Join experts from Konfer for a Faculty-specific session, offering a guided tour of the platform and support to set up your profile or your Research Centre page for powerful research and knowledge exchange connections.
Konfer offers an efficient way to navigate around resources, technology and innovation capabilities that exist in the UK innovation eco-system. Through Konfer, you can discover and engage with experts beyond your typical reach and discuss new ideas and opportunities for projects.
This is an opportunity to meet with the Konfer team, have a guided tour of the platform and its full functionality, enabling you to create and connect to the UK research collaborations with other universities, businesses and other organisations. By the end of your session you will have set up your own profile, with guidance and support from Ranbir and Shivaun from Konfer, and be ready to post or respond to collaboration opportunities.
As well as a Faculty specific session, you can also attend the Konfer Drop-In Surgery in the afternoon.
The Coffee and Konfer event will take place on Wednesday 20 March 2024. The faculty specific sessions will take place from 9am. Rooms to be confirmed.
A networking lunch and light refreshments will be provided.
The Coffee & Konfer Surgery will take place from 2pm. Location to be confirmed.
Schedule
BUBS Workshop – 9:00 – 9:50am
FMC Workshop – 10:00 – 10:50am
HSS Workshop – 11:00 – 11:50am
FST Workshop – 12:00 – 12:50pm
Facilitators – Ranbir Jabanda and Shivaun Meehan – National Centre for Universities and Business/Konfer. Dr. Wendelin Morrison – BU Knowledge Exchange Manager
Networking Lunch – 1:00 – 2:00pm
For Deputy Deans, BEKES, Faculty and RDS Knowledge Exchange and/or Innovation Leads
Coffee & Konfer Surgery – 2:00 – 4:30pm
Aimed at academics from any faculty including those with no experience or some experience of using Konfer.
Drop in and join us for a coffee and support in:
Maximising your use of Konfer
Creating or developing your current Konfer profile
Creating a Research Centre Page as a ‘Window to the World’
Finding Funding or Collaborators on Konfer
Building Konfer into your research culture
Ranbir Jabanda and Shivaugn Meehan – National Centre for Universities and Business/Konfer
Dr. Wendelin Morrison – BU Knowledge Exchange Manager
Dr Keith Parry co-authors this article about new research which questions whether it is right for children to be involved in high impact sports that risk injury to the brain…
Children’s high-impact sports can be abuse – experts explain why
Chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) is a brain disorder likely caused by repeated head injuries. It was first described as dementia pugilistica and punch drunk syndrome almost 100 years ago. CTE continues to be a serious risk associated with high impact sports, such as boxing, American football and rugby.
Although the risks of traumatic brain injuries, such as concussion, and longer-term brain degeneration from repetitive hits in impact sports have been known for decades, some sport governing bodies continue to try and cast doubt onto the relationship between impact sports and CTE. However, media attention has begun to change people’s minds.
This growing awareness is accelerated by the many lawsuits against organising bodies in relation to brain trauma. Former professional and amateur players in sports such as American football, Australian rules football and rugby say their governing bodies failed to prevent harm during their playing careers.
These are not only issues for elite players. Studies into the brains of former players have found CTE in those who only played as amateurs. CTE has also been found in the brains of players under the age of 30 and even those as young as 17.
Each additional year of playing impact sports raises the risk of CTE, by as much as 30% in American football.
The dangers of high-impact sport aren’t contentious. Academic evidence and medical professionals now agree that sport-induced brain trauma leads to degenerative brain disease.
Not suitable for under-18s
Given this context, our recent paper written with Jack Hardwicke, a senior lecturer in the sociology of sport at Nottingham Trent University, has questioned whether it is right for children to participate in sports that intentionally feature impact, particularly involving the head. We argue that allowing under-18s to take part in high impact sports should be viewed as a form of child abuse – we use the term “child brain abuse” – and that these impact sports should be legally prohibited.
We are not calling for adult versions of impact sports to be banned and our argument does not apply to sports or activities where brain trauma might occur by accident. But in sports where impact is a structured part of the game, like boxing – or sports that create rapid brain movements, as in rugby tackling – collisions are not accidents, they are an inherent part of the sport.
The risk of CTE is far higher in sports such as American football and rugby. The odds of developing degenerative brain diseases are increased in former players of impact sports than are found in sports without deliberate impacts or the general population.
But these benefits can still be gained from non-impact versions of sports, such as touch rugby, which can help teach discipline and teamwork without the harm from brain trauma.
There are no health benefits of tackling – and there are no health benefits of being struck in the head. The health benefits of impact rugby or boxing are instead gained from the body’s overall movement.
Tag rugby tends to be faster moving than the sport’s full contact version so is better for improving cardiovascular health. Research has shown that incidents of contact during children’s rugby are the cause of cause of 87% of known injuries. Tackling, in particular, is responsible for 52% of all injuries – with concussion being the most common injury type. Tagging, rather than tackling, saves children’s brains from harm.
Inability to consent
Our research shows that impact sports should be treated equally with other prohibited activities for children, such as smoking. Children are unable to make informed decisions about the long-term risks of these activities. Parental provision for these activities is also socially stigmatised or criminalised.
Our research draws on a number of legal positions that support our argument that neither children nor parents on their behalf can consent to sports that require brain trauma as a necessary component of the sport.
For example, Article 19 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), to which 195 countries are signatories, covers protection from violence, abuse and neglect. It states that:
Governments must do all they can to ensure that children are protected from all forms of violence, abuse, neglect and bad treatment by their parents or anyone else who looks after them.
Some commentators have agreed that while high-impact sports are dangerous, using the term child abuse is a step too far.
However, the NSPCC, the UK’s leading children’s charity, say that physical neglect is a form of abuse that occurs if a child is not kept safe. Allowing children to participate in impact sports while being aware of the harm they can cause is, our research shows, a failure keep children safe.
There is no justifiable health reason for a child to play impact sport over non-impact versions. We are asking that ministers privilege children’s brains over corporate sporting bodies.
Last Friday (2nd Feb 2024), the Climate Creatives Challenge announced the winners of Challenge #04 (Coastal Change), with 1st place awarded to the Coasts for Kids (C4K) video series. The Climate Creatives Challenge is a biannual global initiative that promotes creative and innovative climate communication, including the positive actions that can be taken to mitigate and adapt to change. Challenge #04 (Coastal Change) received submissions from 56 countries in a wide range of formats.
The judges said:
“Wickedly informative, and utterly delightful. Precious voiceovers, and learned important information in an engaging new way. I would love to continue rooting for Coasts for Kids well after this challenge concludes!”
“Fantastic teaching aid, pitched at the generation most affected in a wholly accessible way. Explains complex issues simply and effectively.”
“This series is really wonderful and such a credit to the project team.”
C4K explains coastal processes, issues (such as sea level rise) and management in short videos narrated by 6-8-year-old children, using animation and language accessible to primary school children (age 6+). You can read more about C4k in this BU Research Blog | ‘Coasts for Kids’ – explaining coastal processes to children | Bournemouth University.
Dr Luciana Esteves (Dep. Life & Environmental Sciences, FST) was part of the team of coastal scientists, educators, practitioners and artists who worked on the writing of C4K.
The Month in Research is our monthly round-up sharing research and knowledge exchange successes from across the previous month, showcasing the amazing work taking place across BU.
Your achievements
Thank you to everyone who has used the online form to put forward their achievements, or those of colleagues, this month.
With an international team of researchers from Manchester Metropolitan University, the University of Illinois, and Juntendo University, Dr Daniel Lock (Business School) co-authored a new study in Social Science and Medicine. The research demonstrated that the well-being benefits of physical activity were activated when the activity was internalised as a meaningful feature of participants self-concept. Shared by Dr Daniel Lock on behalf of Dr Yuhei Inoue, Dr Daniel Lock, and Dr Miki Satoro
Fred McClintock (Faculty of Health and Social Sciences) has completed the first publication of his PhD: Assessing the Impact of Sensor Orientation on Accelerometer-Derived Angles: A Systematic Analysis and Proposed Error Reduction.
Funding
Congratulations to all those who have had funding for research and knowledge exchange projects and activities awarded in January. Highlights include:
Dr Szilvia Ruszev (Faculty of Media and Communication) has been awarded c.£172,000 by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) for their project Shared Post-Human Imagination: Human-AI Collaboration in Media Creation
Professor Marcin Budka (Faculty of Science and Technology) has been awarded c.£225,000 by Innovate UK for their KTP (Virtual): This is Crowd Ltd – Generative AI driven marketing campaign customisation tool
Professor Marios Angelopoulos (Faculty of Science and Technology) has been awarded c.£28,000 by Ofgem for their project Affordable carbon monoxide and heat verbal warning alarm
Publications
Congratulations to all those who have had work published across the last month. Below is a selection of publications from throughout January:
Content for The Month in Research has been collected using the research and knowledge exchange database (RED), the Bournemouth University Research Online (BURO) repository, and submissions via The Month in Research online form. It is by no means intended to be an exhaustive list. All information is correct as of 30.1.24.
Please use The Month in Research online form to share your highlights and achievements, or those of colleagues, for the next monthly round-up.
Following the December 2023 announcement from UKRI that REF would be postponed until 2029, this free series is aimed at UK academics who want to get to grips with research impact in general, what the REF requirements are, and how they can begin preparing to ensure maximum success and minimal stress for the 2029 assessment.
The hivve team has been working with institutions since REF 2014 to help prepare for the impact element of the assessment, including the development of Impact Case Studies (ICS), and we are looking forward to sharing our experience with you in the new year.
Please note a change in the briefing date, now: 7th Feb 2024- following the original post of the 15th January.
A briefing on this call will be held on 7th February 2024 at 12 noon, including an overview of the scheme and a Q&A session. For those who cannot attend on the day, the briefing will be recorded and shared on Brightspace. Please contact us to receive the link.
The rest of the timeline remains the same.
Process for selecting applications timeline:
Date
Action
15th January 2024
Internal Launch of Call
7th February 2024
Future Leaders Briefing and Q&A for Fellows and mentors – at the Funding Development Briefing.
Our article ‘Understanding health education, health promotion & public health’ [1] is getting read according to ResearchGate. This conceptual/ theoretical paper was published open access in late 2021 in the Journal of Health Promotion and it reached 4,500 reads yesterday. Whilst the web side of the journal suggests today that the PDF of the paper has been downloaded 8,511 times.
Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen
Centre for Midwifery & Women’s Health (CMWH)
Reference:
van Teijlingen, K. R., Devkota, B., Douglas, F., Simkhada, P., van Teijlingen, E. R. (2021). Understanding health education, health promotion and public health. Journal of Health Promotion, 9(1): 1–7. https://doi.org/10.3126/jhp.v9i01.40957
This morning the journal Discover Social Science & Health informed us that Abier Hamidi’s latest paper ‘Islamic Perspectives on HIV: A Scoping Review’ has been accepted for publication [1]. Discover Social Science & Health is an Open Access journal publishing research across the full range of disciplines at the intersection of health, social and biomedical sciences. This latest review is part of Abier’s PhD research project and it follows several earlier related publications [2-7].
Abier is supervised by Dr. Pramod Regmi, Principal Academic-International Health and the Global Engagement Lead in the Department of Nursing Sciences, and Prof. Edwin van Teijlingen in the Centre for Midwifery & Women’s Health (CMWH).
Hamidi, A., Regmi, P., van Teijlingen, E. (2023) Facilitators and barriers to condom use in Middle East and North Africa: a systematic review, Journal of Public Health, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-023-01923-3
Hamidi, A., Regmi, P., van Teijlingen, E. (2021) HIV epidemic in Libya: Identifying gaps, Journal of the International Association of Providers of AIDS Care, 20 :1-5 https://doi.org/10.1177/23259582211053964.
Last week Mr. Yogesh Dhakal, who is Deputy Editor at Shilapatra, an online newspaper in Nepal, interviewed three UK professors: Julie Balen (Canterbury Christ Church University), Simon Rushton (the University of Sheffield) and Edwin van Teijlingen (Bournemouth University). The focus of the interview (see interview online here) was our recently completed interdisciplinary study ‘The impact of federalisation on Nepal’s health system: a longitudinal analysis’.
In this Nepal Federal Health System Project we studied the consequences for the health system of Nepal’s move from a centralised political system to a more federal structure of government. This three-year project is UK-funded by the MRC, Wellcome Trust and FCDO (Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office; formerly DFID) under the Health Systems Research Initiative. This joint project is led by the University of Sheffield in collaboration with Bournemouth University, the University of Huddersfield, Canterbury Christ Church University and two institutions in Nepal, namely MMIHS (Manmohan Memorial Institute of Health Sciences) and PHASE Nepal.
Today (23rd January) the article appeared online in Nepali. We have seen the transcript in English of the actual interviews with the three of us, but I have no idea how the journalist has edited, selected and translated the relevant text.
Professor Dinusha Mendis writes for The Conversation about the potential copyright implications of AI as a lawsuit is lodged by the New York Times against the creator of ChatGPT…
How a New York Times copyright lawsuit against OpenAI could potentially transform how AI and copyright work
On December 27, 2023, the New York Times (NYT) filed a lawsuit in the Federal
District Court in Manhattan against Microsoft and OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT,
alleging that OpenAI had unlawfully used its articles to create artificial intelligence (AI) products.
Citing copyright infringement and the importance of independent journalism to democracy, the newspaper further alleged that even though the defendant, OpenAI, may have “engaged in wide scale copying from many sources, they gave Times content particular emphasis” in training generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) tools such as Generative Pre-Trained Transformers (GPT). This is the kind of technology that underlies products such as the AI chatbot ChatGPT.
The complaint by the New York Times states that OpenAI took millions of copyrighted news articles, in-depth investigations, opinion pieces, reviews, how-to guides and more in an attempt to “free ride on the Times’s massive investment in its journalism”.
In a blog post published by OpenAI on January 8, 2024, the tech company responded to the allegations by emphasising its support of journalism and partnerships with news organisations. It went on to say that the “NYT lawsuit is without merit”.
In the months prior to the complaint being lodged by the New York Times, OpenAI had entered into agreements with large media companies such as Axel-Springer and the Associated Press, although notably, the Times failed to reach an agreement with the tech company.
The NYT case is important because it is different to other cases involving AI and copyright, such as the case brought by the online photo library Getty Images against the tech company Stability AI earlier in 2023. In this case, Getty Images alleged that Stability AI processed millions of copyrighted images using a tool called Stable Diffusion, which generates images from text prompts using AI.
The main difference between this case and the New York Times one is that the newspaper’s complaint highlighted actual outputs used by OpenAI to train its AI tools. The Times provided examples of articles that were reproduced almost verbatim.
Use of material
The defence available to OpenAI is “fair use” under the US Copyright Act 1976, section 107. This is because the unlicensed use of copyright material to train generative AI models can serve as a “transformative use” which changes the original material. However, the complaint from the New York Times also says that their chatbots bypassed the newspaper’s paywalls to create summaries of articles.
Even though summaries do not infringe copyright, their use could be used by the New York Times to try to demonstrate a negative commercial impact on the newspaper – challenging the fair use defence.
This case could ultimately be settled out of court. It is also possible that the Times’ lawsuit was more a negotiating tactic than a real attempt to go all the way to trial. Whichever way the case proceeds, it could have important implications for both traditional media and AI development.
It also raises the question of the suitability of current copyright laws to deal with AI. In a submission to the House of Lords communications and digital select committee on December 5, 2023, OpenAI claimed that “it would be impossible to train today’s leading AI models without copyrighted materials”.
It went on to say that “limiting training data to public domain books and drawings created more than a century ago might yield an interesting experiment but would not provide AI systems that meet the needs of today’s citizens”.
Looking for answers
The EU’s AI Act –- the world’s first AI Act –- might give us insights into some future directions. Among its many articles, there are two provisions particularly relevant to copyright.
The first provision titled, “Obligations for providers of general-purpose AI
models” includes two distinct requirements related to copyright. Section 1(C)
requires providers of general-purpose AI models to put in place a policy to respect EU copyright law.
Section 1(d) requires providers of general purpose AI systems to draw up and make publicly available a detailed summary about content used for training AI systems.
While section 1(d) raises some questions, section 1(c) makes it clear that any use of copyright protected content requires the authorisation of the rights holder concerned unless relevant copyright exceptions apply. Where the rights to opt out has been expressly reserved in an appropriate manner, providers of general purpose AI models, such as OpenAI, will need to obtain authorisation from rights holders if they want to carry out text and data mining on their copyrighted works.
Even though the EU AI Act may not be directly relevant to the New York Times complaint against OpenAI, it illustrates the way in which copyright laws will be designed to deal with this fast-moving technology. In future, we are likely to see more media organisations adopting this law to protect journalism and creativity. In fact, even before the EU AI Act was passed, the New York Times blocked OpenAI from trawling its content. The Guardian followed suit in September 2023 – as did many others.
However, the move did not allow material to be removed from existing training
data sets. Therefore, any copyrighted material used by the training models up until then would have been used in OpenAI’s outputs –- which led to negotiations between the New York Times and OpenAI breaking down.
With laws such as those in the EU AI Act now placing legal obligations on general purpose AI models, their future could look more constrained in the way that they use copyrighted works to train and improve their systems. We can expect other jurisdictions to update their copyright laws reflecting similar provisions to that of the EU AI Act in an attempt to protect creativity. As for traditional media, ever since the rise of the internet and social media, news outlets have been challenged in drawing readers to their sites and generative AI has simply exacerbated this issue.
This case will not spell the end of generative AI or copyright. However, it certainly raises questions for the future of AI innovation and the protection of creative content. AI will certainly continue to grow and develop and we will continue to see and experience its many benefits. However, the time has come for policymakers to take serious note of these AI developments and update copyright laws, protecting creators in the process.
Dinusha Mendis, Professor of Intellectual Property and Innovation Law; Director Centre for Intellectual Property Policy and Managament (CIPPM), Bournemouth University, Bournemouth University
Yesterday in Nepal we attempted to meet two government ministers to present policy recommendations generated by the study examining the consequences for the health system of Nepal’s move to a federal government structure. This three-year project is UK-funded by the MRC, Wellcome Trust and the FCDO (Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office; formerly DFID) under the Health Systems Research Initiative. Through our collaborating partners in Nepal we had managed to make initial contacts with the Prime Minister’s office and a senior secretary in the Ministry of Health & Population. The timing was significant as yesterday was the last day that UK-based members of our team were in Nepal. The day started with a possible meeting with first the Prime Minister Pushpa Dahal, followed by a possible meeting with the Health Minister Mohan Baladur Basnet. However, as the saying goes ‘timing is everything!’ And, in the end the time was against us.
One of the two principle investigators of our study, Professor Simon Rushton from the University of Sheffield, and got ready early in the morning, only to be told by our Nepalese collaborators that the traffic in Kathmandu was hectic. Having waited for nearly an hour for our transport, we decided to split up with one of us joining some of our Nepalese collaborators trying to see the Prime Minister (PM) and the other one with a team to visit the Minister of Health & Population. Prof. Rushton went to the latter and after a period of waiting he and one of our Nepalese collaborators managed to meet the Minister and his staff. He also managed to hand over our policy recommendations. This offered a nice picture opportunity to illustrate a REF Impact Case Study.
Three other Nepalese collaborators and I, on the other hand, waited for over two hours in the waiting room of the Prime Minister, who turned out to be in an urgent meeting with two senior ministers. After over two hours we had to call off our attempt to see the PM. All I ended up with as ‘evidence’ was a picture of the tissue box in the PM’s waiting room. In the end I had to rush to Tribhuven International Airport to catch my flight to Qatar, then onward to London Gatwick.
For the team visiting the PM it felt very much like Robert Burns’ poem: “The best laid schemes o’ Mice an’ Men. Gang aft agley.”
BU is a partner of The Conversation, a news analysis and opinion website with content written by academics working with professional journalists.
As a partner organisation, our academics and researchers can write for The Conversation on their areas of expertise. Conversation journalists are offering one-to-one training sessions for BU academics to understand more about The Conversation, or to discuss and pitch an article to them.
The Conversation is a great way to share research and informed comment on topical issues. Academics work with editors to write pieces, which can then be republished via a Creative Commons licence. Since we first partnered with The Conversation, articles by BU authors have had over 9.5 million reads and been republished by the likes of The i, Metro, National Geographic Indonesia and the Washington Post.
Free sessions from Fast Track Impact on preparing for REF2029, scoping an ethics of engagement and impact, integrating impact into your next funding bid and influencing policy. Book soon as some of these events only have a few spaces left.
Preparing for REF2029
Date: 5 February, 2024
Time: 10:00 – 13:00
This session will help you monitor, evaluate and evidence your impact.
Key benefits:
Learn about evidence-based principles for delivering research impact when you don’t have much time
Discover easy and quick-to-use templates you can use immediately to:
Prioritise who to engage with first
Create a powerful impact plan that will guarantee your research makes a difference without wasting your time
Learn how to monitor, evaluate and evidence impact convincingly in your case study
Discover easy and quick-to-use tools to fix problems with significance or reach in case studies
Find out what makes a 4* impact case study, based on research into high versus low-scoring cases in REF2014 and a worked example showing the anatomy of a 4* claim from REF2021
Discuss impact plans that might develop into REF2028 case studies with colleagues
As governments and funders around the world invest in the impact of research as an unquestioned good, there are growing concerns around the ethics of pursuing impact.
Should University ethics committees consider engagement and impact plans for projects that are working on controversial topics or with vulnerable groups – even if their research doesn’t involve human subjects and so would not normally fall under their jurisdiction?
How should researchers and their institutions manage issues such as:
Undeclared conflicts of interest (e.g., arising from funding and promotion outcomes from the Research Excellence Framework in the UK)
Positive bias in the presentation of impacts (e.g. research leading to economic impacts via questionable ethical practices that also led to significant harm to the environment or human rights), and
Concerns about how vulnerable individuals and groups have been used to generate or corroborate impacts?
Learn how to increase your success rates and integrate impact into your next research proposal
Key benefits:
Discuss insider tips and tricks, and get bid writing tools to help you co-produce your next proposal with the people most likely to benefit from your research.
Discuss examples of impact sections from real cases for support
Learn how to integrate impact convincingly with your proposal, using a mapping approach to ensure your impact goals map onto your impact problem statement, beneficiaries and impact generation activities, whilst managing risks and assumptions.
Power all of this with a systematic stakeholder analysis and impact logic model that will make it easy to articulate specific and credible impacts.
Find out how you can become significantly more productive as a researcher in a fraction of your current working day.
Key benefits:
Leave with practical tools you can use immediately to prioritise limited time to achieve more ambitious career goals
Gain a deeper understanding of the values that underpin your work, and the reasons why you feel time pressured
Identify priorities that are as much about being as they are about doing, and that are stretching, motivational, authentic, relational and tailored to your unique strengths and abilities
Turn these into an “experiment” to make practical changes that create a positive feedback loop between your priorities and your motivation, so you can become increasingly focussed and productive
Yesterday, Sunday 14th January, I was invited by Bournemouth University’s former PhD student Dr. Pratik Adhikary to run a three-hour methods session on semi-structured interviews and focus group discussions at the Nepal Injury Research Centre (NIRC). The workshop was based on work normally presented as part of BU’s Doctoral College Researcher Development Programme.
The audience comprised PhD students based at NIRC, as well as at Kathmandu Medical College (KMC), and Nepal’s oldest and largest university, Tribhuvan University. Participants were involved in research into many different research questions, ranging from road traffic accidents to sexual health and the well-being of migrant workers. NIRC was established with funding from the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Global Health Research Programme and it is a partnership between KMC and the University of the West of England, Bristol (UWE).
On my latest trip to Nepal I noticed a number of related newspaper stories about those wanting to migrate abroad for work. Yesterday there was an article with the headline ‘Three held for defrauding unemployed youths’ (The Himalayan Times, January 11, page 2), which could be seen as story about crime, just like the one next to it on the same page with was headed ‘Vehicle stolen’ (The Himalayan Times, January 11, page 2) . Both fit under the category of people suffering from crime committed by naughty people. However, having studied labour migration as a sociologist for over a decade it also speaks of the desperation of young people to leave Nepal. In that sense, the ‘Three held for defrauding unemployed youths’ story, is more like the story the day before ‘Family of Nepali who joined Russian Army worried after hearing about his death’ (The Himalayan Times, January 10, page 1).
In the latter story of a tragic death of a Nepalese mercenary, the most unexpected element I found was that Nepalese victim had paid Rs. 500,000 to criminals, who acted as brokers. I would have expected that Putin’s agents operating in the Middle East were paying large amounts of money to potential army recruits to fight in the invasion of Ukraine. To my great surprise, the payment was the other way round, where Nepalese migrant workers are desperate enough to pay the country at war. When people are desperate to work abroad unscrupulous brokers see opportunities to make money.
Whilst at the end of December 2023 two Nepalese men were killed when Korean language test candidates were staging demonstrations in Kathmandu demanding that they be allowed to appear for language tests for jobs in the manufacturing sector in South Korea. When the Minister for Physical Infrastructure and Transport stopped to intervene, he sparked a riot and his car was set on fire. The police opened fire and killed two protesters in a very un-Nepalese way of dealing with protest. Again to me the underlying issue to note is how desperate these men are to go abroad and get to work in South Korea.
Prof. Ann Luce (FMC), Ms. Georgia Turner (PhD candidate FST), Ms. Lauren Kennedy (MSc student FST) and Dr. Reece D. Bush-Evans (Lecturer in FST) are pleased to announce the publication of their most recent work in British Medical Journal: Medical Humanities titled, “Quite simply they don’t communicate: a case study of a National Health Service response to staff suicide”. You can access the article here for free.
Workplace suicide can have significant knock-on effects within an organisation, yet research has shown within the healthcare profession, not all staff receive suicide prevention training, and few employers take the time to reflect on the need to change workplace policies or practices following the death of a staff member to suicide. How staff suicide is communicated across an organisation and to family members is important. Effective crisis communication is critical for effective management for a timely and sensitive response to a staff suicide within an organisation. By doing so, workplaces can help to reduce the significant emotional trauma suicide can have on an employee, and support good mental health across its workforce.
This groundbreaking work in the field of suicide prevention is already having an impact. The work was cited by Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee recent report on “Improving Mental Health Services”. Furthermore, the research has served as the underpinning evidence for NHS England’s National Suicide Prevention Toolkit for England, which will be implemented across all NHS Trusts in England. And, with a renewed focus on healthcare suicide, with a specific focus on female nurses, the research served as underpinning evidence for England’s National Suicide Prevention Strategy that was released in September 2023.
The team would like to thank all research participants as this was a difficult project to complete. Further, thanks must also be extended to NHS England for funding, the BU Open Access Fund, and the colleagues across BU who read drafts of the work prior to publication.
The Month in Research is our new monthly round-up sharing research and knowledge exchange successes from across the previous month, showcasing the amazing work taking place across BU.
Your achievements
Thank you to everyone who has used the online form to put forward their achievements, or those of colleagues, this month.
Dr Laura Renshaw-Vuillier, Dr Maddy Greville-Harris, Dr Rachel Moseley, Dr Sarah Thomas, Professor Mel Hughes and Dr Kate Jupp (Faculty of Science and Technology and Faculty of Health and Social Sciences) have been awarded a NIHR RfPB grant to optimise and test the acceptability of an online emotion-based intervention. This online toolkit aims to provide early support for adult patients with binge eating disorders awaiting NHS treatment.
Dr Emili Balaguer-Ballester (Faculty of Science and Technology) has published a paper on Discovering causal relations and equations from data in the journal Physics Reports. The journal has Impact Factor 30 – making it among the top ones worldwide. It is a collaborative work between eight universities in Europe and the USA (Valencia, Berlin, Tübingen, Jena, Stockholm, New York, and Bournemouth University).
Congratulations to all those who have had funding for research and knowledge exchange projects and activities awarded in December. Highlights include:
Dr Samantha Iwowo (Faculty of Media and Communication) has been awarded c.£53,000 by the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) for their project Colonial Reels: Histories and Afterlives of Colonial Film Collections (in collaboration with University of Bristol and Birkbeck College)
Dr Milena Bobeva (Business School) has been awarded c.£30,000 by the British Council for their project Developing innovative and sustainable mobility initiatives for UK and Malaysian students (working title)
Professor Richard Stillman (Faculty of Science and Technology) has been awarded c.£30,000 by Natural England for their project Morecombe Bay Oystercatchers and knot food
Publications
Congratulations to all those who have had work published across the last month. Below is a selection of publications from throughout December:
Content for The Month in Research has been collected using the research and knowledge exchange database (RED), the Bournemouth University Research Online (BURO) repository and submissions via The Month in Research online form. It is by no means intended to be an exhaustive list. All information is correct as of 4.1.24.
Please use The Month in Research online form to share your highlights and achievements, or those of colleagues, for the next monthly round-up.
Discovering equations, laws, or invariant principles underpins scientific and technical advancement. Robust model discovery has typically emerged from observing the world and, when possible, performing interventions to falsify models.
Recently, data-driven approaches like classic and deep machine learning are evolving traditional equation discovery methods. These new tools can provide unprecedented advances in computer science, neuroscience, physics, philosophy, and many applied areas.
We have just published a new study discussing concepts and methods on causal and equation discovery, outlining current challenges and promising future lines of research. The work also showcases comprehensive case studies in diverse scientific areas ranging from earth and environmental science to neuroscience.
Our tenet is that discovering fundamental laws and causal relations by observing natural phenomena is revolutionised with the coalescence of observational data and simulations, modern machine learning algorithms and domain knowledge. Exciting times are ahead with many challenges and opportunities to improve our understanding of complex systems.
This study is a collaborative work between eight universities in Europe and the United States (Valencia, Berlin, Tübingen, Jena, Stockholm, New York, and Bournemouth Universities).
Camps-Valls, G., Gerhardus, A., Ninad, U., Varando, G., Martius, G., Balaguer-Ballester, E., Vinuesa, R., Diaz, E., Zanna, L. and Runge, J., 2023. Discovering causal relations and equations from data.Physics Reports, 1044, 1-68 (Impact Factor=30).
BU staff can login below:
Other services
Don’t miss a post!
Subscribe for the BU Research Digest, delivered freshly every day.
Coffee & Konfer Surgery – 2:00 – 4:30pm
Prof. Ann Luce (FMC), Ms. Georgia Turner (PhD candidate FST), Ms. Lauren Kennedy (MSc student FST) and Dr. Reece D. Bush-Evans (Lecturer in FST) are pleased to announce the publication of their most recent work in British Medical Journal: Medical Humanities titled, “Quite simply they don’t communicate: a case study of a National Health Service response to staff suicide”. 
Conversation article: London Marathon – how visually impaired people run
Horizon Europe News – December 2023