and secondary teachers.
  • Subject to final approval, schools will be able to start recruiting apprentices from autumn 2024, with the first trainees beginning the programme in 2025.

Student experience, wellbeing and finances

The Office for Students have announced that they will launch before the end of the academic year a competitive process to allocate £2m towards projects to “seed new practices and test new ideas” supporting equality of opportunity.

Mental health and duty of care

Wonkhe have the story about a recent coroner’s report.

There is a first report from the Department for Education’s HE Mental Health Implementation Taskforce.  Wonkhe are critical in a blog here.

As a reminder what this was for and a summary of the progress made so far:

Objective: adoption of common principles and baselines for approaches across providers, such as through sector led charters

  • The Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education wrote to all HEPs in June 2023 asking for ownership of mental health at an executive level to drive adoption of best practice. A target was also set for all universities to join the UMHC Programme by September 2024. In October 2023 Student Minds confirmed significant progress had been made, with 96 members now signed up across the UK, representing a greater than 50% increase in membership. Of those, 83 are English members, over two thirds of the cohort in scope of the UMHC Programme target.
  • Student Minds intends to undertake a light-touch review of the Charter and award process to begin early in 2024.
  • Next steps: Understand the means by which HEPs construct their mental health strategies and engage with the sector to understand where additional work may be impactful (particularly with regards to the formulation and oversight of HEP mental health strategies) by May 2024.

Objective: better identification of students in need of support and a clear user journey for accessing that support

Workshops have been held and three broad approaches considered:

  • Staff training and competence
  • Mental health analytics
  • Encouraging early disclosures

Next steps: It is proposed that the following work take place prior to the second stage Taskforce report:

  • Consider the evidence for the effectiveness of different training programmes to raise awareness for non-specialist staff, identify examples of good practice, and share these within HEPs as well as sector agencies which may design and deliver staff accreditation processes (e.g. Advance HE);
  • Work with the sector, and potentially Jisc and system suppliers, to develop and promote guidance for HEPs looking to implement student analytics or other related data systems, paying particular attention to supporting HEPs to improve their data governance; and
  • Work with UCAS to support their developing work around student surveys and references, facilitating discussions between UCAS, HEPs, FECs and schools to understand what additional information might be collected, the means to do so, and how this might be shared with HEPs. Feed into the work of the HE Student Support Champion on understanding and establishing methods of addressing barriers to schools and FECs sharing information with HEPs on students’ previous educational records, including their mental health needs.

Objective: development of more sensitive policies, procedures, and communications within a proposed HE Student Commitment

Sector engagement has uncovered challenges faced by HEPs when endeavouring to make improvements in this area:

  • the need for a broader range of good practice exemplars, in particular compassionate policies;
  • the requirement to adapt existing and emerging practice to the precise requirements of each individual provider;
  • the centrality of creating a consistent, whole institutional approach, where many sources of communications and interactions become mutually reinforcing;
  • the vital role of senior leaders in setting the tone for a compassionate culture;
  • the volume of material to be revised, in the context of resource constraints and competing priorities; and
  • the balance between compassion and the need to be clear about requirements and potential consequences of non-observance.

Next steps It is proposed that the following work take place prior to the publication of the second stage report:

  • Consult with the wider sector and students on the agreed principles;
  • Continue to engage with the sector to identify further examples of embedding compassionate principles into policies, procedures, and communications;
  • Develop material that can be utilised by the OIA;
  • Continue to promote the importance of this area with senior leaders with responsibility for overseeing policies, procedures, and communications, and more broadly with HEPs and their professional bodies; and
  • Deliver a national event to promote the Commitment

Objective: Effective local case reviews and engagement with the National Review of HE Suicides, including generation of insights into mental health services on offer by HEPs, and exploration of the methods for achieving greater timeliness and transparency on suicide data

  • In November 2023 DfE appointed the University of Manchester’s National Confidential Inquiry into Suicide and Safety in Mental Health (NCISH) to conduct the National Review.
  • In scope of the National Review will be suspected suicides and attempted suicides with an initial focus on those that have occurred in the Academic Year 2023/24. HEPs will be encouraged to submit their reviews to NCISH. Guidance to support HEPs to engage with this activity will be shared with the sector in early 2024.
  • HEPs will be able to make use of the template for serious incident reviews set out in the UUK Postvention guidance, published in December 2022, though this template is not mandatory. The National Review’s final report will be published by spring 2025 and will outline lessons around good practice and areas for improvement, drawn out from submitted reviews.

International

International student admissions

Immigration, including the impact of international students, remains a hot political topic.

The big story in the Sunday times on 28th Jan was about international students taking the place of better qualified home students.  The paper is behind a paywall, but the Guardian report is here.  There has been a lot of pushback on the original story which seemed to compare admissions requirements for foundation courses with degree courses.

There’s a UUK update on the story here.

UUK also published on 2nd Feb a statement about what they are going to do in response:

  1. Review the Agent Quality Framework (AQF) and make recommendations to enhance the system. We will:
  • Work with our members and partners to ensure adoption of the AQF across the sector.
  • Make recommendations on how the AQF and wider UK data infrastructure can be enhanced to identify and address bad practice and improve resilience.
  1. Review of quality and comparability of International Foundation Programmes (IFPs) and Foundation Programmes for Home (UK) students. We will: commission the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) to undertake a rapid review of IFPs. The review will compare requirements of International and Home Foundation Programmes, including entry requirements.
  2. Update the Admissions Code of Practice to clearly state its applicability to international recruitment. We will: review the Admissions Code of Practice to signpost where the Code is expected to apply to international recruitment and update the Code if appropriate.

The DfE are also looking recruitment practices: see this Research Professional article.

International student outcomes

This report in the FT talks about data from the Migration Observatory at Oxford University.

  • The number of overseas graduates staying on in the UK to work in care rose more than six-fold last year, according to research that puts a spotlight on unintended consequences of the government’s migration policy.
  • More than half of all foreign students who switched from graduate visas to skilled worker visas in the year ending June 2023 went into care work, the Migration Observatory think-tank at Oxford university found via freedom of information requests.
  • Some 26,200 overseas graduates were recruited into the care sector, from 3,900 in the year to June 2022, the data showed.
  • “Most international students graduate from masters programmes in subjects like business, engineering and computer science, so it is striking to see so many take roles in care, which requires few formal qualifications,” Ben Brindle, researcher at the Migration Observatory and co-author of the report, said.
  • Brindle noted that while some graduates taking care roles may want to work in the sector, others will have taken on the work, despite being heavily overqualified, “because it provides a route to stay in the UK”.

There’s a response here on Wonkhe from a former international student.

Of course similar stories appear frequently about the number of home graduates taking less highly skilled work, usually linked to the outcomes and quality discussion, such as this one from July when the government confirmed their approach to student number controls linked to the OfS quality assessments (see above under Education for some context for these).

REF Impact Subcommittee Chair: deadline extended to submit Expression of Interest

BU research, Impact, REF Subjects, Research assessment

Would you like to play a key role in supporting preparations for the Engagement & Impact element of BU’s REF2029 submission?

The REF Impact Subcommittee (RISC) has a vacancy for a Chair, which is open to all members of the Professoriate. You are invited to submit an Expression of Interest by 5pm Monday 5th February.

RISC reports on progress in the development of impact case studies to the REF Committee, making recommendations on impact resourcing and ensuring evidence of impact is robustly recorded.

 Key responsibilities include:

  1. Chairing the quarterly RISC meetings.
  2. Ensuring discussion is fair, open and supportive.
  3. Providing guidance in determining where greatest resourcing and support may be required, according to progress updates from impact champions.
  4. Acting as champion for raising awareness across BU of the importance of REF impact case studies in relation to QR funding for the institution as a whole.

Application process:

Please submit a short case (one page max.) to impact@bournemouth.ac.uk, outlining why you are interested in this important role, and the knowledge, skills and experience you think you could bring to it. Applications from underrepresented groups (e.g. women, minority ethnic, declared disability) are particularly welcome. The deadline is: 5pm, Monday 5th February.

EoIs are reviewed against the selection criteria detailed below by a gender-balanced selection panel comprising:

  • Chair of the REF Steering Group
  • Chair of the REF Committee
  • RDS representative

In the event of there being just one EoI received for a particular panel member role, the panel will still review it using the selection criteria to ensure the applicant is suitable for the role.

Further details on the role and selection criteria are here:

Chair REF Impact Subcommittee role descriptor

Process and criteria for RISC Chair recruitment

Selection criteria

The panel will give each EoI a score out of 15, based on how well they score against the criteria outlined below. These are equally weighted, with each criterion carrying a total possible score of 5. The panel will offer the role to the applicants with the highest ranked EoIs. A member of the panel will provide feedback to all applicants.

  • Knowledge and experience of REF and research impact (scored out of 5): The Chair/Deputy Chair are expected to have a thorough knowledge of the REF process, preparations and timeline and the requirements relating to the impact submission for REF2029. Ideally, they will have been involved in preparations for previous REF exercises or submitted an impact case study. It is expected that they will be practising researchers and will have a breadth of understanding of research across BU.
  • Experience of chairing meetings and reaching consensus to ensure sound decision-making (scored out of 5): The Chair/Deputy Chair will need to be able to chair meetings effectively and ensure prioritisation decisions are made in alignment with the requirements of the impact element of BU’s REF submission.
  • Plans for leading the impact agenda across the University (scored out of 5): The Chair/Deputy Chair are responsible for motivating the impact champions of each Unit of Assessment, as well as the wider research community, to optimise BU’s performance in the Engagement and Impact element of REF2029. They should have ideas for how they will do this.

Questions

Any queries regarding the process should be directed to impact@bournemouth.ac.uk. Specific questions about the Chair role should be directed to REF Committee Chair Professor Einar Thorson

REF2029 update on People, Culture and Environment

BU research, REF Subjects, Research assessment

The REF team have announced an update on the People, Culture and Environment (PCE) element of the REF2029 exercise.

A project has been commissioned to co-develop, with the research community, indicators to be used for the assessment of PCE. These indicators will be used to evidence and support institutions’ PCE submissions as part of a structured questionnaire for REF2029 submissions.

A pilot exercise to enable in-depth testing of the PCE indicators will run alongside the project. This will involve the drafting of example PCE submissions by a sample of HEIs for assessment by pilot panels, in a selected subset of Units of Assessment (UoA).

More details can be found on the REF2029 website, along with information on how HEIs can get involved in the pilot.

The team have also released an updated timetable for the REF2029 exercise.

New book about EDI in health and biomed research careers is out!

BU research, BU2025, ECR Network, open access, Publishing, Research assessment, research staff, Women's Academic Network

Dr Ola Thomson of BUBS, People and Organisations, is pleased to announce her new book: “Nurturing equality, diversity and inclusion: Support for research careers in health and biomedicine”. The book is available as open access which means you can read it free of charge via Bristol University Press (Policy Press) – link here: https://bristoluniversitypress.co.uk/nurturing-equality-diversity-and-inclusion.

You can also order a hard copy of the book with 50% off until 21 January using code JAN50 at the checkout.

The book is co-authored with Prof. Rachael Gooberman-Hill of the Elizabeth Blackwell Institute for Health Research at the University of Bristol. The volume provides an overview of the state of EDI in research careers in health and biomedicine in the UK, and offers innovative organisational and individual strategies to nurture diversity in research institutions.

Today’s academic and research institutions recognise the importance of diverse research teams in health and biomedical science, in terms of the business case, social justice and the common good. This ‘go-to’ book familiarises readers with the key equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) issues in relation to research careers and researcher development. Bringing together the challenges and solutions to EDI matters with an evidence-based approach in one volume, the book offers practical strategies and interventions for academic and research settings. This is an essential guide for equality planning team members, researchers, HRM officers and managers across academia and research.

REF Impact Subcommittee Chair: call for EoIs

BU research, Impact, REF Subjects, Research assessment

Help guide the university’s impact submission

The Chair of the REF Impact Subcommittee (RISC) has an important role to play in supporting preparations for the Engagement and Impact element of Bournemouth University’s (BU) REF2029 submission.

RISC reports on progress in the development of impact case studies and against impact strategies to the REF Committee, sharing intelligence from across BU and the wider HE sector, making recommendations on impact resourcing and ensuring evidence of impact is robustly recorded.

The Chair, who should be a member of the Professoriate, needs an institution-wide perspective on the development of impact case studies and the new impact narratives, and to ensure the subcommittee is effective in reviewing progress.

 Key responsibilities include:

  1. Chairing the quarterly RISC meetings.
  2. Ensuring discussion is fair, open and supportive.
  3. Providing guidance in determining where greatest resourcing and support may be required, according to progress updates from impact champions.
  4. Acting as champion for raising awareness across BU of the importance of REF impact case studies in relation to QR funding for the institution as a whole.

Application process:

Research Development and Support (RDS) runs an expression of interest (EoI) call, inviting all those who are interested to put forward a short case (one page maximum) outlining why they are interested and the knowledge, skills and experience they think they could bring to the role. Applications from underrepresented groups (e.g. women, minority ethnic, declared disability) are particularly welcome. The deadline is: 5pm, Monday 29th January.

EoIs are submitted to RDS (impact@bournemouth.ac.uk) and reviewed against the selection criteria detailed below by a gender-balanced selection panel comprising:

  • Chair of the REF Steering Group
  • Chair of the REF Committee
  • RDS representative

In the event of there being just one EoI received for a particular panel member role, the panel will still review it using the selection criteria to ensure the applicant is suitable for the role.

Further details on the role and selection criteria are here:

Chair REF Impact Subcommittee role descriptor

Process and criteria for RISC Chair recruitment

Selection criteria

The panel will give each EoI a score out of 15, based on how well they score against the criteria outlined below. These are equally weighted, with each criterion carrying a total possible score of 5. The panel will offer the role to the applicants with the highest ranked EoIs. A member of the panel will provide feedback to all applicants.

  • Knowledge and experience of REF and research impact (scored out of 5): The Chair/Deputy Chair are expected to have a thorough knowledge of the REF process, preparations and timeline and the requirements relating to the impact submission for REF2029. Ideally, they will have been involved in preparations for previous REF exercises or submitted an impact case study. It is expected that they will be practising researchers and will have a breadth of understanding of research across BU.
  • Experience of chairing meetings and reaching consensus to ensure sound decision-making (scored out of 5): The Chair/Deputy Chair will need to be able to chair meetings effectively and ensure prioritisation decisions are made in alignment with the requirements of the impact element of BU’s REF submission.
  • Plans for leading the impact agenda across the University (scored out of 5): The Chair/Deputy Chair are responsible for motivating the impact champions of each Unit of Assessment, as well as the wider research community, to optimise BU’s performance in the Engagement and Impact element of REF2029. They should have ideas for how they will do this.

Questions

Any queries regarding the process should be directed to impact@bournemouth.ac.uk. Specific questions about the Chair role should be directed to REF Committee Chair Professor Einar Thorson.

Call for EoIs: REF Institutional Statement Lead to drive REF 2029 preparations

BU research, REF Subjects, Research assessment

Bournemouth University (BU) is preparing submissions for future REF exercises. An Institutional Level Statement was introduced as part of the submission for REF2021 and will form part of the formally assessed component for REF2029. BU has created an Institutional Statement Lead role. This will be recruited via an open and transparent process. All academic staff at Grade10+ have the opportunity to put themselves forward.

The Institutional Statement Lead is a significant commitment and will be recognised with a 0.2FT workload allocation (or job-share), and commensurate buyout return for the host department. The role is permanent, to be reviewed on an annual basis, and role holders can choose to step down at any time. Potential applicants should discuss their workload balance with their Head of Department before applying.

The Institutional Statement Lead undertakes a vital role in driving and delivering BU’s REF submission, influencing the University’s preparations, shaping an optimal submission, and ultimately having a significant effect on BU’s REF results.

Key responsibilities of the Institutional Statement Lead role include:

  1. Having an institutional outlook for the REF, i.e. aiming to optimise BU’s overall REF performance.
  2. Leading production of the Institutional Statement, bringing together content on People, Culture and Environment.
  3. Working with Academic and Professional Service Leads to optimise the Institutional Statement by working to mitigate weaknesses and to highlight strengths across all aspects of the submission.
  4. Working with UOA leaders to explore and understand the interrelationship of discipline-specific and Institutional level statements.
  5. Ensuring that the Institutional Statement undergoes rigorous review, in order to assess quality and areas of development prior to inclusion for REF.
  6. Working closely with RDS, who are managing the central REF preparation and submission process.
  7. Attend the REF Committee meetings.
  8. Working closely with RDS to respond audit queries.
  9. To undertake any other duties as requested by UET and RSG

Application process:

To apply, please submit a short statement (suggested length 300 words), explaining your interest in the role and what you could bring to it. Applications from underrepresented groups (e.g., minority ethnic, declared disability, women) are particularly welcome.

EoIs should be submitted to RDS (ref@bournemouth.ac.uk) by 5pm 26th January 2024.

EoIs will be reviewed against the selection criteria detailed in this document by a gender-balanced selection panel comprising the:

  • Associate Pro-VC Research and Knowledge Exchange
  • Chair of the REF Steering Group
  • RDS representative

The panel will invite those meeting the criteria to an interview. This process is applied consistently as per the process for UOA Leaders. In the event of there being just one EoI received for a role, the panel will still review it using the selection criteria to ensure the applicant is suitable for the role.

Selection criteria

The selection criteria are outlined below. The same criteria will be used at both EoI and interview stage. These are equally weighted, with each criterion carrying a total possible score of 10. The role will be offered to the highest scoring applicant. A member of the panel will provide feedback to all applicants.

  • Commitment, motivation and enthusiasm (scored out of 10): The REF Institutional Statement Lead is a significant commitment. The role holder needs to be willing and able to make this commitment. They need to be enthusiastic about the REF and boosting research performance.
  • Skills and knowledge (scored out of 10): The REF Institutional Statement Lead should bring with them skills and knowledge to optimise BU’s REF preparations and submission (e.g. knowledge of the REF process, expertise in research metrics, leadership experience, REF Panel membership experience, etc). It is expected that they will be practising researchers and will have a breadth of understanding of research across BU.
  • Plans for preparing the Institutional Statement and awareness of the potential challenges and opportunities (scored out of 10): The REF Institutional Statement Lead is responsible for driving and delivering the Institutional Statement, maintaining an institutional outlook to optimise BU’s overall REF performance. They should have ideas for how they will do this and the potential challenges and opportunities of this.

Further detail on the roles and selection criteria can be found here:

Role Descriptor

Process and criteria for selection

Questions

Questions regarding the process should be directed to RDS, ref@bournemouth.ac.uk. The REF Institutional Statement Lead specific questions should be directed to the Chair of RSG Professor Kate Welham.